What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5162451 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] reduced is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5162451?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162451?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162451?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11505789-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5162451 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] reduced is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5162451?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162451?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162451?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11505789-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5162451 — 14-day notice

Order

[The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] reduced is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by telephone.
The tenants have applied for: a) reduction of the fixed-term tenancy which commenced on 31 May 2024 and is due to end on 30 May 2025, and b) exemplary damages for harassment.

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

The usual legal position with a fixed term tenancy contract is that the term of the contract is strictly applied and can only be broken by agreement between the parties or by an order from the Tribunal.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
"Unforeseen" is not defined in the Act and has a meaning in accordance with its dictionary definition. The term “unforeseen” has a dictionary definition of “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”; that is: “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk” 1 .
In general the onus, or burden, of proving a particular claim rests with the party who is making the claim which in this case the tenants. The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party making the claim must establish with evidence that what is claimed is proven to be “more probable than not” or “more likely than not”.
For the Tribunal to be able to consider whether the fixed term should be reduced the tenants need to establish that there has been an unforeseen change in their circumstances which has caused them severe hardship. If that is established, the tenants then need to show that the hardship that they would suffer is greater than the hardship the landlord would suffer if the term was reduced.
The tenants claim that they no longer feel safe or comfortable in the property as they feel they are being watched by the neighbours who are complaining about them to the property manager as well as directly to the tenants.
The tenants admit that not long after the tenancy started they had a dog living at the property. The property is down a shared driveway. The neighbours who share the driveway came over and complained to them directly about the dog being there and barking. The tenants said the neighbour told them she knew they were not allowed to have a dog and that she would ask the neighbour immediately in front of the tenancy premises to complain to the property manager, as that neighbour knew the property manager. The tenants said they could hear her yelling complaints and moaning to her husband about their dog over the fence on several occasions.
The tenants said they removed the dog, by arranging for it to live with members of their family, but that the complaints about the dog continued. After the dog was removed from the property they received a 14 day notice from the landlord requiring them to remove the dog The tenants said they felt the complaints from the neighbours would continue and that they felt so uncomfortable and unsafe from the neighbour’s complaining that they moved out of the property around 2 weeks before the hearing. 1 Bond v Tang, Invercargill TT, 09/00583/IN, 25 August 2009
After the considering all of the evidence I am not satisfied the tenants have proven there has been an unforeseen change in their circumstances or if there has, that the change has caused them severe hardship. I say this for the following reasons: a) The tenancy agreement includes a term that no pets are allowed at the property. The tenants did not separately seek and gain agreement from the landlord to have a dog living at the property. Therefore any complaints from the neighbours about a dog barking, or roaming, to them or the property manager could not be reasonably considered to be unexpected. b) Likewise it is reasonable and expected that in such a situation a landlord may issue a 14 day notice to remove the dog. A party to a tenancy has a right to issue a 14 day notice requiring remedy where there has been a breach of a term of the tenancy agreement or an obligation contained in the Act. c) The property manager’s evidence is that he received a complaint from a neighbour on 16 January 2025 and again on 1 February. The 1 February complaint was that the dog was running around freely and “scaring” neighbours. The 14 day notice was issued on 3 February. The property manager‘s evidence is that he does not know the front neighbour. d) The tenants removed the dog therefore no further complaints about a dog at the premises could be upheld if the dog remained absent from the property.
While I appreciate that the tenants feel uncomfortable that two of their neighbours have complained either to them directly or the property manager about the dog, I cannot see that an objective observer would consider there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. The complaints from the neighbours and the 14 day notice from the landlord have effectively come about as a result of the tenants’ action in bring a dog onto the property albeit that the tenancy agreement does not allow pets at the property. As set out above there is a high threshold that needs to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term.
For these reasons the claim to reduce the term of the tenancy is dismissed.
I understand the tenants have moved out of the property. The property manager has advised the tenants that the fixed term could end earlier as long as the tenants pay the reasonable costs incurred in finding new tenants (see section 44A of the Act). I explained at the hearing that the tenants’ obligation to pay rent continues until a new tenancy starts 2 .

Should exemplary damages for harassment be awarded?

2 Both parties are reminded that they are able to seek advise from the tenancy Services help line – 0800TENANCY

Exemplary damages are different to compensation that may be awarded for a loss that a party to a tenancy agreement has suffered as a result of the other party breaching a term of the agreement or breaching an obligation they have under the Act. Exemplary damages may be awarded when a provision of the Act is breached which is stated to be an unlawful act, and where the party that has committed an unlawful act intentionally and the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be just to make an award having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest 3 .
Exemplary damages are not compensatory in nature, but are a penalty that is applied in cases of serious breach, to mark the Tribunals’ disapproval of the manner in which that occurred and deter a party from future such offences.
A claim for harassment under the Act is based on a breach of section 38. Section 38 provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00 4 .
The District Court has held that the meaning of harassment in section 38 carried the dictionary definition and means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person" 5 .
The tenants claimed at hearing that the neighbours have harassed them. They included in their written application that: Under section (38) harassment we believe the 14 day notice was in breach of the unlawful act and is reason for us to end tenancy immediately. It has caused stress and emotional affect.
In doing so they have made a claim that the landlord has harassed them.
A claim under section 38 is a claim from a tenant against the landlord. The actions of the neighbours cannot be considered as harassment under this section. Therefore the landlords claim that the neighbours have harassed them is dismissed.
I find that the landlord serving the 14 day notice to remove the dog does not amount to an act of harassment despite the tenants’ evidence that the dog was removed before the notice was issued. The issue of the notice is a single event and cannot reasonably be seen to amount to a pattern of behaviour directed towards the tenants, or to be of a single event of such significance that it can be considered to amount to harassment. In any event as the landlord had received 3 Section 109 and Schedule 1A 4 Section38(3) and Schedule 1A 5 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. a complaint on 1 February about the tenants’ dog roaming freely in the area, I find that it was reasonable that the notice was issued.
Therefore this claim is also dismissed. Suppression The Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162451 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162451 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Should exemplary damages for harassment be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Should exemplary damages for harassment be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions