How much money was awarded in case 5304265?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304265?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304265?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12603106-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5304265?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304265?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304265?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12603106-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304265 — Harassment

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304265 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm Friday 21 November 2025, or earlier by the tenant giving the landlord no less than two working days’ notice to quit.
The tenant application 5304265 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy is one of five units at the address.
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal for compensation and exemplary damages, as well as claiming the anti-social notices served to date were unjustified.
The landlord has applied for termination.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. The landlord application
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission (s 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “RTA”). In the alternative, if required, it sought termination per s 55B RTA.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is: First notice
The first anti-social behaviour notice was served on 11 June 2025 in relation to an event on 29 May 2025.
The notice claimed that a visitor of the tenant knocked on an immediate neighbour’s door. The landlord was told the visitor had blood on his face and asked for help. The tenant then came out of his property and started verbally abusing the neighbour, with particulars set out in the notice. The neighbour then sat in her car and rang another neighbour for support.
This incident was reported to the Police by the neighbour the next day. A recommended trespass notice was served on the tenant by the neighbour following this incident.
Both the neighbour and the visitor were called as witnesses. They joined by telephone. The visitor stated he went to that address because he was upset with the tenant after they had physically fought and he was ejected. He knew that going to that neighbour would upset the tenant.
The neighbour had a good recall of the events and while the exact words directed at her by the tenant remain uncertain, I consider the words were verbally abusive. Her subsequent actions in calling another neighbour, then going to the Police station and later taking out a trespass order are considered responses commensurate to the abuse recounted.
The notice was justified. Second Notice
The second anti-social behaviour notice was served on 4 July 2025.
The notice claimed that: On or about [date redacted] you posted a video to [social media platform] discussing concerns about your tenancy. In this video you name four [The landlord/s] staff “tied to my current tenancy”. In the video you allege that [The landlord/s] staff intentionally placed you into housing next door to the site of your childhood abuse. In this video you state that a staff member was present in a shed where you allegedly suffered abuse as a child. This includes you saying a particular named staff member “was present in the shed, actively involved in the abuse when I was a child.” These are statements that named [The landlord/s] Staff have engaged in serious incidents and they are strongly denied.
The landlord wrote the “content of this video being publicly available has caused alarm and distress to all staff members involved and also amounts to harassment.”
The tenant at first maintained his right to publish such claims. He later sought legal advice and removed the videos. I note the video cited was actually one of several published around that time.
I heard directly from a number of staff named in the videos. Four staff attended in person as witnesses and one provided a written statement, as she was away at the date of the hearing.
The staff all spoke of their anxiety caused by the video publication and the disparaging comments later added by viewers of the videos. They expressed concern for their safety, as well as their families, given the tone and content of both the video and viewer comments directed at them.
There is no evidence to support the tenant claims as made. They are serious and more appropriately dealt with as a police matter. The tenant did provide what he claimed were heavily redacted police report acquired via the Official Information Act 1982. They were totally redacted, including his name and any dates. It was not possible to ascertain if they were official documents released regarding any tenant claims. He also recounted a call to the 105 non- emergency line where the operator put him on hold to consult a supervisor before advising he should make any complaint in person at a police station.
A staff member named in the video as involved in a claimed historic traumatic event of the tenant had not even moved to New Zealand at the date of that event.
During the hearing the tenant demanded, more than once, “hard evidence” from the landlord. The claims of the tenant lack any evidential basis. They are of a very concerning and criminal nature. I consider the staff named had reason to feel very concerned.
The notice was justified. Third notice
The third notice came after advice from a third-party to the neighbour named in a series of public videos making claims about her. This is the same tenant who was impacted by the first anti-social behaviour event above.
The landlord served the third notice on 22 August 2025. That was the same day the landlord application for termination was lodged. The notice stated:
The landlord said the delay in serving the third notice was due to the delayed awareness. After uploading it was later viewed by someone else who then advised the neighbour, the landlord heard later again (the landlord submitted the advice of the videos publication and the neighbour’s angst came via a local Member of Parliament).
I heard from the neighbour. It appears there were a number of videos published on the subject. She claims she was shown three videos, but the person with access would not show her the fourth, supposedly due to the content.
Again, the public posting of such claims by the tenant triggered some “keyboard warrior” responses in the comments that caused further alarm and stress. The potential for others to take some form of vigilante action against the neighbour in response to the unproven claims cannot be lightly discarded.
The sequence of the three notices versus the actual events is not considered fatal to the validity of the second or third notice.
I note the tenant has since removed the offending videos. The nature of the internet does not mean they do not remain in the public domain in some digital form, beyond any tenant control.
The notice was justified. The law
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
The Tribunal must not make an order if satisfied that doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred or the notices were given. Consideration
The three notices have been reviewed and considered above. All are considered valid.
On 3 July 2025, the landlord wrote to the tenant expressing concern “about the tone and content of your videos and consider they may be in breach of several communications principles in the Harmful Digital Communications Act. They are causing harm to the landlord’s staff and amount to harassment. It also advised him they had sought advice from New Zealand Police and NetSafe regarding the videos.
The tenant view is that the anti-social notices are invalid. On 4 July 2025 he wrote to the landlord:
His view above on what the legal criteria for anti-social behaviour was, in my view, misplaced. Section 55A applies where a tenant has engaged in anti- social behaviour “in connection with the tenancy”. This extends to the landlord and its staff, be it remote call centre staff or non-direct management. An immediate neighbour is certainly “connected” to the tenancy and any anti-social behaviour impacts that may ensue.
The burden is not on the landlord to prove the statements were “false or defamatory”. Without evidential justification for the claims, the tenant has unreasonably “cause(d) alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor” on others.
The landlord submitted this tenancy is an outlier. It stated it manages thousands of tenancies across [Region], often involving tenants with complex needs and behaviours. In the ordinary course, it stated its staff are” trained and equipped to manage difficult behaviours, disputes with neighbours, and the occasional unreasonable conduct”. What the landlord said distinguishes this tenancy is the volume, persistence, and intensity of the behaviour which has required far greater resourcing and specialist management than is sustainable in the long term.
It believes the termination request was a recognition that the tenancy has become unsustainable. It considers the continuing pattern of harassment, intimidation, and resource drain makes it unreasonable to require it to continue with this tenancy.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above and as provided before and during the hearings.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances here. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application. They have previously instigated a transfer to the current premises with the tenant’s acceptance. The intent of this is consider well rather than nefarious.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated. Termination on the grounds of hardship
Even if I am wrong in determining termination per s 55A should be ordered, the landlord also sought termination per s 55B RTA.
Section 55B provides for termination where it would be unreasonable to require a landlord to continue with a tenancy
The landlord submitted the circumstances in this tenancy merited consideration under this section, if so required.
The landlord believed it was open to the Tribunal to go beyond the more typical financial hardship claims made under s 55B. It cited None v None TT4945877 28 November 2024 where that adjudicator noted
The landlord referred me to another Tribunal decision (TT4632374 dated 24 August 2024) where the adjudicator, with regard to possible applications of s 55B, considers at [49], “If the tenant embarks on a course of obstructive and/or abusive behaviour, there may come a point at which the circumstances of this tenancy are grounds for termination and/or payment of exemplary damages to the landlord.”
I agree s 55B does not restrict application to hardship solely of a financial nature. If so, that would have been stated in the Act.
Given the tenancy is ended per s 55A, I do not need to expand further but note that the facts in this matter could have been applied to s 55B if required. The tenant application
The tenant applied for compensation ($17,020.44) and exemplary damages for harassment and a retaliatory notice.
Specifically, he claimed he had “experienced an ongoing pattern of harassment, emotional harm, and coordinated retaliation from [the landlord/s] staff” that “have escalated my agoraphobia, created an unsafe living environment, and caused ongoing psychological distress. I believe they are targeting me because I have spoken out about my experience and trauma, including being placed beside the property where I was abused as a child”.
The tenant issued a 14-day notice requesting the harassment and breaches of quiet enjoyment to stop, asking for a “I asked for a change of housing team, to ensure neutrality and protection from further harm”
He was concerned about what he considered the ongoing unlawful surveillance by a neighbouring tenant (who he believed is acting in coordination with the landlord).
He believed his requests have been repeatedly ignored, dismissed, or met with further retaliation. Quiet enjoyment/harassment
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed him.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 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 s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
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 s 109(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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.
The tenant claimed in his application that his right to quiet enjoyment had been impacted. He wrote, “Since moving into this property, I have not been allowed to live in peace. The environment has been made hostile — both through direct action by the landlord and coordinated actions involving neighbours”.
In terms of the higher threshold in s 38 to consider actions harassment, he claimed the landlord,” through multiple staff and aligned neighbours, has subjected me to ongoing harassment. This includes targeted surveillance (neighbours filming my movements in and out of the property), hostile visits from staff, and persistent emotional pressure.”
Much of the tenant claims relate to the events or actions leading to the three anti-social behaviour notices and this Tribunal process. The challenge has been determining who is the victim. I do not seek to diminish the “shared truth” of the tenant as he has recounted. However, I struggle to see him as an innocent victim with regard to this tenancy operation.
The claim regarding the neighbour filming him is not proven. I consider her explanation plausible. The pursuit of evidence regarding any recordings made involved a number of inappropriate demands of the landlord, and a direct written approach to the neighbour.
This tenancy is not the first between these parties. A prior tenancy lasted some six years before the tenant was relocated to this premises. The driver for that change was firstly a clash with a neighbouring tenant who lived above the tenant. That tenant was moved. Some of the landlord witnesses were involved during that prior tenancy. They stated there were challenges with this tenant in that tenancy and the transfer was an attempt to provide a fresh start. The length of the previous tenancy requires some context given recent policy direction changes to the landlord regarding how tenancies are managed or terminated, compared to previously.
The tenant has clearly stated his desire/need for a freestanding house. For a single person in [City], such a configuration and availability via a social housing provider would be rare.
The current premises was a new build of five attached units. It was single story but not freestanding. Not the perfect solution for the tenant but he met the landlord on site when it was offered. Both staff present at that meeting gave evidence. They both recalled the tenant commenting on the positive aura in the home. No objections were raised by the tenant and the offer of a transfer to this premises was accepted and instigated.
Within a week of moving in the tenant made a video to record his state at that time. This, along with later videos were provided and viewed. His view was some videos support his claims against the landlord. I am not so convinced. I see in those videos a deep mistrust and suspicion that manifests in the video claims. This trend is further evidenced in emails sent to the landlord as well as in a recorded interaction with a third-party contractor who was attempting to complete an inspection at the premises. Retaliatory notice
Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory, and of no effect, if: [I]n giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
This section only applies to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, that notice complying with the requirements of s 51 RTA.
There has been no termination notice from the landlord and s 54 has no application here. This claim is dismissed.
Given the success of the landlord in the three notices being upheld as reasonable, and the other actions of the tenant during this tenancy I do not consider the tenant application for compensation has been evidenced and it cannot succeed.
The tenant claims are dismissed. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered. The tenant requested suppression during the hearing. I have weighted up his interests, given the outcome here, versus the public interest. I have also had to consider the historic use by the tenant of the public domain to air serious but unproven grievances against both the landlord and neighbour(s). I consider there has been enough public airing of unfounded tenant claims against the others without adding further potential through this order.
On balance, I have determined it appropriate to also order suppression of the tenant details. He has a challenge ahead and while there is a genuine public interest aspect, I am concerned public naming may significantly and disproportionately impact him beyond the pure tenancy lens. If future anti-social actions lead to a future successful landlord application for termination further suppression should not be assumed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm Friday 21 November 2025, or earlier by the tenant giving the landlord no less than two working days’ notice to quit.

The tenant application 5304265 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This tenancy is one of five units at the address.

The tenant has applied to the Tribunal for compensation and exemplary damages, as well as claiming the anti-social notices served to date were unjustified.

The landlord has applied for termination.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.

Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.

While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. The landlord application

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission (s 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “RTA”). In the alternative, if required, it sought termination per s 55B RTA.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is: First notice

The first anti-social behaviour notice was served on 11 June 2025 in relation to an event on 29 May 2025.

The notice claimed that a visitor of the tenant knocked on an immediate neighbour’s door. The landlord was told the visitor had blood on his face and asked for help. The tenant then came out of his property and started verbally abusing the neighbour, with particulars set out in the notice. The neighbour then sat in her car and rang another neighbour for support.

This incident was reported to the Police by the neighbour the next day. A recommended trespass notice was served on the tenant by the neighbour following this incident.

Both the neighbour and the visitor were called as witnesses. They joined by telephone. The visitor stated he went to that address because he was upset with the tenant after they had physically fought and he was ejected. He knew that going to that neighbour would upset the tenant.

The neighbour had a good recall of the events and while the exact words directed at her by the tenant remain uncertain, I consider the words were verbally abusive. Her subsequent actions in calling another neighbour, then going to the Police station and later taking out a trespass order are considered responses commensurate to the abuse recounted.

The notice was justified. Second Notice

The second anti-social behaviour notice was served on 4 July 2025.

The notice claimed that: On or about [date redacted] you posted a video to [social media platform] discussing concerns about your tenancy. In this video you name four [The landlord/s] staff “tied to my current tenancy”. In the video you allege that [The landlord/s] staff intentionally placed you into housing next door to the site of your childhood abuse. In this video you state that a staff member was present in a shed where you allegedly suffered abuse as a child. This includes you saying a particular named staff member “was present in the shed, actively involved in the abuse when I was a child.” These are statements that named [The landlord/s] Staff have engaged in serious incidents and they are strongly denied.

The landlord wrote the “content of this video being publicly available has caused alarm and distress to all staff members involved and also amounts to harassment.”

The tenant at first maintained his right to publish such claims. He later sought legal advice and removed the videos. I note the video cited was actually one of several published around that time.

I heard directly from a number of staff named in the videos. Four staff attended in person as witnesses and one provided a written statement, as she was away at the date of the hearing.

The staff all spoke of their anxiety caused by the video publication and the disparaging comments later added by viewers of the videos. They expressed concern for their safety, as well as their families, given the tone and content of both the video and viewer comments directed at them.

There is no evidence to support the tenant claims as made. They are serious and more appropriately dealt with as a police matter. The tenant did provide what he claimed were heavily redacted police report acquired via the Official Information Act 1982. They were totally redacted, including his name and any dates. It was not possible to ascertain if they were official documents released regarding any tenant claims. He also recounted a call to the 105 non- emergency line where the operator put him on hold to consult a supervisor before advising he should make any complaint in person at a police station.

A staff member named in the video as involved in a claimed historic traumatic event of the tenant had not even moved to New Zealand at the date of that event.

During the hearing the tenant demanded, more than once, “hard evidence” from the landlord. The claims of the tenant lack any evidential basis. They are of a very concerning and criminal nature. I consider the staff named had reason to feel very concerned.

The notice was justified. Third notice

The third notice came after advice from a third-party to the neighbour named in a series of public videos making claims about her. This is the same tenant who was impacted by the first anti-social behaviour event above.

The landlord served the third notice on 22 August 2025. That was the same day the landlord application for termination was lodged. The notice stated:

The landlord said the delay in serving the third notice was due to the delayed awareness. After uploading it was later viewed by someone else who then advised the neighbour, the landlord heard later again (the landlord submitted the advice of the videos publication and the neighbour’s angst came via a local Member of Parliament).

I heard from the neighbour. It appears there were a number of videos published on the subject. She claims she was shown three videos, but the person with access would not show her the fourth, supposedly due to the content.

Again, the public posting of such claims by the tenant triggered some “keyboard warrior” responses in the comments that caused further alarm and stress. The potential for others to take some form of vigilante action against the neighbour in response to the unproven claims cannot be lightly discarded.

The sequence of the three notices versus the actual events is not considered fatal to the validity of the second or third notice.

I note the tenant has since removed the offending videos. The nature of the internet does not mean they do not remain in the public domain in some digital form, beyond any tenant control.

The notice was justified. The law

Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.

The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.

The Tribunal must not make an order if satisfied that doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred or the notices were given. Consideration

The three notices have been reviewed and considered above. All are considered valid.

On 3 July 2025, the landlord wrote to the tenant expressing concern “about the tone and content of your videos and consider they may be in breach of several communications principles in the Harmful Digital Communications Act. They are causing harm to the landlord’s staff and amount to harassment. It also advised him they had sought advice from New Zealand Police and NetSafe regarding the videos.

The tenant view is that the anti-social notices are invalid. On 4 July 2025 he wrote to the landlord:

His view above on what the legal criteria for anti-social behaviour was, in my view, misplaced. Section 55A applies where a tenant has engaged in anti- social behaviour “in connection with the tenancy”. This extends to the landlord and its staff, be it remote call centre staff or non-direct management. An immediate neighbour is certainly “connected” to the tenancy and any anti-social behaviour impacts that may ensue.

The burden is not on the landlord to prove the statements were “false or defamatory”. Without evidential justification for the claims, the tenant has unreasonably “cause(d) alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor” on others.

The landlord submitted this tenancy is an outlier. It stated it manages thousands of tenancies across [Region], often involving tenants with complex needs and behaviours. In the ordinary course, it stated its staff are” trained and equipped to manage difficult behaviours, disputes with neighbours, and the occasional unreasonable conduct”. What the landlord said distinguishes this tenancy is the volume, persistence, and intensity of the behaviour which has required far greater resourcing and specialist management than is sustainable in the long term.

It believes the termination request was a recognition that the tenancy has become unsustainable. It considers the continuing pattern of harassment, intimidation, and resource drain makes it unreasonable to require it to continue with this tenancy.

I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above and as provided before and during the hearings.

I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.

I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances here. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application. They have previously instigated a transfer to the current premises with the tenant’s acceptance. The intent of this is consider well rather than nefarious.

I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.

The tenancy is terminated. Termination on the grounds of hardship

Even if I am wrong in determining termination per s 55A should be ordered, the landlord also sought termination per s 55B RTA.

Section 55B provides for termination where it would be unreasonable to require a landlord to continue with a tenancy

The landlord submitted the circumstances in this tenancy merited consideration under this section, if so required.

The landlord believed it was open to the Tribunal to go beyond the more typical financial hardship claims made under s 55B. It cited None v None TT4945877 28 November 2024 where that adjudicator noted

The landlord referred me to another Tribunal decision (TT4632374 dated 24 August 2024) where the adjudicator, with regard to possible applications of s 55B, considers at [49], “If the tenant embarks on a course of obstructive and/or abusive behaviour, there may come a point at which the circumstances of this tenancy are grounds for termination and/or payment of exemplary damages to the landlord.”

I agree s 55B does not restrict application to hardship solely of a financial nature. If so, that would have been stated in the Act.

Given the tenancy is ended per s 55A, I do not need to expand further but note that the facts in this matter could have been applied to s 55B if required. The tenant application

The tenant applied for compensation ($17,020.44) and exemplary damages for harassment and a retaliatory notice.

Specifically, he claimed he had “experienced an ongoing pattern of harassment, emotional harm, and coordinated retaliation from [the landlord/s] staff” that “have escalated my agoraphobia, created an unsafe living environment, and caused ongoing psychological distress. I believe they are targeting me because I have spoken out about my experience and trauma, including being placed beside the property where I was abused as a child”.

The tenant issued a 14-day notice requesting the harassment and breaches of quiet enjoyment to stop, asking for a “I asked for a change of housing team, to ensure neutrality and protection from further harm”

He was concerned about what he considered the ongoing unlawful surveillance by a neighbouring tenant (who he believed is acting in coordination with the landlord).

He believed his requests have been repeatedly ignored, dismissed, or met with further retaliation. Quiet enjoyment/harassment

The tenant claims the landlord has harassed him.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 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 s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).

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 s 109(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).

Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.

The tenant claimed in his application that his right to quiet enjoyment had been impacted. He wrote, “Since moving into this property, I have not been allowed to live in peace. The environment has been made hostile — both through direct action by the landlord and coordinated actions involving neighbours”.

In terms of the higher threshold in s 38 to consider actions harassment, he claimed the landlord,” through multiple staff and aligned neighbours, has subjected me to ongoing harassment. This includes targeted surveillance (neighbours filming my movements in and out of the property), hostile visits from staff, and persistent emotional pressure.”

Much of the tenant claims relate to the events or actions leading to the three anti-social behaviour notices and this Tribunal process. The challenge has been determining who is the victim. I do not seek to diminish the “shared truth” of the tenant as he has recounted. However, I struggle to see him as an innocent victim with regard to this tenancy operation.

The claim regarding the neighbour filming him is not proven. I consider her explanation plausible. The pursuit of evidence regarding any recordings made involved a number of inappropriate demands of the landlord, and a direct written approach to the neighbour.

This tenancy is not the first between these parties. A prior tenancy lasted some six years before the tenant was relocated to this premises. The driver for that change was firstly a clash with a neighbouring tenant who lived above the tenant. That tenant was moved. Some of the landlord witnesses were involved during that prior tenancy. They stated there were challenges with this tenant in that tenancy and the transfer was an attempt to provide a fresh start. The length of the previous tenancy requires some context given recent policy direction changes to the landlord regarding how tenancies are managed or terminated, compared to previously.

The tenant has clearly stated his desire/need for a freestanding house. For a single person in [City], such a configuration and availability via a social housing provider would be rare.

The current premises was a new build of five attached units. It was single story but not freestanding. Not the perfect solution for the tenant but he met the landlord on site when it was offered. Both staff present at that meeting gave evidence. They both recalled the tenant commenting on the positive aura in the home. No objections were raised by the tenant and the offer of a transfer to this premises was accepted and instigated.

Within a week of moving in the tenant made a video to record his state at that time. This, along with later videos were provided and viewed. His view was some videos support his claims against the landlord. I am not so convinced. I see in those videos a deep mistrust and suspicion that manifests in the video claims. This trend is further evidenced in emails sent to the landlord as well as in a recorded interaction with a third-party contractor who was attempting to complete an inspection at the premises. Retaliatory notice

Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory, and of no effect, if: [I]n giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.

This section only applies to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, that notice complying with the requirements of s 51 RTA.

There has been no termination notice from the landlord and s 54 has no application here. This claim is dismissed.

Given the success of the landlord in the three notices being upheld as reasonable, and the other actions of the tenant during this tenancy I do not consider the tenant application for compensation has been evidenced and it cannot succeed.

The tenant claims are dismissed. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered. The tenant requested suppression during the hearing. I have weighted up his interests, given the outcome here, versus the public interest. I have also had to consider the historic use by the tenant of the public domain to air serious but unproven grievances against both the landlord and neighbour(s). I consider there has been enough public airing of unfounded tenant claims against the others without adding further potential through this order.

On balance, I have determined it appropriate to also order suppression of the tenant details. He has a challenge ahead and while there is a genuine public interest aspect, I am concerned public naming may significantly and disproportionately impact him beyond the pure tenancy lens. If future anti-social actions lead to a future successful landlord application for termination further suppression should not be assumed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304265 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304265 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions