What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370516 about?

The tribunal order states: Freya Kroupa must pay Andrea Mooragh Dawson $5,622.14 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5370516?

Compensation: Electricity - water pu…: $135.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity - exte…: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $6,757.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370516?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370516?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13474845-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370516 about?

The tribunal order states: Freya Kroupa must pay Andrea Mooragh Dawson $5,622.14 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5370516?

Compensation: Electricity - water pu…: $135.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity - exte…: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $6,757.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370516?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370516?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13474845-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

58 George Harvey Road, Upper Moutere 7173 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370516 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5370516 — net $5,622.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$6,757.14		19. The rent arrears is proven.
Compensation: Loss of amenity - external taps	$100.00		Loss of amenity - external taps
Compensation: Electricity - water pump		$135.00	Electricity - water pump
Exemplary damages: No written tenancy agreement		$500.00	No written tenancy agreement
Compensation: Quiet enjoyment		$500.00	Quiet enjoyment
Repairs - gate		$100.00	Repairs - gate
Total award	$6,857.14	$1,235.00
Net award	$5,622.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,622.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5370516 — net $5,622.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$6,757.14		19. The rent arrears is proven.
Compensation: Loss of amenity - external taps	$100.00		Loss of amenity - external taps
Compensation: Electricity - water pump		$135.00	Electricity - water pump
Exemplary damages: No written tenancy agreement		$500.00	No written tenancy agreement
Compensation: Quiet enjoyment		$500.00	Quiet enjoyment
Repairs - gate		$100.00	Repairs - gate
Total award	$6,857.14	$1,235.00
Net award	$5,622.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,622.14

Order

Freya Kroupa must pay Andrea Mooragh Dawson $5,622.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a continuation hearing.
The previous hearing on 12 February 2026 was adjourned. There was late evidence provided by the landlord as well as a series of videos previously provided by the tenant that had yet to be made available to the landlord.
That adjourning order confirmed that at that time Michael Livingston was considered to have commenced this tenancy as a tenant and his continued active participation in proceedings was permitted. The final order would determine his final status as representative or tenant, as appropriate.
This order is made in the tenant name of Freya Kroupa only. Michael is her partner, and he was actively involved and resident during the tenancy. At formation and during the unwritten period of the tenancy arrangement he was prominent. However, I have maintained the named parties in the tenancy agreement as later signed on 24 August 2025. I do not consider the signing was any ambush by the landlord. In a message sent to Freya by the landlord the day before (23 August) she told Freya the “only way forward is for you and I to sign up a contract for the rental of the house, I cannot work with Mike but I do not want to put you under any more stress, that will give you and the kids some stability”. If concerned, Freya had time prior to any signing to discuss this with Michael.
This sole name mirrors Freya also being the sole party to the electricity supply agreement at the premises. The landlord was entitled to contract with the tenant as mutually concluded, especially as the attempt was to clarify and put structure around what appears a chaotic arrangement prior, beyond any typical tenancy agreement. That is evidenced in the tenancy agreement term that backdated the tenancy to 2 March 2025 but included the initialled agreement that “all work and compensation are complete”. I take this to mean that any previous work in-lieu of rent concluded with the signing of the agreement.
This determination has some bearing on both applications, as will be expanded on later.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages over two applications.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
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.”
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
I record that both parties had used AI in researching and drafting their respective submissions. The landlord’s included a disclaimer that stated:
There were obvious errors even after a brief initial review and I advised the parties the responsibility to advance their claims, or respond as appropriate, stays with them. The earlier adjourning order had already stressed the evidential burden as so aptly outlined by Judge Mather as above in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarth. The landlord application
The landlord had initially sought termination, but the tenancy has since ended. That left claims for rent arrears, tenant interference per s 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “RTA”, and compensation for damage to a gate.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 December 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $6,757.14. This was not disputed by the tenant. Rent was withheld due to a number of alleged grievances and demands for payment or compensation, generally from Michael Livingston.
The rent arrears is proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
A gate hinge was damaged by a vehicle of one occupant. This was accepted by the tenant and an award of $100.00 was mutual agreed as reasonable for the repair.

Did the tenant breach s 40 RTA?

