Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5375059 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 6 Apr 2026 · Published 6 Apr 2026 · Application 5375059
- Cleanliness
- Exemplary damages
- Harassment
- Healthy homes
- Property damage
- State of repair
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord name and identifying details.
- [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,278.00 immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
- The tenant lodged an application against the landlord for failing to provide Healthy Homes compliance information, insurance information, a copy of the tenancy agreement and a breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenant also advances claims for various issues not included in her original application which I will discuss later.
- The landlord claims that the tenant has made alterations to the property without consent. The landlord further claims that the tenant has harassed them.
- The tenant cross applied.
- For convenience I will refer to the parties in the singular. Background
- The tenancy started on 12 July 2025. It is a fixed term tenancy for a period of two years.
- There has been a significant amount of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
- I heard oral evidence from the parties during the remote video hearing. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal relating to the original claims even if I do not specifically refer to it.
- This has been a difficult tenancy, and it is fair to state that the relationship between the parties has now completely disintegrated beyond repair. For a tenancy of such short duration the number of issues between the parties are extraordinary. The landlord also now resides overseas which adds a further degree of complexity to this tenancy.
- The hearing was convened remotely via video conference which was extremely challenging given the nature of the claims and the tension between the parties. Tenant application
- The tenant filed her application on 28 October 2025. The claims recorded in her original application are as follows: a. Failing to include a Healthy Homes compliance certificate b. Failing to provide insurance information c. Failing to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement d. Breach of quiet enjoyment
- Prior to the hearing date the tenant added what can only be described as a shopping list of further claims. The tenant also filed a significant amount of further evidence with the Tribunal, including a portion on the day before the hearing.
- Out of fairness to the landlord I will only consider the tenant’s claims as pleaded in her original application filed on 28 October 2025.
- The following claims will not be considered as part of this application: • Landlord refusing to allow flatmate • Landlord refusing to allow overnight visitors • Removal of chattels without consent of tenant • Utility charges • Failing to notify bond centre of change of agent • Unlawful entry by landlord • False allegations in respect of employment • Trespass of tenant’s mother • Termination of the fixed term tenancy
- The Tribunal cannot accept these additional claims that have not been recorded in the applicant's original application. If a party wishes to raise new claims at the hearing that were not included in their initial application, the appropriate course is for them to file a new application for those additional claims. The nature and number of these additional claims also takes it well outside the scope of what is possible to convene via a remote hearing.
- This approach was confirmed in the case He v Liu NZDC 24057, where the Tribunal declined to consider further, and additional claims advanced by the tenant and recommended filing a new application. The District Court upheld this, confirming that the Tribunal could not just add in further claims in the lead up to the hearing.
- Should the tenant wish to advance these additional claims then a new application should be filed with the Tribunal. Issues
- On the tenant’s application the issues to be determined are these: a. Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? b. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?
- On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these: • Did the tenant make changes to the premises without the consent of the landlord? • Did the tenant harass the landlord? • Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation or exemplary damages?
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
- This obligation carried by the applicant 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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. Relevant legal considerations Statutory provisions
- Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what is required to be contained in a tenancy agreement. Section 13(1CA) requires a landlord to sign a statement that on, or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord with comply with the HHS, and a statement that includes the information prescribed by regulations made under section 138B(5) RTA – information relating to the HHS.
- Section 38 RTA sets out the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment
- Section 38 (2) RTA relates to harassment
- Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
- Section 42 RTA relates to tenant fixtures.
- Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
- Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
- Section 109 RTA sets out what must be established before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages.
- Schedule 1A RTA sets out the maximum amounts that can be awarded by way of exemplary damages. Compensation and Exemplary Damages
- The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
- Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
- In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
- Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has intentionally 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 RTA.
- In Birch, 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. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a)The intention of the person; (b)The effect of the unlawful act; (c)The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d)The public interest. Discussion Healthy Homes compliance statement
- Since 1 July 2019, landlords must include a Healthy Homes compliance statement in any new, renewed, or varied tenancy agreement.
- A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. That on, and after, the commencement of the tenancy the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by the Act. b. And include any information prescribed by the regulations made under s138B(5) of the Act.
- The statement must set out the current level of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards for the rental property.
- Failure to include or complete this statement is an unlawful act.
- The tenant says that the landlord did not include a copy of the HH compliance statement as part of the original tenancy agreement.
- The landlord says that the Tenancy Agreement as filed is what was provided to the tenant. The landlord says that they were not aware that they had to complete such a certificate.
- The landlord accepted that the HH compliance certificate was not completed at the time but a copy of the contractor’s insulation and a copy of the household insurance was provided to the tenant later on or about September 2025.
- The landlord accepts that there was some confusion regarding this. They accept their misunderstanding on this issue and not providing it at the time. The landlord confirmed that the premises are compliant with Healthy Homes. The tenant further accepts that the premises are also compliant.
- Because of the date of commencement of the tenancy, the agreement was required to have a statement of compliance with the HHS.
- While there is a written tenancy agreement signed by both parties the Healthy Homes compliance statement is missing.
- These statements are important as they allow a tenant to make an informed choice about whether to accept the tenancy.
- Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord failed to complete the details of compliance with the healthy homes standards. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I consider the landlord’s failure in this respect must be deliberate. There is a pre-formatted section in the tenancy agreement for her to complete and she has failed to do so, despite completing other portions of the agreement.
- I consider there is a public interest, and an interest for these tenants specifically, in landlords turning their minds to the healthy homes requirements, and proactively ensuring that rented premises are compliant. Tenants should not need to chase their landlords for compliance. There is an expectation that landlords by now should be well familiar with their obligations in respect of this. The landlord failed to complete it.
- I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate. In the circumstances, I award $250.00 being one third of the maximum penalty. Insurance information
- A landlord is not required to provide a tenant with a copy of their full insurance policy. However, under section 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, landlords must inform tenants in writing about whether the property is insured, and if so, must provide a summary of the relevant insurance information, including: • Whether the property is insured, • The amount of any excess that would be relevant to the tenant, • A statement that a copy of the policy is available on request.
- If the tenant requests a copy of the insurance policy, the landlord must provide it within a reasonable time. The landlord may redact information that is not relevant to the tenancy.
- The tenant says that she requested a copy of the landlord’s insurance policy by telephone on 15 September 2025. The tenant says that this was in relation to the possible starting of a massage business. The landlord does not recall receiving a phone call with this request.
- The landlord says that she does not have to provide a full copy of the insurance policy due to privacy reasons.
- The landlord says that the tenant was sent information regarding the household insurance policy which also stated that running a business form the house was not covered by the insurance policy.
- The tenancy agreement clearly shows the completed insurance portion completed by the landlord.
- Given the conflict in the evidence, even if the insurance policy was not provided if requested, I would not find that the landlord acted with intent.
- I make no award of exemplary damages for this breach (if there was one).
- The claim for failing to provide a copy of the landlord’s insurance policy has not been established.
Was the tenant provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement?
- 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 tenant says she received a copy of the signed tenancy agreement on 4 August 2025. The tenant says that she only received a copy of the agreement after she requested it approximately one week prior to receiving it.
- The landlord does not agree with this. The landlord says that they left the paper copy of the tenancy agreement with the tenant on 11 July 2025 as she was leaving to go overseas. The landlord then sent a further digital copy to the tenant on or about 15 July 2025.
- The tenant does not accept that she received copies as per the landlords’ statements. The landlord stated during the hearing that she sent the tenant a copy of the tenancy agreement on 15 July 2025.
- Based on the evidence provided I am satisfied that the tenant would have received a copy of the written tenancy agreement either at the time the agreement was executed or shortly thereafter. There is no evidence before the Tribunal which confirms an unreasonable delay or a refusal to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement.
- The claim for failing to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement has not been established. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment?
- A breach of quiet enjoyment occurs when a landlord (or someone acting on their behalf) interferes with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises.
- Section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states: 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.
- 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.
- The tenant says that the landlord has failed to act in respect of the actions of other tenants within the same dwelling. The tenant says that she had people knocking on her door several times a week, jumping the fence looking for the drug dealer downstairs.
- The tenant says that the police became involved mid-October 2025. The neighbouring tenant was charged on 21 October 2025. The tenant says that this issue was ongoing from the neighbouring tenant at the start of the tenancy. The tenant also said that there was a smell of marijuana which would drift upstairs to this tenancy.
- The landlord says that the tenant lived downstairs and had smoked marijuana. The landlord says that there had been multiple communications from the tenant to the landlord in respect of the downstairs tenant.
- The landlord says that she had addressed all issues raised. The landlord also stated that she was not aware of actual drug dealing. The landlord does not accept that she failed to address the issues regarding the downstairs tenant. The downstairs tenant was evicted at the end of October 2025. The landlord gave an example of their actions by way of email relating to a 14-day notice to remedy on 15 September 2025 to the downstairs tenant.
- The tenant also claims breach of quiet enjoyment in respect of the landlord trying to trespass her mother.
- The tenant’s mother was invited to the property to support her daughter for a routine property inspection. The tenant says that by trespassing the tenant’s mother constitutes a breach of quiet enjoyment.
- The first day was 27 December and the second day was 29 December. There is also a sound file, all of which I have considered. The police became involved on 29 December. The landlord contacted the police to have a trespass order placed on the mother due to anti-social behaviour. The police attended on 2 January to serve a trespass order on the mother who was not there.
- On the night of 12 February, the landlord’s daughter’s partner threatened the tenant’s son and on 13 February the tenant attended at the police station seeking advice and then lodged a complaint about the threatening behaviour of the partner towards her son.
- On 17 February the tenant attended at the police station to find about the trespass order and was told by police that the landlord had attended the police station on 30 December.
- On 3 March the tenant attended the police station complaining about further aggressive behaviour from the daughter’s partner.
- On 4 March the tenant invited her mother over to the property. The landlord’s daughter confronted her about trespassing on the property. The landlord’s daughter called the police who attended. The police took no further action.
- The landlord says that she was not aware that the tenant’s mother would be at the property during the inspection. She advised the mother that she was not the tenant. She says the mother was aggressive and kept interrupting the landlord. The mother then told the landlord to “f... off”.
- The landlord said that she was then too scared to come back on to the property. The landlord then went to the police station asking for advice on what to do about the tenant’s mother. The police advised her that she should obtain a trespass order which they went ahead and completed. It was discovered however that if the tenant invites her mother back on to the property then this makes the trespass order null and void. The landlord was also concerned that visiting her daughter would become difficult.
- The landlord says that on 13 February 2026 she received an email from the tenant about a serious incident involving her daughter’s partner threatening the tenant’s son with physical and verbal violence. The landlord phoned her daughter for an explanation for what appeared to be a misunderstanding involving a water pistol. She says the partner admitted to saying “f... off.” The police then became involved. There were no charges filed.
- The landlord says that on 3 March she received a distressing phone call from her daughter’s partner saying he had been at work and had received a phone call from the father of the tenant’s teenage daughter threatening that he needed to “stop messing with the tenant otherwise he would come down and beat the “s..t out of him”. They say the police then trespassed the father from the landlord’s daughter’s partner place work. The landlord then emailed the tenant asking that she not invite the child’s father on to the property until this is all resolved. The landlord also issued the tenant with a notice of anti-social behaviour in respect of this. Analysis
- The landlord is not strictly liable for the behaviour of third parties but does have a duty to take reasonable steps once aware of ongoing interference by another tenant.
- Police involvement and criminal conduct are relevant, but not decisive; the Tribunal focuses on what the landlord knew and what steps were taken, and whether those steps were timely and effective. Conduct of the Downstairs Tenant (Drugs, Visitors, Safety Issues)
- There is email evidence that • The tenant experienced persistent disruption: repeated knocking at her door, people jumping fences, and strong smells of marijuana. • These events occurred several times a week, were ongoing from the start of the tenancy, and escalated to the point of police involvement, with the downstairs tenant charged on 21 October 2025.
- The landlord acknowledges marijuana use by the downstairs tenant and accepts that multiple complaints were made.
- The critical question is not whether the landlord caused the interference, but whether she permitted it by inaction or insufficient action once on notice.
- In the landlord’s favour, a 14-day notice to remedy was issued on 15 September 2025, with the downstairs tenant being evicted at the end of October 2025.
- The landlord denies knowledge of actual drug dealing (as distinct from drug use).
- The interference appears to have been persistent, serious, and escalating.
- The issues were said to exist from the start of the tenancy and continued for weeks after formal action was taken.
- The eviction occurred only after police involvement and criminal charges, suggesting landlord action may have been largely reactive rather than proactive.
- On balance, the Tribunal finds that although the landlord did take some steps, those steps were insufficient in light of the seriousness of the situation. Repeated door knocking by drug seeking strangers and police involvement tend to be viewed as well beyond mere nuisance.
- A breach of quiet enjoyment is therefore reasonably arguable, particularly for the period before effective enforcement and eviction, even though the landlord did act and ultimately removed the source of the problem.
- Accordingly, I find the claim proven in respect of this allegation by the tenant. Police Involvement and Trespass of Tenant’s Mother
- The second aspect raises distinct quiet enjoyment and lawful occupation issues.
- The tenant’s mother attended the property for a routine inspection, apparently at the tenant’s invitation.
- A confrontation occurred, followed by the landlord seeking police advice and obtaining a trespass notice against the tenant’s mother.
- The police later advised that the trespass order would be void if the tenant invited her mother onto the premises.
- Further confrontations occurred on 27 December, 29 December, and 4 March, with police called but taking no further action.
- A tenant is entitled to invite guests, including family members, unless doing so breaches the tenancy agreement or constitutes anti-social behaviour.
- A landlord cannot unilaterally exclude a tenant’s invited guest from the premises in the absence of a lawful basis.
- Involving police and pursuing trespass orders against a tenant’s visitor, particularly where that visitor has been invited and is not engaging in objectively serious misconduct, can amount to interference with quiet enjoyment.
- The landlord’s account suggests she felt personally threatened, was distressed, and sought police advice, not confrontation.
- Police advised her to seek a trespass order, which she did.
- There is evidence of high conflict involving multiple parties, including threats made by third parties.
- The tenant’s mother was present with the tenant’s consent, and police ultimately took no enforcement action.
- Attempts to trespass the mother, and repeated police involvement initiated by the landlord or her daughter, risk being characterised as harassing or intimidating, even if not intended as such.
- The landlord’s actions had the practical effect of discouraging the tenant from having family support.
- Having regard to all the circumstances I find that the landlord’s actions in attempting to trespass the tenant’s mother—while she was an invited guest— amounted to an interference with quiet enjoyment, even if motivated by fear or misunderstanding. Subjective fear does not justify objectively unreasonable interference with the tenant’s lawful occupation. Overall Conclusion Downstairs tenant behaviour:
- As noted, there is an arguable breach of quiet enjoyment due to the seriousness and persistence of the interference. In my view, the landlord’s remedial steps reduced but do not eliminate liability.
- There is a stronger likelihood of a breach of quiet enjoyment in relation to the attempted trespass of the tenant’s mother and repeated police involvement where the mother was an invited guest.
- These actions are likely to be seen as unreasonable interference, even if undertaken in good faith.
- Accordingly, I find it just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages of $1,000.00 because I am satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, and that, having regard to: (i)the landlord was aware of the issues with the downstairs tenant. I am also satisfied that the landlord acted intentionally by trespassing the tenant’s mother from the tenancy address; (j)the interests of the tenant, against whom the unlawful act was committed, to receive a penalty payment from the landlord for this breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises; and (k)It is in the public interest to penalise a landlord for such breaches as outlined above. See section 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA.
- 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Landlord application Did the tenant make changes to the premises without the consent of the landlord? Lock change
- The claim concerns allegations by the landlord that the tenant made changes to the premises without the landlord’s consent, contrary to section 42 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). The issues relate to (1) the replacement of the front door lock and (2) the installation of a panel heater.
- The tenant replaced the lock on the front door during the tenancy. The tenant says the existing lock was sticking and not functioning properly.
- The tenant states that she purchased the replacement lock before the landlord left the premises and that the landlord indicated this was acceptable. The tenant says she left the new lock, the old lock, and the purchase receipt on the kitchen bench for the landlord to see.
- The tenant notified the landlord’s representative on the same day the lock was changed.
- The tenant mailed the new keys promptly.
- The landlord’s representative accepted that he received the keys a few days later. Panel heater
- The landlord supplied a panel heater to the tenant.
- The landlord says she told the tenant the heater could be installed in the hallway.
- The tenant installed the heater in the bedroom instead.
- Installation of the heater involved fixing it to the wall, resulting in holes.
- The landlord says the heater is not safe for installation in a bedroom.
- The landlord was advised during the hearing that concerns about damage or reinstatement would need to be pursued as a vacated compensation claim. Statutory provisions
- Under section 42(2)(a) of the Act, a tenant must not make any alteration or addition to the premises without the landlord’s written consent, unless the change is a minor change.
- Minor changes are those which do not permanently alter the premises and are easily reversible.
- Where a change results in damage beyond fair wear and tear, compensation may be sought under the Act, usually after the tenancy has ended. Analysis - Locks
- The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s evidence that the lock was sticking and required replacement.
- Replacing a faulty lock for security or functionality reasons is commonly regarded as a minor change, provided the landlord is informed and supplied with keys.
- The tenant notified the landlord’s representative on the same day the lock was changed and promptly provided replacement keys.
- While the landlord may not have initially been aware of the change, access to the premises was restored within a reasonable timeframe.
- The Tribunal is satisfied there was no intention by the tenant to restrict the landlord’s access to the premises.
- In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the replacement of the front door lock was reasonable and does not constitute an unauthorised alteration within the meaning of section 42 of the Act. Analysis – panel heater
- The landlord claims the tenant has failed to return the premises to a condition that was substantially the same as the condition prior to a minor change being made by the tenant.
- On or before the expiry of a tenancy the tenant must return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition the premises were in prior to the minor change being made. See 42B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The installation of the panel heater involved fixing it to the wall and creating holes in the wall surface.
- This constitutes a more permanent alteration and is not a minor change.
- The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that consent was given for installation in the hallway only.
- The heater was installed in the bedroom without the landlord’s consent.
- The installation was therefore outside the scope of any permission granted.
- Any issues relating to repair costs, reinstatement of the wall, or safety concerns are properly treated as a vacated compensation claim and do not require determination at this stage. The landlord would need to file a new application at the end of the tenancy. Conclusion
- The tenant did not breach the Residential Tenancies Act by replacing the front door lock.
- Any claim arising from the heater installation must be pursued separately as a vacated compensation claim. This claim has not been established. Harassment
- The landlord claims harassment of her father and her daughter by the tenant.
- The landlord says that the tenant harassed the landlord’s daughter with accusations such as “your mother is taking me to the tenancy court”. The landlord asked the tenant to stop involving her daughter with tenancy matters. The tenant continued to harass the landlord’s daughter.
- The landlord served two 14-day notices on the tenant to stop this behaviour. The landlord’s father also received emails, sometimes 6 or 7 in the morning. The father says there has been harassment throughout the tenancy. The landlord’s father issued a notice to the tenant that, unless it was an emergency, then he would only respond at certain times.
- The tenant does not accept the claim of harassment.
- The landlord’s father received multiple emails from the tenant, sometimes several in a short period of time. Analysis
- A tenant harassing a landlord is not a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and there is no basis for the Tribunal to make an award for harassment by a tenant against a landlord.
- This was confirmed in an earlier decision where the Tribunal stated that harassment by the tenant of a landlord during the tenancy is not a breach of the RTA.
- The RTA does not provide a remedy for landlords who claim to have been harassed by tenants. The harassment provisions in the RTA are designed to protect tenants from harassment by landlords, not the other way around.
- I make no other finding or award because the legislation does not provide for it.
- It is an unlawful act for a landlord to harass a tenant or for a tenant to harass a neighbour or other tenant, and up to $3,000.00 can be awarded in exemplary damages.
- Residential tenancies legislation does not similarly protect a landlord, agent, or owner, from being harassed by a tenant as they go about their work.
- The landlord’s claim for harassment is dismissed.
- Because [The applicant/s] has partly succeeded with the application I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- 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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
- The tenant has been partly successful with her application and name suppression is ordered accordingly.
- Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
- Given the nature of the various complaints and the evidence received I find it appropriate to also order name suppression in respect of the landlord details.
- As the tenancy was ongoing at the date of hearing I make no order in respect of the bond.