What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300820 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 5300820?

Compensation: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300820?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12703971-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300820 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 5300820?

Compensation: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300820?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12703971-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

29B Morvern Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300820 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300820 — net $2,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment	$1,200.00	Quiet enjoyment
Compensation	$800.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Stuart Tunnicliffe must pay [The tenant/s] $2,028.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The tenancy began on 30 August 2022 and ended on 10 June 2025.
The landlord had a property manager always acting for him during the tenancy.
The tenants had not met the landlord before the tenancy commenced or for the first five weeks of the tenancy as all communication was with the property manager. Application
The tenants applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the landlord attending at the premises without notice and on several occasions throughout the tenancy. The tenants claim that the landlord has harassed them.
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.
The landlord attended at the premises without notice on multiple occasions during the tenancy. This ongoing behaviour amounted to harassment of the tenants. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 landlord first attended at the premises just over a month after the tenancy commenced. The tenants initially did not know who he was or why he was there. On two occasions the landlord looked in the windows when the female tenant had just exited the shower and was about to close the curtains. On one of those occasions the landlord was holding an axe and a saw, on the other occasion he had another man with him.
The visits were regular and ongoing. On the second occasion the tenants contacted the property manager who they say apologised and assured them that she would speak with the landlord about it. The tenants continued to advise the property manager on each occasion. The tenants said that they asked the landlord multiple times in person for him to give notice before attending at the premises. The tenants served the landlord with a 14-day breach notice on 18 February 2025 which included details of the impact of his repeated visits without notice.
At the hearing the landlord said that during the visits he was often not on the tenant’s property and instead he was on the common area, such as the driveway or the steps to the premises. He said that the property manager had mentioned she had complaints, but the landlord thought they must be insignificant.
The landlord confirmed that he had wandered around every two to three months but cannot see how it amounts to harassment. He said that usually his tenants are glad to see him so that they can report issues.
In relation to looking in the windows he said that he happened to glance in the window probably looking for mould on the window or curtains but only for a second and was not peering in.
On one of the occasions the landlord knocked on the tenant’s door to look at the pipes as he was concerned there may be a leak. The tenants learnt at the hearing that the landlord had gone under the house just prior to knocking on the door. The landlord said that it was an emergency because the water account was $200.00 when it was usually $50.00, and he did not want to lose money.
In response to the 14-day notice from the tenants he emailed in reply saying, “Sorry, but did not enter your tenanted property.”
The landlord said that he might have broken the law but didn’t think it worried the tenants. He said that if he had heard a complaint he would have adhered to the law.
The landlord intentionally breached the Act by ongoing actions of attending at the premises and causing distress to the tenants. At the hearing the landlord said that he knows he breached the Act but could not understand why the tenants were upset.
The tenants submitted a statement from the neighbour who was also a tenant of this landlord. That tenant also served the landlord with a breach notice and the statement refers to the effect of the landlord’s harassment on these tenants; “They became more guarded and anxious, expressing concerns that the landlord could appear at any moment – feelings which we also shared. It was evident that the persistent harassment had caused them to live in a constant state of vigilance, with no true peace or privacy in their own home.”
In reference to the effect of the landlord’s actions the tenants submitted that it had a significant emotional and psychological effect on them. They felt anxious being away from home because the landlord could be there when they were out, they did not invite family or friends because they felt uncomfortable and embarrassed of possibly being interrupted by the landlord and they would lose sleep after each visit, and it caused tension between the tenants. The male tenant did not want to leave the female tenant home alone and started to change his work hours to be home when she was.
The landlord has had many tenancies over the years. At the hearing he said that he currently has a boarding house with ten tenants. He is aware of the legislation. It is in the public interest that landlords respect the need for tenants to have quiet enjoyment away from harassment from their landlord.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $1,200.00 is reasonable.
I am satisfied that the tenants suffered significant distress because of the landlord’s conduct. Having regard to the frequency and nature of the breaches, and the impact on the tenants, I award compensation of $800.00.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300820 — net $2,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment	$1,200.00	Quiet enjoyment
Compensation	$800.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Stuart Tunnicliffe must pay [The tenant/s] $2,028.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The tenancy began on 30 August 2022 and ended on 10 June 2025.
The landlord had a property manager always acting for him during the tenancy.
The tenants had not met the landlord before the tenancy commenced or for the first five weeks of the tenancy as all communication was with the property manager. Application
The tenants applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the landlord attending at the premises without notice and on several occasions throughout the tenancy. The tenants claim that the landlord has harassed them.
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.
The landlord attended at the premises without notice on multiple occasions during the tenancy. This ongoing behaviour amounted to harassment of the tenants. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 landlord first attended at the premises just over a month after the tenancy commenced. The tenants initially did not know who he was or why he was there. On two occasions the landlord looked in the windows when the female tenant had just exited the shower and was about to close the curtains. On one of those occasions the landlord was holding an axe and a saw, on the other occasion he had another man with him.
The visits were regular and ongoing. On the second occasion the tenants contacted the property manager who they say apologised and assured them that she would speak with the landlord about it. The tenants continued to advise the property manager on each occasion. The tenants said that they asked the landlord multiple times in person for him to give notice before attending at the premises. The tenants served the landlord with a 14-day breach notice on 18 February 2025 which included details of the impact of his repeated visits without notice.
At the hearing the landlord said that during the visits he was often not on the tenant’s property and instead he was on the common area, such as the driveway or the steps to the premises. He said that the property manager had mentioned she had complaints, but the landlord thought they must be insignificant.
The landlord confirmed that he had wandered around every two to three months but cannot see how it amounts to harassment. He said that usually his tenants are glad to see him so that they can report issues.
In relation to looking in the windows he said that he happened to glance in the window probably looking for mould on the window or curtains but only for a second and was not peering in.
On one of the occasions the landlord knocked on the tenant’s door to look at the pipes as he was concerned there may be a leak. The tenants learnt at the hearing that the landlord had gone under the house just prior to knocking on the door. The landlord said that it was an emergency because the water account was $200.00 when it was usually $50.00, and he did not want to lose money.
In response to the 14-day notice from the tenants he emailed in reply saying, “Sorry, but did not enter your tenanted property.”
The landlord said that he might have broken the law but didn’t think it worried the tenants. He said that if he had heard a complaint he would have adhered to the law.
The landlord intentionally breached the Act by ongoing actions of attending at the premises and causing distress to the tenants. At the hearing the landlord said that he knows he breached the Act but could not understand why the tenants were upset.
The tenants submitted a statement from the neighbour who was also a tenant of this landlord. That tenant also served the landlord with a breach notice and the statement refers to the effect of the landlord’s harassment on these tenants; “They became more guarded and anxious, expressing concerns that the landlord could appear at any moment – feelings which we also shared. It was evident that the persistent harassment had caused them to live in a constant state of vigilance, with no true peace or privacy in their own home.”
In reference to the effect of the landlord’s actions the tenants submitted that it had a significant emotional and psychological effect on them. They felt anxious being away from home because the landlord could be there when they were out, they did not invite family or friends because they felt uncomfortable and embarrassed of possibly being interrupted by the landlord and they would lose sleep after each visit, and it caused tension between the tenants. The male tenant did not want to leave the female tenant home alone and started to change his work hours to be home when she was.
The landlord has had many tenancies over the years. At the hearing he said that he currently has a boarding house with ten tenants. He is aware of the legislation. It is in the public interest that landlords respect the need for tenants to have quiet enjoyment away from harassment from their landlord.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $1,200.00 is reasonable.
I am satisfied that the tenants suffered significant distress because of the landlord’s conduct. Having regard to the frequency and nature of the breaches, and the impact on the tenants, I award compensation of $800.00.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300820 — Exemplary damages at 29B Morvern Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300820 — Exemplary damages at 29B Morvern Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

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