What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5250059 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $700.00 to Kerry Peta Langley

How much money was awarded in case 5250059?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250059?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11938552-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5250059 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $700.00 to Kerry Peta Langley

How much money was awarded in case 5250059?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250059?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11938552-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9B Marlin Place, Mairehau, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5250059 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Both were represented; Ms Langley by Ms Hough and Mrs Maggie Gilmore by her daughter in law (Mrs Anne-Maire Gilmore)

Ms Langley has applied for refund of the bond, which the landlord has agreed to. The bond is released accordingly.

Ms Langley has also made claims for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the landlord obligations. The written application is not specific and refers to breaches in very general terms.

I took some time at the start of the hearing to attempt to understand Ms Langley’s claims and the issues for determination at the hearing. These can be summarised as issues with the bond, breaches of quiet enjoyment or unlawful access, reimbursement for gardening costs and an issue with a notice to terminate. General Principles

The Tribunal’s role was well summarised in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456 at [8], as follows: “The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes. It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision that is binding on the parties.”

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). See s77 RTA. The Tribunal may make orders for compensation and for exemplary damages. See s78 RTA.

Compensation is awarded for actual losses arising from a proven breach of the other party’s obligations. Compensation may also be awarded for less tangible effects of established breaches such as loss of enjoyment or amenity of the tenancy. See Tenants v Singh [2022] NZTT 4315225 for the approach to quantifying compensation for “general damages”.

Exemplary damages may be awarded, at the Tribunal’s discretion, where a party establishes that the other has intentionally committed an “unlawful act” as defined by the RTA. See s109 and schedule 1A RTA. Exemplary damages are intended to punish or deter.

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. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. 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.” Bond Issues

Ms Langley has applied for a refund of the bond. The landlord has agreed to that. The bond is released accordingly.

Ms Langley also claims that Mrs Gilmore has breached her obligations on receipt of the bond and seeks exemplary damages. The tenancy started in September 2017 and ended in May 2025. The bond was not lodged until shortly before the end of the tenancy.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord did not lodge the bond within time. I find that she 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.

The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).

Mrs Gilmore is elderly. Her daughter in law explained that these premises had been her home and she moved, in 2017, to support ill family members. Mrs Gilmore’s position is that she is not an experienced landlord and understood that the Bond Centre provided a service for looking after bonds but did not understand that there was a requirement for bonds to be lodged.

Ms Langley and Ms Hough submitted that Mrs Gilmore is an experienced landlord and claimed that she had other tenants at the property. They invited me to call a neighbour, “Andrew”, who could confirm that. They did not know Andrew’s last name, and I declined to phone a witness whose identify I could not verify and who I could not view in person.

In any event, I find that the failure to lodge the bond was an oversight, rather than an intentional act, having regard to the upheaval Mrs Gilmore was experiencing at the time.

This claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. However, Mrs Gilmore is now on notice of her obligations and risks an award of exemplary damages being made if there are similar claims against her in the future. Unlawful Entry and/or Breach of Quiet Enjoyment

Ms Langley claims the landlord engaged in threatening and intimidating behaviour throughout the tenancy. She says that Mrs Gilmore acted to belittle her and that she never felt as if the premises were her home. Conversely, she also told me that she loved living at the property.

Ms Langley claimed that Mrs Gilmore failed to give notice of visits, acted as if she could call in whenever she liked, and Ms Langley felt as if Mrs Gilmore “shut down” any of her concerns. She also said that Mrs Gilmore repeatedly referred to the property as her home and said that she could make Ms Langley leave whenever she liked.

I have treated these complaints as claims for either unlawful entry or breach of quiet enjoyment.

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.

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 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.

Ms Langley was very vague in her evidence and submission. I gave her extensive latitude and direction to try to understand precisely what it was about Mrs Gilmore’s alleged behaviour that caused Ms Langley to feel uncomfortable, intimidated, harassed and bullied. She was unable to provide me with clear and specific examples.

Ms Hough played an audio recording of a telephone conversation between Ms Langley/Ms Hough and Mrs Gilmore from April 2025. Mrs Gilmore did not know she was being recorded. Ms Hough maintained that the recording was an example of Mrs Gilmore’s behaviour throughout the tenancy.

The Tribunal may call for and/or receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law (see s 97(4) RTA).

In He v Bai (DC Waitakere, CIV-2013-090-455, 23 October 2013) the District Court held that a covert recording was relevant and admissible. The Court said: [20] The right of silence preserved by s 23 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 applies to protect a person accused of criminal conduct from self incriminating [sic]. Even in criminal cases Courts have been willing to admit covertly recorded statements if voluntarily given. Accordingly there is no blanket ban even in that jurisdiction especially in those cases where the statements are not made to a person in authority such as a police officer ... [21] Accordingly the evidence of the recording itself was in my view directly relevant for a point in issue in the case and did not require the consent or even the knowledge of Ms Bai as a pre-condition to its admissibility. ...

The overriding principle is one of fairness to both parties. Where a recording of a conversation is made without the knowledge of the other party, this is a factor which can be considered in determining the weight given to the evidence.

After listening to the recording, I do not find that it supported Ms Langley’s claims. She and Mrs Gilmore had been discussing another matter when Ms Hough took over from Ms Langley. If the tone of the conversation can be described as aggressive from that point, it was not because of Mrs Gilmore’s approach or demeanour.

At the hearing, Mrs Gilmore denied visiting the property without notice. In fact, she hardly went there at all as she was confident that Ms Langley was taking good care of it. Mrs Langley acknowledged that sometimes Mrs Gilmore didn’t visit for over a year. Mrs Gilmore’s evidence was that she responded to requests for repairs or maintenance but otherwise didn’t really engage with Ms Langley.

Despite numerous requests for Ms Langley to provide examples of the behaviour that made her feel uncomfortable, she was unable to do so. She said that she didn’t realise she would have to go into that level of detail. At the end of Ms Langley and Ms Hough’s evidence and submissions, I am unable to discern any tangible evidence to support a finding that Mrs Gilmore has either entered the premises without notice or has breached Ms Langley’s right to quiet enjoyment. These claims are dismissed. Reimbursement of Gardening Invoices

Ms Langley claimed for reimbursement of tree pruning and garden maintenance invoices.

Ms Langley had an issue with a note provided at the start of the tenancy which recorded that she was not to cut trees and shrubs. That note was consistent with the usual obligations; a tenant is responsible for keeping a garden tidy and mowing lawns and the landlord is responsible for maintenance such as pruning of large trees and shrubs.

Mrs Gilmore said that she was happy for pruning to be done if Ms Langley had requested it. Ms Langley’s evidence was that she did not want Mrs Gilmore’s family to attend the property to prune and complete garden maintenance, so arranged for this herself, without advising Mrs Gilmore.

Mrs Gilmore has not breached any obligation in relation to the trees and shrubs. Ms Langley is not entitled to reimbursement of the pruning invoices. The claim is dismissed. Notice to Terminate

Ms Langley took issue with a Notice to Terminate the tenancy dated on 4 February 2025, and delivered to her letterbox that day. It was not clear what order Ms Langley was seeking in respect of the Notice, as the tenancy has now ended.

Mrs Gilmore intends to move back into the premises once some renovation work is completed. The Notice date 4 February records Mrs Gilmore’s intention.

The Notice period to end a periodic tenancy is (at least) 42 days’ if it is being ended because the owner, or their family member intends to live in as their main residence, within 90 days’ of tenancy ending and will remain living there for at least 90 days.

Mrs Gilmore gave 85 days notice to end the tenancy. Ms Langley claims that the notice was deficient in that it did not state an end date. The Notice of Termination states that Mrs Gilmore would like Ms Langley to vacate “by the end of April.”

Mrs Gilmore was attempting to give Ms Langley more than the minimum 42 days notice as she is aware that it can be difficult to find a rental. Ms Langley and Ms Hough submitted that Mrs Gilmore should have clearly specified an end date for the tenancy. In my view, she did; it was the end of April. The end of April is 30 April; the end date can easily be ascertained from the letter.

Ms Langley did not raise any issue with the Notice to Terminate until a telephone call on 14 or 15 April (the recorded conversation referred to above). In that conversation, Ms Hough asserted that the Notice was deficient and said Ms Langley would not be moving. Mrs Gilmore noted that the end of April is the last day of April and said, “it isn’t May”. I agree. I would have had more difficulty if Mrs Gilmore had said “mid-April” or “around May”, but the “end of April” is finite and definite.

Ms Langley has not established that there was any deficiency with the Notice to Terminate dated 4 February 2025, nor did she identify the remedy sought (if a defect had been proved). This claim is also dismissed.

Having regard to the respective degrees of success of the parties, I decline to reimburse the Tribunal application fee or grant Ms Langley’s application for suppression.

Reasons