What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5440557?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5440557?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440557?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13539731-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5440557?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5440557?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440557?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13539731-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 11 Defoe Place, Waltham, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5440557 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Martin and Ms Champ represented the landlord.

The tenant has applied for exemplary damages arising from 2 incidents she alleges breached her quiet enjoyment so as to amount to harassment.

The landlord’s application is a defence to the tenant’s application.

The first incident occurred on 30 January 2026 when tradespeople had been arranged (on notice) to attend to shower repairs. In addition to the tradespeople, the owner of the property attended as did the partner of one of the tradespeople, to assist him.

The second incident occurred on 2 February 2026 when the tenant was woken by the landlord attaching a non-slip mat to the exterior doorstep of the premises.

The tenant states that the incidents caused her distress and interfered with her right to quiet enjoyment and privacy. Issues

The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment and privacy? •Did the landlord commit an unlawful act? •Is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation? Relevant law

Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and 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.

Section 48 RTA sets out a landlord’s right of entry. For necessary repairs or maintenance at least 24 hours’ notice of the intended entry must be given. The definition of landlord includes any agent of the landlord 1 . Compensation and exemplary damages

The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.

Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: 1 See section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 [2020] NZDC 17667 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.

In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment and privacy?

For the first incident, the landlord correctly notified (with a long period of notice) the repair work that would be done.

That one of the tradesperson’s partners accompanied him to assist is not a breach; it is no different than if he had an apprentice with him. Section 48 RTA does not require that the landlord detail each and every person who will attend to carry out repair work. In some cases, the landlord might not even know who the tradespeople might be. It only requires notification of the entry.

The correspondence between the parties shows that the tenant was aware of (and agreed to) tradespeople attending to complete the various aspects of the shower refit.

That the owner of the premises attended for the notified repair work is no breach either. Section 48 RTA refers to the landlord’s right of entry. Landlord means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. Here, the grantor of the tenancy were the trustees of the Zoecassjay Family Trust (the owner) by the Trust’s agent Xclusive Property Management NZ 2013 Ltd. Both fall within the definition of landlord.

There was no breach of section 48 RTA by the landlord (either the trustee as owner and grantor of the tenancy, or by the trustee’s agent) and therefore no breach of the tenant’s entitlement to quiet enjoyment and privacy.

Neither could the second incident be a breach. The owner of the premises was working outside. That did not require any notification.

Did the landlord commit an unlawful act?

A breach of quiet enjoyment or the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises under section 38 RTA is only an unlawful act if it amounts to harassment.

Given my finding that there was no breach by the landlord, the repair work having been notified, it follows that there was no harassment.

Harassment is a serious or sustained breach of quiet enjoyment. In Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora 3 , the Court referred to harassment as ‘to trouble or vex by repeated attacks’. The Court said: Another meaning refers to acts that worry or distress the victim. Harassment of course is the act of harassing. These definitions tend to suggest a course of action by the harasser.

So, even if I had found that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, a claim for harassment would not be made out.

Is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

Without a proven unlawful act by the landlord, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages. This claim is dismissed. 3 [2022] NZDC 7003

Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation?

Even though the tenant did not apply for compensation, had the Tribunal found that the landlord had breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment and privacy, it could still have awarded compensation 4 .

However, without a proven breach by the landlord it cannot do so. Compensation flows from a proven breach. Conclusion

The application is dismissed. The tenant has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment and privacy by entering the premises (including entry by the owner and by the partner of one of the tradespeople) without notice to undertake repairs, or by doing work outside. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenant sought name suppression but is not entitled to an order as the application is unsuccessful 5 .

Reasons