What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328579 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 5328579?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328579?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328579?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12584617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328579 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 5328579?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328579?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328579?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12584617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328579 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant and a property manager for the landlord, [Property manager 1], both attended the hearing in-person.
By consent of both parties, at the start of the hearing the respondent’s name in the application and order was changed to [The property management company], which is the landlord named in the tenancy agreement. The property manager confirmed the landlord had been made aware of and had received copies of the application and supporting documents. Prior to this, the tenant had named 2 individual property managers as respondents in her claims, which she said was in error.
The tenant has applied for compensation, outgoings, exemplary damages, remedy of breach, failure to maintain, quiet enjoyment and reimbursement of the filing fee. At the start of the hearing, when clarifying her claims, the tenant withdrew her claims for outgoings and failure to maintain and amended her application to add a claim for interference with essential services, which had been referred to throughout her application and supporting evidence. The landlord did not object to the addition of the tenant’s claim for interference with essential services, given that was a substantive part of her claim.
The tenant clarified that her claim for remedy of breach was not for termination of the tenancy, just to reflect that she had issued a 14-day notice to the landlord to remedy issues.
The parties confirmed that the tenancy ended on 7 October 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
All evidence provided has been considered, even if it is not specifically referred to in this decision. Interference with essential services
Duches Stevie Cheryl Anne Jaelani Harris-Pereniki claims the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises by not topping up her power supply in a timely manner.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Pursuant to clause 6 of the tenancy agreement, the tenant has responsibility to pay for her own power utilities.
The parties explained the power situation on the property, which includes a number of cabins. Tenants’ cabins have a power smart meter which apparently starts flashing a red light when the power is low. The parties agreed that when the red light starts flashing, there is still about $5.00 worth of power left, which the parties agreed would usually last around 3 days. The parties also agreed that tenants must top up their power immediately when the red light starts flashing. If tenants do not attend to topping up their power in time, the power is disconnected and must be reconnected by the landlord. The landlord said they have to attend the property in person to reconnect the power, which was disputed by the tenant, who said this could be done remotely by the landlord.
The parties agreed that, from around mid-2025, tenants were permitted to pay their power top-up online to the landlord’s accounts department, then send a screenshot of their payment to one of two property managers, who would then top up that tenant’s power.
The property manager said that generally they try to top up a tenant’s power within an hour or two from the time they received a tenant’s screenshot confirming their power payment. She explained that difficulties arose when tenants did not top up their power right away when the red light on their power smart meter started flashing, or just before this occurred, as then the power would be disconnected. The property manager said this had occurred with the tenant, which was disputed by the tenant.
The tenant said there were at least 4 occasions where she sent screenshots of her power payments to the property managers, but the landlord did not top up her power in a timely way. She reported that the worst time was on 12 August 2025 when the landlord did not respond to her texts asking why the power had not been topped up at all, and she and her 1-year-old daughter had to move out of the cabin to stay with her cousin for a week, as there was no power or hot water in her cabin for that period. The tenant provided copies of some texts and screenshots.
The tenant added that other times she had sent screenshots about her power payments to the landlord included on 28 May 2025, 11 June 2025 and on 24 June 2025, but that the landlord had not topped up her power account within a short time on those occasions.
The tenant said it took the landlord around 3-4 hours to top up her power on 28 May 2025. She provided some texts showing her following up with a property manager about this. The property manager said she only works until 4pm and had asked the tenant to contact the other property manager who is on site later to arrange the power top-up, after getting the tenant to make her payment to the accounts department. The property manager did not believe the power top-up on 28 May 2025 would have taken 3-4 hours, but said she did not know when the power was topped up on that day, as she had referred it to the other property manager, who was not present at the hearing, as she was sick. Neither party could confirm what time the power was topped up on 28 May 2025, but both said it was topped up on the same day.
The property manager said she had told the tenant at the beginning of June 2025 that the other property manager would be dealing with all the tenant’s tenancy issues, including power top-ups from then on. The tenant agreed the property manager had told her this but said when she contacted the other property manager, [Property manager 2], she was referred back to the first property manager, so she continued to contact the first property manager, [Property manager 1].
The tenant said she also paid for a power top-up on 11 June 2025 and had to wait for the power top-up, despite texting the landlord, and having her family also contact the landlord, with no response from the landlord. The tenant said the power was eventually topped up between 4-5pm on 11 June 2025.
[Property manager 1] said the tenant had lived at the property for about 1.5 years and was well-aware that she had to top up her power ahead of the red light flashing on her power smart meter, and get it arranged quickly if the red light did start flashing on the meter. The property manager said the tenant ignored the flashing red light continuously.
The tenant said that at times she topped up her power before the red light on the meter started flashing and at other times it was when the red light was flashing. The tenant acknowledged she could see when the credit in power was decreasing on the meter.
The tenant said she also paid for power top-up on 24 June 2025 around 3pm but, despite sending the screenshot to the landlord and having her family follow up, as she had been blocked from the landlord’s email and social media, the power was not topped up until she thought later that night. The tenant did not know the time the power was topped up, but said it was topped up on 24 June 2025.
The tenant said she issued a 14-day notice to the landlord dated 1 August 2025 about their failure to top up her power and interfering with her power service, and for quiet enjoyment issues, which are dealt with below, but said it was not remedied by the landlord.
The tenant said she paid for a power top-up on 12 August 2025 and sent the screenshot to the property manager but did not hear back then, nor could she find anyone in the office or get any response on 13 or 14 August 2025 about her power. The tenant said she then decided on 14 August 2025 that she had to move out to alternative accommodation, as there was no power for her and her daughter to have hot showers, cook and do other things. She said she moved to stay with her cousin for a week, and when she returned the power was still not back on. The tenant said she had to hook up an extension cord to her neighbour’s place to use their power after her return until the power was topped up again.
The landlord said they received the tenant’s screenshot for power top-up on 12 August 2025 and that her power was topped up about 15 minutes later. The property manager said that, if the power meter at the tenant’s cabin had not been in credit, then the power would have been disconnected and the property manager would have had to attend at the cabin to reconnect the power, which she did not do.
The property manager said the hot water at the cabin was not dependent on power but was run from a gas bottle outside the cabin. The tenant agreed the hot water was powered by gas but said she needed power for the califont to run.
The tenant said she had witnesses to her lack of power top-up for the week of 12 August 2025 and having to use an extension cord to connect to the neighbour’s power. However, the tenant did not provide any witness statements, photographs or other additional supporting evidence to support this contention.
The Oxford Dictionary definition of ‘to interfere’ is: a. Intervene in a situation without invitation or necessity; or b. Prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.
The tenant is not claiming that the landlord interfered without invitation or necessity but rather prevented the process of topping up the electricity from continuing or being carried out properly.
I note that on the occasions of 28 May 2025, 11 June 2025 and on 24 June 2025, the power was topped up by the landlord on the same day the tenant’s screenshots of her payments were received, as was acknowledged by the tenant in her evidence.
Given the parties’ evidence that, in a worst-case scenario when the power smart meter starts flashing a red light, the tenant still has at least $5.00 of power which can usually last around 3 days, I find the landlord’s actions in topping up the tenant’s power on the same day that her payments were made were reasonable, and, as such, find the landlord did not prevent this top-up process from being carried out properly. It is the tenant’s responsibility to ensure that power top-ups are arranged in a timely way and not left until the power situation is urgent and is likely to be disconnected. The tenant confirmed she was aware of how the power top-up system worked and was able to make these arrangements before the red light flashed on the power smart meter, which she said she had done at times.
As regards the incident on 12 August 2025 when the tenant said her power was not topped up for more than a week after she paid for a power top-up on 12 August 2025, I note the landlord’s evidence that the tenant’s power was topped up on 12 August 2025 within about 15 minutes of them receiving the tenant’s screenshot the same day. Further, the landlord’s evidence was that, if the tenant’s power meter had not been in credit on 12 August 2025, the power would have been disconnected and the property manager would have had to attend to the reconnection of power, which she did not do. I find the tenant has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence that the power was not topped-up by the landlord on 12 August 2025, or that she had to go for about a week without power.
Given I find the landlord topped up the tenant’s power within a reasonable time, i.e. on the same day they received the tenant’s screenshots of her payments for power, with regards to the top-ups on 28 May 2025, 11 June 2025 and 24 June 2025, and given the insufficient additional supporting evidence from the tenant to prove there likely was no power top-up on 12 August 2025, contrary to the landlord’s evidence, I must dismiss this claim. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Duches Stevie Cheryl Anne Jaelani Harris-Pereniki claims the landlord has harassed them.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant said one of the property managers, [Property manager 1], walked past her cabin every day, around 7am at times, and as late as 10pm at other times, stared into her cabin, made frowning faces and made observations about her visitors, which was reflected in her emails. The tenant said the property manager mentioned to her whom had been behind her cabin during an incident between other tenants, when the property manager had stared into her cabin from another deck.
The property manager, [Property manager 1], said she is an Assistant Manager, and as part of her job, walks around the property. She denied deliberately staring into the tenant’s cabin or commenting on her visitors. She said the tenant’s cabin was directly on a path across from a gate and she had to glance at that cabin when passing but it was no more than that. The property manager said she had no reason to be interested in the tenant’s cabin or visitors and felt frustrated and attacked by the allegations, as she was just doing her job. The property manager pointed out there were no photographs or videos of her alleged actions in this regard, nor were there any witness statements supporting the tenant’s claims about this.
The tenant said she did have a video of the incident between other tenants when the property manager had stared at her cabin, but she did not have her phone at the hearing to show this video. This video was also not provided by the tenant prior to the hearing.
The tenant also said that her curtains at the cabin had been removed by the landlord to be cleaned after a bug bomb of her cabin. She said that the curtains were not returned for 2 weeks, one week of which she was not staying in the cabin. She said she was then without curtains for one week as they had not been reinstalled on her return.
The landlord agreed the curtains had been cleaned and were returned 2 weeks later, with the tenant missing one week of having curtains.
In relation to the tenant’s claims that the property manager walked past her cabin, stared into her cabin, frowning and observed her visitors, as the parties have very different views of this, and without any additional supporting evidence provided by the tenant of this, I find there is insufficient evidence provided by the tenant to prove this claim, and so dismiss this claim.
In relation to the tenant not having curtains whilst at the property, for 1 week, the Tribunal has recognised in the past that there can be breach of quiet enjoyment where the landlord “provides curtains and blinds not adequate to protect a tenant’s privacy.” 1
However, given that the tenant was only without the curtains for one week, as a result of a bug bomb at the cabin, when the curtains were being cleaned, and that there are no other similar incidents alleged in this regard, I find the lack of curtains for one week, when the curtains were being cleaned, does not amount to harassment of the tenant by the landlord. As this does not amount to harassment, it is not considered an unlawful act, pursuant to section 38(3) RTA. As it is not an unlawful act, the tenant is not entitled to any exemplary damages for this. Compensation 1 Tomlinson v Mittal (No. 2) TT Auckland 08/5574/AK, 4 Feb 2009 at [20]
The tenant claimed $920.00 compensation for having to move out of her property after her power was not topped up on 12 August 2025, for she and her daughter having to go without power, and for having to go to stay with her cousin for about a week, to replace all her food that was spoiled by not having power in the amount of $300.00, and pay $100.00 to her cousin to stay there. The tenant also included compensation in this claim for one weeks’ rent at $460.00/week. The tenant did not provide any receipts for the items claimed for compensation.
As the tenant’s claim that the landlord failed to top up her power on 12 August 2025 has been dismissed, I must also dismiss the tenant’s claim for any compensation related to the power top up on 12 August 2025. I note the tenant did not provide any additional supporting evidence to prove this claim in any event. Therefore, the tenant’s compensation claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As the tenant’s claims are dismissed, I do not reimburse the filing fee to the tenant. Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. Neither party has been successful with a claim.
As the tenant’s claims have been dismissed, I find the landlord’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(4) RTA.
The tenant has not been successful with her claims, nor did she provide any evidence as to whether her interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. I also note that there are previous Tribunal applications made by the tenant, where the Tribunal has not granted suppression to the tenant, and so the tenant’s name has already been published. As such, I do not grant name suppression to the tenant. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328579 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328579 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions