What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303680 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 5303680?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303680?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Harassment, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303680?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12258494-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303680 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 5303680?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303680?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Harassment, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303680?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12258494-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303680 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the tenant, his mother [the tenant’s mother] and [the landlord’s cleaner].
The Notice of Termination given by the landlord to the tenant on 11 July 2025 is declared void and of no effect.
The landlord’s application for a possession order is dismissed
Primeproperty Group Limited must pay

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings which were held by videoconference. The landlord was represented by its General Manager Ms Ellis. [The tenant/s] was supported and assisted by his mother [the tenant’s mother]. Introduction
[The tenant] and his mother have lived in various rooms in this boarding house, since October 2016.
On Friday 11 July 2025, [the tenant] was given a notice of termination (“the Notice”) by the property manager Ms de Jongh which said: “Dear [tenant] Re: Termination of Tenancy by Landlord - section 66U(1)(A) - RTA1986 - Immediate Termination In accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Section 66U(1)(A) part(s) (i), (ii), or (iii): The Landlord advises your tenancy will Terminate Immediately being 11 th day of July 2025. For the purposes of Section 66(U)(2)(D) of the RTA1986 the reason for termination is: assault on cleaner. For the purposes of section 66(U)(2)(F) the landlord shall be Jo De Jongh, [contact details redacted]. For the purpose of Section 136 (A) or (C) this document was served (personally) or (affixed to the door of room: 1) on 11 July 2025.”
[The tenant] immediately queried the notice and when given details of the allegations on which the Notice was based, disputed those allegations.
[The tenant] was unable to obtain legal advice immediately, it being the weekend, but approached Citizen’s Advice Bureau and Tenancy Services for information.
Once Ms Ellis became aware that the notice was disputed and that [the tenant] had taken advice, she confirmed that the landlord would not try to evict him over the weekend. She proposed that [the tenant] make an application to the Tribunal to test the notice and confirmed that if such an application was made the landlord would await the outcome of that application before pursuing eviction.
On 13 July 2025 Ms Ellis brought this application for a possession order based on the Notice.
[The tenant] had difficulty filing a cross application and the Tribunal has amended the proceedings to allow consideration of his counter claims, without requiring that a separate application be filed.
In short, the landlord claims that [the tenant] threw water over its cleaner, endangering him. [The tenant] denies that and says that the way the landlord handled the complaint, breached his rights as a tenant because he was not given a chance to respond to the allegations and that he was bullied and harassed, all of which caused him significant stress and anxiety.

What are the Issues?

The Tribunal needs to answer the following questions: a. did [the tenant] throw water over the landlord’s cleaner ([the landlord’s cleaner]) as alleged; b. if so, is that grounds for immediate termination of his tenancy; c. did the landlord breach obligations owed to [the tenant] under the RTA in its handling of the matter.

What are the relevant laws and evidential thresholds?

This is a boarding house. In giving the Notice, the landlord relies on s.66U RTA which allows a boarding house landlord to end a tenancy immediately, “...if the tenant has....endangered or threated to endanger, people....”.
This Tribunal has a civil rather than criminal jurisdiction, so a party needs to bring evidence to prove the facts it relies on, on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not), rather than beyond reasonable doubt. However, where, as in this case, allegations of potentially criminal conduct are made, a solid evidential base is required.
[The tenant] relies on s.38 under which a tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises. If a landlord breaches that right in circumstances that amount to harassment, the landlord commits an unlawful act.
[The tenant] also relies on s.60AA RTA under which it is an unlawful act for a landlord to try to terminate a tenancy, knowing they are not entitled to do so and on s.54 under which it is unlawful to give retaliatory notice to end a tenancy. Did [the tenant] throw water over the landlord’s cleaner ([the landlord’s cleaner]) as alleged?
The landlord says that what happened, is what its cleaner [the landlord’s cleaner] told the police on 18 July 2025. The police report, which the landlord submitted, says: “30 June [[the tenant]] had a very large argument with another tenant. 9 July he threw rubbish around in the bathroom to make a mess, became very strange acting and followed me around the house. Then when I bent down to pick up my bucket he pushed me suddenly from behind, not very hard but I staggered. Then 11 July he stood behind the door of his room and as I opened my locker opposite, he threw water over me and then shut his door. I went to the bathroom to wash because I didn't know what he’d thrown, then I rang my manager and went home immediately. That afternoon the property manager went there and issued him with a termination notice. He became aggressive with her.”
It is worth noting that the incidents on 30 June and 9 July in that statement were not referred to in the Notice and had not been raised with the tenant. [The tenant] accepts there was an argument with another tenant, unrelated to these events, on 30 June. He denies what is alleged to have occurred on 9 July.
I also note that Ms de Jongh’s evidence, while she said that [the tenant] was not happy about being given an immediate termination notice, does not support the suggestion that “he became aggressive with her”
[the landlord’s cleaner] gave evidence essentially confirming his police statement. He did not see [the tenant] throw the liquid. He says he knew it must have been [the tenant] though, because he saw him in the doorway of his room opposite the cleaning cupboard and when [the landlord’s cleaner] felt the liquid on him and turned around, the door to [the tenant]’s room was quickly closed.
Ms Ellis says that [the landlord’s cleaner]’s evidence is corroborated by the CCTV camera footage shown at the hearing. That footage is from the kitchen. It shows [the landlord’s cleaner] enter, do some cleaning and then leave. [The tenant] is then shown entering and filling his drink bottle before leaving. [the landlord’s cleaner] then returns to the kitchen with what is said to be wet clothing although that is a little hard to be clear about from the footage. He is seen to be making a phone call, at a time consistent with phone records showing a call from him to Ms Ellis.
[The tenant] has given direct evidence, under promise and on the record, that he did not throw any liquid on [the landlord’s cleaner] as alleged.
The evidence shows some increasing discord between [the tenant] and [the landlord’s cleaner]. [The tenant] suggests that [the landlord’s cleaner] may have wet himself in the bathroom before returning to the kitchen, to “set up” [the tenant]. Or, he says, [the landlord’s cleaner] may have got wet thought his normal cleaning work.
Of those involved, the only person who absolutely knows whether or not [the tenant] threw water on [the landlord’s cleaner], is [the tenant] himself. There is strong circumstantial evidence pointing to [the tenant] having done what is alleged.
For me to find it proved that he did, would mean a finding that he has given false evidence to the Tribunal. The circumstantial evidence is not sufficiently compelling to make that finding. I do not find the claim proved.
Because the evidence does not enable the Tribunal to say conclusively what happened, it is appropriate to consider whether, if the allegation been proved, the landlord would have been entitled to immediately end the tenancy.
The Notice gives as grounds for the termination, “assault on cleaner”. That is not of itself grounds for immediate termination.
An assault or threat of assault on a landlord’s agent gives grounds for a landlord to end a tenancy on 14 days’ notice (s.55AA RTA). For a landlord to immediately end a boarding house tenancy, the relevant ground is endangering people or property (s.66U(1)(a)(ii) RTA).
The difference in those grounds must be intentional.
“Assault” as defined in the Crimes Act 1961, “....means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning.” 29 The definition encompasses any direct or indirect application of force.
“Endanger” is a term used for example in the Arms Act 1983. In R v Iti 1 the Court of Appeal was considering among other things, the application of s.48 of the Arms Act, which makes it an offence to discharge a firearm in a public place so as to, “endanger, annoy or frighten any person..”
The Court (para [57] and following) separately assessed: a. whether there had been endangerment; and b. whether persons had been frightened or annoyed; indicating that the concept of endangerment was seen as different than causing fright and/ or annoyance.
The Court noted that “Section 48 [Arms Act] requires the establishment of consequence - the requisite harm...” (though in that case to the criminal standard of proof).
In my view, what that suggests is that an assault for the purposes of s.55AA RTA, focuses on the act itself, ie. the direct or indirect application of force. On the other hand, endangerment for the purposes of s.66U RTA, focusses on the consequences of the act, the “requisite harm” ie. putting a person in danger or in peril. On that analysis, a person may have committed an assault, without putting the other party in danger.
That differentiation is consistent with the consequences. An assault allows a landlord to terminate a tenancy on 14 days’ notice. An endangerment (in a boarding house tenancy) allows immediate termination by notice. 1 R v Iti [2008] 1 ZLR 587
The CCTV footage and [the landlord’s cleaner]’s evidence is consistent with him having been surprised and concerned by what happened. It does not indicate any actual or perceived danger or peril.
My finding is that even if it were proved that [the tenant] threw water on [the landlord’s cleaner], which may have constituted an assault, it did not endanger [the landlord’s cleaner]. There would therefore not have been grounds to immediately terminate [the tenant]’s tenancy under s66U(1)(a)(ii). Did the landlord breach obligations owed to [the tenant]?

Was his right to quiet enjoyment breached?

Under s,38 RTA, “(1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, though, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
[The tenant] was given notice to immediately vacate the premises without any prior warning or discussion. I have found that the landlord did not have grounds to give that notice.
That was a fundamental intrusion into [the tenant]’s right to quiet enjoyment of his tenancy. It was based on allegations which had not been discussed with him. He had been given no chance to answer the allegations. Those allegations and the termination of his tenancy in the claimed circumstances, had potentially serious consequences for him.
[The tenant] is entitled to recognition of that breach of his rights as a tenant, through an award of compensation.
The loss caused to [the tenant] is not of a monetary nature, or represented by a reduction in the utility of the premises he was paying rent for. Rather, it is represented by the distress and anxiety from having been given a notice of immediate termination based on untested allegations which could have implications for his future.
In those circumstances, it is appropriate to consider making an award of general damages, the purpose of which is not to compensate for a quantifiable loss but to compensate for pain or suffering or emotional distress (see Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2
In Otautahi, the Court noted that: “[36] The Court in Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) 3 held in assessing the quantum of general damages comma tribunal must take into account the following factors: 2 See Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 (at para [35]) 3 Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT2378/92, 25 August 1993 a. the nature of the breach; b. the duration of the breach; and c. the effect of the breach on the party.”
In looking at what award should be made, in Tenant v Ezy Rentals 4 the Tribunal said: “By reference to Otautahi, I consider the bands that might usefully inform the Tribunal’s decision in this case are: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.”
Here, as well as the undoubted impacts on [the tenant], I take into account the mitigating considerations that: a. the landlord was entitled to end the tenancy on 28 days’ notice without reasons being required; b. [The tenant] was informed immediately that he would not be required to vacate over the weekend after the Notice was given; c. once it became clear that [the tenant] disputed the grounds on which the Notice had been given and had taken advice, which the landlord was referred to, Ms Ellis agreed that possession would not be enforced pending the Tribunal hearing; d. this was the landlord’s response to a “one off” incident. The evidence does not show a pattern of such behaviour on the landlord’s part.
Balancing those considerations, I assess an award of general damages of $1,250.00 as being just. Did the Notice of Termination breach s.60AA?
A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, knowing that they are not entitled to do so.
The evidence shows that having investigated the allegations and the surrounding evidence, the landlord formed the view that the grounds for issuing a termination notice under s.66U(1)(a)(ii) had been established. 4 Tenant v Ezy Rentals [2022] NZTT 4323927
The Tribunal has found otherwise and fairness requires that [the tenant] should have had the allegations put to him and been given a chance to respond, as part of the landlord’s investigation. It cannot be said though that the landlord took steps to terminate the tenancy, knowing it was not entitled to do so. I do not find a breach of s.60AA proved.

Was the Notice retaliatory?

A landlord must not give a retaliatory notice of termination. A notice is retaliatory if was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising rights or making complaints.
The evidence shows that in giving the Notice the landlord was motivated by a belief that: a.its cleaner had been assaulted by the tenant; and b.that the appropriate response was to immediately terminate the tenancy.
Again, while the Tribunal has taken a different view, the evidence does not establish a retaliatory motive on the landlord’s part.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Breach of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act under s.38(3) 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 tenant] says that Ms Ellis harassed him through pressure to file Tribunal proceedings before holding back on enforcing the Notice. He says that she pressured him regarding his having recorded conversations with her and made flippant threats about reporting the allegations to the police.
I do not find the tenant’s claim of harassment provide for 2 reasons: First, having listened to the audio recordings of their phone conversations, I do not share the tenant’s interpretation of undue pressure being brought to bear on him by Ms Ellis; Second, s.38 deals with harassment in the context of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. Discussions about Tribunal proceedings are a different matter, not directly connected to the tenants use and enjoyment of the premises. I do not find that claim proved.
No Order is made in respect of the filing fee, as no filing fee has been paid by the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303680 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303680 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What are the Issues?

What are the relevant laws and evidential thresholds?

Was his right to quiet enjoyment breached?

Was the Notice retaliatory?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What are the Issues?

What are the relevant laws and evidential thresholds?

Was his right to quiet enjoyment breached?

Was the Notice retaliatory?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions