How much money was awarded in case 5233332?

Consent Order Award: $1,280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233332?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11849713-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5233332?

Consent Order Award: $1,280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233332?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11849713-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5233332 — Harassment

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5233332 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5233332. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Consent order award	$1,280.00		Consent order award

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

BY CONSENT - The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The respondent/s]: $115.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,165.00

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The property manager represented the landlord.

The tenant said he changed his phone number after the application was filed and he was not aware of the hearing until earlier this week. He said he was unwell so he attended the hearing by phone.

The parties have agreed that the bond can be refunded and a bond refund form has been sent to the Bond Centre.

This was a boarding house tenancy which started on 24 January 2025 and ended on 30 April 2025. The tenant withdrew some claims at the hearing. The two claims he wants me to consider are: • did people have unauthorised access to the his room? • did the landlord take reasonable steps to protect the him from harassment? Did people have unauthorised access to the tenant’s room?

The tenant claims that other people were able to enter his room and that this happened more than once during the tenancy. One time the shower door was damaged and another time a chef’s knife was stolen. The tenant provided me with a short video showing the lock. He said he would regularly lock his door, leave the boarding house, and come back to find his door unlocked.

The law states that landlords are required to provide sufficient locks or similar devices to ensure that the boarding house premises (the room) is reasonably secure. See section 66I Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The landlord said the locks on the room doors all have codes. He said he is the only person who knows the codes. The codes are changed between tenants. His usual practice is to text the changed code to the new tenant so no one else can overhear. He said no one else has access to the codes. He said the locking system is secure and no other tenants have complained about unauthorised access during this time.

This is the tenant’s claim to prove, which means the tenant has to have the better evidence. The short video is helpful because it shows me the type of lock but it does not help the tenant prove his claim. The verbal evidence from both parties is persuasive but of equal weight. This means the tenant has not proved his claim and it is dismissed.

Did the landlord take reasonable steps to protect the tenant from harassment?

The tenant claims the landlord allowed other tenants to harass him. The law states that every tenant of a boarding house is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of the premises, without interruption by the landlord or another tenant of the boarding house. See section 66G(1) RTA.

The tenant said most of the issues arose from his use of medicinal cannabis. Once the landlord was satisfied the tenant had a genuine prescription the property manager allowed the tenant access to a private space outside on a roof, which was off limits to other tenants. The tenant said there were times when another tenant came onto the roof and was aggressive when asked to leave. He said that on other occasions tenants threatened him and were aggressive towards him in the common areas of the boarding house. The tenant said all these were reported to the property manager but were not taken seriously. In particular, the tenant referred me to an email from the Property Manager which the tenant said was passive aggressive.

The property manager said that he had taken all the tenant’s complaints seriously. On 5 March 2025 he emailed and asked for the tenant to provide all complaints via email and include the date and time, information about the issue, and who was involved. A text with the same request was also sent. The property manager said that he never received this information from the tenant so he was not able to follow up. I have read the documents and found an email dated 14 April. This email refers to the returned knife. I find the email was professional in content and tone.

This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I find the landlord has the better evidence here. It seems most likely to me that the property manager took reasonable steps to protect the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. This claim is dismissed. Other orders

The tenant has asked for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.

I have used my discretion to allow suppression of the names and the address. The landlord has successfully defended the tenant’s application. Information about the tenant’s prescription has been necessary in the order and there is no public interest in that. There have been no breaches of the RTA.

A request has been sent to Bond Centre in case the refund has been put on hold because of the hearing.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5233332. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Consent order award	$1,280.00		Consent order award

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

BY CONSENT - The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The respondent/s]: $115.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,165.00

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The property manager represented the landlord.

The tenant said he changed his phone number after the application was filed and he was not aware of the hearing until earlier this week. He said he was unwell so he attended the hearing by phone.

The parties have agreed that the bond can be refunded and a bond refund form has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Did the landlord take reasonable steps to protect the tenant from harassment?

A request has been sent to Bond Centre in case the refund has been put on hold because of the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233332 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233332 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord take reasonable steps to protect the tenant from harassment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord take reasonable steps to protect the tenant from harassment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions