What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5314319 about?

The tribunal order states: Both parties’ applications are dismissed

How much money was awarded in case 5314319?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314319?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314319?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12560650-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5314319 about?

The tribunal order states: Both parties’ applications are dismissed

How much money was awarded in case 5314319?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314319?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314319?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12560650-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 2C, 533 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Hatfields Beach, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5314319 — Harassment

Order

Both parties’ applications are dismissed

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Peerbhai, who attended by telephone.
This boarding house tenancy began on 13 December 2024. It was ended by notice from the tenant on 28 January 2025.
An Order was made on 11 April 2025 (application 5164872) awarding the tenant exemplary damages for the landlord filing to lodge the bond.
The landlord’s application (5226631) was intended to be filed as a cross application to the previous matter but was not filed in time to be heard at the same time. The tenant has since filed a further application (5314319) Background
When giving notice to end the tenant the tenant noted, “Thank you for renting me the room. The nicest boarding house in Auckland”
After that there were a series of e-mails concerning refund of the bond. The landlord took the view that the tenant was being unreasonable and difficult and harassing him.
The landlord says that the tenant then became involved in harassing other occupants of the boarding house. A statement has been provided from one of the other tenants about being confronted and abused by Mr Moore about the boarding house. Another statement is given by a female occupant who says she was falsely accused by Mr Moore of having sex in a public part of the boarding house.
On 26 January 2025 the landlord e-mailed Mr Moore to say that he would no longer be communicating with him, expressing the view that Mr Moore was mentally unstable and should consider staying in a care home.
A further e-mail on 17 February made it clear that he should not contact any of the boarding house residents and that the landlord would be seeking a restraining Order against Mr Moore.
The landlord took legal advice but says the restraining Order was not able to be put in place because Mr Moore could not be found to be served. Claims
The landlord claims: a. $500.00 for time cost of tenants being disturbed for their time to provide statements. The landlord was unable to identify any basis on which the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to make such an award; b. $1,000.00 for exemplary damages. The landlord was unable to identify the unlawful act said to have been committed by Mr Moore that could provide a basis or an award of exemplary damages; c. Legal costs of $2,300.00. Those costs are to do with the landlord’s application for a restraining order. That involves proceedings under the Harassment Act, outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The landlord’s claims do not disclose a basis for the orders sought and they are dismissed.
The tenant claims that the landlord’s treatment of him and making it clear that he is not welcome at the Boarding House is discriminatory and a breach of s.12 RTA which provides that: “Each of the following is hereby declared to be an unlawful act: (a) discrimination against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993; and (b) the giving of an instruction or the stating of an intention in contravention of subsection (2).”
Under the Human Rights Act 1993, one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination is discrimination based on disability, including mental impairment or disability 1 .
Discrimination means to treat someone differently or less fairly because of those characteristics. It is not enough to prove discrimination that a person who has such a condition receives treatment they do not consider right or justified.
The evidence here shows that Mr Moore was able to enter into a tenancy agreement with the landlord. That agreement was ended by Mr Moore, on positive terms.
In the later e-mails referred to above the landlord gave some unwise and uninformed opinions about the tenant’s mental health status.
However, the evidence falls short of showing that in telling the tenant that he should not bother other tenants at the lodge and was not welcome there, the landlord treated the tenant differently or worse because of his health status. Rather, it indicates that the landlord was responding to actual behaviours by the tenant that caused concern. I make no finding as to the extent those concerns were justified.
I do not find it proved that in making that response to Mr Moore’s behaviour, the landlord was discriminating against him on grounds prohibited by the RTA.
That claim is dismissed.
No award is made in respect of the filing fee.

Order

Both parties’ applications are dismissed

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Peerbhai, who attended by telephone.
This boarding house tenancy began on 13 December 2024. It was ended by notice from the tenant on 28 January 2025.
An Order was made on 11 April 2025 (application 5164872) awarding the tenant exemplary damages for the landlord filing to lodge the bond.
The landlord’s application (5226631) was intended to be filed as a cross application to the previous matter but was not filed in time to be heard at the same time. The tenant has since filed a further application (5314319) Background
When giving notice to end the tenant the tenant noted, “Thank you for renting me the room. The nicest boarding house in Auckland”
After that there were a series of e-mails concerning refund of the bond. The landlord took the view that the tenant was being unreasonable and difficult and harassing him.
The landlord says that the tenant then became involved in harassing other occupants of the boarding house. A statement has been provided from one of the other tenants about being confronted and abused by Mr Moore about the boarding house. Another statement is given by a female occupant who says she was falsely accused by Mr Moore of having sex in a public part of the boarding house.
On 26 January 2025 the landlord e-mailed Mr Moore to say that he would no longer be communicating with him, expressing the view that Mr Moore was mentally unstable and should consider staying in a care home.
A further e-mail on 17 February made it clear that he should not contact any of the boarding house residents and that the landlord would be seeking a restraining Order against Mr Moore.
The landlord took legal advice but says the restraining Order was not able to be put in place because Mr Moore could not be found to be served. Claims
The landlord claims: a. $500.00 for time cost of tenants being disturbed for their time to provide statements. The landlord was unable to identify any basis on which the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to make such an award; b. $1,000.00 for exemplary damages. The landlord was unable to identify the unlawful act said to have been committed by Mr Moore that could provide a basis or an award of exemplary damages; c. Legal costs of $2,300.00. Those costs are to do with the landlord’s application for a restraining order. That involves proceedings under the Harassment Act, outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The landlord’s claims do not disclose a basis for the orders sought and they are dismissed.
The tenant claims that the landlord’s treatment of him and making it clear that he is not welcome at the Boarding House is discriminatory and a breach of s.12 RTA which provides that: “Each of the following is hereby declared to be an unlawful act: (a) discrimination against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993; and (b) the giving of an instruction or the stating of an intention in contravention of subsection (2).”
Under the Human Rights Act 1993, one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination is discrimination based on disability, including mental impairment or disability 1 .
Discrimination means to treat someone differently or less fairly because of those characteristics. It is not enough to prove discrimination that a person who has such a condition receives treatment they do not consider right or justified.
The evidence here shows that Mr Moore was able to enter into a tenancy agreement with the landlord. That agreement was ended by Mr Moore, on positive terms.
In the later e-mails referred to above the landlord gave some unwise and uninformed opinions about the tenant’s mental health status.
However, the evidence falls short of showing that in telling the tenant that he should not bother other tenants at the lodge and was not welcome there, the landlord treated the tenant differently or worse because of his health status. Rather, it indicates that the landlord was responding to actual behaviours by the tenant that caused concern. I make no finding as to the extent those concerns were justified.
I do not find it proved that in making that response to Mr Moore’s behaviour, the landlord was discriminating against him on grounds prohibited by the RTA.
That claim is dismissed.
No award is made in respect of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5314319 — Harassment at Room 2C, 533 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Hatfields Beach,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5314319 — Harassment at Room 2C, 533 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Hatfields Beach,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.