The landlord claimed the tenant had breached s 40(2)(c) and s 40(3A)(d).
These sub-sections require the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. If to the level of harassment, s 40(31)(d) makes such harassment an unlawful act.
This section is rarely used for direct compensation to the landlord personally but if the landlord is also a neighbour, they may fall under the category of "any other person residing in the neighbourhood." However, how this is typically applied in the Tenancy Tribunal is quite specific. The reason for some reluctance in making such orders is the availability to the landlord of other tools, including termination. While the landlord seeks compensation, she entered into a written tenancy agreement at the same time as experiencing claimed adverse behaviours – that is somewhat incongruous, but I note her submission that it was out of concern for Freya and her pregnancy.
A further challenge to this claim is the source of any claimed adverse behaviours.
In the landlord’s submission she wrote:
The determination of who was a tenant has some bearing in this claim. I do not consider Freya was in any way a cause of any s 40 RTA breach. I also do not find she permitted any such behaviour. Based on the numerous videos provided and viewed, I also do not see that Freya could reasonably have managed any of the behaviours of Michael.
Given I have accepted the landlord’s argument that Freya is the sole tenant, and she is not at fault, I do not consider grounds for any landlord compensation exist here. Tenant application
There were two tenant applications. The commencement and arrangements at the premises were verbal at first and extended beyond usual landlord-tenant agreements.
In the first tenant application, the tenants sought compensation of $100,000 for:
The tenant also sought exemplary damages for landlord unlawful entry and the removal of external water taps. The lack of a written tenancy agreement was also claimed.
The second application lacked structure and the narrative was as much a plea for help than seeking any specific orders that might be made. Some orders requested are outside of any statutory authority I may have. I assessed the second application as pertaining mainly to a claim of landlord interference with quiet enjoyment.
I will consider the claims raised that relate to the residential tenancy. The main claims in the first application allude to some parallel arrangements between the landlord and primarily Michael, regarding a “groundsman” role, as well as any permission granted to utilise and conduct his firewood business from a number of buildings or areas not considered a part of the tenancy.
As explained at the hearing, this is not the appropriate jurisdiction to hear and determine the non-tenancy claims. Those may be pursued as so desired.

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

The tenant claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to provide this as required. One was later drafted some six months later, with a backdated start to the mutually agreed commencement date of 2 March 2025. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
As I have determined that the landlord committed an unlawful act I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
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) RTA
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten or been unaware, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen.
This is not the first tenancy of the landlord at this address to come before the Tribunal. The lack of a written agreement has hindered both the landlord and tenant since.
I have determined an award of $500.00 for this unlawful act is appropriate, considering the experience of the landlord and the impact on the tenants. Removal of external taps
It was not disputed the landlord had two external taps “capped”. The landlord’s statement that she gave verbal notice was refuted by the tenant. There was no written notice. The reason was explained at the hearing as being for water management.
The landlord submitted there were other outdoor taps available to be used. That ignores the fact that the tenant had two external taps in established locations that were unilaterally removed. However, I do not consider this a breach of S 45(2) RTA 1 , nor an intent to cause the tenants’ distress. It is symptomatic of the loose approach of the landlord to several aspects of this tenancy. I consider the loss of amenity to the tenants should be compensated. I award $100.00 for this. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment/account for outgoings?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
It is fair to say both parties feel they have been subjected to ongoing interference with their quiet enjoyment.
Michael provided 16 videos he recorded at various times during the tenancy. These have been viewed and considered. I do not find them compelling as they often appear self-serving but also showing Michael engaging in ways that might be viewed as aggressive.
In terms of specific examples when requested, there were few but one that was raised and supported by a third-party written statement, was the landlord demanding a former tenant, who was visiting the premises, leave. Given historic issues, the landlord had previously served a trespass notice on that person (who had resided on a house bus at the property). The police became involved and supposedly advised the trespass notice of the landlord applied only to her property. The tenant was entitled to have the visitor. I concur with that advice. 1 S 45(2): The landlord shall not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telephone services, or other services 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.
Michael’s daughter also provided a written affidavit. She was present during the above episode and she also recounted other visits where the landlord would turn up with “her own coffee in hand and just interrupt...”. She notes from August that her father would be more assertive in telling her to leave. She writes of being watched by the landlord. This claim of watching echoed a similar claim of the tenant. After probing more with the tenant about such claims, I believe the issue was “line of sight” visibility from the landlord’s home and area, rather than any covert type of action on or around the tenant premises. Given the extensive use of video recording for other disputes, some video evidence here may have increased the chances of a successful claim.
Another issue that required tenant involvement was the accounting for electricity. The landlord’s house is supplied by a separate meter. The tenanted premises metered supply also feeds a separate dwelling (another tenant) as well as the water pump for the property.
The landlord required the account be in the tenant’s name and that they read the sub-meter at the separate dwelling and recover the sub-metered consumption from the occupant, after calculating the amount. This process is sub-optimal – the landlord has a contract with the other tenant but there is nothing between the two tenants to ensure subsequent capture of invoiced costs from the other tenant. Fortunately, the relationship between the tenants meant recovery occurred although that was not always straightforward. That risk, and the management effort involved, is considered an unreasonable demand on the tenant.
In terms of the water pump electricity consumption, this was accepted by the landlord and I have provided tenant compensation of $135.00 to reflect the electricity consumption by the pump. This sum reflects the pump rating and likely hours of use.
Assessing quiet enjoyment when the landlord and tenant are also neighbours is always challenging. I would suggest that is more so in a rural environment such as here where boundaries are less defined and some entry to the grounds may be required due to the underlying infrastructure, especially water storage and supply such as here.
I must also consider how earlier friendly interactions that were agreeable might later be viewed differently later as the relationship deteriorates.
Lastly, I can not ignore the actions of the tenant, or more accurately, Michael in his interactions with the landlord. The videos, and other written communication show his behaviour was at best highly protective of Freya, and at worst totally inappropriate with excessive assertions or demands.
Having considered the respective recounting of events and any impacts on quiet enjoyment, either by way of submissions, or written statements or evidence, I find there should be some recognition of the impact on the tenant from landlord failures, albeit not to the extent claimed by the tenant. Some arose due to the landlord’s lack of structure and clarity of the tenancy arrangement, others from the obvious behavioural challenges between the two parties but that was no a one-way street.
I award $500.00 as compensation for the landlord’s proven interference with quiet enjoyment.

Did the landlord entry unlawfully?

The tenant claims the landlord entered the premises unlawfully.
Section 48 provides the landlord’s right of entry as: (1) The landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except— (a) with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry; or (b) in any of the circumstances described in subsections (2) to (3) with appropriate notice.
As already flagged above, the reality of being neighbours as well as landlord/tenant in a rural environment blurs the relationship and roles. Further, shared access and services can require ongoing or reactive maintenance or repair that increases interactions.
There was one event cited where the landlord entered the premises. I heard different recollections of the entry, for the purposes of addressing a suspected air lock in the water supply.
The ongoing clashes between the landlord and Michael were on display in relation to this event as well. Having heard from them, as well as Freya, I do not find the landlord unlawfully entered the premises as it is more than likely that she was granted permission by Freya prior. Any displeasure of Michael regarding the entry and timing does not displace that permission.
Other instances cited involved outdoor movement and activities of the landlord. None of these are considered to be in breach of s 48, nor form grounds for any specific compensation. Conclusion
This relationship commenced after a firewood delivery to the landlord. That led to the landlord and Michael discussing and entering into a confused arrangement that was part rent in-lieu of work, groundsman, lease of workshop space and some possible promise of a future parking space for a tiny home. The need for significant work at the premises after a previous tenancy was apparent and formed part of the initial agreement. Michael and Freya had operated a similar arrangement with a previous owner, who provided a written reference confirming the arrangement that included locating their tiny home, operating the firewood business as well as doing other work. The reference confirmed it was a mutually beneficial arrangement to the writer’s satisfaction. That precedent is noted but it is of no material significance.
I have accepted the tenancy agreement as signed in August 2025, including the backdating that meant no rent arrears and any prior arrangement in-lieu of rent ended. It was at this time that the landlord entered into another agreement with a person to provide “groundsman” type support at the property.
Michael has separately sought to invoice the landlord for a number of non- tenancy tasks performed or business losses he claims she is liable for. These are considered outside the jurisdiction here.
The landlord appears to have made a “rod for her own back” from commencement. I acknowledge she claims some coercion or pressure from Michael but as the owner and landlord she had control on how any arrangement formed and operated. Exercising her statutory rights and this Tribunal as necessary was open to her as issues arose. The well-intentioned but unsuccessful attempt to engage a property manager in September 2025 appears to reflect the general confused and emotive state of affairs experienced by the agent who decline the agency. The exact reason is unknown.
In these applications, I consider culpability for a number of problems extends across both the landlord and occupants.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
The orders here reflect matters within the tenancy agreement and what has been proven by the respective applicant as more than likely. It balances what appears to have been some unhelpful contribution to the issues by both sides. Both have claimed concerns for others as a motivation for some actions.
It is open for either party to pursue other claims in other jurisdictions as appropriate. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. While she has been substantially successful, suppression is not ordered. This decision is based on relevant public interest in any possible future tenancy at this address, as well as the lack of landlord success responding to the tenant application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370516 — Rent arrears at 58 George Harvey Road, Upper Moutere 7173

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370516 — Rent arrears at 58 George Harvey Road, Upper Moutere 7173

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant breach s 40 RTA?

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord entry unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant breach s 40 RTA?

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord entry unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions