What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267279 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5267279?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267279?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267279?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12879754-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267279 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5267279?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267279?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267279?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12879754-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5267279 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenant’s claims are dismissed.
A suppression order is made, suppressing the names of the parties and address.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The applicant in person and the respondent was represented by its two directors, [The landlord’s representative/s].
By way of background, this was a service tenancy that commenced when [The tenant/s] commenced work for the respondent Company on 28 June 2021. The employment relationship broke down and came to an end when [The tenant/s] walked off the job on the 8 th August 2021.
This is a case that has caused considerable stress for the parties, police have been involved, the Employment Relations Authority and now an application to the Tenancy Tribunal has been filed, some time after the employment has ended.
A number of claims have been made by [The tenant/s]. These were identified and outlined at a case conference dated 28 October 2025. The case comes before me today for determination and I shall deal with each issue separately.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached his right to quiet enjoyment due to the following alleged incidents: a) An alleged assault on the tenant by a co-worker sharing the premises. b) Alleged assault on the tenant by the landlord. c) Alleged bad mouthing of the tenant on social media after the tenancy came to an end.
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. Was [The tenant/s]’s right to quiet enjoyment breached in relation to the following: A) An alleged assault on the tenant by a co-worker sharing the premises.
In relation to the alleged assault by the other tenant this is outside of the Jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal which is to determine disputes between a landlord and a tenant only. (Section 77(1) RTA).
However, the tenant may have a claim if he could show that the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants caused or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. (Section 45(1)(e)
In relation to this alleged breach, the evidence is that the employment started on 28 June 2021. The incident with the other employee or tenant was on the 2 August 2021. This was followed up with a meeting between the parties to discuss what was happening. Whilst [The tenant/s] stated he was forced to sign a resignation letter then and there this is disputed. [The tenant/s] went to the hospital on the 3 rd of December and had some time off before returning on or about the 6 th August 2021. On the 8 th August another altercation took place and [The tenant/s] left his employment.
At the meeting the evidence is that the discussion was around how the two employees could work and live together. The police were involved in the altercation on the 2 nd August and suggested [The tenant/s] leave the home to reside in a rental van he had as separate accommodation for matters to calm down. No charges were laid.
I cannot, on the evidence submitted find on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to take steps in relation to the other employee/tenant. He did what a reasonable employer would do, in that, he called a meeting to discuss what the issues were and how they could be resolved so that the two employees could work and live together. B) Alleged assault on the tenant by the landlord.
On the 10 th August a discussion took place between the parties and there was an altercation between [The tenant/s] and [The landlord’s representative/s]. I am told that [The landlord’s representative/s] was assaulted and received a cut to his neck area. [The tenant/s] was arrested and charged with ‘Assault person with a stab/cutting instrument’ on the 11 August 2021.
[The landlord’s representative/s] advised that after nine months he was too busy and did not wish to lay charges, the charges were subsequently dropped against [The tenant/s].
Whilst [The tenant/s] indicated that [The landlord’s representative/s] lied about the alleged assault. He asked what could be done if it is proven that he did lie. He took issue with the Police and how they dealt with the statements that lead to his arrest. However, the evidence before me, does not suggest on the balance of probabilities that [The landlord’s representative/s] assaulted [The tenant/s]. Therefore, I cannot find that there was a breach of the tenants right to quiet enjoyment based on this issue. C) Alleged bad mouthing of the tenant on social media after the tenancy came to an end.
The evidence is that once the employment relationship ended [The landlord’s representative/s] commented on a post put up by the other employee. Such evidence does not fall within the definition of a breach of the tenants right to quiet enjoyment.
On the balance of probabilities, the claim in relation to the Landlord breaching the tenants right to quiet enjoyment and harassment is therefore dismissed on all grounds. Did the Landlord terminate the service tenancy knowing that they were not entitled to?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA. of the Act.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Further, Section 53 of the Act provides the provisions for terminating service tenancies.
Generally 14 days’ notice is required to end such a tenancy or notice as agreed, or less time if it is necessary for the conduct of the business and a replacement employee is appointed less than 14 days where there is no alternative accommodation available.
In this case, [The tenant/s] left his employment on the 8 th August 2021, when he walked away for the cow shed saying he has resigned. He was going to send an email to confirm. He said he verbally told the landlord at that point that it was his resignation and gave two weeks’ notice and left the cow shed.
He did not return to work.
[The tenant/s] provided an email on 10 August 2021 confirming his resignation, there was no mention of his work ending in two weeks or notice being given.
The email state (using the same language and spelling, and I will not use the name of a third party) “Unfortunately I am regretting to inform you that my imployment with you will end on this date 10/08/2021. Due to unusual behaviour from “x”, I am not able to carry on my duties with [The landlord company] and be able to live with him due to some accusations and the assault that happened last week on the 2/8/2021.
One of the reasons given for the resignation was that he could not live or work with the other employee. Further he asked if he could stay on the property and if he needed to work out his two weeks ‘notice’. [The tenant/s] believing he could remain on the property for two weeks. He had not attended work for the two days preceding the email. If he was to stay he was required to share the house with the same employee.
Further, the alleged assault between the landlord and tenant took place on the 10 th August and on the 11 th August 2021 [The tenant/s] was bailed and conditions were such that he could not reside at the property. The landlord had also employed another person that needed the accommodation.
Whilst [The tenant/s] stated that there was another room that could have been used that he was offered and therefore the new employee could have taken that room, the evidence before me suggest it was a tearoom and not a room capable of being rented as premises. The landlords disputed ever offering that room for accommodation.
Regardless of the notice not being caried out, I find that there was no agreement as to the notice period, and that even if the landlord gave permission, there were bail conditions that prevented it, even if [The tenant/s] had issues with how the police dealt with it, the charges were laid. The person [The tenant/s] would have been living with was the other employee, the reason the resignation was forthcoming.
Having considered all of the evidence and submissions, I cannot find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to allow the tenant two weeks to remain at the property. It was not appropriate given the charges [The tenant/s] faced against the landlord, and further the landlord is able to reduce the standard two week notice if it is to house a new employee.
In relation to the alleged breach of Section 60 AA and Section 53 there is no evidence to support this claim on the balance of probabilities and the claim is dismissed. Did the Landlord breach section 33 of the act in that they disposed of the tenants’ goods?
The tenant claims that he left behind a home made computer, drawers and a bed and base and a bag with some clothes.
When the tenant was arrested, he was escorted by the police to the home to collect his belongings, he did not retrieve the computer.
After the arrest, the landlord text [The tenant/s] giving him until the 30 th September 2021 to collect his belongings. He failed to communicate back or make any attempt to collect his belongings. The landlord subsequently disposed of the belongings, although the landlord does not recall that there was a computer.
[The tenant/s] subsequently made a report to the police of theft seventeen months later.
[The tenant/s] said the delay was because he could not communicate to the landlord given his bail conditions. However, I do not accept that given the police assisted him in retrieving his belongings on the 11 th August 2021. Further he stated he could not retrieve the belongings due to COVID lockdown. The lock down was reduced to level three on 1 September and would not have prevent some form of communication for an agreement to be reached.
Approximately seven weeks were proposed by the landlord for the collection of the items. Whilst the disposal of the goods on the face of it is in breach of Section 33 of the Act, in that the landlord shall not be entitled to seize or dispose of any of the tenants’ goods for any reason, Section 62A allows the landlord to dispose of the goods.
Section 62A(2) provides that the landlord must assess the market values of the goods and if they have a value below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them, the landlord may dispose in any way the landlord thinks fit.
The section states that if the goods have a value above the costs of storing, transporting and selling them, the landlord must secure those goods in safe storage for not less than 35 days from the date the landlord took possession.
In this case, the landlord disposed of the goods as they had no value, this was after storing them for seven weeks.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The applicant in person and the respondent was represented by its two directors, [The landlord’s representative/s].

By way of background, this was a service tenancy that commenced when [The tenant/s] commenced work for the respondent Company on 28 June 2021. The employment relationship broke down and came to an end when [The tenant/s] walked off the job on the 8 th August 2021.

This is a case that has caused considerable stress for the parties, police have been involved, the Employment Relations Authority and now an application to the Tenancy Tribunal has been filed, some time after the employment has ended.

A number of claims have been made by [The tenant/s]. These were identified and outlined at a case conference dated 28 October 2025. The case comes before me today for determination and I shall deal with each issue separately.

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached his right to quiet enjoyment due to the following alleged incidents: a) An alleged assault on the tenant by a co-worker sharing the premises. b) Alleged assault on the tenant by the landlord. c) Alleged bad mouthing of the tenant on social media after the tenancy came to an end.

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. Was [The tenant/s]’s right to quiet enjoyment breached in relation to the following: A) An alleged assault on the tenant by a co-worker sharing the premises.

In relation to the alleged assault by the other tenant this is outside of the Jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal which is to determine disputes between a landlord and a tenant only. (Section 77(1) RTA).

However, the tenant may have a claim if he could show that the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants caused or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. (Section 45(1)(e)

In relation to this alleged breach, the evidence is that the employment started on 28 June 2021. The incident with the other employee or tenant was on the 2 August 2021. This was followed up with a meeting between the parties to discuss what was happening. Whilst [The tenant/s] stated he was forced to sign a resignation letter then and there this is disputed. [The tenant/s] went to the hospital on the 3 rd of December and had some time off before returning on or about the 6 th August 2021. On the 8 th August another altercation took place and [The tenant/s] left his employment.

At the meeting the evidence is that the discussion was around how the two employees could work and live together. The police were involved in the altercation on the 2 nd August and suggested [The tenant/s] leave the home to reside in a rental van he had as separate accommodation for matters to calm down. No charges were laid.

I cannot, on the evidence submitted find on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to take steps in relation to the other employee/tenant. He did what a reasonable employer would do, in that, he called a meeting to discuss what the issues were and how they could be resolved so that the two employees could work and live together. B) Alleged assault on the tenant by the landlord.

On the 10 th August a discussion took place between the parties and there was an altercation between [The tenant/s] and [The landlord’s representative/s]. I am told that [The landlord’s representative/s] was assaulted and received a cut to his neck area. [The tenant/s] was arrested and charged with ‘Assault person with a stab/cutting instrument’ on the 11 August 2021.

[The landlord’s representative/s] advised that after nine months he was too busy and did not wish to lay charges, the charges were subsequently dropped against [The tenant/s].

Whilst [The tenant/s] indicated that [The landlord’s representative/s] lied about the alleged assault. He asked what could be done if it is proven that he did lie. He took issue with the Police and how they dealt with the statements that lead to his arrest. However, the evidence before me, does not suggest on the balance of probabilities that [The landlord’s representative/s] assaulted [The tenant/s]. Therefore, I cannot find that there was a breach of the tenants right to quiet enjoyment based on this issue. C) Alleged bad mouthing of the tenant on social media after the tenancy came to an end.

The evidence is that once the employment relationship ended [The landlord’s representative/s] commented on a post put up by the other employee. Such evidence does not fall within the definition of a breach of the tenants right to quiet enjoyment.

On the balance of probabilities, the claim in relation to the Landlord breaching the tenants right to quiet enjoyment and harassment is therefore dismissed on all grounds. Did the Landlord terminate the service tenancy knowing that they were not entitled to?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA. of the Act.

Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.

Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Further, Section 53 of the Act provides the provisions for terminating service tenancies.

Generally 14 days’ notice is required to end such a tenancy or notice as agreed, or less time if it is necessary for the conduct of the business and a replacement employee is appointed less than 14 days where there is no alternative accommodation available.

In this case, [The tenant/s] left his employment on the 8 th August 2021, when he walked away for the cow shed saying he has resigned. He was going to send an email to confirm. He said he verbally told the landlord at that point that it was his resignation and gave two weeks’ notice and left the cow shed.

He did not return to work.

[The tenant/s] provided an email on 10 August 2021 confirming his resignation, there was no mention of his work ending in two weeks or notice being given.

The email state (using the same language and spelling, and I will not use the name of a third party) “Unfortunately I am regretting to inform you that my imployment with you will end on this date 10/08/2021. Due to unusual behaviour from “x”, I am not able to carry on my duties with [The landlord company] and be able to live with him due to some accusations and the assault that happened last week on the 2/8/2021.

One of the reasons given for the resignation was that he could not live or work with the other employee. Further he asked if he could stay on the property and if he needed to work out his two weeks ‘notice’. [The tenant/s] believing he could remain on the property for two weeks. He had not attended work for the two days preceding the email. If he was to stay he was required to share the house with the same employee.

Further, the alleged assault between the landlord and tenant took place on the 10 th August and on the 11 th August 2021 [The tenant/s] was bailed and conditions were such that he could not reside at the property. The landlord had also employed another person that needed the accommodation.

Whilst [The tenant/s] stated that there was another room that could have been used that he was offered and therefore the new employee could have taken that room, the evidence before me suggest it was a tearoom and not a room capable of being rented as premises. The landlords disputed ever offering that room for accommodation.

Regardless of the notice not being caried out, I find that there was no agreement as to the notice period, and that even if the landlord gave permission, there were bail conditions that prevented it, even if [The tenant/s] had issues with how the police dealt with it, the charges were laid. The person [The tenant/s] would have been living with was the other employee, the reason the resignation was forthcoming.

Having considered all of the evidence and submissions, I cannot find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to allow the tenant two weeks to remain at the property. It was not appropriate given the charges [The tenant/s] faced against the landlord, and further the landlord is able to reduce the standard two week notice if it is to house a new employee.

In relation to the alleged breach of Section 60 AA and Section 53 there is no evidence to support this claim on the balance of probabilities and the claim is dismissed. Did the Landlord breach section 33 of the act in that they disposed of the tenants’ goods?

The tenant claims that he left behind a home made computer, drawers and a bed and base and a bag with some clothes.

When the tenant was arrested, he was escorted by the police to the home to collect his belongings, he did not retrieve the computer.

After the arrest, the landlord text [The tenant/s] giving him until the 30 th September 2021 to collect his belongings. He failed to communicate back or make any attempt to collect his belongings. The landlord subsequently disposed of the belongings, although the landlord does not recall that there was a computer.

[The tenant/s] subsequently made a report to the police of theft seventeen months later.

[The tenant/s] said the delay was because he could not communicate to the landlord given his bail conditions. However, I do not accept that given the police assisted him in retrieving his belongings on the 11 th August 2021. Further he stated he could not retrieve the belongings due to COVID lockdown. The lock down was reduced to level three on 1 September and would not have prevent some form of communication for an agreement to be reached.

Approximately seven weeks were proposed by the landlord for the collection of the items. Whilst the disposal of the goods on the face of it is in breach of Section 33 of the Act, in that the landlord shall not be entitled to seize or dispose of any of the tenants’ goods for any reason, Section 62A allows the landlord to dispose of the goods.

Section 62A(2) provides that the landlord must assess the market values of the goods and if they have a value below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them, the landlord may dispose in any way the landlord thinks fit.

The section states that if the goods have a value above the costs of storing, transporting and selling them, the landlord must secure those goods in safe storage for not less than 35 days from the date the landlord took possession.

In this case, the landlord disposed of the goods as they had no value, this was after storing them for seven weeks.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267279 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267279 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions