What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393051 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 5393051?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393051?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13510338-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393051 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 5393051?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393051?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13510338-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5393051 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5393051 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation breach of quiet enjoyment	$500.00	Compensation breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	67. I award the tenant $500 compensation for the breach which I consider is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5393051 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation breach of quiet enjoyment	$500.00	Compensation breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	67. I award the tenant $500 compensation for the breach which I consider is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
By way of declaration, the 14-day breach notice for parking served on the tenant and dated 20 October 2025 was unjustified and invalid.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities Susan Rei must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing with Ms Rei representing the landlord. The tenant’s mother (referred to as Ms B) and the Senior Housing Support Manager (SHSM), Mr Leota, also attended as witnesses.
The tenant has applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages from the landlord for the following breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): a. Breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment in relation to the conduct of the SHSM managing her tenancy; b. Failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits interference with the reasonable peace comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.; c. Unlawful entry by the SHSM.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden. Background facts
This is a periodic tenancy which began on 30 April 2024. The premises are a three bedroom, two-storied flat attached to two other flats on either side. It is also part of a residential complex comprising of 11 flats with a shared driveway. Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities is the landlord for all 11 flats and the tenancies are managed by Senior Housing Support Manager, Mr Leota. Tenant Case
There have been tensions between the tenant and her neighbouring tenant (Ms A) for some time with Ms A making complaints which the tenant says are untrue. The complaints include that the tenant sprayed weed killer through the neighbour’s vents; being noisy and banging on walls; and parking or allowing visitors to park in a manner that obstructs the neighbour’s access to their flat. A timeline of the complaints follows. August 2025 visit by SHSM
In or about August 2025, the tenant arrived home to find someone she now knows to be SHSM, Mr Leota, outside the premises. This is the first time she met him. He followed her to the front door and asked her whether she had weedkiller and if he could have a look. He did not introduce himself and she did not ask who he was but got the impression he was from Kāinga Ora. He then followed her upstairs into her flat without her consent. He asked her about weedkiller and if she liked living there. After a while he left. She felt very intimidated and says that she reported the incident to the Police. However, no police report relating to an incident in August 2025 was provided in evidence.
Sometime later, the neighbour Ms A visited the tenant at home stating that Mr Leota had suggested she come over to “clear the air.” The tenant asked what she meant. Ms A replied that she believed the tenant had been spraying weedkiller into her vents. The tenant says Ms A started acting out, swaying her arms around. The tenant found this distressing and asked her to leave. Incident with neighbour on 10 October 2025
On 10 October 2025, the tenant’s mother (Ms B) and her partner (Mr B) arrived in their vehicle to drop off the tenant’s children from school. As they came inside and went upstairs, the neighbour’s partner (Mr A) banged on the front door very loudly. Mr B walked downstairs and opened the door to find him holding a baseball bat and yelling: “Move the van or I’ll f...ing smash it.” The tenant says that her mother’s van was parked in front of the tenant’s garage. She went onto the upstairs exterior balcony and filmed part of the incident below showing Mr A wielding the bat. No video was produced in evidence. However, the tenant produced a photo she took at the time which shows a man holding a bat in his hand. The tenant told him: “Stop I have kids” and says Mr A replied, “Shut up or you’ll be next.” In the meantime, Mr B moved the van.
The tenant called the police who arrived shortly thereafter and arrested Mr A. The tenant understands that he has been charged, pleaded guilty, and is awaiting sentence. She confirms that he was bailed back to the neighbouring flat and he has complied with a court order with bail conditions not to speak to the tenant nor come near her flat. The landlord also issued Ms A with an anti- social behaviour notice. 1 Issue of breach notice for parking
The tenant complains that following this incident, the landlord unfairly issued the tenant with a breach notice 2 for parking on 20 October which read as follows: Breach of tenancy agreement We have been trying to contact you to talk about vehicles from your property blocking access to the neighbour’s parking space and entry. This is a breach of your tenancy agreement where the behaviour is perceived as more than a minor issue and causing 1 Under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a landlord under a periodic tenancy may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the ground of anti-social behaviour provided three notices for anti-social behaviour have been served on the tenant in accordance with section 55A(2) RTA. 2 Under section 56 RTA the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that a tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement; and in the case of a breach capable of remedy the landlord has served a notice on the tenant specifying the breach and requiring the other party to remedy it within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days, and the tenant has failed to do so. disruption with other residents. We are giving you 14 days’ notice to fix this under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. What you need to do •Be responsible for your vehicles and any of your visitors’ vehicles blocking any access way into the neighbour’s property. Please do this by 4th November 2025. If this behaviour continues or any other behavioural issues re-occur with any of the neighbouring residents, Kainga Ora will look to escalate it to tribunal for disruptive behaviour and potentially terminating your tenancy.
The tenant says that Mr Leota has implied that she provoked the neighbours, and he has “sided with” them because they explained that the incident on 10 October resulted from frustration with the tenant or her visitors parking vehicles across the entry to their flat/garage. However, the tenant does not believe her mother’s car was obstructing access. She says that she has video evidence to prove this, but she has not provided this to the landlord nor in evidence at the hearing. She says that Mr A’s behaviour was completely unacceptable and frightening and has made the tenant and her children feel very unsafe. In those circumstances, the breach notice was unjustified when she and her children were the victims in this incident. She has complained about this outcome to the landlord. She wants the breach notice withdrawn.
The tenant also says that the tenancy agreement does not specify any parking rules and there is no clear signage or parking boundary lines at the residential complex. In those circumstances, it is also unfair to issue a breach notice for parking. Photos were produced of other vehicles parked in breach of the alleged rules. Summary of other complaints and issues
The tenant claims that the landlord has mishandled her complaint about the breach notice by referring the complaint back to Mr Leota who made the decision to issue the breach notice in the first place. She says this removed impartiality and made her feel unsafe. She wants Mr Leota removed as the tenancy manager for these premises and the landlord to review its complaint process.
The tenant claims that phone calls, text messages and other communications from Mr Leota have been rude and inappropriate. She also blames him for suggesting that the neighbour talk to her directly about matters which only escalated the conflict. She provided a transcript of part of a phone call with Mr Leota on 13 November 2025 and says that his tone was rude and inappropriate. However, the sound recording was not provided to prove what was said and the tone. She also advised Mr Leota to stop telephoning her and ensure all communications were in writing. She says he ignored this request and contacted her about another complaint on 8 December 2025 when Ms A alleged the tenant had kicked in their front door.
The tenant claims other complaints made by the neighbour are false and have been mishandled by the landlord including the allegations of spraying weedkiller into the neighbour’s vents; kicking the front door; and banging on walls.
Ms B gave evidence confirming the events that took place in her presence on 10 October 2025 and about the phone call from Mr Leota to the tenant on 13 November 2025 which she overheard and says was rude in tone.
In summary, the tenant claims that the landlord’s mishandling of these matters and the unreasonable and unjustified issue of the breach notice has caused her significant distress and amounts to a breach of her quiet enjoyment and harassment in the use of the premises. Landlord case
Mr Leota provided a written statement and attended the hearing to be questioned. His evidence may be summarised as follows.
He first met the tenant on 19 August 2025. At the time he had only recently been appointed to manage the residential complex. A complaint had been received from Ms A. Mr Leota and a colleague decided to attend in person to talk to Ms A and the tenant. On arriving at the complex, Mr Leota saw the tenant outside her flat. He asked whether she was the tenant, which she confirmed. He identified himself as a Tenancy Manager by showing his ID and explained that he had only recently been assigned to the complex and was not yet familiar with all tenants.
Mr Leota asked whether the tenant was comfortable having a brief discussion about some concerns that had been raised by Ms A and, if not, he could arrange another time. She agreed and invited him into her home, where they spoke in the upstairs living area for 10-15 minutes. The following matters were discussed: parking concerns; banging/noises; alleged weed spray smell.
Mr Leota says the tenant acknowledged that she sometimes parks incorrectly and that her children can be noisy around bedtime. She denied any knowledge of weed spray smells. She advised Mr Leota that she would be more mindful about these issues. Mr Leota was satisfied with the response and expected that the situation between the neighbours would resolve.
Following the incident on 10 October 2025, Mr Leota spoke with the neighbours. Ms A explained that her partner had come home from nightshift work to find the van belonging to the tenant’s guests parked in a manner that obstructed access to their flat/garage. After considering the matter and taking advice from a team leader, Mr Leota issued the anti-social behaviour notice against the neighbour for threatening and disruptive behaviour and a breach notice against the tenant for incorrect parking.
Initially, in an email on 20 October, the tenant accepted the breach notice and said that she would tell her mother to park on the street. In another email later that day she claimed to have video footage proving the van did not obstruct the neighbour’s entry. Therefore, she no longer accepted that the breach notice was justified. Mr Leota later advised the tenant that if she could prove her mother’s car was parked correctly he would withdraw the notice. No proof was provided.
The landlord maintains that they took appropriate steps to deal with the competing complaints from each neighbour. Mr Leota says that the ongoing interactions between the tenant and Ms A are primarily the result of neighbour relationship issues, rather than a single isolated tenancy breach.
The landlord says that their communications with the tenant were entirely reasonable and appropriate to address complaints and concerns raised by the neighbour.
In relation to the parking rules, the landlord provided a copy of a notice issued to all residents on 23 October 2024 as follows:
Other than the above notice, there are no provisions in the tenancy agreement about parking. However, the landlord says that they clearly explain to tenants at the start of any tenancy that parking is either inside the garage of the flat or directly in front of the garage. There are no parking lines, but the landlord submits that it is common-sense and obvious from the layout of the properties that tenants should park straight in front of their garages (so that the front of the vehicle faces the garage), rather than side-on or at an angle, to ensure access to a neighbour’s flat/garage is not impeded.

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 3 3 Section 38(2) RTA
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. 4
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". 5
I repeat my comments at the earlier case conference hearing 6 that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make orders requiring the landlord to change the case manager handling the tenancy; requiring the landlord to withdraw breach notices; and nor may the Tribunal make any orders concerning the landlord’s internal complaints process. The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to determine breaches of the RTA and to award compensation and exemplary damages for any breaches, if appropriate. The Tribunal also has jurisdiction to make declarations concerning the parties’ rights and obligations and that includes a declaration about the validity of a breach notice. 7 General complaints
In relation to the tenant’s general complaints that the landlord did not deal appropriately with allegations made by the neighbouring tenants, I have carefully considered all the available evidence including copies of the communications provided by the tenant. I find that the landlord acted reasonably and appropriately in contacting the tenant to address the issues. Furthermore, when one tenant raises a complaint about another, the landlord has a duty to investigate and take reasonable steps to address the complaint. There was no independent evidence to establish that the tenant sprayed weedkiller or disturbed the neighbour’s reasonable peace because of noise or other antics. The landlord did not issue the tenant with any breach notices in respect of the neighbour’s allegations except for parking. I address parking separately below.
I also accept on the evidence that the landlord has followed a process for dealing with the tenant’s complaints about Mr Leota’s handling of her tenancy which is reasonable. It is common when a complaint is made for it to be referred to the case manager dealing with the matter in the first place. I am also satisfied that in this case, Mr Leota stopped telephoning the tenant when she asked communications to be in writing. There is no evidence to establish he telephoned the tenant on 8 December 2025 after she asked him not to. He also proposed a meeting with his team leader present to discuss the issues and figure out some way forward. The tenant declined a meeting. 4 Section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA 5 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010 6 See also the Tribunal order 4.2.2026 dated at paragraph 3 7 Section 78(1)(a) RTA
In summary, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to try and resolve the above complaints. I find no breach of quiet enjoyment in the tenant’s use of the premises in relation to the landlord’s handling of the above issues, nor harassment. Parking breach notice
The tenant has complained that the parking breach notice issued by the landlord was unjustified. The issues to determine are whether there was a parking breach such that the breach notice was justified, and if not, whether issuing the notice is a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment and/or harassment.
While the landlord says that they explain the parking rules to every tenant, the parking rules are not recorded in the tenancy agreement. There was also no evidence of signage at the complex about parking nor are there any painted parking lines.
The parking rules detailed in the notice issued by the landlord in October 2024 (reproduced in paragraph 26 above) are not clear. It states that there is one allocated carpark per property and that tenants must park within the allocated carpark or in their garage. However, the notice does not contain a diagram or a description of each “allocated carpark.” There are also no painted parking lines designating the spaces for each flat. The notice also states that there is no visitor parking in the shared driveway and visitors must park on the public road. However, there was no evidence of signage at the complex which displays this rule.
The landlord argues that it is obvious that the “allocated carpark” is straight in front of each tenant’s garage and that cars should be parked so that the front of the vehicle faces the garage.
Overall, I consider that the parking rules are not clear because they are not included in the tenancy agreement; the later notice does not provide a diagram or adequate description of the “allocated carpark”; there is no signage at the complex; and there are no painted lines to mark the area which is “within the allocated carpark.”
However, I accept on the evidence that Mr Leota discussed parking with the tenant on 19 August 2025 and asked her not to park across the neighbour’s entry way. He says that she acknowledged the problem. Based on subsequent emails provide in evidence by the tenant, I am satisfied that she knew about the parking rules. Therefore, it was incumbent on her to ensure that she and her visitors did not obstruct the neighbour’s access/entry as advised by Mr Leota.
Given that the parking breach on 10 October 2025 is the event that triggered service of the breach notice, the onus is on the landlord to prove that the tenant’s guest was parked incorrectly that day such that the notice was justified.
When asked at the hearing to outline what evidence there was of parking in breach of the rules, Mr Leota advised that the tenant initially admitted to it and the neighbours would not complain if it was not real.
However, the email evidence shows that the tenant did not admit to the obstructive parking, so much as she accepted the breach notice after Mr Leota advised her that he was issuing it. She then reconsidered and later advised that she believed the notice was not justified because there was evidence that the parking did not obstruct the neighbour’s entry.
Mr Leota also stated that the neighbours had a camera at their front door and there is footage of the parking. However, this footage was not provided in evidence.
Mr Leota says the breach notice was necessary to address the parking problem that had been discussed for some time to stop the escalation. However, the landlord did not provide any evidence that further carparking complaints were made against the tenant and raised with her after Mr Leota’s first discussion with the tenant on 19 August and before the incident on 10 October.
I have carefully considered all the available evidence. Other than the word of the neighbours (Ms A), I find that the landlord has not provided any supporting evidence (such as independent witness accounts or video footage) to prove that the tenant’s guests parked their car in a manner that obstructed Ms A’s access on 10 October. That being the case, I find that service of the breach notice following that incident was not justified and is invalid.
I do not accept the landlord’s characterisation of the notice as minor because any breach notice is a step towards termination of the tenancy. Therefore, it should not be issued or treated lightly. The tenant is understandably concerned that the landlord will later rely on the notice and apply to terminate the tenancy.
Overall, I find that issuing the breach notice in those circumstances has caused the tenant distress and has interfered with her reasonable peace and comfort in the use of the premises. I consider an award of compensation for the breach later in this decision once I have considered the remaining claims, as the tenant sought a global amount for all her claims.
I do not go as far as to find harassment as this is one event that is not a pattern of behaviour directed towards the tenant. Therefore, there is no basis for considering an award of exemplary damages. Has the landlord taken reasonable steps to prevent other tenants from breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
A landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. However, a breach of this obligation is not an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may consider an award of exemplary damages.
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to satisfactorily address the neighbour’s behaviour on 10 October. They have failed to make a safety plan and support the tenant. She wants them to end the neighbour’s tenancy or relocate them.
There can be no question that the behaviour of Mr A on 10 October was unacceptable and caused the tenant and her family considerable distress and concern for their safety and well-being. As a result, the landlord has issued the neighbour with an anti-social behaviour notice. 8 If three such notices are served on the neighbour within a 90-day period, the landlord may apply for termination, and the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy unless satisfied that it would be unfair to do so because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred or the notices were given.
The landlord says that they considered whether to apply for immediate termination of Ms A’s tenancy on that basis that her partner threatened to assault a neighbouring tenant. 9 However, they determined that such an application would unlikely meet the criteria because the person to whom Mr A directed his threatening behaviour was Mr B, not the tenant, Also, it would appear that the threat was to “smash the van” not to assault the tenant or Mr B. The tenant alleges that Mr A also threatened her by telling her “Shut up or you’ll be next” but there is no audio evidence of that threat.
The other key factors are that the Police have laid charges which are taking their course and, since the incident, the tenant has confirmed that Mr A has complied with court ordered bail conditions not to contact her. This indicates there are no ongoing threats of damage from Mr A.
The tenant also confirmed at the hearing that she has not made any other formal complaints against this neighbour apart from the incident on 10 October. This also indicates that there are no ongoing threats.
The incident on 10 October was a “one-off” and unpredictable event. I find no evidence of any concerning behaviour or complaints reported by the tenant about Ms A to the landlord leading up to this event. Therefore, the landlord could not reasonably foresee that matters might escalate in this manner and take any necessary steps to prevent it.
After carefully considering all the circumstances and the available evidence, I find that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to ensure that Ms A does not 8 See n1 above—s 55A RTA 9 Section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA—The Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault— any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part. cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. For that reason, the claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord entered the premises unlawfully?

The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. 10 For the purpose of landlord access, the definition of premises does not include land or facilities. 11 This means that a landlord may enter the surrounding land without giving notice,
The tenant claims that Mr Leota entered her premises on 19 August 2025 without her consent. However, Mr Leota has provided his side of the story and says that the tenant agreed to speak with him and invited him in. This is one person’s word against the other. However, the onus is on the tenant to prove her claim, and I find that she has not done so. There is no other evidence to corroborate her claim. I consider the breach is not proved.
The tenants also complains that Mr Leota accessed the exterior of her premises. Mr Leota confirmed that he accessed the grounds after the breach notice was issued to check on the parking and he took a photo showing the van belonging to the tenant’s mother parked and blocking access in the driveway on 21 November 2025. He also visited the exterior grounds as a part of his role as tenancy manager for the complex. Access by Mr Leota in those circumstances is not a breach of the RTA and the claim is dismissed. Compensation
It is well accepted when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Appellate courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering awards. The assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact science, and a commonsense approach is required. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
I have found that the landlord has breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises by issuing an unjustified parking breach notice. The tenant 10 Sections 48(1) & (2) RTA 11 Section 48(7) RTA sought a global award of compensation in relation to all her claims to cover the ongoing distress, safety impacts and trauma suffered by her and her children. She seeks compensation of $8,000 to cover the estimated costs of counselling for her and her children because of the distress and trauma caused by Mr A’s behaviour on 10 October.
While I recognise how distressing this incident was, I have made a finding that it was unpredictable and not an event that the landlord could have foreseen or prevented. I have also found that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the behaviour since. There is no breach of the landlord’s duties in that regard. Therefore, the landlord is not liable for compensation arising out of Mr A’s behaviour on 10 October and its impact on the tenants.
I can only award compensation for the breach of quiet enjoyment as it relates to the unjustified parking breach notice.
While I accept that service of the notice on the tenant was distressing and caused her upset and concern, the level of damages that can reasonably be awarded for this must be at the lower end of the scale.
I award the tenant $500 compensation for the breach which I consider is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. As the tenant has partially succeeded with her claims I also award her reimbursement of the filing fee.
I consider that there is no public interest in the tenant’s name and identifying details being published and I suppress those details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393051 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393051 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

Has the landlord entered the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

Has the landlord entered the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions