What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5232611 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5232611?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5232611?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5232611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12301246-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5232611 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5232611?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5232611?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5232611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12301246-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5232611 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
At an earlier case conference the tenant’s application was amended to include a claim for compensation in amount of $5000 and exemplary damages for: •Breach of section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which provides 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. •Breach of section 45(1)(e) RTA because the landlord has not taken all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
The tenant was advised to collect evidence to support her application, including getting police records to prove the number of times she has reported her neighbour to the police. This is because the applicant – which in this case is the tenant - must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities, ie more probable than not.
There is a claim that the most recent neighbour and her visitors are engaged in criminal activity. The allegations are serious and include drug dealing. The tenant said she has advised the landlord and the police about the criminal acts but the police say it’s a tenancy matter. I have considered the complaints and the criminal acts and agree that these are police matters to resolve.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. The tenant made an application with the police for information but she has not received any records showing how often she has complained and the police response. I find the tenant has not proved the neighbour and her visitors are involved in criminal activity.
The tenant is also concerned that for the last eight months there has been a repetitive knocking which is noisy and causes vibrations on the shared wall between the two tenancies. She said this happens every night and the noise comes from the neighbour’s side of the house. The landlord said the neighbour has been questioned about this and said she can hear it too, but it is not from her house. The landlord said it has followed up on the complaints, spoken with the neighbour and issued one breach notice in June 2025 for noise.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. The tenant provided recordings taken on her phone in the last month. The recordings do not capture the noise, which means I cannot decide if they are a breach of quiet enjoyment. Noise control has not heard any unreasonable noise. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that there is banging and noise every night.
The tenant said the neighbour and her friends use the tenant’s garden as a shortcut, which is a nuisance and unsafe for her children. The tenant said she has installed a security camera and this has stopped the unwanted access. The landlord said this is a police matter. The claim there was a breach by the landlord for allowing this behaviour to continue is not proved because the tenant’s verbal evidence is not more persuasive than the landlord’s verbal evidence.
The tenant said there is a history of the neighbour abusing her and provided a photo of the neighbour’s friend giving the fingers. The neighbour has recently complained to the landlord about the tenant swearing. One breach notice has been served on the tenant. I can see from the landlord’s evidence that it has taken steps to manage the behaviour of both women, with one breach notice each, so the landlord has taken steps to manage quiet enjoyment.
I find the tenant has not proved the neighbour and her visitors have breached her quiet enjoyment, or that the landlord has ignored her complaints and requests for help. All claims relating to the current neighbour are dismissed.
The claims relating to 2020 and the armed offenders squad needing access are dismissed. There is nothing the landlord can do about the police wanting access. Likewise it is not the landlord’s fault the police damaged a fruit tree when carrying out police business. The claim there are too many police operations in the neighbourhood and that these have been a breach of quiet enjoyment are dismissed.
The claims relating to the breach of quiet enjoyment from 2021 and the building work in the neighbouring, joined, house are dismissed. These claims are too vague and could have been resolved at the time, with the tenant filing an application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Other orders
The tenant’s application is not proved and it is dismissed.
There is no order the landlord pay the filing fee because the application has been dismissed.
I am using my discretion to make an order for suppression for the parties and the tenancy premises. I have not been provided with any evidence that the tenant has breached the RTA. The landlord has been the most successful party and I allow suppression because it seems unlikely there is public interest in this dispute. I have suppressed the address because publication will identify the neighbour. See section 95A RTA.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
At an earlier case conference the tenant’s application was amended to include a claim for compensation in amount of $5000 and exemplary damages for: •Breach of section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which provides 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. •Breach of section 45(1)(e) RTA because the landlord has not taken all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
The tenant was advised to collect evidence to support her application, including getting police records to prove the number of times she has reported her neighbour to the police. This is because the applicant – which in this case is the tenant - must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities, ie more probable than not.
There is a claim that the most recent neighbour and her visitors are engaged in criminal activity. The allegations are serious and include drug dealing. The tenant said she has advised the landlord and the police about the criminal acts but the police say it’s a tenancy matter. I have considered the complaints and the criminal acts and agree that these are police matters to resolve.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. The tenant made an application with the police for information but she has not received any records showing how often she has complained and the police response. I find the tenant has not proved the neighbour and her visitors are involved in criminal activity.
The tenant is also concerned that for the last eight months there has been a repetitive knocking which is noisy and causes vibrations on the shared wall between the two tenancies. She said this happens every night and the noise comes from the neighbour’s side of the house. The landlord said the neighbour has been questioned about this and said she can hear it too, but it is not from her house. The landlord said it has followed up on the complaints, spoken with the neighbour and issued one breach notice in June 2025 for noise.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. The tenant provided recordings taken on her phone in the last month. The recordings do not capture the noise, which means I cannot decide if they are a breach of quiet enjoyment. Noise control has not heard any unreasonable noise. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that there is banging and noise every night.
The tenant said the neighbour and her friends use the tenant’s garden as a shortcut, which is a nuisance and unsafe for her children. The tenant said she has installed a security camera and this has stopped the unwanted access. The landlord said this is a police matter. The claim there was a breach by the landlord for allowing this behaviour to continue is not proved because the tenant’s verbal evidence is not more persuasive than the landlord’s verbal evidence.
The tenant said there is a history of the neighbour abusing her and provided a photo of the neighbour’s friend giving the fingers. The neighbour has recently complained to the landlord about the tenant swearing. One breach notice has been served on the tenant. I can see from the landlord’s evidence that it has taken steps to manage the behaviour of both women, with one breach notice each, so the landlord has taken steps to manage quiet enjoyment.
I find the tenant has not proved the neighbour and her visitors have breached her quiet enjoyment, or that the landlord has ignored her complaints and requests for help. All claims relating to the current neighbour are dismissed.
The claims relating to 2020 and the armed offenders squad needing access are dismissed. There is nothing the landlord can do about the police wanting access. Likewise it is not the landlord’s fault the police damaged a fruit tree when carrying out police business. The claim there are too many police operations in the neighbourhood and that these have been a breach of quiet enjoyment are dismissed.
The claims relating to the breach of quiet enjoyment from 2021 and the building work in the neighbouring, joined, house are dismissed. These claims are too vague and could have been resolved at the time, with the tenant filing an application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Other orders
The tenant’s application is not proved and it is dismissed.
There is no order the landlord pay the filing fee because the application has been dismissed.
I am using my discretion to make an order for suppression for the parties and the tenancy premises. I have not been provided with any evidence that the tenant has breached the RTA. The landlord has been the most successful party and I allow suppression because it seems unlikely there is public interest in this dispute. I have suppressed the address because publication will identify the neighbour. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5232611 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5232611 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions