What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287309 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 5287309?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287309?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12740264-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287309 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 5287309?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287309?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12740264-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287309 — Harassment

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had an interpreter to assist.
The tenant has claimed for compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy. There were additional claims however these were resolved at mediation. Background
The tenancy commenced in March 2016 and ended in May 2025.
The tenant says that during the tenancy: a. The tenant fixed damage caused to the decking, and at the same time and at the request of the landlord, she also carried out additional maintenance works to the deck that had worn. b. The owner’s friend would visit the property randomly every two to three months to access the storage area under the garage, at times without notice. The owner’s friend then required a phone number exchange so that she could ensure the tenant was home as and when she required access.
The tenant claims for compensation of $500.00 for the deck maintenance works, that she says was the landlord’s responsibility.
In addition, the tenant claims exemplary damages for inadequate notice and for breach of quiet enjoyment caused by the third party’s regular visits.
The landlord disputes the tenant’s claims. The civil standard burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Compensation claims
The tenant carried out repair works caused by an issue with their fridge freezer; however, she submits that at the same time, the landlord asked the tenant to 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. carry out works that were not caused by any damage but through usual and regular maintenance requirements. The tenant claims $500.00 for these repairs.
The landlord does not have any knowledge of, and therefore disputes this claim and amount.
The tenant has provided photographs of the worn floor to which the works relates.
However, no invoice or other evidence has been provided to prove the amount being claimed by the tenant for this work, or any other documentation in support.
As a result, the applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that there was some maintenance work done by the tenant. I also cannot be sure enough of the exact cause of the remedial works, and I have no evidence that $500.00 reflects the actual cost of the claimed works.
This claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. The tenant says that throughout the tenancy, a friend of the landlord would arrive at the property requesting access to the storage shed. Accessing the storage shed required access through the garage and so the tenant had to be home. The tenant advised that this third party would express anger or frustration if they weren’t, for any reason, able to provide the requested access.
More recently, the tenant says that the owner’s friend requested her phone number so she could arrange this access. A text was provided during the hearing as evidence. The tenant says she did raise these visits as an issue with the landlord.
The landlord advises that they never had any notice of any such visits or arrangement and had no knowledge of it. They say that if there was such an arrangement, that it was between the tenant and the third party, and they cannot be held liable for something they did not know was occurring.
They further say that any visits they arranged, for the owner for example, always had the required notice.
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 (RTA).
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 RTA.
A landlord must also not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
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.
The difficulty I have with this claim, as I do not have any evidence of it being raised with the landlord during the tenancy. The only evidence I have is a text where someone is asking to access the garage. I do not have any evidence of the random visits prior to this, and nothing to prove that this was, at any stage, raised with the landlord or that the tenant sought to prevent it from occurring or continuing.
Although I have sympathy for the tenant regarding the situation and the impact this had on her, I cannot be more certain than not, and I have insufficient evidence that the landlord has breached their obligations under the RTA with respect to entry at the property. There is also insufficient evidence to meet the level required for harassment.
Accordingly, this claim is also dismissed. Other matters
Both parties sought name suppression. As the landlord has been successful this is granted. There are also personal matters and family court documents provided that indicate it would also be prudent to grant name suppression to the tenant and I consider that this outweighs any public interest in publication. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 19 November 2025

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had an interpreter to assist.
The tenant has claimed for compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy. There were additional claims however these were resolved at mediation. Background
The tenancy commenced in March 2016 and ended in May 2025.
The tenant says that during the tenancy: a. The tenant fixed damage caused to the decking, and at the same time and at the request of the landlord, she also carried out additional maintenance works to the deck that had worn. b. The owner’s friend would visit the property randomly every two to three months to access the storage area under the garage, at times without notice. The owner’s friend then required a phone number exchange so that she could ensure the tenant was home as and when she required access.
The tenant claims for compensation of $500.00 for the deck maintenance works, that she says was the landlord’s responsibility.
In addition, the tenant claims exemplary damages for inadequate notice and for breach of quiet enjoyment caused by the third party’s regular visits.
The landlord disputes the tenant’s claims. The civil standard burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Compensation claims
The tenant carried out repair works caused by an issue with their fridge freezer; however, she submits that at the same time, the landlord asked the tenant to 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. carry out works that were not caused by any damage but through usual and regular maintenance requirements. The tenant claims $500.00 for these repairs.
The landlord does not have any knowledge of, and therefore disputes this claim and amount.
The tenant has provided photographs of the worn floor to which the works relates.
However, no invoice or other evidence has been provided to prove the amount being claimed by the tenant for this work, or any other documentation in support.
As a result, the applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that there was some maintenance work done by the tenant. I also cannot be sure enough of the exact cause of the remedial works, and I have no evidence that $500.00 reflects the actual cost of the claimed works.
This claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. The tenant says that throughout the tenancy, a friend of the landlord would arrive at the property requesting access to the storage shed. Accessing the storage shed required access through the garage and so the tenant had to be home. The tenant advised that this third party would express anger or frustration if they weren’t, for any reason, able to provide the requested access.
More recently, the tenant says that the owner’s friend requested her phone number so she could arrange this access. A text was provided during the hearing as evidence. The tenant says she did raise these visits as an issue with the landlord.
The landlord advises that they never had any notice of any such visits or arrangement and had no knowledge of it. They say that if there was such an arrangement, that it was between the tenant and the third party, and they cannot be held liable for something they did not know was occurring.
They further say that any visits they arranged, for the owner for example, always had the required notice.
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 (RTA).
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 RTA.
A landlord must also not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
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.
The difficulty I have with this claim, as I do not have any evidence of it being raised with the landlord during the tenancy. The only evidence I have is a text where someone is asking to access the garage. I do not have any evidence of the random visits prior to this, and nothing to prove that this was, at any stage, raised with the landlord or that the tenant sought to prevent it from occurring or continuing.
Although I have sympathy for the tenant regarding the situation and the impact this had on her, I cannot be more certain than not, and I have insufficient evidence that the landlord has breached their obligations under the RTA with respect to entry at the property. There is also insufficient evidence to meet the level required for harassment.
Accordingly, this claim is also dismissed. Other matters
Both parties sought name suppression. As the landlord has been successful this is granted. There are also personal matters and family court documents provided that indicate it would also be prudent to grant name suppression to the tenant and I consider that this outweighs any public interest in publication. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 19 November 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287309 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287309 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions