Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396102 — 14-day notice at 50A Torkar Road, Clarks Beach 2122

Decided 12 March 2026 · Published 12 March 2026 · Application 5396102

Landlord favoured

14-day notice
Cleanliness
Exemplary damages
Harassment

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Landlord favoured

From published order

Location

Clarks Beach

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Pollak

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396102. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 23 February 2026 and 12 March 2026.
The 23 February 2026 hearing was adjourned to allow the tenant to resubmit evidence that she claimed she had submitted with the application but that did not appear in the Tribunal’s case management system. I note that new further evidence was submitted by the tenant by the 9 March 2026 deadline. She submitted some witness statements and text messages today that were not accepted for filing as they were outside the deadline provided to her. The landlord had not had the opportunity to read and submit a defence to this new evidence and to accept t would have been procedurally unfair and a breach of natural justice.
The tenant has applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The evidence provided shows that there has been a break down in communication between the tenant and the property manager that led to a significant breakdown in the relationship.
The tenant was clearly very distraught and has faced some significant health issues, as well as grieving the recent loss of loved ones, that have compounded her feelings of being unheard. On top of this, she says she has been accused of cleanliness and maintenance issues that she denies, or says were exaggerated, or were inconsistent with other communications she received from the property manager.
The tenant has made complaints to the property manager, the owner of the property management company, that acted as the landlord’s agent, and Harcourt’s Head Office as the property management company’s franchisor.
Mediation failed to happen, when the property management company required the property manager that had managed this property to attend that mediation on its behalf. The tenant clams she was so traumatised by the breakdown in her relationship with this property manager that she is in therapy and had ben told not to have any further contact with her.
The tenant requested that the property manager not be permitted to attend this hearing today but was informed that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to veto a parties choice of representative when the representative is the person with direct knowledge of the claims made by the other party. The only time the Tribunal can reject a representative is if the party requests a legal representative when the claim is below the statutory threshold of $6,000.00 or the representative does not have sufficient knowledge of the claims to answer the Tribunal’s questions in relation to the claims.
The landlord chose to have its property manager attend the hearing today because she was the only one in the office that had sufficient knowledge of the claims to answer the Tribunal’s questions in relation to the tenant’s claims.
The tenant was able to keep her camera off during the hearing to assist her to manage contact with the property manager as best she could. The property manager kept her camera on by choice. It was her right to do so.
Many of the tenant’s claims related to miscommunication and issues that arose during the tenancy where the landlord claimed the tenant ad breached her s40 of the RTA obligations and/or her contractual obligations as set out in the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not make a cross application, and I had no jurisdiction to hear any of the tenant’s claims about the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord because of these alleged miscommunications and/or the alleged s40 of the RTA/contractual breaches by the tenant.
I acknowledge the breakdown in the property manager/tenant relationship has been challenging for all parties and that the tenant has found this particularly stressful, as she has felt unheard (by the property manager, property management company and Harcourt’s Head Office), frustrated and distraught. I also acknowledge that the tenant has taken the issues raised with her as a slight on her cleanliness and an attack on her house keeping when she is very house proud and only let some house/yard keeping issues to arise when she had health issues that ultimately led to spinal and hip surgery. These health issues meant she was compromised in her ability to bend and undertake house/yard work for some time prior to receiving surgery, as well as post- surgery. The landlord says it tried to encourage her to get cleaning help from ACC but otherwise still required the premise to be kept to a reasonable standard. The tenant considered this approach to lack empathy and compassion and says it contributed to a deterioration in her mental health.
This Order relates solely to the tenant’s failure to maintain and breach of quiet enjoyment claims as these are the claims the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
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 unlikely, 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section 109(2) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act.

TENANT CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1) (b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant?

The tenant says the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to her.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
Breaching this s45(1) of the RTA obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
Alejandra Lui Caceres claims that the landlord has failed to repair an overflow pipe that came out the side of the house that did not line up with the drain, which was a few centimetres to the left.
The tenant claims this overflow pipe caused a concerning volume of water to pool beneath the overflow pipe and eventually all around the foundations of the premise. She claims that she raised this issue with the property manager at each inspection and in phone calls, but did not have any written evidence of raising this issue or following up the calls, except one message to Claudine shortly before the end of the tenancy that had a photograph attached. This message and photograph were not included in the evidence submitted.
The landlord provided several routine property inspection photographs and reports that showed this overflow pipe. The 28 November 2025 report shows some water below the overflow pipe, but it is not a concern volume and does not appear to be widespread. The inspection reports and photographs show that there is some water under the overflow pipe but there is no mention in the reports of the tenant raising concerns about the overflow pipe.
The landlord produced evidence that the overflow pipe was relocated on 11 December 2025, which was in a reasonable timeframe after the tenant raised the issue with Claudine around 28 November 2025.
I do not find that there is sufficient evidence to prove the landlord failed to maintain the premise in a reasonable condition in all the circumstances and dismiss the claim accordingly. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment
Alejandra Lui Caceres claims the landlord has harassed her and breached her quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that 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.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be 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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was the owner’s visit to the premise on 6 September 2025.
After the tenant had been given at least 48 hours’ notice of the visit, she had requested the visit be delayed, as she was at home recovering from surgery and had arranged for cleaners to come the following Monday. As such, the premise was not in a condition that weekend for the tenant to feel comfortable with the owner visiting.
The property manager confirmed the owner lives in Northland, had made a special trip to come and undertaken some maintenance work in the yard that weekend. He wanted to make it more presentable for open homes. The property manager stated the owner needed to sell the property and did not want to delay undertaking work that would assist in the sales process.
The tenant was unaware he had been that weekend and had thought the property managers had conveyed to the owner the reason the house would not be in a condition fit for his visit until the following Monday. Later on, she found he had come to the premise and had picked up dog faeces from the back yard and taken it into the property management company to complain that the yard was not in a fit condition for open homes. The property manager says they had informed him of the tenant’s circumstances, but he had made multiple complaints to the property manager about dog faces in the yard in the past. The tenant says she is unaware of these complaints.
The result was the tenant was embarrassed that the landlord found the yard full of dog faeces, when she was incapable physically of picking it up and had arranged for a cleaner to come the following Monday. She states that it was unreasonable to put her in that position when a few days hence the yard would have been clean.
The landlord submitted it is legally entitled to have the owner access the premise with the requisite notice, which it provided to the tenant. It also confirmed that it weighed up the reasonableness of the tenant’s request to delay the visit outside of the premise, with the owner’s need to complete the maintenance work he had already travelled from Northland to Auckland to undertake, and that was required to help him sell the house.
I consider the owner’s need to access the property for maintenance, after he had travelled so far to complete this work, outweighs the tenant’s needs not to have him see the back yard with dog faeces in it. It is unfortunate that the tenant’s physical incapacity being the reason for the state of the yard was not conveyed fully to the owner before his visit to the yard.
The tenant also claimed the property manager harassed and intimidated her and engaged in conduct to trouble, worry, distress, wear out, tire out or exhaust the tenant. While I accept the relationship between the tenant and the property manager deteriorated due to a number of reasons, there was no evidence to suggest the property manager acted outside of the scope of her role, nor that she engaged in conduct intended to upset, distress, worry or harasst the tenant.
I am not satisfied the tenant had provide sufficient evidence, on the balance of probabilities to prove her breach of quiet enjoyment claim. There was no pattern of constant interference or intimidation or deliberate harassment by the owner or the property manager proven. I dismiss the claim accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Alejandra Lui Caceres has not been wholly or substantially successful in her claims. Her application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name Suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
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.
The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded in her proceedings, and I consider that the public interest in this application outweighs any detriment to the tenant due to the nature of the claims made and the claims being unsubstantiated.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

14-day notice Cleanliness Exemplary damages Harassment Clarks Beach

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s102(4), s109(2), s14, s2, s21, s3, s38, s38(2), s38(3), s40, s45(1), s45(1A)

Key findings

Dispute theme: termination 14day
Dispute theme: cleaning
Dispute theme: exemplary damages

Property management

PORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396102?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5396102?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396102?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13274184-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396102 — 14-day notice at 50A Torkar Road, Clarks Beach 2122

Decided 12 March 2026 · Published 12 March 2026 · Application 5396102

Landlord favoured

14-day notice
Cleanliness
Exemplary damages
Harassment

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Landlord favoured

From published order

Location

Clarks Beach

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Pollak

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396102. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 23 February 2026 and 12 March 2026.
The 23 February 2026 hearing was adjourned to allow the tenant to resubmit evidence that she claimed she had submitted with the application but that did not appear in the Tribunal’s case management system. I note that new further evidence was submitted by the tenant by the 9 March 2026 deadline. She submitted some witness statements and text messages today that were not accepted for filing as they were outside the deadline provided to her. The landlord had not had the opportunity to read and submit a defence to this new evidence and to accept t would have been procedurally unfair and a breach of natural justice.
The tenant has applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The evidence provided shows that there has been a break down in communication between the tenant and the property manager that led to a significant breakdown in the relationship.
The tenant was clearly very distraught and has faced some significant health issues, as well as grieving the recent loss of loved ones, that have compounded her feelings of being unheard. On top of this, she says she has been accused of cleanliness and maintenance issues that she denies, or says were exaggerated, or were inconsistent with other communications she received from the property manager.
The tenant has made complaints to the property manager, the owner of the property management company, that acted as the landlord’s agent, and Harcourt’s Head Office as the property management company’s franchisor.
Mediation failed to happen, when the property management company required the property manager that had managed this property to attend that mediation on its behalf. The tenant clams she was so traumatised by the breakdown in her relationship with this property manager that she is in therapy and had ben told not to have any further contact with her.
The tenant requested that the property manager not be permitted to attend this hearing today but was informed that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to veto a parties choice of representative when the representative is the person with direct knowledge of the claims made by the other party. The only time the Tribunal can reject a representative is if the party requests a legal representative when the claim is below the statutory threshold of $6,000.00 or the representative does not have sufficient knowledge of the claims to answer the Tribunal’s questions in relation to the claims.
The landlord chose to have its property manager attend the hearing today because she was the only one in the office that had sufficient knowledge of the claims to answer the Tribunal’s questions in relation to the tenant’s claims.
The tenant was able to keep her camera off during the hearing to assist her to manage contact with the property manager as best she could. The property manager kept her camera on by choice. It was her right to do so.
Many of the tenant’s claims related to miscommunication and issues that arose during the tenancy where the landlord claimed the tenant ad breached her s40 of the RTA obligations and/or her contractual obligations as set out in the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not make a cross application, and I had no jurisdiction to hear any of the tenant’s claims about the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord because of these alleged miscommunications and/or the alleged s40 of the RTA/contractual breaches by the tenant.
I acknowledge the breakdown in the property manager/tenant relationship has been challenging for all parties and that the tenant has found this particularly stressful, as she has felt unheard (by the property manager, property management company and Harcourt’s Head Office), frustrated and distraught. I also acknowledge that the tenant has taken the issues raised with her as a slight on her cleanliness and an attack on her house keeping when she is very house proud and only let some house/yard keeping issues to arise when she had health issues that ultimately led to spinal and hip surgery. These health issues meant she was compromised in her ability to bend and undertake house/yard work for some time prior to receiving surgery, as well as post- surgery. The landlord says it tried to encourage her to get cleaning help from ACC but otherwise still required the premise to be kept to a reasonable standard. The tenant considered this approach to lack empathy and compassion and says it contributed to a deterioration in her mental health.
This Order relates solely to the tenant’s failure to maintain and breach of quiet enjoyment claims as these are the claims the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
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 unlikely, 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section 109(2) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act.

TENANT CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1) (b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant?

The tenant says the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to her.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
Breaching this s45(1) of the RTA obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
Alejandra Lui Caceres claims that the landlord has failed to repair an overflow pipe that came out the side of the house that did not line up with the drain, which was a few centimetres to the left.
The tenant claims this overflow pipe caused a concerning volume of water to pool beneath the overflow pipe and eventually all around the foundations of the premise. She claims that she raised this issue with the property manager at each inspection and in phone calls, but did not have any written evidence of raising this issue or following up the calls, except one message to Claudine shortly before the end of the tenancy that had a photograph attached. This message and photograph were not included in the evidence submitted.
The landlord provided several routine property inspection photographs and reports that showed this overflow pipe. The 28 November 2025 report shows some water below the overflow pipe, but it is not a concern volume and does not appear to be widespread. The inspection reports and photographs show that there is some water under the overflow pipe but there is no mention in the reports of the tenant raising concerns about the overflow pipe.
The landlord produced evidence that the overflow pipe was relocated on 11 December 2025, which was in a reasonable timeframe after the tenant raised the issue with Claudine around 28 November 2025.
I do not find that there is sufficient evidence to prove the landlord failed to maintain the premise in a reasonable condition in all the circumstances and dismiss the claim accordingly. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment
Alejandra Lui Caceres claims the landlord has harassed her and breached her quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that 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.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be 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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was the owner’s visit to the premise on 6 September 2025.
After the tenant had been given at least 48 hours’ notice of the visit, she had requested the visit be delayed, as she was at home recovering from surgery and had arranged for cleaners to come the following Monday. As such, the premise was not in a condition that weekend for the tenant to feel comfortable with the owner visiting.
The property manager confirmed the owner lives in Northland, had made a special trip to come and undertaken some maintenance work in the yard that weekend. He wanted to make it more presentable for open homes. The property manager stated the owner needed to sell the property and did not want to delay undertaking work that would assist in the sales process.
The tenant was unaware he had been that weekend and had thought the property managers had conveyed to the owner the reason the house would not be in a condition fit for his visit until the following Monday. Later on, she found he had come to the premise and had picked up dog faeces from the back yard and taken it into the property management company to complain that the yard was not in a fit condition for open homes. The property manager says they had informed him of the tenant’s circumstances, but he had made multiple complaints to the property manager about dog faces in the yard in the past. The tenant says she is unaware of these complaints.
The result was the tenant was embarrassed that the landlord found the yard full of dog faeces, when she was incapable physically of picking it up and had arranged for a cleaner to come the following Monday. She states that it was unreasonable to put her in that position when a few days hence the yard would have been clean.
The landlord submitted it is legally entitled to have the owner access the premise with the requisite notice, which it provided to the tenant. It also confirmed that it weighed up the reasonableness of the tenant’s request to delay the visit outside of the premise, with the owner’s need to complete the maintenance work he had already travelled from Northland to Auckland to undertake, and that was required to help him sell the house.
I consider the owner’s need to access the property for maintenance, after he had travelled so far to complete this work, outweighs the tenant’s needs not to have him see the back yard with dog faeces in it. It is unfortunate that the tenant’s physical incapacity being the reason for the state of the yard was not conveyed fully to the owner before his visit to the yard.
The tenant also claimed the property manager harassed and intimidated her and engaged in conduct to trouble, worry, distress, wear out, tire out or exhaust the tenant. While I accept the relationship between the tenant and the property manager deteriorated due to a number of reasons, there was no evidence to suggest the property manager acted outside of the scope of her role, nor that she engaged in conduct intended to upset, distress, worry or harasst the tenant.
I am not satisfied the tenant had provide sufficient evidence, on the balance of probabilities to prove her breach of quiet enjoyment claim. There was no pattern of constant interference or intimidation or deliberate harassment by the owner or the property manager proven. I dismiss the claim accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Alejandra Lui Caceres has not been wholly or substantially successful in her claims. Her application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name Suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
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.
The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded in her proceedings, and I consider that the public interest in this application outweighs any detriment to the tenant due to the nature of the claims made and the claims being unsubstantiated.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

14-day notice Cleanliness Exemplary damages Harassment Clarks Beach

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s102(4), s109(2), s14, s2, s21, s3, s38, s38(2), s38(3), s40, s45(1), s45(1A)

Key findings

Dispute theme: termination 14day
Dispute theme: cleaning
Dispute theme: exemplary damages

Property management

PORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396102?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5396102?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396102?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13274184-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396102 — 14-day notice at 50A Torkar Road, Clarks Beach 2122

Decided 12 March 2026 · Published 12 March 2026 · Application 5396102

Landlord favoured

14-day notice
Cleanliness
Exemplary damages
Harassment

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Landlord favoured

From published order

Location

Clarks Beach

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Pollak

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396102. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 23 February 2026 and 12 March 2026.
The 23 February 2026 hearing was adjourned to allow the tenant to resubmit evidence that she claimed she had submitted with the application but that did not appear in the Tribunal’s case management system. I note that new further evidence was submitted by the tenant by the 9 March 2026 deadline. She submitted some witness statements and text messages today that were not accepted for filing as they were outside the deadline provided to her. The landlord had not had the opportunity to read and submit a defence to this new evidence and to accept t would have been procedurally unfair and a breach of natural justice.
The tenant has applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The evidence provided shows that there has been a break down in communication between the tenant and the property manager that led to a significant breakdown in the relationship.
The tenant was clearly very distraught and has faced some significant health issues, as well as grieving the recent loss of loved ones, that have compounded her feelings of being unheard. On top of this, she says she has been accused of cleanliness and maintenance issues that she denies, or says were exaggerated, or were inconsistent with other communications she received from the property manager.
The tenant has made complaints to the property manager, the owner of the property management company, that acted as the landlord’s agent, and Harcourt’s Head Office as the property management company’s franchisor.
Mediation failed to happen, when the property management company required the property manager that had managed this property to attend that mediation on its behalf. The tenant clams she was so traumatised by the breakdown in her relationship with this property manager that she is in therapy and had ben told not to have any further contact with her.
The tenant requested that the property manager not be permitted to attend this hearing today but was informed that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to veto a parties choice of representative when the representative is the person with direct knowledge of the claims made by the other party. The only time the Tribunal can reject a representative is if the party requests a legal representative when the claim is below the statutory threshold of $6,000.00 or the representative does not have sufficient knowledge of the claims to answer the Tribunal’s questions in relation to the claims.
The landlord chose to have its property manager attend the hearing today because she was the only one in the office that had sufficient knowledge of the claims to answer the Tribunal’s questions in relation to the tenant’s claims.
The tenant was able to keep her camera off during the hearing to assist her to manage contact with the property manager as best she could. The property manager kept her camera on by choice. It was her right to do so.
Many of the tenant’s claims related to miscommunication and issues that arose during the tenancy where the landlord claimed the tenant ad breached her s40 of the RTA obligations and/or her contractual obligations as set out in the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not make a cross application, and I had no jurisdiction to hear any of the tenant’s claims about the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord because of these alleged miscommunications and/or the alleged s40 of the RTA/contractual breaches by the tenant.
I acknowledge the breakdown in the property manager/tenant relationship has been challenging for all parties and that the tenant has found this particularly stressful, as she has felt unheard (by the property manager, property management company and Harcourt’s Head Office), frustrated and distraught. I also acknowledge that the tenant has taken the issues raised with her as a slight on her cleanliness and an attack on her house keeping when she is very house proud and only let some house/yard keeping issues to arise when she had health issues that ultimately led to spinal and hip surgery. These health issues meant she was compromised in her ability to bend and undertake house/yard work for some time prior to receiving surgery, as well as post- surgery. The landlord says it tried to encourage her to get cleaning help from ACC but otherwise still required the premise to be kept to a reasonable standard. The tenant considered this approach to lack empathy and compassion and says it contributed to a deterioration in her mental health.
This Order relates solely to the tenant’s failure to maintain and breach of quiet enjoyment claims as these are the claims the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
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 unlikely, 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section 109(2) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act.

TENANT CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1) (b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant?

The tenant says the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to her.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
Breaching this s45(1) of the RTA obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
Alejandra Lui Caceres claims that the landlord has failed to repair an overflow pipe that came out the side of the house that did not line up with the drain, which was a few centimetres to the left.
The tenant claims this overflow pipe caused a concerning volume of water to pool beneath the overflow pipe and eventually all around the foundations of the premise. She claims that she raised this issue with the property manager at each inspection and in phone calls, but did not have any written evidence of raising this issue or following up the calls, except one message to Claudine shortly before the end of the tenancy that had a photograph attached. This message and photograph were not included in the evidence submitted.
The landlord provided several routine property inspection photographs and reports that showed this overflow pipe. The 28 November 2025 report shows some water below the overflow pipe, but it is not a concern volume and does not appear to be widespread. The inspection reports and photographs show that there is some water under the overflow pipe but there is no mention in the reports of the tenant raising concerns about the overflow pipe.
The landlord produced evidence that the overflow pipe was relocated on 11 December 2025, which was in a reasonable timeframe after the tenant raised the issue with Claudine around 28 November 2025.
I do not find that there is sufficient evidence to prove the landlord failed to maintain the premise in a reasonable condition in all the circumstances and dismiss the claim accordingly. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment
Alejandra Lui Caceres claims the landlord has harassed her and breached her quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that 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.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be 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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was the owner’s visit to the premise on 6 September 2025.
After the tenant had been given at least 48 hours’ notice of the visit, she had requested the visit be delayed, as she was at home recovering from surgery and had arranged for cleaners to come the following Monday. As such, the premise was not in a condition that weekend for the tenant to feel comfortable with the owner visiting.
The property manager confirmed the owner lives in Northland, had made a special trip to come and undertaken some maintenance work in the yard that weekend. He wanted to make it more presentable for open homes. The property manager stated the owner needed to sell the property and did not want to delay undertaking work that would assist in the sales process.
The tenant was unaware he had been that weekend and had thought the property managers had conveyed to the owner the reason the house would not be in a condition fit for his visit until the following Monday. Later on, she found he had come to the premise and had picked up dog faeces from the back yard and taken it into the property management company to complain that the yard was not in a fit condition for open homes. The property manager says they had informed him of the tenant’s circumstances, but he had made multiple complaints to the property manager about dog faces in the yard in the past. The tenant says she is unaware of these complaints.
The result was the tenant was embarrassed that the landlord found the yard full of dog faeces, when she was incapable physically of picking it up and had arranged for a cleaner to come the following Monday. She states that it was unreasonable to put her in that position when a few days hence the yard would have been clean.
The landlord submitted it is legally entitled to have the owner access the premise with the requisite notice, which it provided to the tenant. It also confirmed that it weighed up the reasonableness of the tenant’s request to delay the visit outside of the premise, with the owner’s need to complete the maintenance work he had already travelled from Northland to Auckland to undertake, and that was required to help him sell the house.
I consider the owner’s need to access the property for maintenance, after he had travelled so far to complete this work, outweighs the tenant’s needs not to have him see the back yard with dog faeces in it. It is unfortunate that the tenant’s physical incapacity being the reason for the state of the yard was not conveyed fully to the owner before his visit to the yard.
The tenant also claimed the property manager harassed and intimidated her and engaged in conduct to trouble, worry, distress, wear out, tire out or exhaust the tenant. While I accept the relationship between the tenant and the property manager deteriorated due to a number of reasons, there was no evidence to suggest the property manager acted outside of the scope of her role, nor that she engaged in conduct intended to upset, distress, worry or harasst the tenant.
I am not satisfied the tenant had provide sufficient evidence, on the balance of probabilities to prove her breach of quiet enjoyment claim. There was no pattern of constant interference or intimidation or deliberate harassment by the owner or the property manager proven. I dismiss the claim accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Alejandra Lui Caceres has not been wholly or substantially successful in her claims. Her application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name Suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
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.
The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded in her proceedings, and I consider that the public interest in this application outweighs any detriment to the tenant due to the nature of the claims made and the claims being unsubstantiated.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

14-day notice Cleanliness Exemplary damages Harassment Clarks Beach

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s102(4), s109(2), s14, s2, s21, s3, s38, s38(2), s38(3), s40, s45(1), s45(1A)

Key findings

Dispute theme: termination 14day
Dispute theme: cleaning
Dispute theme: exemplary damages

Property management

PORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396102?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5396102?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396102?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13274184-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396102 — 14-day notice at 50A Torkar Road, Clarks Beach 2122

Decided 12 March 2026 · Published 12 March 2026 · Application 5396102

Landlord favoured

14-day notice
Cleanliness
Exemplary damages
Harassment

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Landlord favoured

From published order

Location

Clarks Beach

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Pollak

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396102. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 23 February 2026 and 12 March 2026.
The 23 February 2026 hearing was adjourned to allow the tenant to resubmit evidence that she claimed she had submitted with the application but that did not appear in the Tribunal’s case management system. I note that new further evidence was submitted by the tenant by the 9 March 2026 deadline. She submitted some witness statements and text messages today that were not accepted for filing as they were outside the deadline provided to her. The landlord had not had the opportunity to read and submit a defence to this new evidence and to accept t would have been procedurally unfair and a breach of natural justice.
The tenant has applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The evidence provided shows that there has been a break down in communication between the tenant and the property manager that led to a significant breakdown in the relationship.
The tenant was clearly very distraught and has faced some significant health issues, as well as grieving the recent loss of loved ones, that have compounded her feelings of being unheard. On top of this, she says she has been accused of cleanliness and maintenance issues that she denies, or says were exaggerated, or were inconsistent with other communications she received from the property manager.
The tenant has made complaints to the property manager, the owner of the property management company, that acted as the landlord’s agent, and Harcourt’s Head Office as the property management company’s franchisor.
Mediation failed to happen, when the property management company required the property manager that had managed this property to attend that mediation on its behalf. The tenant clams she was so traumatised by the breakdown in her relationship with this property manager that she is in therapy and had ben told not to have any further contact with her.
The tenant requested that the property manager not be permitted to attend this hearing today but was informed that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to veto a parties choice of representative when the representative is the person with direct knowledge of the claims made by the other party. The only time the Tribunal can reject a representative is if the party requests a legal representative when the claim is below the statutory threshold of $6,000.00 or the representative does not have sufficient knowledge of the claims to answer the Tribunal’s questions in relation to the claims.
The landlord chose to have its property manager attend the hearing today because she was the only one in the office that had sufficient knowledge of the claims to answer the Tribunal’s questions in relation to the tenant’s claims.
The tenant was able to keep her camera off during the hearing to assist her to manage contact with the property manager as best she could. The property manager kept her camera on by choice. It was her right to do so.
Many of the tenant’s claims related to miscommunication and issues that arose during the tenancy where the landlord claimed the tenant ad breached her s40 of the RTA obligations and/or her contractual obligations as set out in the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not make a cross application, and I had no jurisdiction to hear any of the tenant’s claims about the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord because of these alleged miscommunications and/or the alleged s40 of the RTA/contractual breaches by the tenant.
I acknowledge the breakdown in the property manager/tenant relationship has been challenging for all parties and that the tenant has found this particularly stressful, as she has felt unheard (by the property manager, property management company and Harcourt’s Head Office), frustrated and distraught. I also acknowledge that the tenant has taken the issues raised with her as a slight on her cleanliness and an attack on her house keeping when she is very house proud and only let some house/yard keeping issues to arise when she had health issues that ultimately led to spinal and hip surgery. These health issues meant she was compromised in her ability to bend and undertake house/yard work for some time prior to receiving surgery, as well as post- surgery. The landlord says it tried to encourage her to get cleaning help from ACC but otherwise still required the premise to be kept to a reasonable standard. The tenant considered this approach to lack empathy and compassion and says it contributed to a deterioration in her mental health.
This Order relates solely to the tenant’s failure to maintain and breach of quiet enjoyment claims as these are the claims the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
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 unlikely, 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section 109(2) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act.

TENANT CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1) (b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant?

The tenant says the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to her.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
Breaching this s45(1) of the RTA obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
Alejandra Lui Caceres claims that the landlord has failed to repair an overflow pipe that came out the side of the house that did not line up with the drain, which was a few centimetres to the left.
The tenant claims this overflow pipe caused a concerning volume of water to pool beneath the overflow pipe and eventually all around the foundations of the premise. She claims that she raised this issue with the property manager at each inspection and in phone calls, but did not have any written evidence of raising this issue or following up the calls, except one message to Claudine shortly before the end of the tenancy that had a photograph attached. This message and photograph were not included in the evidence submitted.
The landlord provided several routine property inspection photographs and reports that showed this overflow pipe. The 28 November 2025 report shows some water below the overflow pipe, but it is not a concern volume and does not appear to be widespread. The inspection reports and photographs show that there is some water under the overflow pipe but there is no mention in the reports of the tenant raising concerns about the overflow pipe.
The landlord produced evidence that the overflow pipe was relocated on 11 December 2025, which was in a reasonable timeframe after the tenant raised the issue with Claudine around 28 November 2025.
I do not find that there is sufficient evidence to prove the landlord failed to maintain the premise in a reasonable condition in all the circumstances and dismiss the claim accordingly. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment
Alejandra Lui Caceres claims the landlord has harassed her and breached her quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that 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.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be 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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was the owner’s visit to the premise on 6 September 2025.
After the tenant had been given at least 48 hours’ notice of the visit, she had requested the visit be delayed, as she was at home recovering from surgery and had arranged for cleaners to come the following Monday. As such, the premise was not in a condition that weekend for the tenant to feel comfortable with the owner visiting.
The property manager confirmed the owner lives in Northland, had made a special trip to come and undertaken some maintenance work in the yard that weekend. He wanted to make it more presentable for open homes. The property manager stated the owner needed to sell the property and did not want to delay undertaking work that would assist in the sales process.
The tenant was unaware he had been that weekend and had thought the property managers had conveyed to the owner the reason the house would not be in a condition fit for his visit until the following Monday. Later on, she found he had come to the premise and had picked up dog faeces from the back yard and taken it into the property management company to complain that the yard was not in a fit condition for open homes. The property manager says they had informed him of the tenant’s circumstances, but he had made multiple complaints to the property manager about dog faces in the yard in the past. The tenant says she is unaware of these complaints.
The result was the tenant was embarrassed that the landlord found the yard full of dog faeces, when she was incapable physically of picking it up and had arranged for a cleaner to come the following Monday. She states that it was unreasonable to put her in that position when a few days hence the yard would have been clean.
The landlord submitted it is legally entitled to have the owner access the premise with the requisite notice, which it provided to the tenant. It also confirmed that it weighed up the reasonableness of the tenant’s request to delay the visit outside of the premise, with the owner’s need to complete the maintenance work he had already travelled from Northland to Auckland to undertake, and that was required to help him sell the house.
I consider the owner’s need to access the property for maintenance, after he had travelled so far to complete this work, outweighs the tenant’s needs not to have him see the back yard with dog faeces in it. It is unfortunate that the tenant’s physical incapacity being the reason for the state of the yard was not conveyed fully to the owner before his visit to the yard.
The tenant also claimed the property manager harassed and intimidated her and engaged in conduct to trouble, worry, distress, wear out, tire out or exhaust the tenant. While I accept the relationship between the tenant and the property manager deteriorated due to a number of reasons, there was no evidence to suggest the property manager acted outside of the scope of her role, nor that she engaged in conduct intended to upset, distress, worry or harasst the tenant.
I am not satisfied the tenant had provide sufficient evidence, on the balance of probabilities to prove her breach of quiet enjoyment claim. There was no pattern of constant interference or intimidation or deliberate harassment by the owner or the property manager proven. I dismiss the claim accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Alejandra Lui Caceres has not been wholly or substantially successful in her claims. Her application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name Suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
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.
The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded in her proceedings, and I consider that the public interest in this application outweighs any detriment to the tenant due to the nature of the claims made and the claims being unsubstantiated.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

14-day notice Cleanliness Exemplary damages Harassment Clarks Beach

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s102(4), s109(2), s14, s2, s21, s3, s38, s38(2), s38(3), s40, s45(1), s45(1A)

Key findings

Dispute theme: termination 14day
Dispute theme: cleaning
Dispute theme: exemplary damages

Property management

PORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396102?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5396102?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396102?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13274184-Tribunal_Order.pdf.