What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259060 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5259060?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259060?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12033795-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259060 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5259060?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259060?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12033795-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259060 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259060 — net $1,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages s40(2)(c	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages s40(2)(c
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,227.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,227.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jessica Harris and Cody Humphries – Ranson are to pay the landlord $1227.00 immediately as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing on the 25 June 2025.
[The landlord/s] claims the tenants or their invitees has disturbed their neighbours- a breach of s40(2)(c) RTA.
The landlord made this claim following the termination of the tenancy by the tribunal on the 13 March 2025. At the hearing of the landlord’s claims for vacated damages on the 6 May 2025, the landlord made it clear that she was seeking exemplary damages for this claim, but it had not been clear to either the tenant that the landlord was going to make the claim from the documents submitted in support of that claim and therefore I allowed the landlord to file a further claim, which the landlord did.
This tenancy has a very troubling history. It was not disputed at the previous two hearings, which Ms Harris had attended, that there were assaults, damage to property, and other criminal behaviour that took place at the property during the tenancy. The Police were called and attended the property on multiple occasions.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 41 of the RTA provides that. The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (own emphasis added).
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 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The landlord claims that the tenant or her invitees breached s40(2)(c) in the following ways: a. On the 26 December the tenant’s brother ran into a neighbour’s backyard without permission whilst being chased by the Police. b. On another occasion an occupant went into the neighbour’s home, again to escape detection by the Police. c. On the 14 January a home invasion happened at the property, whereby people not known to the tenants came to the property to take away occupants who were staying there. The perpetrators smashed in the door and windows at the property. The Police were called. As a result of the incident there was a large Police presence at the property and in the neighbourhood for the day. d. On the 15 March the tenant Mr Ranson stood on the footpath outside the neighbour’s home staring at the occupants, he was clearly agitated and when he was asked by the occupants what he was doing and what he wanted he was antisocial and threatening. The neighbour had taken video footage of the incident which was sent to the landlord and played to the Tribunal. e. That on the 3 March two or three occupants (not the tenants themselves) at the property had a fight with hammers and knives which began on the property and then continued into the street. The neighbours and passersby were concerned and called the Police and there was a post on a local facebook page telling people to avoid the area.
The neighbours and the Police complained to the landlord. The landlord said that she enjoyed a good relationship with the neighbours and had never had any major issues with any previous tenants in the five years of owning the property.
The neighbours told the landlord, that they were concerned, frightened and felt unsafe in their homes due to the various incidents at the property. They also were concerned for the female tenant and children who were living or staying at the property.
I am satisfied that the tenants or their invitees breach s40(2)(d) by doing the following: a. Mr Ranson standing on the footpath swearing and threatening the neighbour on the 15 January. Mr Ranson can be heard on the video calling the neighbour a “pig snitch” and saying to the neighbour “this hasn’t even started”. As Mr Ranson is doing this, he is twirling a chain or piece of rope and his body language appears agitated and unpredictable. He is intimidating. Whilst the neighbour is also yelling and using swear words, I consider that this is in response to the tenant standing outside his property and refusing to move and the serious events that took place at the property only the day. At the end of the video the neighbour is heard saying to his wife, “lock all the doors”. b. The incident on the 3 March – where there was fighting with hammers and knives at the property.
Whilst the remainder of the behaviour is no doubt harassment, distressing and antisocial, it cannot be a breach of s40(2)(c) because it was not carried out by the tenants themselves, and the tenants are only responsible for behaviour of others that occurs ‘in the premises”.
The tenants cannot be said to have breached s40(2)(c) in respect of the home invasion as the invitees that caused the home invasion were not there with the permission of the tenants.
I am satisfied that the tenants committed the breaches of s40(2)(c) RTA outlined in paragraphs12 herein 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.
I award the landlord $1200.00 in exemplary damages. This award takes into account: a. The nature and number of the breaches, there were several very concerning incidents over a short period of time. The neighbours felt unsafe in their homes. The landlord concerned for her neighbours. b. Mr Ranson did not appear to recognise at the hearing that his behaviour on the 15 January was threatening and intimidating and would have been concerning to the neighbours. Mr Ranson’s conduct at the hearing shows that he uses swear words liberally and can be aggressive and confronting in his demeanour. He does not want to listen to others, and he has little insight how his behaviour affects others. c. The public interest- the neighbours felt unsafe in their homes, they were worried about children and others at the property with good cause. The incidents and behaviour that took place at the property was serious and it is lucky that a member of the public was not hurt. The amount awarded is a deterrent to others. Filing fee and name suppression.
Because [The landord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and awarded her name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259060 — net $1,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages s40(2)(c	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages s40(2)(c
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,227.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,227.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jessica Harris and Cody Humphries – Ranson are to pay the landlord $1227.00 immediately as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing on the 25 June 2025.
[The landlord/s] claims the tenants or their invitees has disturbed their neighbours- a breach of s40(2)(c) RTA.
The landlord made this claim following the termination of the tenancy by the tribunal on the 13 March 2025. At the hearing of the landlord’s claims for vacated damages on the 6 May 2025, the landlord made it clear that she was seeking exemplary damages for this claim, but it had not been clear to either the tenant that the landlord was going to make the claim from the documents submitted in support of that claim and therefore I allowed the landlord to file a further claim, which the landlord did.
This tenancy has a very troubling history. It was not disputed at the previous two hearings, which Ms Harris had attended, that there were assaults, damage to property, and other criminal behaviour that took place at the property during the tenancy. The Police were called and attended the property on multiple occasions.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 41 of the RTA provides that. The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (own emphasis added).
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 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The landlord claims that the tenant or her invitees breached s40(2)(c) in the following ways: a. On the 26 December the tenant’s brother ran into a neighbour’s backyard without permission whilst being chased by the Police. b. On another occasion an occupant went into the neighbour’s home, again to escape detection by the Police. c. On the 14 January a home invasion happened at the property, whereby people not known to the tenants came to the property to take away occupants who were staying there. The perpetrators smashed in the door and windows at the property. The Police were called. As a result of the incident there was a large Police presence at the property and in the neighbourhood for the day. d. On the 15 March the tenant Mr Ranson stood on the footpath outside the neighbour’s home staring at the occupants, he was clearly agitated and when he was asked by the occupants what he was doing and what he wanted he was antisocial and threatening. The neighbour had taken video footage of the incident which was sent to the landlord and played to the Tribunal. e. That on the 3 March two or three occupants (not the tenants themselves) at the property had a fight with hammers and knives which began on the property and then continued into the street. The neighbours and passersby were concerned and called the Police and there was a post on a local facebook page telling people to avoid the area.
The neighbours and the Police complained to the landlord. The landlord said that she enjoyed a good relationship with the neighbours and had never had any major issues with any previous tenants in the five years of owning the property.
The neighbours told the landlord, that they were concerned, frightened and felt unsafe in their homes due to the various incidents at the property. They also were concerned for the female tenant and children who were living or staying at the property.
I am satisfied that the tenants or their invitees breach s40(2)(d) by doing the following: a. Mr Ranson standing on the footpath swearing and threatening the neighbour on the 15 January. Mr Ranson can be heard on the video calling the neighbour a “pig snitch” and saying to the neighbour “this hasn’t even started”. As Mr Ranson is doing this, he is twirling a chain or piece of rope and his body language appears agitated and unpredictable. He is intimidating. Whilst the neighbour is also yelling and using swear words, I consider that this is in response to the tenant standing outside his property and refusing to move and the serious events that took place at the property only the day. At the end of the video the neighbour is heard saying to his wife, “lock all the doors”. b. The incident on the 3 March – where there was fighting with hammers and knives at the property.
Whilst the remainder of the behaviour is no doubt harassment, distressing and antisocial, it cannot be a breach of s40(2)(c) because it was not carried out by the tenants themselves, and the tenants are only responsible for behaviour of others that occurs ‘in the premises”.
The tenants cannot be said to have breached s40(2)(c) in respect of the home invasion as the invitees that caused the home invasion were not there with the permission of the tenants.
I am satisfied that the tenants committed the breaches of s40(2)(c) RTA outlined in paragraphs12 herein 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.
I award the landlord $1200.00 in exemplary damages. This award takes into account: a. The nature and number of the breaches, there were several very concerning incidents over a short period of time. The neighbours felt unsafe in their homes. The landlord concerned for her neighbours. b. Mr Ranson did not appear to recognise at the hearing that his behaviour on the 15 January was threatening and intimidating and would have been concerning to the neighbours. Mr Ranson’s conduct at the hearing shows that he uses swear words liberally and can be aggressive and confronting in his demeanour. He does not want to listen to others, and he has little insight how his behaviour affects others. c. The public interest- the neighbours felt unsafe in their homes, they were worried about children and others at the property with good cause. The incidents and behaviour that took place at the property was serious and it is lucky that a member of the public was not hurt. The amount awarded is a deterrent to others. Filing fee and name suppression.
Because [The landord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and awarded her name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259060 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259060 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions