What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5200951 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5200951?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5200951?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5200951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12040742-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5200951 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5200951?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5200951?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5200951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12040742-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

274 Uruwhenua Road, Upper Takaka, RD 1, Takaka 7183, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5200951 — Harassment

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Herbert appeared in person. The landlord was present with Ms Andrea Keningston, via teleconference.
This application was previously referred to mediation by mutual agreement, but the landlord subsequently withdrew from that process before mediation took place. It returned to me for this continuation hearing.
The tenant sought exemplary damages for unlawful entry and interference with an electrical appliance and harassment. He sought a determination a landlord notice to terminate was retaliatory.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. Background
This was a curious tenancy arrangement. It formed in October 2023 after a notice on a local community internet page. A section of that notice is copied below.
Before confirming the tenancy, the tenant had an onsite meeting with the landlord. In that meeting, the landlord raised the need for careful management of electricity, as it was off-grid.
The arrangement between the parties was for the provisions of services as rent for a right to occupy.
Section 2(1) RTA defines rent as: rent means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant...
The terms of this tenancy arrangement were poorly defined and relied on an element of goodwill between the parties.
It appears that during the first year the tenancy operated smoothly. It started to unravel in late 2024. There appears to be more than one reason for this, and I consider both sides have some accountability for the deterioration. The lack of definition and agreement of key expectations become a problem as goodwill dissipated.
While jurisdiction in this Tribunal was confirmed, the non-monetary arrangement and operation here required a flexible approach to matters as raised.
In early 2025 the tenant advanced a personal project to provide offsite catering, in particular a pending festival in February. That saw him bring a trailer, with a chest freezer intended to remain stationed on it, to the premises. It was initially parked at the back of the premises, later (after the festival) at the front. Regardless, during the preparation phase the tenant connected the freezer to the electrical supply (the premises, and other premises at the property are off- grid and supplied via a micro-hydro system and battery bank). A large block of ice (200ℓ) was frozen and left in the freezer during this preparation period. No noticeable interruption with the electrical supply at the property was apparent, with the freezer performing as expected.
The tenant’s catering at the festival took place but there remained a considerable amount of frozen product. The tenant returned with the trailer and connected it back via an external extension cord from the premises. It remained outside on the trailer.
I was told by the tenant the freezer was covered with a tarpaulin to protect it from the elements.
During late February and earlier March 2025 there were a number of times where the electricity supply was drained and all connections at the property lost supply.
The landlord believed the cause was the trailer-based freezer and wanted it removed. The tenant did not believe that was the cause of the problems.
I will not recount here all of the related messaging, but things escalated between the parties without resolution.
The landlord served a notice to terminate on 10 March 2025. I have previously determined that notice met the requirements of section 51(3) RTA 1 .
There is a separate dispute regarding the meals, both the frequency and quality of. I do not consider it necessary here to form a view regarding these claims, due to the subjectivity of some claims and the lack of definition regarding them, other expectations by the landlord.
Since the last hearing, the parties agreed the tenant would no longer provide meals as a service. He was able to leave his possessions at the premises until very recently. An informal arrangement meant he granted permission for others to use the kitchen to prepare meals as required. During this period there were problems with disruptions to the layout of the premises and some claimed interference with some possessions.
The premises is now vacated and with the owner.

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory, and of no effect, if: In giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00 (see s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
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 s 109(3) RTA).
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the 1 Order dated 3 April 2025. tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to ... to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice.
In this notice, the claim for retaliatory notice is considered to stem from the freezer issue. A number of other issues were raised in the application and during the hearings, especially regarding the delivery of services by the tenant since last 2024. There are background but not central to the claim of retaliatory notice.
So, I need to determine if the tenant had a right to have an external freestanding chest freezer drawing electricity, as part of his tenancy.
The tenant spoke of other external projects (an example was a car repair) that had completed without escalation such as here although these projects did not require a continuous electricity draw.
Both parties provided supporting evidence regarding the claimed draw from a freezer. It is fair to categorize the evidence as incomplete and supportive of each parties particular stance regarding the extent. Nothing considered conclusive or definitive was tabled.
The freezer was on-site because of the tenant engaging in other catering work. The need to retain it as a connected, working freezer was due to unsold product that remained in the freezer after the February festival, rather than any longer- term plan.
The freezer was not a requirement for the provision of meals as required in this tenancy agreement. An existing fridge/freezer inside had proved adequate before.
The external placement of such a connected freezer appliance would not appear to be technically recommended in any casual internet search on the subject. The parties both spoke of direct sunlight on the freezer and any possible adverse impact on the electrical performance. Having heard from the tenant of a tarpaulin cover (to protect it from the elements), my curiosity was as much to any impeded airflow than high temperature. Both might be expected to require a more frequent or demanding freeze cycle and consequential demand for electricity than expected from normal use. A higher than expected continuous draw from the freezer could have significant impact on battery- stored electricity.
The limitations of living off-grid were understood by the tenant before commencement. I accept his submission that some electrical failures during the dispute period may not be due to the freezer as it was disconnected at those times. However, I am not convinced evidentially the alternative theory of his that the battery equalisation via the inverter was the cause.
To find the notice to terminate retaliatory I need to find the tenant was exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment. In this instance, there was no permission sought or granted for the freezer to be onsite. The neutral impact of the freezer during the preparation phase is not considered a reliable precedent regarding the later electrical problems, due to different locations used, changes in content and use, and the covering of the freezer.
I do not consider the tenant had the right to connect the freezer to the premises supply. No explicit permission was granted, no implied acceptance was given.
Therefore, the notice cannot be deemed retaliatory.
No unlawful act was committed here so no exemplary damages are ordered.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 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 s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person" (MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment 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.
These definitions suggest 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 [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, 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 threshold of unwanted behaviours to be deemed harassment is high.
As the informal tenancy arrangement unravelled, the messaging and interactions become more intense on both sides but having further reviewed the evidence and submissions I do not consider the landlord engaged in harassing behaviour.
No unlawful act was committed so no exemplary damages are ordered.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

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.
The tenant outlined how there was ongoing informal access by some other people to parts of his premises.
In his application he claimed the landlord had “entered my dwelling and turned off my freezer full of food without my permission”. In terms of this claim, it appears more likely, having heard more from him, that the entry was not required as the disconnection of the freezer was made from outside by disconnecting the freezer from the external extension cord.
There was one other instance of alleged entry, when the tenant discovered someone had placed a chopping board against the window behind the fridge/freezer. He speculated this was more than likely placed in an attempt to stop direct sunlight on the appliance. No evidence of who may have placed it was provided.
At the hearing the tenant claimed later instances during the period since the last hearing when he stopped providing meals and access to the kitchen to others was granted.
The challenge with the tenant claims is firstly establishing who entered the premises as claimed. Usual practice was for the premises to be left unlocked. Other people had an informal right of entry to areas of the premises during the tenancy.
The evidential burden sits initially with the applicant and having considered the events, the historic foot traffic within the premises and the wider, multi-dwelling property, I do not find the tenant has been able to evidence landlord entry without notice. I accept the unplugging of the freezer occurred but, in my mind, that was not within the exclusive area of the tenancy.
I do not find any unlawful act proven here. Even if I am wrong, exemplary damages are not automatically a consequence.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) RTA.
The informal arrangement and operation recounted in this tenancy would lend itself to serious reflection on the intention of any person committing such an unlawful act; a finding of intent being required to move to any consideration of exemplary damages. Conclusion
This tenancy was based on a non-monetary arrangement, with the expected terms being poorly defined. In my mind, the responsibility for that sits primarily with the landlord. I would hope that any future such agreement will better set expectations through definitive and measurable terms. To do so would be in everyone’s interest.
The frustration of the tenant that led to this application was well expressed and has some basis, albeit not to the extent that any orders are made. In dismissing the application, I am not dismissive of what was going on for him both within the arrangement and other personal challenges as submitted. I have also considered the later use or benefit of the premises (even if only for storage) without any “rent” by way of a service being provided. That lasted some ten weeks.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
While the tenant has not received any monetary orders, that in part reflects the overall merits and justice of the matter. Any landlord application would most likely be subject to similar considerations.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5200951 — Harassment at 274 Uruwhenua Road, Upper Takaka, RD 1, Takaka 7183,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5200951 — Harassment at 274 Uruwhenua Road, Upper Takaka, RD 1, Takaka 7183,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions