What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407730 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 5407730?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407730?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13170239-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407730 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 5407730?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407730?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13170239-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407730 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407730 — net $1,828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$300.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,828.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,828.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407730 — net $1,828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$300.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,828.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,828.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Property Brokers Manawatu Limited As Agent For Mandeep Bal must pay [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately.

By way of declaration the landlord is to reduce the rent by $20.00 per week from the date of this order until such time as the landlord has removed all vehicles and items that belong to his business from the premises. The landlord must notify the tenant and provide evidence of compliance or apply to the Tribunal for the rent to be reinstated and for this declaration to be varied/set aside.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The property manager and a team leader for Property Brokers Manawatu appeared, they will be referred to as the landlord in this order. The tenant appeared and was represented by Ms Dixon.
The tenant seeks compensation for loss of use of the back section of the property, exemplary damages for unlawful entry and breach of quite enjoyment. There is also an application for a direction to remove all vehicles from the premises.
The premises are situated on a large section and at the back the owner of the property stored trucks, drums and other items for his business. When the tenancy began on 32 October 2024 there as a discussion about the stored items. The tenant recalled being told by the landlord they would be there for two months. The landlord said she explained that they could be there 2-3 months and then gone or for longer.
Nothing in the tenancy agreement recorded this as a condition of the tenancy or stated that there was a second separate section at the rear of the property that the landlord used and was accessed by the same driveway. There was a fence initially, but there is no fence now separating the back area from the tenants back yard. Photographs were provided in support of this.
The landlord said they believed that the address was in the general residential zone of Tokoroa, and that the owner was not operating any commercial activity from the section.
After some months of the owner coming onto the premises and picking up trucks, turning them on, bringing workman to the section without notice, using the tenants driveway and stating that she could not park there, the tenant said that she wanted this to stop. She said this was not what she agreed to, and it had been going on for longer than two months.
The landlord said they became aware of this in October 2025 and started to look for another property for the tenant.
The tenant is still at the premises and said that the owner. •Comes to the section without notice. •Drives work vehicles on and off the property •Brings workman with him. •Used her hose to clean vehicles. •Burned rubbish, •Knocks on her door •Leaves notes on her car •Wakes her up (she was a shift worker) •Stores cones and drums •Enters the section when she doesn’t know •Tells her she can’t park on the driveway as it blocks his access.
The tenant says she has no peace and quiet. The trucks are parked by her backyard and washing line affording her no privacy .The constant coming and going without notice is causing her stress and she is feeling harassed. She said that once the owner and stayed until 7pm at night.
The landlords agreed that the owner had not been giving enough notice but have educated him on this requirement.
Once the owner started to give notice the tenant said that there was a constant messaging. A copy of 7 texts sent in January including ‘starting to build a shed’, ‘picking up stuff’, ‘picking up cones. This activity appears to be more than just storing trucks.
The landlord said they do not believe that it is commercial activity and just landlord storage of items with the occasional visit. They agree that the tenancy agreement does not record the landlord’s storage request or that the tenant would not have full use of the section for the whole term of the tenancy.
The landlord believes that the tenant verbally agreed to this arrangement, and she should allow access to the back of the section for the owner. A copy of an email from the owner dated 21 September 2025 states. I am writing to raise a serious concern...as per the rental agreement the driveway access must remain clear as I need to use it regularly. Almost every time I visit the property the driveway is blocked preventing me from accessing the backyard and forcing me to postpone my work.....When I arrived to unload items from my Ute, the driveway was once again blocked by her vehicle. After knocking and getting no response I looked through the window to check if she was inside. Only then did she come out and she started yelling at me. I would prefer to avoid creating a scene at my own property.
There was no evidence that there was any clause in the tenancy agreement about access and the email clearly mentions working and regularly accessing the back of the tenanted section, referred to as his own property. The landlord also states that he looked through the window. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant signed a tenancy agreement to rent the whole premises and said she agreed with the landlord that the owner could store trucks for a couple of months, this is not what has occurred. The landlord’s response to this was that it may have been for a few months and could have been shorter or longer. As none of this is recorded in emails or the agreement, the rights and obligations of the parties are considered under the RTA.
Any agreement that tries to avoid or modify the obligations set out in the RTA are not enforceable .See section 11 RTA.
Even though it is questionable that commercial trucks can be stored, cleaned and regularly accessed on a premises in a designated general residential zone, I find that these actions and access by the owner, his employees, and carrying on commercial operations like burning rubbish picking up and dropping off items, having unknown people coming and going amount to a breach of the tenants quiet enjoyment.
The landlord was fully aware of the owners regular coming and goings and need to have the driveway clear. This is not giving the tenant exclusive use of the premises, and I find that there is a breach of the tenants quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment.
I have also considered the lack of notice given by the owner and landlord as part of this claim. A landlord must not enter a premises except with the consent of the tenant freely given. See section 48(1)(a).If consent is not given the landlord must give notice before entering, the amount of notice changes depending on the purpose. In section 48 premises does not include land.
The tenant sought exemplary damages for failure of the landlord to give correct notice under section 48 RTA. Although section 48 excludes land, the land is part of the tenancy to which the tenant has exclusive use and a landlord must act reasonably and not interfere with the tenants reasonable quiet enjoyment as this can amount to a breach of the tenants quiet enjoyment in section 38(1) and (2)RTA. I find the period where the landlord failed to give notice contributes to the breach of the tenants quite enjoyment.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The commercial activity is intentional and has affected the tenants sleep, and how she is able to use the premises’, caused her stress and conflict with the owner .This is a serious breach as the owners actions appears to be based on the misunderstanding that because he owns the premises he can do what he wants with it and when he wants. There does not appear to be any recognition by the landlords or the owner of the tenants right to exclusive possession. It is in the public interest that parties who are landlords know and comply with the requirements of the RTA.
I find it just to awarded exemplary damages of $1500.00. Compensation for loss of amenity
The tenant claims compensation for the loss of use of the back section. She paid rent for the whole property, and I have found that the landlords use of back section was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The tenant did not have exclusive use of the premises.
The tenant said she only agreed to 2 months but was unable to provide written confirmation of when the landlords were told she wanted the trucks removed and activity to cease. The landlord believed that this was in October 2025.There is no dispute that the landlord has used the back of the tenanted premises and no evidence that the tenant has agreed to this continued use. I find that compensation should be awarded for the loss of use of this area. The tenant’s claim is based on a financial loss, that the tenant did not get what they had contracted for.
Due to the lack of evidence as to the date that the landlords were informed that the tenant wanted the trucks removed and activity to cease, I will take October 2024 as the starting point for calculating compensation which is 20 weeks to the hearing date.
To calculate an award of compensation the Tribunal considers the significance of the loss of use and implications for the tenant. For example, having no parking place was awarded an amount at the higher end of awards being $50.00 per week and partial loss of use at a lower amount. The tenant had a large section the majority of it she could still use and on this basis, I award compensation at a lower end of the scale awarding $15.00 per week, being $300.00 for the loss of use of the back half of the section. Removal of trucks and landlords’ belongings and commercial activity
The tenant has the right to exclusive use of the entire premises once the tenancy agreement begins, unless the tenancy agreement specifically excludes those areas or allows for shared use. There has been no agreement recorded on the tenancy agreement. The landlord cannot store items or access items at a property without the tenant’s specific consent.
It is also of concern that it appears that commercial activity is being conducted in a residential zone.
It was not disputed that the tenant gave consent for the first two months of the tenancy, but this was revoked in October 2025. The landlord must remove all trucks and belongings from the section and the rent paid by the tenant will be reduced by $20.00 per week from the date of this order until this is complied with. This rent reduction ends when the all the vehicles and items related to the owner business are removed and the tenant has exclusive use and possession of the premises.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407730 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407730 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions