What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304219 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 5304219?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304219?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12203809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304219 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 5304219?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304219?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12203809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304219 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the tenant and landlord names and identifying details.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The primary application from the landlord was to recover possession of the premises, and also rent arrears (but the rent situation has been settled at the hearing). The tenants claims centre around what could broadly be described as quiet enjoyment breaches, and concern around the actions of the property manager (I will set these out further below).
Both parties appeared at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

For the purpose of this decision, the relevant background can be summarised as follows: a. The parties entered into a tenancy commencing on 5 February 2025, being a periodic tenancy. The landlord is [redacted] by way of an agent (property manager) [redacted]. This was a ‘room by room’ rental. b. An incident occurred at the premises, the tenant reports that was on the evening of 19 June, and involved a housemate. There is sharp disagreement between the parties as to the precise nature of that incident. c. The tenant says that around midday on 20 June 2025, he received a call from the landlord who stated that he had received complaints, and the tenant says: He told me I would need to issue 21 days' notice to vacate or he would initiate a Tenancy Tribunal application. Although he did not threaten me outright, the conversation created significant pressure, and I felt I had little choice. At the time, I did not know my rights and agreed to give notice under stress. d. On 21 June 2025, the tenant emailed notice to the landlord, ending the tenancy: Hi [The landlord/s] ... Further to our discussion, please accept this message as notice to terminate my tenancy. I also want to apologize again and assure you, and anyone who I made feel uncomfortable that there is absolutely no sisk to any other tenant or property. I am sorry for being a dick, again, I will do better. e. While the notice did not give the date for the termination to take effect, the tenant has confirmed in his claim that the notice he provided was a 21 day notice. The landlord records that the ‘moving out’ date was to be 13 July 2025 which is 21 days after the notice was given. So the effective date is not in dispute. f. What is also clear is that there is significant conflict that has arisen between the tenant and property manager, around a number of matters, and that has been escalating. g. On 10 July 2025, the tenant filed his application with the Tribunal. h. On 14 July 2025 the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking possession of the premises, and later including rent arrears. i. On or about 28 July 2025, the tenant vacated the premises and returned possession of the room to the landlord. j. A hearing was convened before myself on 30 July 2025.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Termination and possession of the premises. b. Rent arrears between 14 – 28 July, to the sum of $857.14 (with a rent credit of $800.00) c. Filing fee

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed his claims are as follows: a. Orders for emotional and spiritual distress. b. Declaration as to improper actions from landlord leading to the termination notice being given, and misleading information around process. c. Bond refund in full d. Filing fee

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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.

ANALYSIS

The parties are deeply aggrieved with one another. Over the days prior to the hearing, the communications and complaints against each other have escalated, and it was clear at the hearing there was significant conflict. I consider this will be a case where neither party will be satisfied with this order, but I hope the parties will see this as an opportunity to draw a line under their respective concerns and put their grievances behind them.

LANDLORDS CLAIM

Claim 1 – Termination and possession

The primary application from the landlord was a return of possession of the tenancy to the landlord. The landlord relies on the 21 day notice given by the tenant to end the tenancy. The landlord considers that the tenant should have vacated the premises on 13 July 2025. Analysis
As I advised the parties at the hearing, this claim is now moot. Possession has been returned to the landlord already, so there is nothing further for the Tribunal to order here. Claim 2 – Rent arrears
The landlord’s position is that the rent owed between 14 and 28 July, is $857.14. However, the landlord states that there has been further rent payments received of $800.00, and therefore the arrears the landlord considers to be outstanding, are $57.14.
The tenant’s position is that rent has been paid up until 28 July 2025, so he says that he owes nothing further. Analysis
Following discussion at the hearing, the landlord has agreed to withdraw this claim in order to move toward a resolution of matters with the tenant. That is sensible given the disputed amount is on the scheme of things very modest.
For the avoidance of doubt, the $800.00 credit should be applied to the rent owed, the tenant agrees it should.

TENANTS CLAIM

Claim 1 – General damages / quiet enjoyment / privacy and improper influence leading to termination notice

The tenant considers that the landlord has acted improperly in making the tenant feel coerced around ending the tenancy. The tenant considers that the landlord has not given him the correct information around the termination process, and that what would happen at the Tribunal was misleading. The tenant considers that the landlord indicated a personal relationship with the adjudicator.
The tenant accepts that he gave the notice of his own free will, but that the landlord should have given three notices to end the tenancy. The tenant considers that the landlord has acted misleadingly, such as suggesting that he is not the landlord.
The landlord disputes that he has acted improperly. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that when a breach notice is sent to his home and under his personal name, that is not a valid notice. The landlord states that the tenant had made threats in relation to the premises.
The landlord’s position is that when the tenant asked to extend the notice, this could not be done because they already had another tenant lined up for this property.
In conclusion, the tenant considers that he acted appropriately and in good faith. The tenant considers that the landlord has not acted appropriately. The notice was given under undue pressure to end the tenancy. The tenant disputes that anything was sent to the landlords home address, the only notice was sent by email.
The tenant also states that the landlord had contacted his mother, who is only listed as a secondary contact for him, and he believes that constitutes a privacy breach under the Privacy Act. The landlord has not provided evidence supporting the allegations. However the tenant considers that the underlying issue was related to a single issue, and he has addressed that issue with the other tenant by way of an apology. The tenant considers that the landlord is misleading the Tribunal, and that there is history of unfair treatment of tenants. Analysis
I will firstly address any concerns the tenant has in relation to the adjudicator having any sort of personal relationship with the property manager, and I can confirm there is none. I confirm I have previously adjudicated a small number of applications in the Tribunal where the property manager was a party, but that is it. I do not know the property manager personally, and other than in the hearing room, I do not recall ever meeting or communicating with him.
Section 38 of the RTA relates to quiet enjoyment, and confirms that 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”. If the landlord breached that requirement in circumstances amounting to harassment, then exemplary damages could be ordered.
In my assessment, the landlord has not breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment “in the use of the premises” for these reasons.
The tenant has raised concerns that the property manager contacted his mother, who was listed on the tenancy agreement as an emergency contact, and disclosed information to her. I accept that is the case, but I cannot see how that would impact the tenants privacy “in the use of the premises by the tenant”. The legal test is centred around how the tenant uses the premises, so there must be some relationship between the breach and how the premises are used, and I cannot see that relationship here.
The tenant considers there has been a breach of the Privacy Act by the landlord. I express no view on that, because that is not a matter the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider. There is limited scope for the Tribunal to consider potential Privacy Act breaches, and that is only in relation to house rules in Boarding Houses (section 66O of the RTA). If [The tenant/s] considers there has been a breach of a privacy principle, that would be a matter he would need to take up with the Privacy Commission’s office.
A significant issue for the tenant is that he believes that the landlord has coerced the tenant to give a termination notice, or otherwise provided misinformation leading to the tenant’s decision to give his notice. I find that has not been proven.
Firstly, the landlord is under no legal obligation to give advice to the tenant, so even if the landlord had given incorrect information, it was not a breach of a duty the landlord held.
Secondly, my assessment of the evidence is that the tenant gave notice voluntarily. The tenant has accepted he was not threatened to give notice, but considered there was pressure in the sense that if he did not give notice, then the landlord would have taken him to the Tribunal. Strictly that was open to the landlord. The landlord I accept was concerned at what had occurred at the tenancy, and would have been able to apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy – so that is correct.
It is not unreasonable to give the option to the tenant of giving notice as a means to avoid a termination in the Tribunal. The tenant does not need to accept that alternative, he could have come to the Tribunal and defended the claim if he wished to do so. But there are many reasons it may not be in the tenants interest to have the tenancy terminated by order of the Tribunal, such as the negative consequence of any published ordered in the public sphere.
The tenant raised that the landlord did not give him three notices. The landlord does not need to give three notices. If the landlord considered there was a significant breach on the part of the tenant, the landlord can apply to terminate the tenancy under either section 55 of 56 of the RTA without any notice first being given to the tenant.
The tenant says that others have had issues with the property manager. That could not be a basis for me to make any orders in favour of [The tenant/s], the question only relates to what has happened in his tenancy.
Finally, I note there was no obligation on the landlord to accept a withdrawal of the termination notice. Certainly the landlord could agree to have the tenant withdraw the notice, but the landlord was not obligated to consent to that.
For the above reasons, I cannot see any basis to make order against the landlord in relation to issues around quiet enjoyment, privacy or any other basis to make an order for general damages. Claim 4 - Bond
The tenant claimed a full refund of the bond. The file shows that there is a bond in the Bond Centre of $1,600.00. That is to be released to the tenant in full. The landlord has not otherwise made a claim against the bond.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for name suppression. Overall, I consider it reasonable to order name suppression for both parties, because they have each had substantial success in their claims or defence of the claims.

FILING FEE

Both parties have been partly successful in their applications. Strictly the landlord has succeeded getting possession returned, and the tenant has been successful in getting is bond released. I therefore award both parties their respective filing fee, but given the amounts are the same, no further money orders are made in relation to this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304219 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304219 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIM

TENANTS CLAIM

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIM

TENANTS CLAIM

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions