What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5453978 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,080.00 (BN-25081466) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5453978?

Water Rates: $233.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453978?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453978?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13758250-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5453978 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,080.00 (BN-25081466) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5453978?

Water Rates: $233.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453978?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453978?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13758250-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 243 Mount Albert Road, Wesley, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5453978 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453978. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$233.53		Water rates

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,080.00 (BN-25081466) immediately apportioned as follows: Jk Realty Group Limited As Agent For Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel & Hargun Singh: $233.53 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,846.47

The application for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment is struck out because the claim is outside the Tribunals jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This matter went to mediation on 20 March 2026 where an agreement was reached to terminate the fixed term tenancy on 22 May 2026.

The parties agreed at the hearing that the bond was to be released to the tenant less $233.53 of water rates owing at the end of the tenancy. The balance to be refunded to the tenants is $2846.47.

The tenant sought an order from the Tribunal for compensation for the loss of their quiet enjoyment.

The party that brings the claim to the Tribunal has onus to prove it. The standard of proof in the Tenancy Tribunal is the balance of probabilities. This means I must be satisfied, on the evidence before me, that it is more likely than not that the event occurred.

This was considered 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. Was the tenant’s quiet enjoyment breached by the landlord?

The tenants claim that 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’s complaint was that an alarm on the building next to them went off continually through the night and sometimes in the day for up to 15 minutes at a time. The tenants said it was loud and piercing and woke them up at all hours, giving the examples of 2am, 4am and 6am in a night and often in the morning. One of the tenants was pregnant and unable to get sleep, saying she woke up panicked when the alarm went off at night. This affected their peace quiet and enjoyment of the premises.

The alarm was located right in front of the tenants building and was attached to a café that the tenants believed was owned by the family that owned their premises. The tenants would contact the property manager whenever the alarm went off and he would tell them that he would talk to ‘Hagun’ who is listed as one of the owners of the premises in the tenancy agreement.

The tenant said that they saw ‘Hagun’, and family members were often at the café and that is why they believed that he also owned it. They said that during the mediation the landlord said ‘Hagun’ owned the premises and the café.

The landlord disputed this saying he did not know who owned the café now as the owner sold it some time ago. ’Hagun’ was his point of contact for this tenancy, and he did not know the other recorded owner.

The landlord explained that the fixed term tenancy was ended early because the tenants were unhappy and no fees for ending a fixed term tenancy were claimed. The premises remained empty from the termination date and for another 3 weeks.

The landlord said he was told that homeless people and stray dogs set off the alarm and discussions with the café owner did not persuade them to turn of the alarm at night as they had concerns for the safety of their business. He said that he recommended that the tenants contact the Auckland City Council with their noise complaints.

The issue here is, did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?

There seemed no dispute that the problems with the alarm were occurring. The tenant needed to establish who owned the café next door to the tenancy, and there was no documentation provided establishing who the owners of the café were. Even if that was established there also needed to be a landlord and tenant relationship.

The jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal is limited to disputes arising out of residential tenancy relationships governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ,RTA. The Tribunal role is to determine claims and issues between landlords and tenants, including disputes concerning tenancy agreements, rent, bonds, repairs, termination of tenancies, and related matters.

The Tribunals powers are limited to those conferred by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Pursuant to s 77, the Tribunal may determine disputes arising from residential tenancy relationships and enforce the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants under the RTA.

As the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to matters falling within the RTA, it cannot determine claims between persons who are not in a landlord–tenant relationship, nor claims that do not arise from a residential tenancy governed by the Act.

The tenants have been unable to establish that the landlord owned the café next door and had any responsibility to for the breaching their peace and quiet. There is no landlord tenant relationship or tenancy agreement with the other party and therefore this claim for compensation cannot be heard by the Tenancy Tribunal.

The claim for compensation is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

No award is made for reimbursement of the filing fee as the tenant was not successful with their claims.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453978. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$233.53		Water rates

The application for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment is struck out because the claim is outside the Tribunals jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This matter went to mediation on 20 March 2026 where an agreement was reached to terminate the fixed term tenancy on 22 May 2026.

The parties agreed at the hearing that the bond was to be released to the tenant less $233.53 of water rates owing at the end of the tenancy. The balance to be refunded to the tenants is $2846.47.

The tenant sought an order from the Tribunal for compensation for the loss of their quiet enjoyment.

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.

The issue here is, did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?

The claim for compensation is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

No award is made for reimbursement of the filing fee as the tenant was not successful with their claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453978 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 2, 243 Mount Albert Road, Wesley, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453978 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 2, 243 Mount Albert Road, Wesley, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions