How much money was awarded in case 5337225?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337225?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337225?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12792954-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5337225?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337225?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337225?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12792954-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5337225 — Harassment

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337225 about?

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

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [The tenant/s] name and identifying details.
The 90-day termination notice dated 5 August 2025 is declared retaliatory and of no effect. [The tenancy has ended by surrender.]
Precision Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] exemplary damages of $1,250.00 for harassment under s 38 immediately.
Precision Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] exemplary damages of $2,000.00 for issuing a retaliatory notice under s 54 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The premises is a small multi-unit residential property comprising several adjoining flats occupied by different tenants, including the Applicant (who has now vacated), her former neighbours in Unit 4 (who left prior to her departure), and the remaining neighbour in Unit 6.
The tenancy was periodic tenancy managed by a property manager, Ms N, who was responsible for communications, complaint handling, and day-to-day management. The units are in close-proximity to one another, with shared boundaries. The tenancy commenced without incident before interpersonal tensions arose between tenants, heightening in mid-2025.
The Tenant claims the Landlord breached her right to quiet enjoyment by: a. circulating accusatory and misleading information about her to other occupants; b. mishandling neighbour complaints; and c. escalating tensions in a way that caused distress and conflict; d. she also claims the Landlord issued a retaliatory 90-day termination notice shortly after she raised concerns about repairs and the property manager’s conduct.
The Landlord denies harassment, and says: a. their communications were appropriate responses to concerns raised by another tenant; b. maintains the Tenant’s behaviour caused disruption and warranted intervention; and c. the termination notice was not retaliatory but issued because the Tenant’s conduct was undermining the peaceful management of the complex.
The first issue is whether the landlord harassed the tenant in breach of s 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Quiet Enjoyment / Harassment (s 38)
Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption. Section 38(2) states that a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises.
A contravention that amounts to harassment is an unlawful act under s 38(3).
Harassment means “to trouble, worry or distress” or “to wear out, tire, or exhaust,” and involves a pattern of behaviour directed at the tenant (MacDonald v Dodds). The Tribunal must determine, on the facts, whether the landlord’s conduct meets this threshold.
Having heard the evidence from the Tenant, from the property manager Ms N, from P G (Unit 6), and from the former Unit 4 occupants indirectly through their text communications with the property manager, and directly by phone, at the hearing, I find the following sequence of events: Step 1 – Complaint from Unit 6:
P G emailed Ms N as follows: I’m sorry to put this on you but the new lady who moved in next door is driving me crazy! She complains to me constantly and I’ve literally had to ignore her as it’s become that awkward. If she stays I will be looking for a new rental. Please understand that’s not a threat, it’s that I can’t with this lady!””
P G struggled to particularise his concerns but expressed generalised discomfort. Step 2 – Ms N emails Unit 4:
Rather than independently verifying matters or speaking to all parties, Ms N conveyed the substance of P G’s statements to the Unit 4 occupants. Grey message (Ms N): “Hey does the tenant in unit 5 bother you guys? She’s been complaining to the tenant at unit 6 just want to make sure she’s not harassing you guys too ” Blue message (Unit 4 Tenant): “No she doesn’t say anything to us, if anything she’s really nice when we see her.. can I ask what she’s been complaining about?” Step 3 – Unit 4 misinterprets Ms N’s message:
Unit 4 believed the Tenant had complained about them to the property manager and confronted the Tenant about this. Step 4 – Tenant responds during confrontation:
The Tenant told Unit 4 that P G had said he would “punch” the male Unit 4 tenant because of noise from his vehicle. Step 5 – Escalation:
Unit 4 and the Tenant confronted P G about his comments. I called Ms R (Unit 4) and she told me she asked P G whether and why he made those comments.
When I spoke with P G, he gave a different account. He said the property manager told him the Tenant had told the Unit 4 occupants that P G had said he would “punch” the male occupant. He denied ever making such a statement and described the Tenant as lying – he said she had been fine until she went on her “lying spree”. He said that, during a meal with the Tenant, he had only remarked that he did not like the sound of the vehicle owned by the male at Unit. He accepted that there was only one incident suggesting the Tenant may have lied, and even then, that was only on the say so of the Property Manager, according to his evidence.
The confrontation and subsequent interactions caused tension among neighbours. P G said he later hid inside to avoid the Tenant and Unit 4’s partner. P G said he had been avoiding the Tenant, and it appears it was because of this. The Tenant denied fabricating allegations but accepted she may have been unwise in passing information on. I infer that the Tenant raised the matter of Unit 6 with the Unit 4 occupants because she felt the need to explain or defend her own conduct during their interactions given the email Unit 4 had received from the property manager – i.e. “he’s the problem, not me”. Step 6 – Managerial mishandling:
Ms N accepted at hearing that she should have spoken to all parties before forming views, and that she could have explored alternatives such as s 55A if she had genuine concerns regarding anti-social behaviour.
Instead, her messages were accusatory, disclosed confidential information, and contributed significantly to the deterioration of neighbour relationships.
Although the Tenant contributed to the interpersonal tension by sharing comments imprudently and being overly involved with P G at times, her conduct does not excuse the landlord’s escalatory and unprofessional handling of the situation.
The Landlord, through the actions of the property manager, interfered with the Tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy and committed an unlawful act under s 38(3).
The Landlord’s actions were deliberate. As held in Noble v Simons, 1 "intentional" includes deliberate conduct without lawful justification, not necessarily malicious intent. Ms N purposefully sent the messages and disclosures and stood by them initially.
The effect on the tenant was significant, causing anxiety, neighbour conflict, and diminished enjoyment of the premises. Comparable cases show higher awards where landlord conduct materially undermines a tenant's living environment. 2
The Tenant was entitled to trust her Landlord would investigate allegations carefully, an deescalate the situation. Her contributory conduct slightly reduces the weight of this factor but does not excuse the Landlord's approach.
Property managers must handle complaints professionally.
Taking those factors together, a moderate award below the maximum is appropriate: $1,250.00
The next issue is whether the landlord’s 90-day termination notice issued on 5 August 2025 was retaliatory under s 54 RTA. Retaliatory Notice (s 54) 1 Noble v Simons [2019] NZHC 3242, Noble v Simons [2020] NZCA 259, Noble v Simons [2019] NZHC 2438. 2 Rentsmart NZ Ltd v Snow [2023] DCR 648.
Section 54(2)(a) allows the Tribunal to declare a notice retaliatory if the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right or making a complaint.
If the application is made within 28 working days, the Tribunal may declare the notice to be of no effect (s 54(3)).
If a notice is declared retaliatory, issuing it is an unlawful act (s 54(6)).
Exemplary damages may be awarded under s 109(3) and (3A). The maximum for a s 54 unlawful act is $6,500 (Schedule 1A).
I find the notice was retaliatory. The sequence of events is decisive.
The Tenant made repeated repair requests and raised concerns about landlord conduct.
Within a few days, and after receiving unverified comments from P G, the manager issued a 90-day termination notice.
Ms N accepted she did not speak with all parties, nor consider alternatives available under s 55A.
The problems relied on by the Landlord did not reach the threshold for termination and were based largely on misunderstandings and misinterpretation, and mismanagement.
It must also be noted that Ms N was herself under considerable stress in managing this tenancy. She explained that the Tenant raised many issues, some of which she regarded as minor or trivial, and she felt overwhelmed by the volume and tone of the Tenant’s communications. On my review of the Tenant’s communications, I did not find her tone to be rude or offensive. I accept that the Tenant made frequent contact with the property manager, and that some matters were of lesser significance.
However, this does not alter the fact that several of the Tenant’s concerns were legitimate, and the complex was in dire need to of maintenance and improvement in several areas, nor does it justify the approach Ms N adopted.
Her stress and the pressures of managing multiple parties in a complex multi-unit environment provide context, but they do not excuse the disclosures that were made or the decision to proceed to termination without properly exploring proportionate alternatives or undertaking a fair inquiry. Her decision to terminate was therefore ill-advised, even taking her circumstances into account.
The inference is strong that the termination was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising rights and making complaints. None of the issues justified termination.
The notice is retaliatory and therefore an unlawful act. The notice is declared to be of no effect.
A retaliatory notice undermines security of tenure and causes significant distress. The tenant faced uncertainty, fear of displacement, and disruption to her home life.
The tenant was exercising rights in good faith. The landlord’s response was disproportionate and premature.
As confirmed in Birch, 3 exemplary damages deter retaliatory behaviour and uphold tenants’ statutory protections. Retaliatory notices strike directly at those protections and must be discouraged.
An award below the statutory maximum is appropriate, as the landlord acted poorly but not with strong malicious intent, and some tension stemmed from mutual misunderstandings.
Exemplary damages awarded: $2,000. Addendum
The Landlord has identified the correct principal entity it represents, and I have added them to the Order. The Landlord states: The property owner is Parapadoo investments Ltd and Precision Property is agent for them- Not for Loretta Ford. Our software system has taken the contact we use for the company and put their name forward and not the company name which is not correct.
I have amended the Order as it does not prejudice the Tenant’s enforcement rights. If the Tenant takes issue with the alteration it can revert to the Tribunal within seven (7) days.
I have granted name suppression to the Tenant who was successful in her claim for the most part.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [The tenant/s] name and identifying details.

The 90-day termination notice dated 5 August 2025 is declared retaliatory and of no effect. [The tenancy has ended by surrender.]

Precision Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] exemplary damages of $1,250.00 for harassment under s 38 immediately.

Precision Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] exemplary damages of $2,000.00 for issuing a retaliatory notice under s 54 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The premises is a small multi-unit residential property comprising several adjoining flats occupied by different tenants, including the Applicant (who has now vacated), her former neighbours in Unit 4 (who left prior to her departure), and the remaining neighbour in Unit 6.

The tenancy was periodic tenancy managed by a property manager, Ms N, who was responsible for communications, complaint handling, and day-to-day management. The units are in close-proximity to one another, with shared boundaries. The tenancy commenced without incident before interpersonal tensions arose between tenants, heightening in mid-2025.

The Tenant claims the Landlord breached her right to quiet enjoyment by: a. circulating accusatory and misleading information about her to other occupants; b. mishandling neighbour complaints; and c. escalating tensions in a way that caused distress and conflict; d. she also claims the Landlord issued a retaliatory 90-day termination notice shortly after she raised concerns about repairs and the property manager’s conduct.

The Landlord denies harassment, and says: a. their communications were appropriate responses to concerns raised by another tenant; b. maintains the Tenant’s behaviour caused disruption and warranted intervention; and c. the termination notice was not retaliatory but issued because the Tenant’s conduct was undermining the peaceful management of the complex.

The first issue is whether the landlord harassed the tenant in breach of s 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Quiet Enjoyment / Harassment (s 38)

Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption. Section 38(2) states that a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises.

A contravention that amounts to harassment is an unlawful act under s 38(3).

Harassment means “to trouble, worry or distress” or “to wear out, tire, or exhaust,” and involves a pattern of behaviour directed at the tenant (MacDonald v Dodds). The Tribunal must determine, on the facts, whether the landlord’s conduct meets this threshold.

Having heard the evidence from the Tenant, from the property manager Ms N, from P G (Unit 6), and from the former Unit 4 occupants indirectly through their text communications with the property manager, and directly by phone, at the hearing, I find the following sequence of events: Step 1 – Complaint from Unit 6:

P G emailed Ms N as follows: I’m sorry to put this on you but the new lady who moved in next door is driving me crazy! She complains to me constantly and I’ve literally had to ignore her as it’s become that awkward. If she stays I will be looking for a new rental. Please understand that’s not a threat, it’s that I can’t with this lady!””

P G struggled to particularise his concerns but expressed generalised discomfort. Step 2 – Ms N emails Unit 4:

Rather than independently verifying matters or speaking to all parties, Ms N conveyed the substance of P G’s statements to the Unit 4 occupants. Grey message (Ms N): “Hey does the tenant in unit 5 bother you guys? She’s been complaining to the tenant at unit 6 just want to make sure she’s not harassing you guys too ” Blue message (Unit 4 Tenant): “No she doesn’t say anything to us, if anything she’s really nice when we see her.. can I ask what she’s been complaining about?” Step 3 – Unit 4 misinterprets Ms N’s message:

Unit 4 believed the Tenant had complained about them to the property manager and confronted the Tenant about this. Step 4 – Tenant responds during confrontation:

The Tenant told Unit 4 that P G had said he would “punch” the male Unit 4 tenant because of noise from his vehicle. Step 5 – Escalation:

Unit 4 and the Tenant confronted P G about his comments. I called Ms R (Unit 4) and she told me she asked P G whether and why he made those comments.

When I spoke with P G, he gave a different account. He said the property manager told him the Tenant had told the Unit 4 occupants that P G had said he would “punch” the male occupant. He denied ever making such a statement and described the Tenant as lying – he said she had been fine until she went on her “lying spree”. He said that, during a meal with the Tenant, he had only remarked that he did not like the sound of the vehicle owned by the male at Unit. He accepted that there was only one incident suggesting the Tenant may have lied, and even then, that was only on the say so of the Property Manager, according to his evidence.

The confrontation and subsequent interactions caused tension among neighbours. P G said he later hid inside to avoid the Tenant and Unit 4’s partner. P G said he had been avoiding the Tenant, and it appears it was because of this. The Tenant denied fabricating allegations but accepted she may have been unwise in passing information on. I infer that the Tenant raised the matter of Unit 6 with the Unit 4 occupants because she felt the need to explain or defend her own conduct during their interactions given the email Unit 4 had received from the property manager – i.e. “he’s the problem, not me”. Step 6 – Managerial mishandling:

Ms N accepted at hearing that she should have spoken to all parties before forming views, and that she could have explored alternatives such as s 55A if she had genuine concerns regarding anti-social behaviour.

Instead, her messages were accusatory, disclosed confidential information, and contributed significantly to the deterioration of neighbour relationships.

Although the Tenant contributed to the interpersonal tension by sharing comments imprudently and being overly involved with P G at times, her conduct does not excuse the landlord’s escalatory and unprofessional handling of the situation.

The Landlord, through the actions of the property manager, interfered with the Tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy and committed an unlawful act under s 38(3).

The Landlord’s actions were deliberate. As held in Noble v Simons, 1 "intentional" includes deliberate conduct without lawful justification, not necessarily malicious intent. Ms N purposefully sent the messages and disclosures and stood by them initially.

The effect on the tenant was significant, causing anxiety, neighbour conflict, and diminished enjoyment of the premises. Comparable cases show higher awards where landlord conduct materially undermines a tenant's living environment. 2

The Tenant was entitled to trust her Landlord would investigate allegations carefully, an deescalate the situation. Her contributory conduct slightly reduces the weight of this factor but does not excuse the Landlord's approach.

Property managers must handle complaints professionally.

Taking those factors together, a moderate award below the maximum is appropriate: $1,250.00

The next issue is whether the landlord’s 90-day termination notice issued on 5 August 2025 was retaliatory under s 54 RTA. Retaliatory Notice (s 54) 1 Noble v Simons [2019] NZHC 3242, Noble v Simons [2020] NZCA 259, Noble v Simons [2019] NZHC 2438. 2 Rentsmart NZ Ltd v Snow [2023] DCR 648.

Section 54(2)(a) allows the Tribunal to declare a notice retaliatory if the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right or making a complaint.

If the application is made within 28 working days, the Tribunal may declare the notice to be of no effect (s 54(3)).

If a notice is declared retaliatory, issuing it is an unlawful act (s 54(6)).

Exemplary damages may be awarded under s 109(3) and (3A). The maximum for a s 54 unlawful act is $6,500 (Schedule 1A).

I find the notice was retaliatory. The sequence of events is decisive.

The Tenant made repeated repair requests and raised concerns about landlord conduct.

Within a few days, and after receiving unverified comments from P G, the manager issued a 90-day termination notice.

Ms N accepted she did not speak with all parties, nor consider alternatives available under s 55A.

The problems relied on by the Landlord did not reach the threshold for termination and were based largely on misunderstandings and misinterpretation, and mismanagement.

It must also be noted that Ms N was herself under considerable stress in managing this tenancy. She explained that the Tenant raised many issues, some of which she regarded as minor or trivial, and she felt overwhelmed by the volume and tone of the Tenant’s communications. On my review of the Tenant’s communications, I did not find her tone to be rude or offensive. I accept that the Tenant made frequent contact with the property manager, and that some matters were of lesser significance.

However, this does not alter the fact that several of the Tenant’s concerns were legitimate, and the complex was in dire need to of maintenance and improvement in several areas, nor does it justify the approach Ms N adopted.

Her stress and the pressures of managing multiple parties in a complex multi-unit environment provide context, but they do not excuse the disclosures that were made or the decision to proceed to termination without properly exploring proportionate alternatives or undertaking a fair inquiry. Her decision to terminate was therefore ill-advised, even taking her circumstances into account.

The inference is strong that the termination was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising rights and making complaints. None of the issues justified termination.

The notice is retaliatory and therefore an unlawful act. The notice is declared to be of no effect.

A retaliatory notice undermines security of tenure and causes significant distress. The tenant faced uncertainty, fear of displacement, and disruption to her home life.

The tenant was exercising rights in good faith. The landlord’s response was disproportionate and premature.

As confirmed in Birch, 3 exemplary damages deter retaliatory behaviour and uphold tenants’ statutory protections. Retaliatory notices strike directly at those protections and must be discouraged.

An award below the statutory maximum is appropriate, as the landlord acted poorly but not with strong malicious intent, and some tension stemmed from mutual misunderstandings.

Exemplary damages awarded: $2,000. Addendum

The Landlord has identified the correct principal entity it represents, and I have added them to the Order. The Landlord states: The property owner is Parapadoo investments Ltd and Precision Property is agent for them- Not for Loretta Ford. Our software system has taken the contact we use for the company and put their name forward and not the company name which is not correct.

I have amended the Order as it does not prejudice the Tenant’s enforcement rights. If the Tenant takes issue with the alteration it can revert to the Tribunal within seven (7) days.

I have granted name suppression to the Tenant who was successful in her claim for the most part.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337225 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337225 — 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