What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327370 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5327370?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Firewood: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327370?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12743112-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327370 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5327370?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Firewood: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327370?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12743112-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327370 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327370 — net $1,670.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs (caravan roof	$200.00		Repairs (caravan roof
Firewood	$330.00		Firewood
Exemplary damages (failure to maintain		$500.00	Exemplary damages (failure to maintain
Exemplary damages (healthy homes breaches		$1,700.00	Exemplary damages (healthy homes breaches
Total award	$530.00	$2,200.00
Net award		$1,670.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,670.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

Originally the landlord applied to the Tribunal for termination for alleged assault, unlawful activity and breach not capable of remedy.

The tenant disputed the application for termination and claimed that the application for termination and relevant issued notice(s) were retaliatory.

That matter was considered and determined, resulting in the Tribunal issuing an order terminating the tenancy and granting immediate possession to the landlord (“the previous order”). 1

The landlord also claimed for rent arrears and compensation and the tenant made a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages. This decision is to deal with these remaining claims.

Considerable amounts of evidence have been provided by both parties and I confirm that I have reviewed it, even if there is no direct reference to it in this order.

Some of the material provided was not coherent or consistent, provided several different iterations of what was being claimed, included countless screen shots and bank statements and created a real difficulty in determining the claims. As a result, I have heavily relied on the summaries provided and/or referred to at the hearing. It was also obvious that the use of artificial intelligence in preparation of evidence and claim documents had not assisted, was confusing and at times, plainly wrong. All of which has culminated in a delay in the release of this order.

I also note that as issues relating to termination of the tenancy have already been dealt with in the previous order, additional correspondence and submissions in respect of that termination have not, and cannot, be considered further here. Background

The periodic tenancy commenced on 23 April 2025 and is a rural property, on a larger section, that also has the landlord’s home on it and another tenanted unit.

The tenancy comprises two container home units (designed and intended for residential living), one caravan (provided for additional storage, not intended for living) and one storage unit (provided as extra storage space, not intended for living). The two container units/homes serve as the primary living areas with the caravan and storage unit for supplementary use only.

The weekly rent was $400.00 plus an additional $20.00 for internet. No tenancy agreement has been provided from the commencement of the tenancy.

It appears from the correspondence that in July 2025 the tenant started raising formal concerns about unresolved breaches of healthy homes standards and demanding immediate remedial works.

On 12 July 2025, the parties signed what is described as a residential tenancy agreement however I have only sighted the first page of this agreement. 1 See Tribunal Order dated 12 September 2025 (5327370/5327860).

On 7 August 2025 the tenant made a formal demand for urgent compliance with healthy homes standards and requested that all raised concerns be remedied by 14 August 2025.

The landlords agreed to carry out works to the property however required further time and paid for the tenant to go into temporary accommodation from 14 August 2025. There was some dispute about the appropriateness of this accommodation. The landlord also refunded $570.00 for rent and internet to reflect the identified issues.

It was not clear how long the works would take, and the landlord agreed to give the tenant weekly updates on progress and to continue to cover the cost of alternative accommodation.

There is extensive correspondence between the parties during this time, with the tenant asking for updates, the landlord providing updates where possible, and at one stage offering to end the tenancy by mutual agreement.

In addition, and for context only, in August 2025 the landlord issued notices for anti-social behaviour and termination, and on 15 August 2025 the landlord applied to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy, as has already been considered and determined in the previous order.

The landlord covered temporary accommodation until 1 September 2025. When the tenant returned to the property on 1 September 2025, he considered that the property did not comply with healthy homes standards and so he says he arranged alternative accommodation. Although evidence from the landlord suggests the tenant was at the property at times from this date.

The tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal on 12 September 2025. General legal principles

Before moving to the individual claims being made by the parties, I first set out some general legal principles relevant to consideration of these claims. Standard of proof

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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, 2 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.

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. Exemplary damages

The tenant has sought exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, 3 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, (DC) TT233/02. 3 Auckland City Council v Blundell, 3 [1986] NZLR 732. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.

The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, 4 is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach. The landlord claims

Moving now to the landlord’s claims, being: a. $1,230.00 for rent arrears and internet. b. $330.00 for wood. c. $98.00 for gas. d. $200.00 for the replacement roof section of the caravan. e. $1,300.00 for transportation assistance. f. $300.00 for replacement curtains. g. $940.00 for cleaning. h. $350.00 for rubbish removal. i. $220.00/month for storage costs. j. $400.00/month for loss of boarder earnings. k. $400.00 for new heater and fittings.

How much is owed for rent and internet?

The tenancy ended on 12 September 2025.

The landlord says that there are rental arrears owing of $1,230.00 to the end of the tenancy. However, I do not have a rental summary to 12 September 2025. At the hearing, the landlord advised that a recently provided email would make this amount clear, however, the email referred to only states the outstanding amount and there is no supporting schedule (for example, with running arrears) to substantiate the amount. 4 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014.

The running arrears schedule that I do have only goes to 13 August 2025 and records that the outstanding arrears is $420.00. However, many things have changed since then, and I cannot be sure of the current rental arrears based on the evidence provided.

Unfortunately, without clear evidence of the rental arrears to the end of the tenancy, I cannot be certain enough and this claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.

The landlord claims that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and claims for cleaning of $940.00 and rubbish removal of $350.00. A few photographs have been provided.

The tenant disputes this amount due to the property being mould-ridden and damp and considers therefore that a tenant should not be held financially responsible for bringing the property “up to scratch”.

The RTA does not say that the property does not have to been reasonably clean and tidy unless there is noncompliance with other sections, a requirement for cleanliness and tidiness is still required regardless of any other claims.

A more significant obstacle, however, is that no evidence of the cleaning or the rubbish removal costs (or estimated costs) have been provided. There is also no pre-tenancy inspection report and only a few photographs to prove these claims. There is inadequate evidence and this claim is dismissed.

The landlord claims for two full gas bottles of $98.00. However, I consider that there is also insufficient evidence to prove this claim, and is it dismissed.

The landlord claims that the tenant had been taking the landlord’s firewood for outdoor fires. The landlord says that they had to urgently purchase $330.00 worth of replacement firewood during winter, creating an unexpected financial burden and the landlord seeks compensation for this amount. Proof of payment has been provided.

The tenant disputes this amount. However, I consider here that the landlord has proven it is more likely than not that this occurred, and they had to purchase replacement firewood. Any other breaches by the landlord, including any healthy homes breaches and the requirement for heating in the property do not in my view, impact the liability of the tenant in these circumstances.

The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

General principles

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck. 5 Claimed items

There does not appear to have been any pre-tenancy inspection report carried out prior to this tenancy commencing. There also has not been a tenancy agreement from the commencement of the tenancy provided. 5 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The landlord claims for repairs required to the caravan roof, where the hutch was allegedly broken by a visitor of the tenant. A photograph of the damage and a police report has been provided. The landlord claims $200.00 for the cost of repair (based on a Trade me replacement). The landlord hasn’t provided actual evidence of the cost of replacement.

The tenant says that the caravan was not habitable during the tenancy and that the top louvre air vent was ripped off due to strong winds. The landlord filed a police report for the damage, which reports that the tenant had told the landlord it was caused by his friend whom he had to stay and that it was broken and left open all night during rain.

Although I have not been provided with evidence of the cost, I do consider that this was damaged during the tenancy and accept the landlord’s evidence. I consider that the amount claimed of $200.00 reasonably reflects the likely repair costs in these circumstances and based on the evidence provided.

The amount ordered is proved.

The landlord says that there were two heaters provided with the tenancy, however when one wasn’t working it was placed outside on the deck area and suffered from water damage. The landlord claims for a new heater and fittings at the claimed cost of $400.00 again based on a Trade me quote. A police report has been provided where two diesel heaters are listed as the damaged items, and states that the second diesel heater was uninstalled incorrectly and without consent, and it was placed on the deck open to the elements, resulting in water damage due to rain. 6

The difficulty with this claim is although there is a police report filed by the landlord, there is little else to substantiate this claim. I don’t have any other evidence to confirm that repair is required due to the heater being in the rain or that any damage was incurred due to the heater being uninstalled correctly (for example, a report, email or invoice from a professional trade).

As a result, I cannot be certain enough, and this claim is dismissed.

The landlord claims $300.00 for replacement curtains, based on a Temu quote (although no actual evidence of this cost has been provided). There was no pre- purchase inspection report or photographs showing the curtains at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant says that he had taken the curtains down and put into a box to avoid any further damage while the property had issues with mould.

The landlord also claims for a replacement sofa bed due to damage and advises that based on a target furniture screen shot that this would cost $1,000.00. I 6 Police report submitted on 13 August 2025. don’t have any photographs of the sofa at the commencement of the tenancy, or evidence of the replacement cost, or adequate evidence of the damage itself.

The tenant submits that the sofa bed had already been removed, dried and stored to prevent further damage and says that any damage was caused by the landlord’s non-compliance with health homes.

I again, do not consider I have sufficient evidence to prove the claims for the curtains or sofa bed, and these claims are dismissed.

I find that the landlord has proven the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Caravan roof. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amount ordered is proved. Other claims for compensation

The landlord claims for a loss of rent of $400.00 per week. This is due to an ongoing inability to put boarders into the property due to the vacated damages and requirements at the property once the tenancy ended. However, once a tenancy ends, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate any further losses through carrying out any required works in a reasonable time-period and re- tenanting the property. This decision only attributes the damage to the caravan roof hatch to the tenant.

In addition, I consider that I have not been provided with adequate evidence to prove or substantiate the claimed amount.

The landlord claims for storage costs of $200.00 a month. It is not clear what the total amount being claimed is or what it relates to, and insufficient evidence has been provided supporting the amount claimed.

The landlord claims for the costs incurred in driving the tenant to various appointments amounting to $1,300.00 (in a detailed schedule). The landlord says she felt emotionally pressured and unable to refuse the tenant’s requests. Copies have text messages have been provided in respect of these trips. Although I sympathise with the landlord, I consider that the landlord was not obligated to transport the tenant into town and the relationship and these actions went further than is required of a landlord. Ultimately, this claim doesn’t fall under any obligations in the RTA, and I am therefore unable to consider it further as part of this order.

These claims are dismissed. Summary comments

The landlord detailed the stress and anxiety this entire tenancy has had on her, including in relation to the previous order and I accept that to be the case.

I note however, that many of the landlord’s claims failed due to inadequate evidence. It is imperative that when a landlord seeks to make a claim against a tenant it can prove all elements of the relevant sections of the RTA.

This usually includes clear obligations in a tenancy agreement (aligned to the RTA) including a list of chattels, a detailed pre-tenancy inspection report including photographs, a detailed exit inspection and report including photographs and clear evidence of any vacated damages claims (including invoices or other details of costs). The tenant’s claims

The tenant submits that the tenancy should not have been terminated and several of the claims advanced by the tenant relate to this termination, including claims for retaliatory notice and cancellation of a 90-day notice. As already detailed above, the previous order terminated the tenancy, that decision has already been made by the Tribunal, and accordingly I am unable to consider that claim any further here.

The tenant additionally claims for compensation and exemplary damages relating to breaches of healthy homes, failure to maintain, and loss of quiet enjoyment and those claims will be set out and considered below. The compensation claims include: a. Uninhabitable premises/healthy homes non-compliance of $12,000.00. b. Displacement and temporary accommodation $3,000.00. c. Failure to maintain essential services $2,000.00. d. Electrical safety breach $3,000.00. e. Emotional distress and psychological impact $5,000.00. f. Methamphetamine testing and harassment $1,500.00. g. Lack of quiet enjoyment $2,000.00. h. Rent rebate for uninhabitable period of $6,000.00. i. Reimbursement of health homes inspection costs of $300.00. j. Compensation for a loss of vehicle due to financial hardship as a result of the tenancy $3,000.00. Failure to maintain

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.

In particular, the tenant says that: a. The diesel and gas heating provided were intermittent, semi-functioning and unsafe (with limited ventilation). b. The gas hot water system never provided consistent hot water. c. A gas inspection revealed that the gas installation was unsafe and had an expired Warrant of Electrical Fitness. d. There were plumbing issues. e. Other items related to healthy homes regulations that will be discussed in detail below.

Under section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

On review of the evidence, I consider that the landlord did fail to maintain the property, especially in relation to the expired Warrant of Electrical fitness. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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) RTA.

It is imperative that the landlord does provide a maintained property, but even more so that the home is safe. The Warrant of Electrical Fitness expired almost 2 years before this tenancy commenced and could have had serious implications for the tenant and the property.

Although the landlord provided evidence that she was not aware of the breach and relied on others around her for advice on these matters, a landlord must be considered to know and understand tenancy law and any breach must be considered intentional.

This is supported by T.M.T New Zealand Limited Trading as Strata Property Management v Kirk Liam Sweeney and Anne-mette Holmgard Sundahl, 7 In this 7 T.M.T New Zealand Limited Trading as Strata Property Management v Kirk Liam Sweeney and Anne-mette Holmgard Sundahl. [2021] NZDC 16182. case, the landlord had failed to provide an insurance and healthy homes compliance statement. The Court held that: The obligation to provide these documents are fundamental obligations on landlords of which it appears Mr Hu was not fully aware despite their being included in the Act since 2016 and 2019 respectively. Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequence for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.

I consider is appropriate to award exemplary damages of $500.00 to reflect these failures. Healthy homes breaches

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under the RTA in relation to healthy homes standards. The tenant has provided some evidence of raising some concerns about the health of the home from around July 2025.

A healthy homes report has been provided by the tenant dated 11 September 2025 and completed by Active Testing Solutions.

The report identifies three areas where the property, and in particular in the container homes, required further action as follows: a. Heating – there is currently no fixed qualifying heating sources installed in the living room area and therefore the hearing does not meet healthy homes standards. b. Insulation – there is no ceiling or sub-floor insulation present, and therefore the insulation does not meet the healthy homes standards. c. Draught stopping – there were significant gaps identified hat would likely require in draughts occurring in the property, including to the separate room and caravan window.

As a result of the concerns raised by the tenant and to enable time for remedial works, the tenant was moved into temporary accommodation on 14 August 2025 paid for by the landlord. The landlord also covered transportation costs to get to the temporary accommodation.

Section 45 of the RTA requires properties to comply with HHS requirements in several different respects.

For insulation, the date of compliance was 1 July 2019. For other HHS requirements, compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The landlord says that they usually only did short term rentals in the container home(s) and that they relied on the guidance and advice of family members and naively did not understand the additional requirements imposed on landlords in tenancies under the RTA.

Regardless, the evidence shows that the landlord provided a property that failed to comply with healthy homes standards. In respect of insulation, this was from the commencement of the tenancy. In respect of the other requirements, the landlord failed to comply since 1 July 2025 to the end of the tenancy. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

The healthy homes obligations are fundamental to ensure healthy living conditions, although the landlord did not appreciate that they were breaching any obligations, I do not consider that this changes the intention of the landlord. As detailed above, landlords are deemed to know the requirements of healthy homes, and the incoming legislative changes had been well-publicised in media and other public forums.

The tenant had also been raising issues relating to healthy homes since at least July 2025 and there is a strong public interest in ensuring compliance with healthy homes requirements.

Accordingly, I find it appropriate to award exemplary damages in the amount of $1,700.00 to the tenant for the collective healthy homes breaches. This includes and reflects any claims for the emotional impact the healthy homes issues had on the tenant and the length of time of the breach, and other issues occurring within the tenancy.

The tenant also claims for the cost of the healthy homes report of $286.35. However, parties are to bear the cost of proving their own claims and producing evidence and so this claim is dismissed.

The tenant has also claimed for a rent abatement while the home was in breach of healthy homes requirements.

I consider that it is reasonable to also award compensation of $30.00 per week for eight weeks totalling $240.00 in compensation when the tenant was living in the property and it did not comply with the broader healthy homes standards. 8 During the time the tenant was moved into temporary accommodation at the landlord’s expense, I do not consider that any rent abatement was necessary.

The tenant also claims for temporary accommodation of $500.00 from 5 September 2025 to 15 September 2025, 9 as he says he returned to the property that he considered remained uninhabitable. Although the landlord did cover temporary accommodation during remedial work, there is no automatic obligation under the RTA for a landlord to cover this. The usual course is for a rent abatement until repairs are done, depending on the extent of the work.

As I have already awarded compensation reflecting a rent abatement from 1 July 2025, I consider that the tenant has already been adequately compensated in this respect. This claim is dismissed. Quiet enjoyment

The tenant claims that the landlord breached his right to quiet enjoyment, through visits without notice and methamphetamine testing.

The tenant claims that in September during a return to the property to collect belongings, a vehicle belonging to another tenant was parked in the driveway and this tenant walked out of the property when the tenant was still the legal occupier. This other tenant requested that the tenant re-boot the internet (a requirement to reboot the internet was a common occurrence). The tenant considers that this was evidence that the other tenant had been inside the property.

In addition, on 25 August 2025, the landlords provided 48 hours’ notice that they intended to carry out methamphetamine testing to the property. I note that this was while the tenant was in paid temporary accommodation. 8 The requirements came about from 1 July 2025 and the tenant moved into temporary accommodation on 14 August 2025. The tenant returned to the property on 1 September 2025 and the tenancy was terminated on 12 September 2025. This is roughly calculated at eight weeks (1 July 2025 – 14 August 2025 (six weeks) plus 1 September 2025 – 12 September 2025 (two weeks)). 9 The tenancy was terminated in the previous order on 12 September 2025.

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 Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.

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, 10 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, 11 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.”

I do not consider that the evidence provided by the tenant prove that the landlord has breached the quiet enjoyment of the tenant, to the level of harassment required.

This claim is dismissed. 10 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 11 Whatiura v Shoulder, Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987. Other claims

The tenant also claims for the loss of his vehicle due to what is described as substantial financial hardship experienced due to the tenancy. The tenant says that his vehicle was impounded in July 2025 and says that this was due to increased living costs caused by an uninhabitable rental property (such as, gas bottle refills, transportation and eventual relocation costs).

However, for damages or losses to be awarded they must be a natural and probable consequence of the landlord’s breach and reasonably foreseeable. Losses that are too remote will not be compensated. 12 I consider that this loss claimed by the tenant is too remote, was not reasonably foreseeable and therefore this claim is dismissed.

The tenant also claims for displacement and relocation costs due to being required to relocate a short notice. As the previous order terminated the tenancy and granted immediate possession to the landlord, there is no ability for the tenant to then claim relocation costs against the landlord and this claim is dismissed.

The tenant had in earlier documentation provided with the application requested that loss of plants be considered as an economic loss, however, this was not included in later claim summaries provided and at the hearing. In any event, I find that I do not have sufficient evidence to prove the loss is a result of any landlord breach and this claim is dismissed.

The tenant also raised concerns about the internet, however, no monetary compensation claim has specifically been made and I accept the evidence of the landlord that this was a usual part of an off-grid, rural property.

In earlier correspondence the tenant had also raised claims for loss of being able to rent the caravan out. However, I accept the evidence of the landlord, that the caravan was never intended to be accommodation and was for supplementary use only and there is no compelling evidence to the contrary. In addition, I have insufficient evidence of this claim. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. 12 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 2 CLR 517. Other matters

As both parties have had some success the filing fee is to lie where it falls. Both parties sought name suppression and as both parties have had some success, this is granted. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 19 November 2025

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327370 — net $1,670.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs (caravan roof	$200.00		Repairs (caravan roof
Firewood	$330.00		Firewood
Exemplary damages (failure to maintain		$500.00	Exemplary damages (failure to maintain
Exemplary damages (healthy homes breaches		$1,700.00	Exemplary damages (healthy homes breaches
Total award	$530.00	$2,200.00
Net award		$1,670.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,670.00