Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277558 — Harassment

Decided 9 Sept 2025 · Published 9 Sept 2025 · Application 5277558

Harassment

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

A Aiolupotea

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A Sinhala interpreter was provided to assist the Tenants, as English is their second language.
The Tenants applied for early release from the fixed-term tenancy and sought compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment, emotional stress and damaged personal items.
During the hearing, the Tenants withdrew their application for early termination of the fixed-term tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 15 April 2025 and remained ongoing at the time of the hearing. The Tenants had recently arrived in New Zealand a few days before the tenancy commenced. Their apartment was in a residential building complex with several other apartments.
On 5 May 2025, the building complex underwent scheduled repairs, with prior notice that water would be unavailable from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. At approximately 2:00 pm that day, the Property Manager contacted the Tenants who were out of the apartment to inform them that their apartment had flooded, allegedly due to the Tenants shower having been left on. The flooding affected both the Tenants’ apartment and a neighbouring unit. The Tenants were relocated for a period of three days while restoration work was carried out. Claim for breach of quiet enjoyment and emotional distress
The Tenants claimed that the Landlord had wrongfully demanded payment of approximately $12,000–$14,000 from the Tenants in relation to the flood damage. They alleged the Landlord held them responsible for the incident and that the manner in which he communicated this demand constituted harassment, discrimination, and bullying. They stated they never received any invoices or supporting documentation to support the Landlords demands so they felt intimidated and misled.
The Tenants alleged that on the day of the flood, the Property Manager was present at the premises with plumbers and an unidentified individual. This individual allegedly told the Tenants that their visa status could be affected if they did not pay for the damage. In response, the husband claimed they would commit suicide due to the stress of the situation and the nature of the alleged threats. The unidentified individual was not known to the Tenants but appeared to be directing the tradespeople. The female Tenant became extremely distressed, crying and hitting her head.
On or about the following day, the female Tenant reported receiving an anonymous call demanding $12,000–$14,000 shortly before she began a class. She became highly distressed, fearing that non-payment would jeopardise her visa status. She contacted her father overseas for financial support and became visibly emotional during class. The caller did not identify themselves.
The Tenants also claimed that the Landlord appeared at their apartment unannounced and repeated his demand for payment, stating three to five times that their student visa would be affected. The Tenant did not provide a specific date for this alleged visit but subsequently sought the assistance of Mr. Wickramasinghe and his wife Ms. Jia, who approached the Landlord on or around 14 May 2025.
The Tenant stated that she was devastated by the situation and deeply distressed about how she would manage the payment. She reported that her children were traumatised, and while one child had an ear infection, she acknowledged this was unrelated During the hearing, the Tenant acknowledged that the Landlord had previously stated the $12,000–$14,000 figure was merely an estimate.
Mr. Wickramasinghe gave evidence at the hearing that he had questioned the Landlord about his knowledge of the Tenancy Tribunal’s rules for seeking damages. He requested that conversations be recorded between them and that communication be routed through himself and Ms. Jia due to the language issues. He described the Landlord’s conduct as “-aggressive” and :unfriendly and noted that even after a written authority was provided by the Tenants, the Landlord continued to communicate verbally.
Ms. Jia gave evidence that she was concerned that the Landlord was seeking payment from the Tenants without providing any formal documentation or evidence of costs incurred.
The Landlord submitted that the issues in question arose primarily due to a communication breakdown resulting from the Tenants’ limited English proficiency. He denied ever formally demanding payment of $12,000–$14,000, and stated that this figure was mentioned only as a preliminary estimate while awaiting formal repair quotes. According to the Landlord, the Tenants' support persons were pressing him to provide a specific figure, and in response, he indicated that the estimated repair cost could be in the range of $12,000– $14,000, and that the Tenants might be responsible for contributing half of that amount. He further noted that the repeated contact and meeting requests from the Tenants’ support persons added pressure, particularly as these requests were being made concurrently with his communications with the Tenants. He found it challenging to manage these interactions and expressed that the demand for immediate information contributed to the tension.
The Landlord submitted that he had acted in good faith throughout, which was evidenced by his decision to temporarily relocate the Tenants at their own expense—an arrangement that cost approximately $1,800 and for which he did not seek reimbursement. He also confirmed that he had not filed any application with the Tribunal in relation to the alleged damage. The Landlord maintained that the Tenants’ distress was more likely attributable to miscommunication and the language barrier, rather than to any improper conduct on his part. He stated that, following consultation with Tenancy Services, he subsequently revised the estimated cost of damage to $2,000. The Law
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that tenants are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of the premises. A landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the property.
In considering evidence, I find that the Tenants did not provide sufficient proof that the Landlord’s conduct amounted to a breach of their quiet enjoyment or emotional stress. There was no written evidence of a demand for payment of $12,000–$14,000, nor was there any substantiated evidence that the Landlord stated their visa would be affected if they failed to pay. There was also no corroborating evidence regarding the anonymous phone call or the statements allegedly made by the unidentified party or whether that party was an agent of the Landlord. The Tenants behaviour was also inappropriate in stating they would commit suicide in response to the unidentified individual stating they would be liable for the damages.
Importantly, the Tenants acknowledged in oral evidence that the Landlord had stated the figure was an estimate. Even if the Landlord had intended to seek such a figure, there was no written documentation or Tribunal claim to support the assertion that the amount was being formally pursued.
I accept the Landlord’s submission that the $12,000–$14,000 was provided as a preliminary estimate, and that the amount was later revised to $2,000 following discussions with Tenancy Services. It is standard practice for an assessment of damages to a property to take time which can be delayed by multiple contractors, insurance assessments etc. I also accept that the Landlord may have appeared unfriendly due to being approached by multiple third parties requesting further meetings with the Landlord. However, this does not amount to harassment or unlawful conduct. There is insufficient evidence that the Landlord made any reference to the Tenants’ visa status in a threatening manner. Even if such comments were made, it appears to stem from a misunderstanding rather than an intent to intimidate or harass.
The claim is dismissed. Claim for damaged property
The Tenants also claimed compensation for loss of personal property, including a laptop, textbooks, and notes. However, no evidence was presented to establish that the damage resulted from the Landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. Further, no receipts or proof of value were provided for the items in question.
The claim is dismissed.
As the Tenants were unsuccessful in their claims, name suppression is not granted to them. However, name suppression is granted in respect of the Landlord, who has successfully defended the matter.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Harassment NO ADDRESS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s38, s8

Key findings

Dispute theme: harassment

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277558 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 5277558?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277558?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277558?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12382264-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A Sinhala interpreter was provided to assist the Tenants, as English is their second language.

The Tenants applied for early release from the fixed-term tenancy and sought compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment, emotional stress and damaged personal items.

During the hearing, the Tenants withdrew their application for early termination of the fixed-term tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 15 April 2025 and remained ongoing at the time of the hearing. The Tenants had recently arrived in New Zealand a few days before the tenancy commenced. Their apartment was in a residential building complex with several other apartments.

On 5 May 2025, the building complex underwent scheduled repairs, with prior notice that water would be unavailable from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. At approximately 2:00 pm that day, the Property Manager contacted the Tenants who were out of the apartment to inform them that their apartment had flooded, allegedly due to the Tenants shower having been left on. The flooding affected both the Tenants’ apartment and a neighbouring unit. The Tenants were relocated for a period of three days while restoration work was carried out. Claim for breach of quiet enjoyment and emotional distress

The Tenants claimed that the Landlord had wrongfully demanded payment of approximately $12,000–$14,000 from the Tenants in relation to the flood damage. They alleged the Landlord held them responsible for the incident and that the manner in which he communicated this demand constituted harassment, discrimination, and bullying. They stated they never received any invoices or supporting documentation to support the Landlords demands so they felt intimidated and misled.

The Tenants alleged that on the day of the flood, the Property Manager was present at the premises with plumbers and an unidentified individual. This individual allegedly told the Tenants that their visa status could be affected if they did not pay for the damage. In response, the husband claimed they would commit suicide due to the stress of the situation and the nature of the alleged threats. The unidentified individual was not known to the Tenants but appeared to be directing the tradespeople. The female Tenant became extremely distressed, crying and hitting her head.

On or about the following day, the female Tenant reported receiving an anonymous call demanding $12,000–$14,000 shortly before she began a class. She became highly distressed, fearing that non-payment would jeopardise her visa status. She contacted her father overseas for financial support and became visibly emotional during class. The caller did not identify themselves.

The Tenants also claimed that the Landlord appeared at their apartment unannounced and repeated his demand for payment, stating three to five times that their student visa would be affected. The Tenant did not provide a specific date for this alleged visit but subsequently sought the assistance of Mr. Wickramasinghe and his wife Ms. Jia, who approached the Landlord on or around 14 May 2025.

The Tenant stated that she was devastated by the situation and deeply distressed about how she would manage the payment. She reported that her children were traumatised, and while one child had an ear infection, she acknowledged this was unrelated During the hearing, the Tenant acknowledged that the Landlord had previously stated the $12,000–$14,000 figure was merely an estimate.

Mr. Wickramasinghe gave evidence at the hearing that he had questioned the Landlord about his knowledge of the Tenancy Tribunal’s rules for seeking damages. He requested that conversations be recorded between them and that communication be routed through himself and Ms. Jia due to the language issues. He described the Landlord’s conduct as “-aggressive” and :unfriendly and noted that even after a written authority was provided by the Tenants, the Landlord continued to communicate verbally.

Ms. Jia gave evidence that she was concerned that the Landlord was seeking payment from the Tenants without providing any formal documentation or evidence of costs incurred.

The Landlord submitted that the issues in question arose primarily due to a communication breakdown resulting from the Tenants’ limited English proficiency. He denied ever formally demanding payment of $12,000–$14,000, and stated that this figure was mentioned only as a preliminary estimate while awaiting formal repair quotes. According to the Landlord, the Tenants' support persons were pressing him to provide a specific figure, and in response, he indicated that the estimated repair cost could be in the range of $12,000– $14,000, and that the Tenants might be responsible for contributing half of that amount. He further noted that the repeated contact and meeting requests from the Tenants’ support persons added pressure, particularly as these requests were being made concurrently with his communications with the Tenants. He found it challenging to manage these interactions and expressed that the demand for immediate information contributed to the tension.

The Landlord submitted that he had acted in good faith throughout, which was evidenced by his decision to temporarily relocate the Tenants at their own expense—an arrangement that cost approximately $1,800 and for which he did not seek reimbursement. He also confirmed that he had not filed any application with the Tribunal in relation to the alleged damage. The Landlord maintained that the Tenants’ distress was more likely attributable to miscommunication and the language barrier, rather than to any improper conduct on his part. He stated that, following consultation with Tenancy Services, he subsequently revised the estimated cost of damage to $2,000. The Law

Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that tenants are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of the premises. A landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the property.

In considering evidence, I find that the Tenants did not provide sufficient proof that the Landlord’s conduct amounted to a breach of their quiet enjoyment or emotional stress. There was no written evidence of a demand for payment of $12,000–$14,000, nor was there any substantiated evidence that the Landlord stated their visa would be affected if they failed to pay. There was also no corroborating evidence regarding the anonymous phone call or the statements allegedly made by the unidentified party or whether that party was an agent of the Landlord. The Tenants behaviour was also inappropriate in stating they would commit suicide in response to the unidentified individual stating they would be liable for the damages.

Importantly, the Tenants acknowledged in oral evidence that the Landlord had stated the figure was an estimate. Even if the Landlord had intended to seek such a figure, there was no written documentation or Tribunal claim to support the assertion that the amount was being formally pursued.

I accept the Landlord’s submission that the $12,000–$14,000 was provided as a preliminary estimate, and that the amount was later revised to $2,000 following discussions with Tenancy Services. It is standard practice for an assessment of damages to a property to take time which can be delayed by multiple contractors, insurance assessments etc. I also accept that the Landlord may have appeared unfriendly due to being approached by multiple third parties requesting further meetings with the Landlord. However, this does not amount to harassment or unlawful conduct. There is insufficient evidence that the Landlord made any reference to the Tenants’ visa status in a threatening manner. Even if such comments were made, it appears to stem from a misunderstanding rather than an intent to intimidate or harass.

The claim is dismissed. Claim for damaged property

The Tenants also claimed compensation for loss of personal property, including a laptop, textbooks, and notes. However, no evidence was presented to establish that the damage resulted from the Landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. Further, no receipts or proof of value were provided for the items in question.

The claim is dismissed.

As the Tenants were unsuccessful in their claims, name suppression is not granted to them. However, name suppression is granted in respect of the Landlord, who has successfully defended the matter.