Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423461 — Harassment at 11 Te Hatepe Avenue, Taupo, Taupo 3330

Published 14 May 2026 · Application 5423461

Mixed / unclear

Harassment
Exemplary damages

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Mixed / unclear

From published order

Location

Taupo

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Steens

Claims & awards

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

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

Westerman Property Solutions Limited as agent for Dean and Joanne Brereton must pay Dale Ashleigh Nagel and Pierre-Olivier Rossier exemplary damages of $1,200.00 for breach of the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One Tenant, D Nagel, appeared for the Tenants (the Tenant).
The Tenant claims the Landlord, through the property manager, harassed her during the tenancy, or interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the premises, particularly during the period when the property was being marketed for sale. Did the Landlord interfere with the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?
A Landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the Tenant in their use of the premises: s 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 background is important. The tenancy began as a fixed-term tenancy from 17 July 2024 for six months. The Tenant knew the Landlord was considering selling the property. The Landlord was a couple who had relocated to Papamoa and were relying on rental income to meet their own accommodation costs. They later decided to relocate to Australia.
There were two periods when the property was marketed for sale. On the first occasion. The Landlord gave the Tenant a $50 grocery voucher, which was shared between the two Tenants and another occupant, ostensibly for loss of amenity and any inconvenience caused by the marketing, including agent visits and open homes. The Tenant did not consider that to be an adequate compromise, but did not raise any issue at the time.
The Landlord then agreed to enter into a further fixed-term tenancy for 12 months. The property was again marketed for sale in or about November 2025. By then, the Tenant had a number of personal matters occurring, including a separation. It was agreed, at that time, there would be no open homes for a week.
The Tenant vacated on 12 December and paid rent until 11 January, by mutual agreement. I accept that the Landlord considered it had accommodated the Tenant by agreeing to end the fixed term early. However, the fixed term would in any event have ended by mid-February. The Landlord was not left materially out of pocket by the early end of the tenancy and so their submission that they accommodated the Tenant who requested to leave a month early, in circumstances where they were marketing the property for sale and would have needed to extend the tenancy or find another tenant, was understandably, not well received.
The property managers acknowledged they advised the Landlord to allow a rent reduction during the marketing period. The Landlord did not agree. There was no legal obligation to reduce rent simply because the property was being marketed. However, that is relevant context when considering the effect on the Tenant and the overall reasonableness of the Landlord’s conduct. Threats of a 14-day notice if property was not tidied
The Tenant says that, following a routine inspection, the property manager demanded further gardening work and verbally threatened a 14-day notice to remedy. I am not satisfied, on the evidence, that a 14-day notice was expressly threatened. The conversation occurred between the property manager and the second tenant, who was not present at the hearing. The attending property manager acknowledges the conversation which the Tenant claims occurred but denies mentioning a 14-day notice or making any threats.
I have viewed the Tenant’s photographs which show the grounds and surrounds at the start of and during the tenancy. When the property was again marketed, the garden was in at least as good and tidy condition as it had been at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant had kept the property to the standard required by the Act, namely reasonably clean and tidy, not a sales presentation standard.
I accept the Tenant’s evidence that pressure was applied to have the property presented to a higher standard during the sales process, but I do not think the term “pressure” should be over-emphasised, particularly when one has regard to the evidence. The unannounced gardener and the agent-investor
The Tenant weeded two garden beds and mowed the verge. A gardener was then arranged to do some further work. The Tenant claims she was not clearly told in advance the exact times of the gardener’s access. In the context of the property being marketed, and the Tenant’s own personal issues, I find this added pressure and contributed to the interference with the Tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy.
The Tenant also says she was told that a selling agent required access, but later discovered the person attending was a prospective purchaser. This is not disputed by the Landlord, although the property manager said she did not know at the time that the agent was also a potential “investor” (purchaser).
I am not satisfied there was a deliberate misrepresentation about that attendance or that there is any real detriment to the Tenant. The Tenant’s evidence was that she felt pressured to present the property differently because the person attending was said to be an agent and that she would not have made the same effort if it was a potential purchaser. I do not accept that argument.
It is important to acknowledge here that the Tenant is only required to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not to a show-home standard. The Tenant is taken to know this. However, even if the property met that standard, it is reasonable to expect that repeated requests for further tidying or presentation work, and the involvement of others assessing the condition of the home when they come to do work or inspect, would create pressure and worry for the Tenant. The premises were her home. The sales process meant the standard and quality of that home was being judged by others, not simply occupied and enjoyed by her. That contributed to the interference with her peace, comfort and privacy. Alleged threatening behaviour by property manager
The Tenant also says that, when she asked for a one-week break from viewings due to personal circumstances and proposed an alternative date, the property manager telephoned her with another unidentified person present, yelled at her, threatened Tribunal action, and said she would be liable if the sale did not proceed.
I am not satisfied, on the evidence, that those matters are proved. The property manager denied yelling and there were no independent witnesses available for me to question.
I therefore do not make findings that the Tenant was yelled at, threatened with Tribunal proceedings, or told she would be liable if the sale did not proceed. Landlord allegedly asked the Tenant to be “more accommodating”
The Tenant also says she was told to be “more accommodating” because the Landlord had reduced the fixed term. I accept the Tenant experienced this as pressure to comply with viewings and presentation requests beyond her lawful obligations. That was particularly so given her personal circumstances at the time.
I have read the Landlord’s email, and I find it to be somewhat tone deaf. He did not agree to any reduction, and looking at the evidence as a whole, I find the Landlord, through the property manager, increased the intensity of requests and expectations during the marketing period. Those requests were directed at improving the presentation of the property for sale, rather than remedying any proven breach by the Tenant. On the photographs produced by the Tenant, the property appeared much the same at the time of those requests as it had when the tenancy began.
The Tenant was entitled to continue using the premises as her home and her amenity was diminished because of requirements imposed by the Landlord’s schedule and needs. The Landlord then asking the Tenant to be more accommodating was, in effect, asking the Tenant to bear more of the burden of the sale process, while offering no corresponding accommodation in return. That was not reasonable. Perhaps I would have found differently if the Landlord Owner had come to the hearing and explained his version. Conclusion
I find the Landlord breached section 38(2) of the Act by interfering with the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy.
Looking at the evidence as a whole, I find the Landlord, through the property manager, interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy during the marketing period. The interference arose from increased presentation expectations, the arranging of further garden work, and requests that the Tenant be more accommodating to the sale process, in circumstances where the property was already reasonably clean and tidy and the Tenant was paying for it and using it as her home.
However, I am not satisfied that the conduct amounted to harassment. I have not found that the Tenant was threatened with a 14-day notice, yelled at, threatened with Tribunal proceedings, told she would be liable if the sale did not proceed, or deliberately misled about access. The conduct caused pressure and inconvenience, but it did not reach the level of a pattern of conduct that troubled, worried, distressed, wore out or exhausted the Tenant in the sense required for harassment.
I do, however, find a breach of s 38(2), and the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment and amenity was reduced during the sales process.
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.
I am satisfied the conduct was intentional. The Landlord, through the property manager, intended to make the requests and apply pressure so that the property could be marketed and presented for sale.
The effect on the Tenant was real. She was living in the property as her home, during a fixed-term tenancy, while also dealing with personal stress. The marketing process and presentation expectations added additional pressure and caused her distress.
The public interest also favours an award. Landlords may sell rental properties, and reasonable access may be arranged, but the sales process must not be allowed to displace the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, and where there is potential for curtailment of the Tenant’s rights, the Landlord should give due consideration to whether an abatement of rent is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The amount of the abatement should be arrived at in consultation with the Tenant if possible and should have due regard to the interference caused, in particular, its impact on the Tenant, and its duration.
The exemplary damages I award must be proportionate. I have not accepted the more serious allegations that the Tenant was yelled at, threatened with Tribunal proceedings, or deliberately misled about the status of the agent. I also accept that the Landlord had genuine reasons for wanting to sell. Taking those matters together, I award exemplary damages of $1,200.00.

Topics & place

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

Harassment Exemplary damages Taupo

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s109(3), s13, s38(2), s38(3)

Key findings

Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Dispute theme: harassment

Property management

WESTERMAN PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LIMITED as agent for Dean Brereton (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5423461?

The tribunal order states: Westerman Property Solutions Limited as agent for Dean and Joanne Brereton

How much money was awarded in case 5423461?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423461?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13601118-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One Tenant, D Nagel, appeared for the Tenants (the Tenant).

The Tenant claims the Landlord, through the property manager, harassed her during the tenancy, or interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the premises, particularly during the period when the property was being marketed for sale. Did the Landlord interfere with the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?

A Landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the Tenant in their use of the premises: s 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 background is important. The tenancy began as a fixed-term tenancy from 17 July 2024 for six months. The Tenant knew the Landlord was considering selling the property. The Landlord was a couple who had relocated to Papamoa and were relying on rental income to meet their own accommodation costs. They later decided to relocate to Australia.

There were two periods when the property was marketed for sale. On the first occasion. The Landlord gave the Tenant a $50 grocery voucher, which was shared between the two Tenants and another occupant, ostensibly for loss of amenity and any inconvenience caused by the marketing, including agent visits and open homes. The Tenant did not consider that to be an adequate compromise, but did not raise any issue at the time.

The Landlord then agreed to enter into a further fixed-term tenancy for 12 months. The property was again marketed for sale in or about November 2025. By then, the Tenant had a number of personal matters occurring, including a separation. It was agreed, at that time, there would be no open homes for a week.

The Tenant vacated on 12 December and paid rent until 11 January, by mutual agreement. I accept that the Landlord considered it had accommodated the Tenant by agreeing to end the fixed term early. However, the fixed term would in any event have ended by mid-February. The Landlord was not left materially out of pocket by the early end of the tenancy and so their submission that they accommodated the Tenant who requested to leave a month early, in circumstances where they were marketing the property for sale and would have needed to extend the tenancy or find another tenant, was understandably, not well received.

The property managers acknowledged they advised the Landlord to allow a rent reduction during the marketing period. The Landlord did not agree. There was no legal obligation to reduce rent simply because the property was being marketed. However, that is relevant context when considering the effect on the Tenant and the overall reasonableness of the Landlord’s conduct. Threats of a 14-day notice if property was not tidied

The Tenant says that, following a routine inspection, the property manager demanded further gardening work and verbally threatened a 14-day notice to remedy. I am not satisfied, on the evidence, that a 14-day notice was expressly threatened. The conversation occurred between the property manager and the second tenant, who was not present at the hearing. The attending property manager acknowledges the conversation which the Tenant claims occurred but denies mentioning a 14-day notice or making any threats.

I have viewed the Tenant’s photographs which show the grounds and surrounds at the start of and during the tenancy. When the property was again marketed, the garden was in at least as good and tidy condition as it had been at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant had kept the property to the standard required by the Act, namely reasonably clean and tidy, not a sales presentation standard.

I accept the Tenant’s evidence that pressure was applied to have the property presented to a higher standard during the sales process, but I do not think the term “pressure” should be over-emphasised, particularly when one has regard to the evidence. The unannounced gardener and the agent-investor

The Tenant weeded two garden beds and mowed the verge. A gardener was then arranged to do some further work. The Tenant claims she was not clearly told in advance the exact times of the gardener’s access. In the context of the property being marketed, and the Tenant’s own personal issues, I find this added pressure and contributed to the interference with the Tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy.

The Tenant also says she was told that a selling agent required access, but later discovered the person attending was a prospective purchaser. This is not disputed by the Landlord, although the property manager said she did not know at the time that the agent was also a potential “investor” (purchaser).

I am not satisfied there was a deliberate misrepresentation about that attendance or that there is any real detriment to the Tenant. The Tenant’s evidence was that she felt pressured to present the property differently because the person attending was said to be an agent and that she would not have made the same effort if it was a potential purchaser. I do not accept that argument.

It is important to acknowledge here that the Tenant is only required to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not to a show-home standard. The Tenant is taken to know this. However, even if the property met that standard, it is reasonable to expect that repeated requests for further tidying or presentation work, and the involvement of others assessing the condition of the home when they come to do work or inspect, would create pressure and worry for the Tenant. The premises were her home. The sales process meant the standard and quality of that home was being judged by others, not simply occupied and enjoyed by her. That contributed to the interference with her peace, comfort and privacy. Alleged threatening behaviour by property manager

The Tenant also says that, when she asked for a one-week break from viewings due to personal circumstances and proposed an alternative date, the property manager telephoned her with another unidentified person present, yelled at her, threatened Tribunal action, and said she would be liable if the sale did not proceed.

I am not satisfied, on the evidence, that those matters are proved. The property manager denied yelling and there were no independent witnesses available for me to question.

I therefore do not make findings that the Tenant was yelled at, threatened with Tribunal proceedings, or told she would be liable if the sale did not proceed. Landlord allegedly asked the Tenant to be “more accommodating”

The Tenant also says she was told to be “more accommodating” because the Landlord had reduced the fixed term. I accept the Tenant experienced this as pressure to comply with viewings and presentation requests beyond her lawful obligations. That was particularly so given her personal circumstances at the time.

I have read the Landlord’s email, and I find it to be somewhat tone deaf. He did not agree to any reduction, and looking at the evidence as a whole, I find the Landlord, through the property manager, increased the intensity of requests and expectations during the marketing period. Those requests were directed at improving the presentation of the property for sale, rather than remedying any proven breach by the Tenant. On the photographs produced by the Tenant, the property appeared much the same at the time of those requests as it had when the tenancy began.

The Tenant was entitled to continue using the premises as her home and her amenity was diminished because of requirements imposed by the Landlord’s schedule and needs. The Landlord then asking the Tenant to be more accommodating was, in effect, asking the Tenant to bear more of the burden of the sale process, while offering no corresponding accommodation in return. That was not reasonable. Perhaps I would have found differently if the Landlord Owner had come to the hearing and explained his version. Conclusion

I find the Landlord breached section 38(2) of the Act by interfering with the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy.

Looking at the evidence as a whole, I find the Landlord, through the property manager, interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy during the marketing period. The interference arose from increased presentation expectations, the arranging of further garden work, and requests that the Tenant be more accommodating to the sale process, in circumstances where the property was already reasonably clean and tidy and the Tenant was paying for it and using it as her home.

However, I am not satisfied that the conduct amounted to harassment. I have not found that the Tenant was threatened with a 14-day notice, yelled at, threatened with Tribunal proceedings, told she would be liable if the sale did not proceed, or deliberately misled about access. The conduct caused pressure and inconvenience, but it did not reach the level of a pattern of conduct that troubled, worried, distressed, wore out or exhausted the Tenant in the sense required for harassment.

I do, however, find a breach of s 38(2), and the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment and amenity was reduced during the sales process.

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.

I am satisfied the conduct was intentional. The Landlord, through the property manager, intended to make the requests and apply pressure so that the property could be marketed and presented for sale.

The effect on the Tenant was real. She was living in the property as her home, during a fixed-term tenancy, while also dealing with personal stress. The marketing process and presentation expectations added additional pressure and caused her distress.

The public interest also favours an award. Landlords may sell rental properties, and reasonable access may be arranged, but the sales process must not be allowed to displace the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, and where there is potential for curtailment of the Tenant’s rights, the Landlord should give due consideration to whether an abatement of rent is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The amount of the abatement should be arrived at in consultation with the Tenant if possible and should have due regard to the interference caused, in particular, its impact on the Tenant, and its duration.

The exemplary damages I award must be proportionate. I have not accepted the more serious allegations that the Tenant was yelled at, threatened with Tribunal proceedings, or deliberately misled about the status of the agent. I also accept that the Landlord had genuine reasons for wanting to sell. Taking those matters together, I award exemplary damages of $1,200.00.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One Tenant, D Nagel, appeared for the Tenants (the Tenant).

A Landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the Tenant in their use of the premises: s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I am not satisfied, on the evidence, that those matters are proved. The property manager denied yelling and there were no independent witnesses available for me to question.

I find the Landlord breached section 38(2) of the Act by interfering with the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy.

I do, however, find a breach of s 38(2), and the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment and amenity was reduced during the sales process.

I am satisfied the conduct was intentional. The Landlord, through the property manager, intended to make the requests and apply pressure so that the property could be marketed and presented for sale.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One Tenant, D Nagel, appeared for the Tenants (the Tenant).

A Landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the Tenant in their use of the premises: s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I am not satisfied, on the evidence, that those matters are proved. The property manager denied yelling and there were no independent witnesses available for me to question.

I find the Landlord breached section 38(2) of the Act by interfering with the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy.

I do, however, find a breach of s 38(2), and the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment and amenity was reduced during the sales process.

I am satisfied the conduct was intentional. The Landlord, through the property manager, intended to make the requests and apply pressure so that the property could be marketed and presented for sale.