What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5160517 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5160517?

Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160517?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160517?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13165360-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5160517 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5160517?

Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160517?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160517?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13165360-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5160517 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5160517 — net $1,277.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: for failure to include statutorily required information in the agreement	$375.00	for failure to include statutorily required information in the agreement
Exemplary damages: for failing to lodge the bond	$375.00	for failing to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages: for unlawful entry	$500.00	for unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,277.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,277.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5160517 — net $1,277.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: for failure to include statutorily required information in the agreement	$375.00	for failure to include statutorily required information in the agreement
Exemplary damages: for failing to lodge the bond	$375.00	for failing to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages: for unlawful entry	$500.00	for unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,277.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,277.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Tricia Cheel must pay [The tenant] $1,277.00 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 February 2026.
The parties had attended two prior hearings, with Adjudicator Kee, on 22 May 2025 and 18 September 2025. The landlord applied for a rehearing, and it was granted by Adjudicator Kee on 5 December 2025.
The Tribunal’s previous orders are null and void. All matters have been heard afresh in the 19 February 2026 hearing, including the quiet enjoyment/harassment claim the Tribunal dismissed in its 19 September 2025 Order.
The landlord disputes that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claims and that the exception set out in s5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies to this tenancy because her son is the primary resident of the minor dwelling and shares the minor dwelling with other occupants from time to time, usually for short term stays.
The tenant claims that none of the s5 of the RTA exceptions apply to this tenancy and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear his following claims: a. Did Ms Cheel supply [the tenant] with a proper written and signed tenancy agreement, prior to the tenancy commencing? 1 b. Did the tenancy agreement contain the statutory required contents? 2 c. Did Ms Cheel fail to lodge the bond in the statutorily required timeframe? 3 d. Did Ms Cheel unlawfully enter the premises? 4 e. Did Ms Cheel breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and privacy? 5
The tenant is seeking compensation, general damages and/or exemplary damages in relation to his claims. He is also seeking reimbursement of the filing fee if he is wholly or substantially successful in his claims. The address of the rental premise
The tenant contends that the address of the rental premise is [Contended tenancy address suppressed]. He has based this view on a google maps aerial view of the property, presented in evidence, that lists the minor dwelling on [Tenancy address suppressed] as [Contended tenancy address suppressed].
Ms Cheel has proven that the correct address of the minor dwelling, in accordance with Council records, is [Tenancy address suppressed].
I have changed the address on the intituling of this Order to reflect the true address of the minor dwelling that was occupied by the tenant from 3 January 2026 to 26 January 2026.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the RTA. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s13 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s13A. 3 RTA, s 19(1). 4 RTA, s 48. 5 RTA, s 38.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. Jurisdiction Relevant law
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants provided the dispute relates to a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies.
The onus of proving that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction falls on the party asserting that the Tribunal does not have Jurisdiction. 6 In this case, that onus falls on Ms Cheel. 6 RTA, s 10.
Section 77 and 82(1) of the RTA, gives the Tenancy Tribunal sole originating jurisdiction to determine in accordance with the RTA all disputes arising between landlords and tenants in relation to any tenancy to which the RTA applies.
Section 2 of the RTA sets out the following material definitions: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful Premises is defined as including: a. Any part of any premises; and b. Any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and c. Any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land. tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premise;
Section 4 of the RTA reads: “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.”
Consonant with s 4, s 11 of the RTA provides that an agreement to exclude the Act is “of no effect”. 7
Prima facie, the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] (the premises) were used for residential purposes and as such as a starting point is covered by the RTA, unless a section 5 exemption applies, and the parties did not contract back into the RTA. 7 RTA, s 11.

Does a section 5 exclusions apply?

The exclusions to the RTA are contained in section 5. 8 Relevantly, s 5(1)(n) of the RTA provides: “...where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”
Under s5 9 , member of the landlord's or owner's family means any person who is related to the landlord or owner by blood, or through marriage, a civil union, or a de facto relationship; or by adoption. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
The District Court in Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994, stated that to give effect to the RTA’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly and not liberally.
Ms Cheel and [the tenant] signed a very brief handwritten agreement that recorded, among other things: a. Rent to be $350:00 per week, plus power; b. The tenancy commenced on Friday 3 January 2026; c. 2 weeks’ notice; d. Deposit $550:00 (Form of bond); e. 3 to 9 January 2026 $550:00; f. 10 to16 January 2026 $550:00; g. Key & [Power Reading]; and h. Inventory Overleaf (never provided to the tenant until these proceedings).
Ms Cheel said that the main house was included in the tenancy and that [The tenant] could enter the main house when he wished, essentially only for the purpose of borrowing larger pots and pans for the induction stove top if required. She also stated that the key to the minor dwelling also opened the door to the main house, but confirmed he did not know that as she did not disclose it to him, nor anyone else that had historically rented any part of the minor dwelling, until they had been there a while, and she knew she could trust them.
[The tenant] says he had exclusive rights to the minor dwelling, unless he agreed to a woofer using the spare room for periods of no more than 1 to weeks. If the second room was to be sub-let to a woofer for a short stint, [the tenant] had to 8 RTA, s 5. 9 RTA, s 5. consent and would receive a rent reduction for the duration of these short-term stays. Whether or not the parties did agree to rent out one of the minor dwelling’s bedrooms to a woofer during [the tenant’s] tenancy, would not change the fact that [the tenant] was a tenant. This is a moot point as no one else rented out the spare room in the minor dwelling during [the tenant’s] tenancy.
He also stated that the parties agreed if Ms Cheel’s son came back to New Zealand, he would get 4 weeks’ notice to move out. [The tenant] strongly denied ever having any right to access the main house. The minor dwelling was fully self- contained, with its own kitchen and other facilities, and there was no mention of access to the main house in the brief written agreement. I find it more probable in the circumstances that [the tenant’s] rental terms did not include a licence to enter the main house.
Ms Cheel submitted that her son was the head tenant, and that [the tenant] was his flatmate. However, the following evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ms Cheel’s son was not a party to the agreement in any way: a. Ms Cheel’s son was overseas for the duration of [the tenant’s] tenancy; b. Ms Cheel and [the tenant] signed the tenancy agreement; c. The tenancy agreement does not mention Ms Cheel’s son; d. Ms Cheel’s son does not own the minor dwelling, she does; and e. There was no evidence that Ms Cheel’s son formally rents the minor dwelling from her. He lives and works overseas for part of each year and stays in the minor dwelling when he is in New Zealand.
I do not accept that the arrangement was a flatting situation with Ms Cheel’s son the head tenant.
Ms Cheel, who owns the minor dwelling, was the grantor of a tenancy under the agreement. [The tenant] was the grantee of a right to occupy the minor dwelling in consideration for rent.
The agreement falls squarely within s 77(1) of the RTA with Ms Cheel as landlord and [the tenant] as tenant.
It follows, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Did the landlord provide the tenant with a written and signed tenancy agreement before the tenancy commenced and the statutorily required signed healthy homes compliance statement, detailed information on the level of compliance of the premise with the healthy homes’ standards, an insulation statement and insurance information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenant claims the landlord has breached her obligations under sections 13, 13A(1CA), 13A(1A) and 13A(2) of the RTA.
Breaching the landlord’s s 13 of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00 for all breaches. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching the landlord’s ss 13A(1CA), 13A(1A) and/or s13A(2) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00 for all breaches. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Signed tenancy agreement
The tenant claims the landlord failed to ensure tenancy agreement was in writing, signed, and provided to tenant before the tenancy commenced.
The parties confirmed the tenancy commenced on 3 January 2025, they did not sign the tenancy agreement until 4 January 2025, and the “Inventory Overleaf” was never finalised and never provided to the tenant.
Ms Cheel committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with her tenancy agreement obligations. By way of explanation, Ms Cheel says that she believed the RTA did not apply because [the tenant] was her son’s flatmate and [the tenant] well knew that this was a casual arrangement and not a full residential tenancy. However, landlords cannot contract out of the RTA and ignorance of the law is no excuse. I am satisfied that Ms Cheel’s failure to provide a proper written agreement before the tenancy commenced was an unlawful act and was intentional. Signed healthy homes compliance statement
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
The landlord does not dispute failing to include a signed healthy homes compliance statement in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tenant’s claim is upheld. The landlord says that she is aware that this is a requirement of the RTA, as the minor dwelling was rented when her mother was alive, and she managed the tenancy. She says she was not required to provide this information to [the tenant], as he was a flatmate. Information on the jurisdiction of the RTA is readily available from Tenancy Services or a community law provider or the like. Landlords cannot contract out of the RTA and ignorance of the law is no excuse. 10 I find this breach unlawful and intentional. Insulation statement
The tenant claims the landlord has not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord does not dispute having an insulation statement in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tenant’s claim is upheld. She says she was not required to provide this information to [the tenant], as he was a flatmate. Information on the jurisdiction of the RTA is readily available from Tenancy Services or a community law provider or the like. Wilful ignorance of the law is no excuse. I find this breach unlawful and intentional.
. I find this breach unlawful and intentional. Healthy Homes information relating to the other four standards and smoke alarm information
Section 13A(2) of the RTA also states the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement smoke alarm information (the type, how many, where they are positioned, when they were last tested and when they expire) as well as 10 RTA s 11. information on the heating, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
The landlord does not dispute failing to have this information in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tenant’s claim is upheld. She says she was not required to provide this information to [the tenant], as he was a flatmate. Information on the jurisdiction of the RTA is readily available from Tenancy Services or a community law provider or the like. Wilful ignorance of the law is no excuse. I find this breach unlawful and intentional. Insurance information
Section 13A(2) of the RTA states “the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: a. If the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and b. If the premises are insured, a statement: c. setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and d. informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or66J(5))”.
The tenant’s tenancy agreement did not contain any of this information.
The landlord accepted she did not provide this information. She says she was not required to provide this information to [the tenant], as he was a flatmate. Information on the jurisdiction of the RTA is readily available from Tenancy Services or a community law provider or the like. Wilful ignorance of the law is no excuse. I find this breach unlawful and intentional. Exemplary damages for failure to provide the statutorily required information in the tenancy agreement.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required written tenancy agreement before the tenancy commenced and also failed to provide the tenant with completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and the statutorily required insurance information s13A(2) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $375.00 of exemplary damages (quarter of the maximum penalty available), because: a. The owner should have reasonably known it had to comply with the s 13 of the RTA and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and Smoke Alarm Regulations and intentionally did not; b. The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing a proper written tenancy agreement and the statutorily required information is that he took on the tenancy without proper written agreement for a premise not knowing what the full terms of the agreement really were as much was not included, or if it complied with the healthy homes standards and if the landlord had tenant insurance to offset the cost of any damage to the property for which the tenant may be liable; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide a signed tenancy agreement prior to the tenancy commencing and signed proof to the tenant that the rental premises meet all the healthy homes standards and if the landlord has tenant insurance to reduce the tenants’ liability for potential damages to the property; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide a written agreement before the tenancy commenced and a signed healthy homes standards statement, and statutorily required healthy homes and insurance information in compliance with the clear requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and the smoke alarm regulations. Did the landlord lodge the tenant’s bond within 23 working days of receipt?
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Cheel confirmed she did not lodge [the tenant’s] bond, which the agreement called a “deposit” because she did not think the RTA applied to the agreement.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that intentionality is proven. The landlord is aware of the RTA and the bond obligations. The Tribunal cannot lightly absolve landlords of their bond obligations. The intention was not malicious. It was directed at avoiding the technicalities and inconvenience of a formal tenancy.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay $375.00 exemplary damages (half of the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlord intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre in the statutorily required timeframe; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for the duration of the tenancy, and it should have been; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.

The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On the second day of the tenancy, [the tenant] arrived home to find a letter to him, flowers and kitchen knives had been left, and someone had made his bed up. About a week later, he found someone had left a kitchen cupboard open and removed a popcorn maker and a mixer.
Ms Cheel admitted that she had entered the premise, left the note and flowers and had also entered again to take the blender and popcorn maker, as she needed the blender in main house and didn’t think he wanted the popcorn maker She stated that it was obvious to [the tenant] that it was a “come and go” situation and [the tenant] was equally entitled to go into the main house. She accused [the tenant] of shamefully turning the arrangement into something that it was not.
[The tenant] also stated that Ms Cheel had gone into his home to read the meter on 25 January 2025. She stated she had messaged [the tenant] about re reading the meter and when he did not respond straight away she went in. She says she did so as the person renting the minor dwelling before had died in flat from heart attack and, had she gone when he did not respond to her messages, she may have saved his life. When she did not get a response from [the tenant], she was worried. She also says that he had not paid to be there after 23 January 2025, so she just went in. Both parties confirmed the tenancy did not end until 26 January 2025. There was however a dispute about rent arrears that is based on Ms Cheel denying she received a $550.00 cash payment from the tenant. This counter claim was not raised by Ms Cheel in a separate application, so I could not hear it. I am however satisfied the landlord entered the premise unlawfully as she thought the tenant was not at home, was not answering her texts and had not paid rent so she was entitled to do so.
I find the landlord has committed a number of unlawful s48 of the RTA breaches during the tenancy.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally breached her section 48(4)(a) of the RTA obligations by unlawfully entering the premise on 4 January 2025 and again a week later, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $500.00 of exemplary damages (a third of the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known it could not enter the premise without complying with the landlord right of entry provisions set out in section 48 of the RTA; b. The impact on the tenant of the landlord’s breach was that he felt like he had been violated because he had exclusive rights to the premise from 3 January 2025 to 26 January 2025 and she had just entered without notice or consent as she saw fit; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s unlawful entry; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach their access rights and their obligations to tenants to give notice or get consent. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment/privacy?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed him.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant says he and Ms Cheel clashed over [the tenant] having flea bombs in his possession to rid the unit of fleas. [The tenant] says he was embarrassed in front of another person when Ms Cheel berated him in the driveway, angrily saying that “I was trash” and how filthy it was, and it would damage the house.
Ms Cheel denies the exchange ever happened. She says she only found out about the flea bombs after [the tenant] moved out and she found the used containers.
I prefer the evidence of [the tenant] to the extent that I find it more probable than not that he and Ms Cheel did clash over the issue in the driveway. However, I am not confident that I can accept [the tenant’s] recollection of the incident as accurate. That being so, I cannot assess the nature of the incident to determine whether it did amount to an interference with [the tenant’s] reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
In any event, taking [the tenant’s] allegations at their highest, I would not have been inclined to finding there was an interference with his reasonable peace, and if I were so inclined, I would not have found there was no interference to the aggravated level of harassment nor an interference warranting damages.
[The tenant] says he looked through Ms Cheel’s lounge window and saw that her television was displaying security camera footage. He also claimed that Ms Cheel had telephoned him from a remote location advising him about people being on the driveway which demonstrated she must be able to view the security cameras’ footage remotely. Further, he stated that he could see the CCTV box in his wardrobe and the lights were flashing on it, indicating the cameras were working. He claims he had checked the CCTV model online and it was Wi-Fi compatible, and that Ms Cheel was monitoring his movements around the premise and breaching his privacy.
Ms Cheel strongly denied [the tenant] claims. She confirmed she had checked with her son who had installed the CCTV system to protect his belongings stored in the garage and to watch for anyone that came through the back of the property on to the premise as they had a burglary. Her son had confirmed to her, the CCTV is hard wired and not connected to Wi-Fi, even though it has WiFi capability. She also confirmed the control box is in the main bedroom and that its recordings can only be viewed on the television in the minor dwelling. She also confirmed that the CCTV box in the wardrobe flashes. Ms Cheel stated the New Zealand Police have used it on a couple of occasions to catch a burglar and if the tenant was worried she was watching him, he could have gone to Police.
I am not of the view that the evidence provided by the tenant proves that the landlord harassed the tenant, based on the definitions above. The landlord has also provided evidence that the CCTV did not cover areas that would breach the tenant’s privacy, nor that Ms Cheel had access to the CCTV footage without entering the minor dwelling unlawfully. Because I do not consider this is a situation of harassment, this claim is dismissed

OTHER CLAIMS

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Should the tenant’s name be suppressed?
The tenant applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in his proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the tenant’s conduct.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160517 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160517 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Does a section 5 exclusions apply?

OTHER CLAIMS

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Does a section 5 exclusions apply?

OTHER CLAIMS

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Does a section 5 exclusions apply?

Did the landlord enter the minor dwelling without consent or notice?

OTHER CLAIMS

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Does a section 5 exclusions apply?

Did the landlord enter the minor dwelling without consent or notice?

OTHER CLAIMS

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions