What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5171454 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5171454?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Refund: $1,714.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5171454?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5171454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12852937-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5171454 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5171454?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Refund: $1,714.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5171454?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5171454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12852937-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5171454 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5171454 — net $3,341.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent refund to 11 February 2025	$1,714.29	Rent refund to 11 February 2025
Exemplary damages - harassment	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - harassment
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Bond (held by Landlord)	$600.00	Bond (held by Landlord
Net award	$3,341.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,341.29

Order

Suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $3,341.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
By way of declaration, the term of the fixed-term tenancy of [the tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and ended on 11 February 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
The tenants applied for the following: (a) Bond refund of $600.00. (b) Reduction of the fixed term tenancy. (c) Rent refund of $1,800.00. (d) Compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment.
The landlord has applied for the following: (a) $600.00 Bond for cleaning and rubbish removal. (b) Rent arrears of $1,114.29 to the end of the fixed term on 17 March 2025.
On 14 May 2025, the Tribunal made a declaration that this was not an excluded tenancy. The tenants occupied a self-contained flat on the top floor of a 3 storey house. The landlord was coming and going while carrying out renovations to the lower levels.
The landlord applied for a rehearing, and this was dismissed on 7 August 2025.
The issues to be decided are as follows: -Should the fixed term be reduced? -Did the landlord’s behaviour amount to harassment? -How much, if anything, is owed for rent? -Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? -Name suppression. -Filing fee.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

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.
This is a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 17 December 2024 and was due to run until 17 March 2025.
The tenants say that the fixed term should be reduced because of the landlord’s behaviour on 8 February 2025. The landlord sent a text message to one of the tenants at 11.14pm and asked her to come downstairs. The tenant went down and found the landlord intoxicated. She says he asked her to come closer and not to be afraid, but she stayed at the door. She sent a text to the other tenant to tell her the landlord is drunk, and the situation is weird. She sent another text message shortly after and said she was trying to come back. The tenant says she was trying to understand what the landlord was saying but he was incomprehensible except for wanting to talk about the agreement. The tenant says she became frightened when the landlord suddenly asked her why she was there, and she reminded him he had asked her to come downstairs. The tenant says she told the landlord she was tired, and they could talk tomorrow, and he said, “no, no stay.” The tenant told him she had to go and said goodnight.
At 11.41pm the landlord sent a text message and asked the tenant, “Is this how I spell your name? ...”. At 11.44pm he sent the following message, “I need to get this out of the way - I thought you were the hottest thing that I’ve ever seen.” The tenant immediately replied, “This is very inappropriate. Can you stop.” The landlord replied in a series of messages, “Yes I can – sorry. Very inappropriate. What do you mean, stop?” The tenant replied, “Please stop sending me messages and acting this way towards me.” The landlord sent a further 6 messages until the tenant blocked him at 11.55pm. The landlord then started to message the other tenant about rent owing which the tenant had already sorted out.
The tenants say they heard lots of slamming and banging of doors downstairs which left them terrified, so they blocked their front door.
The tenants say they felt too unsafe and uncomfortable to stay, so they sent messages to the landlord telling him he had crossed the line with inappropriate behaviour, and asked if they could negotiate an early end to the lease. The landlord did not agree. The tenants say they felt so worried by the landlord’s behaviour that they reported him to Police. The tenants now seek to reduce the fixed term to 11 February 2025 which is the day they both left the premises and returned the keys.
One of the tenants does not dispute that she had already indicated to the landlord that she wished to leave early on 4 March (instead of 17 March), and they had a discussion about getting in another tenant. Both tenants say they had to leave earlier because of the landlord’s behaviour.
The landlord says he was friendly with the tenant, and he does not deny he had had a few drinks. The landlord says the intention of the tenants is to get out of the tenancy any way possible and the text message was a compliment. The landlord says he did not make any threats, and it has all been constructed by the tenants as a way of leaving the tenancy early. The landlord says there are huge language, cultural and age barriers, and it is all just a misunderstanding.
I find that the landlord’s behaviour and its effect on the tenants constitutes an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. I accept that they felt unsafe due to his actions, and they faced the daunting prospect of having to remain living in close proximity with him for another month.
I find it likely that the tenants would be facing severe hardship greater than the landlord’s hardship if the tenancy were not reduced. I reduce this fixed term tenancy to 11 February 2025. Did the landlord’s behaviour amount to harassment?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment generally means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust." A single incident may amount to a breach, but the consequences require a degree of seriousness that warrant a finding that ‘reasonable peace’ has been disturbed. Whether this test is made out requires an objective assessment of the true nature of the significance of the interference in the particular circumstances. 1
I find that the landlord’s behaviour and the text message on 8 February 2025 was unacceptable and amounts to harassment. This was not a misunderstanding. The landlord was in a position of power over the tenants, the interference with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment was significant, and they were left feeling distressed and unsafe due to his actions.
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.
Taking into account all of the above factors, and in particular the distressing effect on the tenants, I award $1,000.00 exemplary damages.

How much, if anything, is owed for rent?

As the fixed term tenancy is now reduced to 11 February 2025, this means that the tenants are due a refund of rent paid of $1,714.29. I make an order accordingly.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord says he had to clean and remove rubbish, but he did not provide sufficient evidence in support. He indicated that he was not concerned about these claims in any event.
This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. 1 Marino & Ors v Wellington City Council, DC, Wellington, CIV-2013-085-660, 23 September 2013.
It follows that the Bond of $600.00 must be returned to the tenants and I make an order accordingly. Name suppression
Both parties applied for suppression of their names and identifying details. Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
As the tenants have been substantially successful, they are entitled to an order for suppression as of right. Their application is granted.
The landlord has not been successful in defence of the claim against him, nor in his cross application, therefore he is not entitled to an order for suppression as of right.
However, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published (section 95A(4) RTA).
The landlord says that publication of his identifying details would ruin his reputation and have severe consequences for his employment and his young family (he has 4 young children).
While I have reservations that the landlord does not appear to appreciate the gravity of his behaviour and effect on the tenants, I accept that this was a one-off during this tenancy and that he did apologise immediately. Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, I find that the landlord’s employment and family considerations outweigh other considerations due to the risk of undue hardship, but only by a slim margin.
The application for name suppression for the landlord is granted. Filing fee
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, the landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5171454 — net $3,341.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent refund to 11 February 2025	$1,714.29	Rent refund to 11 February 2025
Exemplary damages - harassment	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - harassment
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Bond (held by Landlord)	$600.00	Bond (held by Landlord
Net award	$3,341.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,341.29

Order

Suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $3,341.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
By way of declaration, the term of the fixed-term tenancy of [the tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and ended on 11 February 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
The tenants applied for the following: (a) Bond refund of $600.00. (b) Reduction of the fixed term tenancy. (c) Rent refund of $1,800.00. (d) Compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment.
The landlord has applied for the following: (a) $600.00 Bond for cleaning and rubbish removal. (b) Rent arrears of $1,114.29 to the end of the fixed term on 17 March 2025.
On 14 May 2025, the Tribunal made a declaration that this was not an excluded tenancy. The tenants occupied a self-contained flat on the top floor of a 3 storey house. The landlord was coming and going while carrying out renovations to the lower levels.
The landlord applied for a rehearing, and this was dismissed on 7 August 2025.
The issues to be decided are as follows: -Should the fixed term be reduced? -Did the landlord’s behaviour amount to harassment? -How much, if anything, is owed for rent? -Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? -Name suppression. -Filing fee.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

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.
This is a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 17 December 2024 and was due to run until 17 March 2025.
The tenants say that the fixed term should be reduced because of the landlord’s behaviour on 8 February 2025. The landlord sent a text message to one of the tenants at 11.14pm and asked her to come downstairs. The tenant went down and found the landlord intoxicated. She says he asked her to come closer and not to be afraid, but she stayed at the door. She sent a text to the other tenant to tell her the landlord is drunk, and the situation is weird. She sent another text message shortly after and said she was trying to come back. The tenant says she was trying to understand what the landlord was saying but he was incomprehensible except for wanting to talk about the agreement. The tenant says she became frightened when the landlord suddenly asked her why she was there, and she reminded him he had asked her to come downstairs. The tenant says she told the landlord she was tired, and they could talk tomorrow, and he said, “no, no stay.” The tenant told him she had to go and said goodnight.
At 11.41pm the landlord sent a text message and asked the tenant, “Is this how I spell your name? ...”. At 11.44pm he sent the following message, “I need to get this out of the way - I thought you were the hottest thing that I’ve ever seen.” The tenant immediately replied, “This is very inappropriate. Can you stop.” The landlord replied in a series of messages, “Yes I can – sorry. Very inappropriate. What do you mean, stop?” The tenant replied, “Please stop sending me messages and acting this way towards me.” The landlord sent a further 6 messages until the tenant blocked him at 11.55pm. The landlord then started to message the other tenant about rent owing which the tenant had already sorted out.
The tenants say they heard lots of slamming and banging of doors downstairs which left them terrified, so they blocked their front door.
The tenants say they felt too unsafe and uncomfortable to stay, so they sent messages to the landlord telling him he had crossed the line with inappropriate behaviour, and asked if they could negotiate an early end to the lease. The landlord did not agree. The tenants say they felt so worried by the landlord’s behaviour that they reported him to Police. The tenants now seek to reduce the fixed term to 11 February 2025 which is the day they both left the premises and returned the keys.
One of the tenants does not dispute that she had already indicated to the landlord that she wished to leave early on 4 March (instead of 17 March), and they had a discussion about getting in another tenant. Both tenants say they had to leave earlier because of the landlord’s behaviour.
The landlord says he was friendly with the tenant, and he does not deny he had had a few drinks. The landlord says the intention of the tenants is to get out of the tenancy any way possible and the text message was a compliment. The landlord says he did not make any threats, and it has all been constructed by the tenants as a way of leaving the tenancy early. The landlord says there are huge language, cultural and age barriers, and it is all just a misunderstanding.
I find that the landlord’s behaviour and its effect on the tenants constitutes an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. I accept that they felt unsafe due to his actions, and they faced the daunting prospect of having to remain living in close proximity with him for another month.
I find it likely that the tenants would be facing severe hardship greater than the landlord’s hardship if the tenancy were not reduced. I reduce this fixed term tenancy to 11 February 2025. Did the landlord’s behaviour amount to harassment?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment generally means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust." A single incident may amount to a breach, but the consequences require a degree of seriousness that warrant a finding that ‘reasonable peace’ has been disturbed. Whether this test is made out requires an objective assessment of the true nature of the significance of the interference in the particular circumstances. 1
I find that the landlord’s behaviour and the text message on 8 February 2025 was unacceptable and amounts to harassment. This was not a misunderstanding. The landlord was in a position of power over the tenants, the interference with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment was significant, and they were left feeling distressed and unsafe due to his actions.
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.
Taking into account all of the above factors, and in particular the distressing effect on the tenants, I award $1,000.00 exemplary damages.

How much, if anything, is owed for rent?

As the fixed term tenancy is now reduced to 11 February 2025, this means that the tenants are due a refund of rent paid of $1,714.29. I make an order accordingly.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord says he had to clean and remove rubbish, but he did not provide sufficient evidence in support. He indicated that he was not concerned about these claims in any event.
This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. 1 Marino & Ors v Wellington City Council, DC, Wellington, CIV-2013-085-660, 23 September 2013.
It follows that the Bond of $600.00 must be returned to the tenants and I make an order accordingly. Name suppression
Both parties applied for suppression of their names and identifying details. Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
As the tenants have been substantially successful, they are entitled to an order for suppression as of right. Their application is granted.
The landlord has not been successful in defence of the claim against him, nor in his cross application, therefore he is not entitled to an order for suppression as of right.
However, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published (section 95A(4) RTA).
The landlord says that publication of his identifying details would ruin his reputation and have severe consequences for his employment and his young family (he has 4 young children).
While I have reservations that the landlord does not appear to appreciate the gravity of his behaviour and effect on the tenants, I accept that this was a one-off during this tenancy and that he did apologise immediately. Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, I find that the landlord’s employment and family considerations outweigh other considerations due to the risk of undue hardship, but only by a slim margin.
The application for name suppression for the landlord is granted. Filing fee
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, the landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5171454 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5171454 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term be reduced?

How much, if anything, is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term be reduced?

How much, if anything, is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions