What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340841 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 5340841?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340841?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13405638-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340841 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 5340841?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340841?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13405638-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

309D Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340841 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing, but neither the first nor second respondent attended. The first respondent was one of the previous owners of the property. The property was sold at a mortgagee sale and the second respondent bought the property.

The second respondent has been in contact with the Tribunal and advised that they would not be attending the hearing as this claim had nothing to do with them.

I accept that the fixed term tenancy that was the subject of this tenant claim related to the previous owners and not Cypress Investment Holdings Limited (CIH). However, the subsequent eviction was as a direct response to the actions of the CIH and not the previous owners.

309 Don Buck Road was a development of 4 units on one site.

The background to this claim is that the tenant entered a 5-year fixed term tenancy with the first Respondent on 23 September 2023. The tenancy was at 309 D Don Buck Road, Massey and was to terminate on 1 October 2028.

At the start of the tenancy the tenant had paid rent for two weeks and then returned to Japan for months without paying any further rent. He and his wife returned to New Zealand on 30 September 2024 and went back to the property.

The rent summary suggests that the tenant did not pay rent for one year during this period of time. On 14 October 2024, the tenant resumed paying rent. The rent was set at a below market price of $400.00 and was fixed for the 5 years term.

The rent summary provided states that the rent has not been paid to the second respondent. The tenant claims to have been paying the first respondent.

After the High Court awarded possession of the property to the second respondent following the purchase of the property through the mortgagee sale, the eviction process began.

On 21 August 2025, a Court Bailiff served each tenant with an eviction notice requiring them all to leave permanently by 10am on 28 August 2025. The tenant did not leave as required to do so. Unlawful termination of a fixed term tenancy:

The tenant has now left the property and filed an application before the Tribunal claiming that he had been unlawfully evicted from the tenancy, when he had a legitimate fixed term tenancy, and that the new owner has harassed him and breach his quiet enjoyment.

The tenant seeks initially to return to the property, compensation for having to move before the end of his fixed term tenancy , an apology for the way the tenant and his wife were treated by the second respondent, exemplary damages for unlawfully terminating their fixed term tenancy and breaching their quiet enjoyment.

The tenant had a fixed term tenancy with the previous owner of the property.

The property was sold at a mortgagee sale. The new owners obtained a possession order from the High Court, and the tenant was evicted by the bailiff.

Section 62 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenancy may be terminated by a possession order made by the High Court or District Court following a mortgagee sale.

The eviction was carried out pursuant to a valid court order. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of a High Court possession order.

There is no evidence of any unlawful act by the landlord or purchaser in relation to the termination of the tenancy or the eviction.

The tenants’ claim that their fixed term tenancy was unlawfully terminated is dismissed.

The claim for exemplary damages is also dismissed, as there is no evidence of an unlawful act under the RTA.

Where a property is sold at a mortgagee sale and a possession order is obtained from the High Court, the tenancy is lawfully terminated by operation of law. The Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages in these circumstances. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment/Harassment:

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.

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.

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.

On 28 August 2025 at 10.15am the tenant heard a loud banging on the front door. When the tenant went to investigate the noise, he found a bailiff and locksmith changing the locks on the front door.

The tenant was given 7 hours to move out of the property. The tenant was unable to move all his possessions from the property in that time and had incurred losses.

The tenant claims the bailiff was threatening and rude. The tenant and his wife were traumatised by the treatment they received that morning. The tenant claims losses of $2872.00 for possessions he was unable to take and $100,000.00 in emotional harm. The tenant seeks to claim the moving costs of $850.00. All claims, however, will not exceed $100,000.00 to stay within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.

The second respondent had obtained a High Court order for possession of the property. On 21 August 2025, the bailiff had been at the property to attach an eviction notice to the front door. The tenant had seen the eviction notice which had stated that he would be evicted on 28 August 2025 unless he voluntarily left the property.

The bailiff had included an email and mobile number for the tenant to contact him to discuss the eviction notice. The tenant took no steps to get advice nor contact the bailiff to find out what the notice was about.

The tenant’s fixed term tenancy was terminated following a mortgagee sale, and the new owners obtained a possession order from the High Court.

The tenant was given a week’s notice to vacate but did not do so and was subsequently evicted by the bailiff acting under the court order.

Section 62 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a tenancy may be terminated by a possession order made by the High Court.

The right to quiet enjoyment under section 38 RTA applies only while the tenancy is in effect. Once the tenancy is terminated by a court order, the tenant’s rights under the RTA cease.

The eviction was carried out lawfully under the authority of the High Court. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the possession order or the actions of the bailiff.

There is no evidence of any unlawful act by the landlord or purchaser in relation to the eviction.

The tenant’s claim for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment during the eviction process is dismissed. The tenant claims are dismissed:

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The tenant claims have been set out and reasoned above.

The tenant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that his fixed term tenancy was unlawfully terminated nor that the second respondent has harassed him and breached his quiet enjoyment.

The tenant does not have the right to re-enter of the property as a tenant under his previous tenancy agreement.

The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

The tenant stated in the hearing that the second respondent should have communicated with them directly and given them notice. Furthermore, the tenant says that the second respondents’ actions caused him and his wife losses of property and possessions and there was no reason to evict them.

Despite how the tenant feels, the landlord went about gaining possession of the property lawfully. It is regrettable about the course of events given that the tenant had equally done nothing wrong. This was an unfortunate situation not of the making of either party.

The tenant has sought suppression of his name and details and despite the fact that his claims are dismissed. I am granting suppression as there can be no justification for the tenant’s name and details to be published. Equally the second respondent was simply acting in accordance with the law and so I am suppressing their name and details also.

Reasons