What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327020 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $8,278.00

How much money was awarded in case 5327020?

Compensation: Rent rebate of 100% fo…: $3,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327020?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14161224-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327020 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $8,278.00

How much money was awarded in case 5327020?

Compensation: Rent rebate of 100% fo…: $3,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327020?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14161224-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

67 Barrys Road, Auckland, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327020 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327020 — net $8,278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent rebate of 100% for loss of amenity for the period 27 July to 30 August 2025 harassment	$3,400.00	Rent rebate of 100% for loss of amenity for the period 27 July to 30 August 2025 harassment
Rent overpayment	$350.00	Rent overpayment
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$3,000.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$1,500.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,278.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$8,278.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327020 — net $8,278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent rebate of 100% for loss of amenity for the period 27 July to 30 August 2025 harassment	$3,400.00	Rent rebate of 100% for loss of amenity for the period 27 July to 30 August 2025 harassment
Rent overpayment	$350.00	Rent overpayment
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$3,000.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$1,500.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,278.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$8,278.00

Order

[The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $8,278.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended a case management conference on 23 April 2026 and a hearing of the tenants’ substantive claims on 18 August 2026.
Karl Lewis, the landlord’s neighbour, attended the hearing as Mr Ammet Chhagan’s support person. Both Mr Chhagan and Mr Lewis attended by telephone.
Ms [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and Ms [The tenant/s] tenant/s] also attended via telephone.
The tenant has applied for reimbursement of rent overpayment, compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed to the tenant for rent overpayment?

The tenancy ended on 30 August 2026. The tenant provided rent records from the property management company responsible for managing her tenancy, which prove the amount owing to her at the end of the tenancy, being $350.00.
This overpayment was the result of Work and Income New Zealand continuing to make a payment after the tenancy had ended.
The landlord stated that he was not aware that there had been an overpayment, and he was going through a lot at the time and didn’t know this. He was going through a real estate company at the time and thought that they had remedied this overpayment. He is happy to repay the overpayment.

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 standard 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA, bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act. Did the landlord engage in misleading and deceptive conduct to induce the tenants to enter into the tenancy agreement?
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claim the property manager and the owner conspired to withhold vital information about the owner living on the same property, in the minor dwelling at the back of the house being rented to the tenants. They say the property manager and the owner did so to induce them into renting a premise that they would not otherwise have agreed to let, as they did not want to live on the same property as the owner.
The tenancy agreement is clear that the premise being let was being managed by the owner’s chosen agent, M2 Real Estate Ltd, which has become Harvey’s Real Estate in Henderson. This agency is owned and operated by Moritz Muck. Rebecca Chhour was the allocated property manager for the tenancy.
Both parties confirmed they found Rebecca Chhour very unprofessional, and this contributed to their issues.
The owner claims it was Ms Chhour’s idea to lie about who he was, as she was finding it difficult to attract tenants for the premise, because prospective tenants were put off renting a premise in such close proximity to the owner. Mr [The tenant/s] landlord/s] reported that he too had found it hard to attract tenants when he was living on the property, which is why he engaged an agent.
Ms Chhour did not attend the hearing and did not provide any evidence to the Tribunal. The tenants have alerted Ms Chhour to these proceedings and offered her the opportunity to provide a witness statement. She has not done so. The tenants confirmed the property management company terminated its contract with Mr Chhagan at the end of this tenancy, from 1 September 2025. Harvey’s Real Estate Henderson is not a named party in this proceeding, and no longer the owner’s agent, so may have chosen not to get involved for those reasons.
The landlord’s name in the tenancy agreement is [The tenant/s] landlord/s]. Mr Chhagan confirmed that this is his legal name and that he is also known by the nickname Charlie. The parties confirmed this nickname was not noted on the tenancy agreement, nor was it disclosed to the tenants during the pre-letting pre- processes.
During the pre-letting process, the tenants say they were informed that the tenant in the minor dwelling at the back of the property was a family friend of the owner. They were not told he was the owner.
The tenants say that had they been informed the owner lived on the property, they would not have entered the tenancy. Especially, given Leigh had recently had a stroke, was vulnerable, and was being moved to live in this tenancy straight from a medical facility, and needed a stable home while she adjusted to her life post stroke. The rental premise was able to be modified for Leigh to allow her to live in an accessible environment set up for a wheelchair bound person and allowed her daughter, Amy, to share the house with her and look after her as she transitioned to living with the impacts of the stroke.
At the beginning of the tenancy, the property manager introduced the tenants to occupier of the minor dwelling, and he introduced himself as Charlie. Neither the property manager nor the owner alerted the tenants to Charlie being the owner.
The tenants also say that had they been made aware that they were living in front of the owner’s home, in such close proximity, they would have made sure to keep a respectful distance between the owner and themselves. As they were not aware they were sharing the property with the owner, they did not put the necessary boundaries in place that may have protected them from the owner’s interferences with their peaceful enjoyment and privacy that escalated to the aggravated level of harassment. The evidence suggests this lack of boundaries also led to the owner considering the tenants as friends, and unlawfully entering the premise on several occasions.
The tenants claim they became suspicious that Charlie may have also been Ameet, after the tenants searched public social media accounts for Ameet. Then during a routine property inspection, Ms Chhour let it slip under questioning that “Charlie” was Ameet, the owner. The tenants then confronted the property manager about her misleading and deceptive behaviour via text message.
Ms Chhour told the tenants that no one wanted to rent the property as the owner was living on the same property. So, he had used a property management company, and she decided not to disclose that he was the owner so as not to drive away prospective tenants. Ameet stated he went along with what the property manager advised. Further, he says that he has always gone by the name Charlie, as people could not pronounce his birth name.
Mr Chhagan says he is using a different property management company now, the new tenants know he is living on the property, and there have been no problems.
The tenants seek compensation for the severe stress, loss of privacy, and unexpected hardship they suffered as direct result of Ms Chhour and Mr Chhagan’s misleading and deceptive conduct inducing the tenants to enter into the tenancy agreement.
Section 35 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA), provides: (1) If a party to a contract (A) has been induced to enter the contract by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made to A by or on behalf of another party to that contract (B),— (a) A is entitled to damages from B in the same manner and to the same extent as if the representation were a term of the contract that has been breached; and (b) A is not, in the case of a fraudulent misrepresentation, or of an innocent misrepresentation made negligently, entitled to damages from B for deceit or negligence in respect of the misrepresentation.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the property manager and the owner did conspire to mislead and deceive the tenants about the owner living in the minor dwelling and that the reason, at least in part, was to induce them into a tenancy they may not otherwise have entered into.
However, the tenants have not provided any evidence that proves this misleading and deceptive conduct led to any of the losses suffered by them, such as loss of privacy/quiet enjoyment, harassment, noise, unlawful entry and being put in a position where they felt they had no other option but to end the tenancy. It is the owner’s behavioural conduct and breaches of his obligations under the RTA that has led to these losses. Additionally, this behavioural conduct, and breaches of his obligations under the RTA, that have also led to the tenants incurring moving costs less than 8 months into what they thought was a long-term tenancy, and they are no longer able to live together, as they were unable to find the required accessible rental accommodation. As a result, Leigh has had to go back into a residential care facility. This has caused both tenants considerable stress and inconvenience.
The evidence proves all the losses suffered by the tenants were not due to the misleading and deceptive conduct of the property manager, and the owner, but arose from the owner’s harassment of the tenants and his breaches of his access rights. Therefore, the tenants claims for compensation or general damages under s35 of the CCLA is dismissed.
I note that this misleading and deceptive conduct will be taken into consideration as a factor in the tenants’ privacy/quiet enjoyment/harassment/unlawful entry claims. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s’ privacy and/or quiet enjoyment and/or unlawfully enter the premise ?
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them and breached their privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premise and has entered the premise without consent or notice.
The tenants confirmed that for the first two months of the tenancy, the owner and the tenants had a cordial and friendly relationship, but both parties found the property manager and her manager unprofessional, unhelpful and claim it was largely the property manager’s idea to deceive the tenants my misrepresenting the occupant of the minor dwelling as a family friend of the owner. This meant the parties acted from the start of the tenancy like they were fellow tenants of the same landlord.
The tenants stated that had they known the occupant of the minor dwelling was the owner, they would have established firm boundaries from the start of the tenancy about their privacy and enforcing his access obligations. Instead, they tried to create a friendly living environment, as they shared a driveway and lived near one another, and did not want to fall out with their neighbour.
The tenants confirmed that for the remaining 6 months of the tenancy things escalated as the owner’s inability to regulate his emotions increased, his mental health became more problematic and his behaviour erratic and unpredictable. His breaches of their privacy and quiet enjoyment, in conjunction with his many unlawful entry breaches they say reached the aggravated level of harassment. Because a number of the owner’s unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment claims happened on the same day(s), I will combine the proven unlawful acts of unlawful entry and harassment together and will treat the harassment as the lead breach. Any remedies awarded will recognise all the unlawful acts. The relevant law
Section 48 of the RTA contains provisions in relation to the landlord’s right of entry. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 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.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined 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.
From these definitions, it seems that 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 (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) 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.” Applying ss38 and 48 of the RTA to the facts
I will address the alleged breaches in the chronological order set out in Amy’s statutory declaration and will examine each incident against the landlord’s s38 and 48 of the RTA obligations.
I note that the tenants confirmed they were only aware that Ameet was the owner of the property from around the beginning of June 2025, after he said a few things that alerted Amy to Ameet thinking he had more rights over her and her mother’s premise and lives than a fellow tenant might possibly ever consider having.
Ameet stated the tenants knew that he was the owner from February 2025. This was when there was an issue with the hot water cylinder and Amy came to use his shower while they were waiting for the hot water cylinder to be fixed for one or two days. Amy denies this and says she was dealing with the agent and thought Ameet was just being neighbourly.
The issues of compensation, general damages and exemplary damages will be addressed at the end of this section of the Order and remedies ordered will be for the number, pattern and nature of proven breaches when looked at in totality 28 July 2025
The tenants confirmed on 28 July 2025, the landlord entered the tenants house uninvited, while Amy was on an important telephone call about her mother’s disability funding. She says she went to her doorway, told Ameet she was on an important call, and closed her bedroom door. A few hours later Amy sent a text to Ameet apologising for closing the door on him.
Sometime later again Amy states that Ameet came outside to her car and became verbally abusive, telling her to “shut the fuck up and listen.” She then sent a text message telling him not to speak to her that way. These text messages were submitted in evidence.
Ameet stated that he and Amy were friends, and he did not think that it was an issue coming to her door to talk to her when he wanted or needed too. He refutes swearing at her but does recall telling her to be quiet and listen, as she was talking over him. He says she did not seem uncomfortable when he approached the car, as they were friends, and he had been over to dinner.
Amy states that she never invited him to dinner, they were not friends and that she had decided to be cordial and polite to him as he lived at the back of the property, they shared the driveway and at the beginning he had been nice to her and her mother. She claims one evening, early in the tenancy, he dropped in and suggested he order dinner for the three of them. Amy stated he was quite insistent, so she allowed him to do that, and they shared the meal with him. She regrets doing this as she considers it may have given him the wrong impression about how she and her mother wanted to interact with him on an ongoing basis.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet did come to the tenants’ door uninvited, but did not enter the house. Therefore, there was no unlawful entry. Ameet accepted that he did approach Amy later that day when she was entering her car on the shared driveway, again uninvited, but states he did not swear at her. He admitted he had told her to listen to him, as he was frustrated that she was talking over him when he wanted to discuss her shutting the door in his face earlier. Based on the pattern of Ameet’s conduct from this date to the end of the tenancy, I find that it is more likely that Ameet did swear at Amy when he approached her car, and she made it clear that she did not want to engage with him. This was a clear breach of Amy’s quiet enjoyment and privacy.
I find that Ameet committed an unlawful act by breaching Amy’s peaceful enjoyment of the premise when he turned up unannounced on 28 July 2025, reacting badly to having the door shut on him when he found Amy on the phone, and retaliating by bailing her up at her car later that evening and verbally abusing her for not wanting to engage with him. I also find that this unlawful act was intentional. Ameet admitted he had previous tenants before, and therefore was a seasoned landlord that would have been aware of his obligations not to breach his tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise and/or their privacy. 30 July 2025
On 30 July 2025, Amy went to the dairy and when she came back, she found the landlord in her mother’s bedroom, where she was having her final paid physiotherapy session. They had not been given notice that he was coming to the house.
He interrupted Amy’s mother’s last physiotherapy session by arriving and asking the physiotherapist why Leigh had not been given an electric wheelchair, despite Amy having told him she was not eligible for one (multiple times) and that she would advocate for her mother’s health needs not him.
The tenants later discovered he had recorded a video during the physiotherapy visit, without the consent or knowledge of the tenants, and sent it to Amy via WhatsApp. This video shows Ameet repeatedly questioning the physiotherapist about wanting Leigh “reassessed for an electric wheelchair”, telling the physiotherapist that he can fence off the deck to make it safe for her to learn to use an electric wheelchair and that he is “responsible to look after these people” and he refuses to listen when the physiotherapist says he “needs to talk to Leigh” and that he is not able to reassess her for an electric wheelchair, and mobility solutions look after that area of Leigh’s care. When the physiotherapist reiterates, he needs to talk to his client, Ameet can be heard saying “I will write in or see them, whatever”. Then you hear his confirm Amy has returned and he says he will hand over to her and he leaves the premise before Amy can confront him.
The video proves Ameet completely disrupted Leigh’s last paid physiotherapy session and Amy stated that it was an important one for her to ascertain how to keep making steps towards greater mobility and independence.
Ameet says he knocked on the door, found it open, and when leigh heard him open the door widder, she called out and said she was in her bedroom and to come in. When he entered, he says Leigh introduced him to the physiotherapist. Ameet says Leigh had told him that she needed an electric wheelchair, because she was not able to operate a manual wheelchair. That he says is why he asked the physiotherapist about “what the story was about the electric wheelchair”. He says he recorded the visit for Amy’s benefit as she was not home and sent it to her straight away. He thought she could benefit from hearing about what the physiotherapist said about the electric wheelchair.
Amy says she does not recall leaving the door open and Leigh says she did not call out for him to come inside as she didn’t like people there when Amy was not home and did not want him in her bedroom when she was having very personal medical treatment. She claimed she was surprised to see Ameet come in and found him aggressive to the physiotherapist when he said “why has she not got an electric wheelchair” and “shouldn’t she be reassessed for one”. Further, she stated that her physiotherapist had been very uncomfortable about Ameet’s approach to him and his refusal to back off and let him speak to Leigh to see if the wheelchair request was coming from her or supported by her.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet did enter the tenants’ premise and Leigh’s room uninvited and in doing so unlawfully entered the premise while Leigh was having a medical session with her physiotherapist. While Ameet states he called out and was given permission to enter, Leigh’s evidence refutes this. I prefer Leigh and Amy’s evidence over Ameet’s because Leigh expressed shock and embarrassment that Ameet inserted himself into her physiotherapy session and began asking the physiotherapist to recommend an electric wheelchair Leigh confirmed she had been told an electric wheelchair was not suitable for her needs, and she did not want. Ameet’s presence disrupted Leigh’s rehabilitation session and took away valuable rehabilitation time. I also find it concerning he chose to video the physiotherapy session, without Leigh’s or her physiotherapist’s knowledge or consent. This was a clear breach of Leigh’s quiet enjoyment and privacy as well as an unlawful entry. The evidence supports finding that both unlawful acts were intentional. 1 August 2025
The tenants confirm that on 1 August 2025, between approximately 5:30 pm and 6:30 pm, Ameet entered the house, again with no notice or invitation, while Amy was cooking Leigh’s dinner. He sat down and produced Amy’s multitool, a personal item that belonged to her. She says Ameet started showing it off to her. When Amy asked him when he took it, he confirmed he had taken it from her house days earlier. She told him she had spent a long time searching for it. And was surprised when he left with it still in his possession.
Leigh has confirmed that Ameet entered the house without invitation or consent and had Amy’s multi-tool that she had been searching for over the past few days.
Ameet confirmed he was at Amy’s and saw her daughter walking around with the “knife” in her hand. He took it off her and put it in his back pocket out of habit. He claims he had no intention of taking it and he would have given it to Amy, but she was out of the room at the time. In hindsight he says he should have put it up on the bench or something, but he and Amy’s daughter were in the hallway in the entranceway and there was nowhere for him to put it. Then he claims he forgot about it being in his pocket and inadvertently took it home. He could not explain why he had not given it back on 1 August 2025.
The tenant says the tool had a Phillips screwdriver and plyers on it, but no knife. Further, she stated that she would not allow her very young child to have access to a knife. Ameet said it looked dangerous, so he took it off her. He was not aware of what was inside the multi tool at the time he did so.
The tenant says the Police collected this from Ameet around the same time as they collected the tenant’s mail, when he had not given it back.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet did enter the tenants’ premise uninvited and in doing so unlawfully entered the premise and breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise. I do not accept Ameet’s explanation that they were friends and that meant he could enter the premise when he wanted to say hello to them and engage with them. He also had no consent to take Amy’s belongings off her daughter without her permission or consent and to retain it for some time after the event without disclosing that he had taken it on his unauthorised visit. The evidence supports Amy being scared of Ameet’s unpredictable behaviour and her desire not to antagonise him, but not to extent that she was prepared to let him enter her home as and when he liked. The evidence also supports the finding that both unlawful acts were intentional. 2 August 2025
On 2 August 2025, at approximately 9:41 am, Ameet entered the house while Leigh and Amy were still in bed. She says he came in screaming “Why is this door unlocked?” He went to Leigh’s bedroom doorway, then opened Amy’s bedroom door. When Amy told him they were sleeping, he said “at least turn the fucken light on” and walked off. He then went through the lounge, opened curtains, commented on the tidiness of the house, and pulled out a speeding ticket addressed to Amy that he had taken from her letterbox and opened without her consent. He claimed he had paid it. When Amy tried to take her mail back, he snatched it aggressively. Amy told him not to take or open her mail and says Ameet got more upset and aggressive. Leigh’s carer arrived early for her shift and was sitting in her car waiting. She witnessed Ameet go to the tenants’ letterbox and open Amy’s mail before entering the house without knocking or consent and his conduct with Amy. Suranyani Wijewardhana, one of Leigh’s carers, provided a written statement confirming this incident.
Ameet says he had been down by Whitianga to pick up an electric wheelchair he had purchased for Leigh, which she had not asked for or even knew about. He says he was excited to give it to Leigh the next day and he went to tell them about it and found the door unlocked, opened it and called out to them. He says he was shocked that the door was unlocked, and confirmed he did tell Amy off for not locking the door when they were both asleep.
Ameet also says that sometimes the letters get put in the wrong box, so he checks both letter boxes regularly. Additionally, he has lived in both houses, so gets mail in both letter boxes. He says he opened the speeding ticket thinking it was his. He claims this was a genuine mistake. The landlord took the speeding ticket and intended to pay it, because he thought he would do something nice for Amy. He thought his intention was good. He stated he had spent $700.00 purchasing the wheelchair for Leigh. After being told off for opening her mail, he didn’t pay the speeding ticket, but did not give the ticket to Amy or tell her he had changed his mind about paying it for her because he was upset at having been scolded by her for the unlawful entry. She confirmed that she could not pay the ticket as she did not have the ticket with the details for payment.
When Amy got the ticket back, it had been ripped up into three pieces with all her mail, that had also been ripped up, which the Police had got back.
On the evening of 2 August 2025, at approximately 7:10 pm, Amy says she went to Ameet’s door to collect the items he had taken from her house without my consent. He did not answer. She called and texted Ameet and he declined her calls. When she sent a text message asking for her belongings back, he replied with language including “typical woman always blaming somebody else.”
At approximately 8:55 pm on the same evening, Ameet sent text messages telling Amy “Bye bye” with a waving hand emoji, then “Start packing,” “I want you gone,” “only you tho lee can stay,” and “bye bye Amy.” He also said “cops are on there way.” Amy took this as an attempt to evict her without any lawful process and notably showed an intention to separate her from her disabled mother, whom she cares for. These text messages were produced in evidence.
When asked about these text messages, Ameet confirmed that he was very upset because he had purchased a wheelchair the day prior, he felt Amy was ungrateful and so he was angry and upset and took actions at the time he now regrets and apologies for.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet did enter the tenants’ premise uninvited while they in bed and sleeping. In doing so Ameet unlawfully entered the premise and breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment/privacy. Ameet’s explanation shows that he accepts he did enter unlawfully and did scare the tenants and breach their quiet enjoyment and privacy. The evidence also supports the finding that both unlawful acts were intentional 4 August 2025 — Property manager breach notice; further police attendance
On 4 August 2025, Rebecca from Harvey’s Property Management sent Ameet a written notice confirming that entering the property without 24 hours’ notice was a breach of the tenancy agreement. This email. Was produced in evidence. Despite this formal notice, Ameet’s pattern of unlawful entries and breaches of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment continued and escalated.
On the same day as he received this notice, Ameet called police claiming he was having a heart attack, and that Amy was threatening him with fireworks. The tenants confirmed the Police attended and spoke to both parties. According to the police case summary (Case 250804/3759), officers noted Ameet was behaving very erratically. Amy confirmed that while police were speaking to her, Ameet came up behind the police officer began yelling at Amy that she was “a stupid bitch” and was banging on the kitchen window. The police officer warned Ameet he would be arrested if he continued. The Police also advised Ameet the matter was civil, and that Amy had done nothing to him. No charges were laid.
Ameet confirmed he remembers yelling at Amy, but not banging on the kitchen window. He says he was pumped up when the Police arrived.
Amy confirmed when the Police were at the front door, Ameet was a bit away. Ameet confirmed this but says he was very “pumped up” and “upset” with the Police being there. He also said he was having a panic attacked and the Police called an ambulance to check him out. Then he admitted he was not sure if the ambulance incident and the Police incident were on the same day. He said he can’t recall. Ameet says Robert from the front house came out, as he could hear him yelling. Amy said Robert tried to calm Ameet down by talking to him over the fence and Robert got abused and yelled at. At this point the Police told Ameet to go back to his house, so Ameet left, and Robert kept mowing his lawns.
Amy says the Police called the ambulance as part of the same incident as Ameet told them he was having a heart attack and chest pain.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet was having an emotional/mental incident after being told off by Amy for opening her mail and taking her multi-tool and that he had obsessed over this and chose a course of action that breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment/privacy of the premise by calling the Police with an illusory issue to do with Amy that had not happened and then yelling at her and banging on her kitchen window and making threatening overtones to her.
Ameet’s explanation shows that he accepts he breach Amy’s quiet enjoyment and privacy. The evidence also supports this unlawful act intentional. 5 August 2025 (5:00 am onwards) — Physical aggression at neighbour; screaming abuse at tenant;
On 5 August 2025, at approximately 5:00 am, Amy confirms that Ameet confronted their neighbour Robert. Robert and another neighbour heard the altercation and called Police. Amy says she was woken by Police knocking on her door. Shortly after, Ameet ran to Amy’s kitchen window, repeatedly banging on it, and screamed “You’re gone bitch, you’re gone, you’re not a woman, you’re a girl.” Police told him to calm down or he would be arrested. He walked off and had a further confrontation with Robert through the fence.
Amy asked the Police to recover her mail and multitool from Ameet while they were on site.
The Police recovered the mail items. Ameet said he couldn’t find the multi tool. The Police retrieved it a few days later.
Ameet does not deny this incident occurred.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet was having another emotional/mental incident and chose a course of action that again breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment/privacy of the premise by banging on her kitchen window and making aggressive and threatening overtones to her.
Ameet’s explanation shows that he accepts he breach Amy’s quiet enjoyment and privacy. The evidence also supports this unlawful act intentional 6 August 2025 — Mental health crisis team; police attendance;
On 6 August 2025, at 16:42 Ameet again called Police again reporting Amy was harassing him. Police attended and found him speaking erratically and continually. They called the Mental Health Crisis Team. According to the Police case summary (Case 250806/2668), Mental Health assessed Ameet and stated he was not mentally unwell but was highly emotional. Police advised him to stop calling them and to speak with a lawyer.
The Police came to speak to Amy about the incident to warn her.
Ameet says he doesn’t recall this incident specifically, but says he was put under the Mental Health Act and had to take mediation under supervision each day from this date onwards.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet was having another emotional/mental incident and again chose a course of action that breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise and that this was part of an ongoing pattern of harassment the tenants were subject to, but more specifically that Amy was subject too. I find that Ameet was deemed to be highly emotional, but not mentally unwell, and that he knew and had some control over his harassment of Amy but intentionally continued to harass her because he appeared from the evidence to feel like he had responsibility for her and Leigh should have some control over them and access to them. When he was denied this access or control, or his conduct towards them questioned, he engaged in retributive behavioural conduct that can be defined as harassment.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet was having another emotional/mental incident and again chose a course of action that intentionally breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise and that was part of an ongoing pattern of harassment the tenants were subject too. 7 August 2025 (10:38 am) — Police concern for family safety;
On 7 August 2025, at approximately 10:38 am, Henderson Police called Amy to tell her to stay inside as they had concerns for her and her family’s safety. The Police told her they intended to speak to Ameet and then came to see her again.
Amy found out the Police had been contacted by Ameet to collect items he had previously given them, such as a vacuum cleaner and boxing glove.
Amy told police these items had been gifts from Ameet that they had originally said no to accepting, but he insisted and kept insisting so she took the items to stop him escalating into further harassing conduct. The Police agreed that gifting does not work that way. However, Amy asked the Police to take the vacuum and glove back to Ameet, which they did.
When the Police took these items back to Ameet, they collected Amy’s multi-tool.
The next morning, Amy found the vacuum cleaner and boxing glove on her back doorstep.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet was having another emotional/mental incident and again chose a course of action that breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise and that this was part of an ongoing pattern of harassment the tenants were subject too. 8 August 2025 (8:30 am) — Doors now locked; items returned to doorstep;
By 8 August 2025Amy and Leigh were locking all doors at all times because they no longer felt safe, due to Ameet’s unpredictable behaviour and constant harassment.
That morning, Leigh’s carer arrived and saw that Ameet had left a vacuum and boxing gloves on the doorstep. The carer questioned Amy about why the items were on the doorstep. While the carer was there, Amy received a WhatsApp message from Ameet, and email saying “I don’t want you guys to go. Ever since you guys have come I can see clearly!” The carer confirmed Amy was concerned about Ameet’s erratic behaviour and did not feel safe.
Amy confirmed that she did not respond to these communications and that at approximately 12:00 pm, Ameet yelled her name from outside the house. Amy popped her head out and told him she had received his message and that she needed space. He said “I understand” but then immediately tried to continue the conversation by introducing Amy to a friend who was there. She says she went inside. Amy’s friend, Jade Birchall, has provided a letter confirming this incident occurred as Amy describes it.
Ameet says he does not recall this incident at all and does not know who the friend was and doesn’t understand why he would be introducing his friends to Amy.
Amy says the friend told Ameet to leave it , but Ameet didn’t and continued to try to engage with Amy asked she had expressly asked him to go and to give her space.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet again chose an intentional course of action that breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise and that this was part of an ongoing pattern of intentional harassment the tenants, but more frequently Amy, was subject too. 10 August 2025 (10:30 pm) — Mental health team visit; late-night disturbance with hockey stick
On 10 August 2025, at approximately 10:30 pm, the Mental Health team arrived to give Ameet his medication. Amy says she heard him telling them to leave and was using abusive language. She heard them mention the Mental Health Act and said he had been avoiding them. Amy says he continued to yell loudly, and they eventually left.
At approximately 11:15 pm, Amy says that Leigh called out to her in distress. She had been woken by loud banging noises on the side of her room. When Amy looked outside, she says she saw the respondent walking around the section hitting the fence with a hockey stick. Leigh has confirmed this in a letter to the Tribunal.
Leigh confirmed she asked Amy what Ameet was doing, and Amy told her he was hitting the fence posts as well. She confirmed that this banging went on for about 25 minutes.
Ameet says that he would not allow the mental health people in, and they were knocking on his door and window. He thought they were there to take him away and was upset. As they were leaving, he says he closed the gate and hit the gate on his house and then the fence posts to tell them to get off his property. He denies hitting the tenants’ house.
He says he stepped outdoors and hit a post on the balcony first, and as he walked up driveway, he closed the gate and then banged the hockey stick on the gate and fence. He says he misread and misunderstood the reason for the visit. They had to come and see him take his medication. He says he was very upset at them trying to attempt to take him away, but the next day they called him and explained why they had to come and watch him take the medication and that they couldn’t leave the medication for him to take. After that he says he was ok with them coming daily to see him take his medication. He confirmed he takes anti- anxiety and mood stabilisers.
The tenants gave 21 days’ notice on 10 August 2025 to end the tenancy on 30 August 2025. The property managers gave notice to end their contract with Ameet on 13 August 2025 and the contract ended on 1 September 2025, after the exit inspection.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet again chose an intentional course of action that breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise, when he over reacted to the Mental health team’s visit, and that this was part of his ongoing pattern of intentional harassment the tenants that led them to end their tenancy and led the property management company to end their management contract with him as well. 11 August 2025 — Confrontation with mother and carer; attempted eviction
On 11 August 2025, Ameet confronted Amy, Leigh and Leigh’s carer just outside the property. He attempted to give Amy a glasses case and tried to take Leigh’s cigarette off her, claiming it was his. When Leigh refused and said it was hers, he turned to Amy and told her again that Leigh could stay but Amy had to go. He then told Amy and Leigh he was moving to Australia, so Leigh could stay. Later, while Leigh was napping and Amy was resting, Ameet knocked on the door again, but Amy did not want to engage with him. Leigh and her carer confirmed these incidents in their witness statements.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet again chose an intentional course of action that breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise, and that this was part of his ongoing pattern of intentional harassment the tenants. 14 August 2025 — Bond threats; denial of mail interference;
On 14 August 2025, Ameet received a formal notice, via email from Harvey’s Property Management about his continual breaches of his landlord obligations. He replied to them demanding Amy return the vacuum cleaner by noon the next day or he would deduct it from her bond. He also falsely accused Amy of interfering with his mail and said, “see you guys in court.” This email chain was produced in evidence.
Amy was then told by Ameet that she could manage the property as he was going to Australia. She replied that she was not prepared to do as they no longer felt safe at the property.
Ameet then brought up a box of clothes to the tenants, which they refused to take. Amy told him she would not accept them as he would just want them back. He kept insisting she take the clothes. She says she just wanted him to go and leave her alone, so she took them as she had enough of his harassing her and was afraid of what he might do if she kept saying no to him.
Ameet says he went to the house as an act of good faith and gave Amy some glasses in a glasses case. Further, he says he had been offered a job by a friend in Australia, as he had been unable to work in New Zealand under the Mental Health Act, and he wanted a fresh start. He says he had a box of branded women’s clothing that he gave Amy and that he had really wanted her to take it.
Amy videoed this incident as she saw Ameet coming up to the house, so started the video. The video shows the glasses case had cigarette filters in a bottle inside the glasses case and that Ameet was very insistent that Amy take the clothes and was relentless until she took the items of clothing and the glasses case, that she clearly did not want.
I am satisfied that this evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet again chose an intentional course of action that breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise, and that this was part of his ongoing pattern of intentional harassment the tenants. 16 August 2025 — Contact from unknown number about bond;
On 16 August 2025, Amy received a text message from an unknown 027 number asking her to call about her tenancy at 67 Barrys Road. The caller claimed the tenancy was ending and that items needed to be returned for the bond to be released. This message was submitted in evidence.
Amy confirmed she told the caller her property manager had not given out her number and asked the caller to stop contacting her.
Amy later found out that this text message had come from Ameet’s cousin, Mirav. Ameet confirmed he had called his cousin, when he was stressed out and he gave his cousin Amy’s number so he could sort out the end of tenancy issues with Amy as Ameet did not think he could do it. He did not tell his cousin that he had a property manager to deal with Amy’s end of tenancy issues.
After the text message from his cousin, some of Ameet’s friends and parents tried to get involved and Ameet confirms he told them to back off. Ameet confirmed that he had yelled out to Amy up the driveway and told her to ignore any messages from his family or friends. However, he had given her contact details out to these persons without her consent. A landlord or property manager giving out a tenant’s contact details to third parties, such as friends or family, without the tenant's permission is generally a breach of the Privacy Act 2020 and something the tenants can raise with the Privacy Commission.
Amy says when she confronted Ameet about this breach of her privacy, he denied doing it and told her the property manager had disclosed her number to his cousin. Amy has checked and the property manager confirmed she did not.
Ameet giving Amy’s contact details to friends and family and getting them to harass her about returning gifts he had given her, and other such things is another form of the pattern of harassment she had faced during this tenancy. I find that this is another intentional unlawful act. 29 August 2025 — Late-night noise; noise control attendance; and
On 29 August 2025, Amy says she was woken by Ameet blasting music from approximately 1:00 am until 4:00 am. She called Auckland Council noise control (Reference: 8101889353). They attended and advised him of the complaint. After they left, he turned the music up again. Amy called again and noise control returned at approximately 2:10 am and issued him an abatement notice. Ameet then posted a photograph of the noise control notice on his front door to his Facebook story, which was publicly viewable. Amy produced the screenshot of this post and text confirmation from the council.
Amy claims Ameet did this in retaliation because it was the night before the tenants were moving out and he was not happy about them leaving.
Ameet stated he was having a few drinks at his place and had his music up loud. He confirmed the next day he did take a photo and posted it to his Facebook story. He stated that he was not friends with Amy on Facebook or Instagram, so could not see why she considered this more harassment. He accepted that he had messaged her on Facebook messenger and that allowed her to see the post. Ameet denied this and says he has never messaged the tenants on messenger, but his social media is set to public, and he did not realise this at the time.
Amy says the night she confronted him about whether he was the landlord she told him that his social media was on public, so he knew that she could see the post.
I am satisfied that this evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet intentionally played loud music to breach her quiet enjoyment and interrupt her sleep, and that this was an intentional unlawful act. I am not satisfied that the Facebook post was a further intentional unlawful act. 30 August 2025 — Last Day of Tenancy: BB gun; death threats; criminal charges.
The 30 August 2025 was the last day of the tenancy. Amy returned to the property to do a final sweep of the front step, collect rubbish, photograph her pallet garden, and leave the keys for the property on the bench.
When she arrived, she says Ameet had parked his car outside the wooden gates, which he had closed behind him, and he came out yelling at Amy “Get the fuck out of here.” Amy told him it was the last day of her tenancy and that she was a good tenant there to do a last bit of cleaning.
She says that in response, Ameet walked toward the gate, then turned around and walked back toward Amy. He pulled a small black and silver BB gun pistol from his pants and pointed it directly at her and told her again loudly to “GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE” and repeated himself multiple times.
Amy says she was so shocked that she said “Did you just pull a gun at me? I’m calling the police.” She confirmed that Ameet then headed back toward the gate and the gun was suddenly hidden. She reversed her car out of the driveway and called police. While she was on the phone, she could hear Ameet continuing to scream from up the driveway: “Fucken get here now before I get another strangulation charge. I’ll fucken strangle her.” At that point Amy said she decided it was best and safest to leave completely, and she did.
Amy, after retreating, received a photo via text from Ameet showing one of Leigh’s incontinence products placed in the bottom of the wheelie bin with gloves, with the caption “white trash.” Leigh, having had a stroke, is disabled and relies on these products. Amy says this message was designed to humiliate Leigh.
The Police have confirmed that they heard the threats made by Ameet while Amy was calling them.
Ameet states he had a toy gun in his pocket to scare away the pigeons, to protect the ducks. He denies pointing it at Amy.
The Police report records Ameet having a BB gun, but the neighbour, Robert, that witnessed this incident said Ameet had an air pistol he pointed at Amy.
Ameet confirmed he does have an air pistol but that is not the gun he had on him at the time of the incident with Amy. He claims it was a toy lolly gun and that he would never lift it up and point it at anyone. Further he says he was feeding his ducks by the gate and that is why he had the lolly gun on him.
Amy said he was not feeding the ducks at that time and had never fed the ducks up by the gate and stated that this did not explain why did he have his car blocking the driveway when she came to finish cleaning.
Ameet stated his threat was just a comment in response to Amy asking him “would you strangle me”, as she was aware he had a strangulation charge from his divorce. He then stated that in 2019, he had a trying to stop his ex-wife yelling at him and they tussled, and he put his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming and got a strangulation/ impedes breathing charge. He told Amy about this during the tenancy, as he considered them to be friends. He told her that he and his ex-wife had lived in the property and had gotten into issues. Amy says he told her the next time he tried to strangle someone he would plead insanity. Ameet denies this.
Ameet was subsequently arrested and charged with three offences: a. Behaving Threateningly (Manually); b. Threatens to Kill/Do Grievous Bodily Harm (Other Weapon); and c. Present Object Like Firearm/Restricted Weapon.
Amy was informed that Ameet appeared at Waitakere District Court on 4 September 2025 and that bail conditions were imposed including no contact with her. Ameet stated that the charges have been reduced to threatening behaviour. Amy confirmed that victim support had informed her that this was not correct.
Ameet continued to deny pointing the gun at Amy, but the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
I am satisfied that this evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Ameet intentionally set out to stop Amy coming back to clean the premise when she had a right to enter the premise on her last day of the tenancy. He again intentionally set out to scare and intimidate Amy and in doing so continued his pattern of harassment of her. Summary of unlawful entry and breaches of privacy/quiet enjoyment and harassment.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the landlord has intentionally breached the landlord’s s48 of the RTA access rights on three separate occasions and that he did this intentionally when he was a seasoned landlord that knew his legal obligations but felt entitled to encroach on these tenants as he was trying to form a friendship with Amy and then became angry, aggressive and over stepped his bounds as he felt more entitled to do so. Amy says she struggled to keep strong boundaries in place with Ameet, because of his erratic and unpredictable behaviours, but she should never have been put in this situation by the owner of the property she and her mother were renting. .
I am satisfied these three breaches of s48 of the RTA were intentional and it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlord’s breaches were intentional and repeated, even after he was put on notice by his chosen property managers; b. Leigh has to go back to a facility as a result of Ameet’s breaches as she has nowhere to go that has accessibility needed and she is traumatised as a result of the unlawful entry incidents when he just came into the house without consent when she is a vulnerable person with mobility issues that meant she could not get away from Ameet if she had needed too and Amy was constantly scared for herself and her mother; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the distress, worry and inconvenience suffered; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their access right obligations.
I also find the landlord has engaged in fifteen proven and intentional breaches of his s38(2) of the RTA obligations, from 28 July 2025 to 30 August 2025, and that the tenants suffered a breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premise because the landlord committed these ongoing and significant unlawful and intentional acts.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied these breaches of s38(2) of the RTA were sustained and intentional and it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $3,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord engaged in such a significant number of serious and intentional breaches of the RTA and demonstrated a pattern of serious and sustained harassment of the tenants over a one-month period until he drove them to end a tenancy, they had been led to believe would be long term; b. The tenants suffered distress, worry, inconvenient and loss of privacy and of the quiet enjoyment of the premise they were paying to enjoy because of the landlord’s unlawful breaches of his s38(2) of the RTA obligations; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the harassment, distress, worry and loss of privacy/quiet enjoyment of the premise they suffered; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to harassing tenants and breaching their privacy/ quiet enjoyment obligations.
I also award the tenants a full rent rebate ($700.00 per week) for the period 27 July 2025 to 30 August 2025, being 4 weeks and 6 days, that this campaign of serious harassment was carried out on them by the landlord. This rent rebate of $3,400.00 recognises the total loss of amenity the tenants suffered because of the significant number of intentional s48 and 38 of the RTA breaches by Ameet. I find that the tenants were living on eggshells this entire period and were scared for their lives. All they could focus on was giving lawful notice terminating the tenancy, living with the escalating levels of serious harassment from the owner and trying to find another place to live where they could be together. Thus, I find they could not enjoy the premise at all. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327020 — Exemplary damages at 67 Barrys Road, Auckland, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327020 — Exemplary damages at 67 Barrys Road, Auckland, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed to the tenant for rent overpayment?

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed to the tenant for rent overpayment?

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.