Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5457381 — Harassment
Decided 3 Jul 2026 · Published 3 Jul 2026 · Application 5457381
- Harassment
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
T Baker
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
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details, the addresses referred to and the name of the tenant’s lawyer.
- The tenant’s claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenant has claimed $50,000 compensation for matters arising from a 6- month fixed term tenancy which began on 23 September 2025 and ended on 23 March 2026.
- Following a case conference on 15 May 2026, directions were issued and recorded in a minute that was issued to the parties. They included the following: a. The tenant must file all evidence by 5pm Friday 22 May 2026 by emailing to remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz and to the landlord. b. The landlord must file all evidence by 5pm Friday 29 May 2026 by emailing to the above address and to the tenant. c. If either party intends to rely on the statements of other parties, a signed statement must be filed and the witness must be available to answer questions at the hearing. d. If a party wishes a witness to be phone, they must provide the phone number for the witness to the Tribunal.
- The tenant filed an updated statement. Nothing was filed by the landlord.
- At the hearing, the landlords wished to produced statements. They said they had not realised how serious it was until they received the tenant’s evidence.
- The tenant’s evidence was consistent with that previously filed, and is largely a matter of submission, rather than evidence. The landlord had an opportunity to file evidence in response as directed, or seek a variation of the direction if they felt they did not have sufficient time. They did neither. Because the landlord had not complied with the clear directions issued, that evidence was not considered.
- At the hearing the tenant showed some texts that had been sent on 16 February 2026. Because that evidence was not filed in accordance with the directions, that will not be considered.
- As recorded in the minute of the case conference, the role of the Tribunal is to determine disputes between landlords and tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- The minute set out the three issues for the Tribunal to determine: a. On 15 February 2026, when the tenant contacted her landlord regarding her concerns about her neighbour, did the landlord fail in any of their responsibilities under the Act? b. Did the landlord breach any obligations by duct-taping the notice confirming the end of the tenancy to the tenant’s door? c. Did the landlord breach any obligations by contacting the tenant outside business hours, including during Easter weekend, or by asking for a video meeting when she was in the shower.
- At today’s hearing, the tenant said that she was not pursing the allegation regarding the video meeting. That is therefore withdrawn.
- The onus of proof is on the tenant. That means that she must produce the evidence to prove each of her claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
- Some factual matters are not in dispute: a. The tenant sent a text to the landlord saying that the tenant at Flat 2 had threatened her the night before. She asked the landlord to help keep her safe. b. The landlord sent a text asking the tenant not to feed the birds, because it led to an accumulation of bird poo. She said that if the tenant felt unsafe, she should find a more suitable place, and offered to help her with that. c. When the tenancy was nearing an end, the landlord emailed and mailed the tenant and also taped a letter to her front door. Did the landlord breach any obligations in relation to a text the tenant sent on 15 February 2026?
- The tenant alleges that the landlord has failed in their duty of care. She says: This began when I started to receive verbal threats during February 2026 from [the landlord’s] tenants at [address suppressed]. I live alone in the flat adjacent to them ([address suppressed]). I started to get extremely scared for my safety (RE: Physical and sexual harm from the Indian male occupant at [address suppressed). When the threats escalated on the night of 15 February 2026, I called the NZ Police and my Barrister [name suppressed] for help. Please see below the screenshot of call logs of the night in question. The Police refused to help me. I sought refuge at another location, but the Police threatened me and ordered me to “go back home”. I did as the Police told me to do otherwise I would have faced legal ramifications. When I returned to the property that night under duress, I urgently contacted the landlords for help.
- The tenant’s evidence to support her claim of the landlord’s failures is a text that she sent at 9.23am on Sunday 15 February 2026, the tenant sent a text to her landlord saying: Your tenant in the same flat verbally threatened me again. This time it was the husband. (or so I assume). I do not know his name. Please help keep me safe. The NZ Police sexually harassed me after the previous complaint I made about your tenant in [address suppressed].
- The text goes on to respond to a matter raised about bird droppings, and concludes with “You have a duty of care.”
- The tenant told the Tribunal that she was terrified of being raped and killed by this male, and so she locked herself in the house. She says that she then received a text from her landlords, subjecting her to victim blaming by telling her that she was responsible for managing her own safety and to find another place to stay.
- The tenant says that when the landlords received her text on the morning of 15 February 2026, they should have dialled 111 or the non-urgent Police number or rung her.
- Under section 45, a landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that [The party] of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
- If the tenant felt in imminent danger, then she could phone the Police.
- The landlords said that when they spoke to the neighbours, they complained about this tenant’s behaviour. Therefore, the landlord sought advice from the Police on 16 February. Because the fixed-term tenancy was due to come to an end, they decided to do nothing.
- The tenant’s evidence is vague and focuses on her fears, rather than the actual conduct of her neighbours. In her original application, she said: The female neighbour of this flat appears to be of Indian descent, and I know her in passing only. I did this neighbour a favour by drafting her CV quite a while back. The neighbour has since insisted on getting close to me. I found this a bit too intrusive, so I disengaged and established boundaries. On days leading up to the incident, the neighbour kept wanting to hang around me. She even started to try to establish a personal connection by calling me her sister. I refused because I have no interest in pursuing any personal connection with this neighbour. So, I stayed away from her. On the day of the incident, the neighbour started to verbally abuse me. She also started to send me threatening text messages on the phone late at night. The neighbour had my phone number because she added my name as her referee on her CV. Because of the display of aggression from this neighbour, I explicitly told her both verbally and via text messages to speak to me through my barrister only (RE: [name suppressed] Barrister). I even gave her the phone number of [name suppressed] Barrister so she could report whatever grievance she may have had towards me. The neighbour then proceeded to escalate the matter with the continuation of abuse and threats. When the threats and abuse continued unabated till late that night on 15/02/2026, I started to get extremely scared for my physical safety. So, I called the Aotearoa New Zealand Police emergency helpline and begged them for help. The Police refused to help me. The [The party]mergency Police helpline also refused to help me.
- The tenant did not elaborate on what “the incident” was. She produced no copies of texts from her neighbours. She provided no evidence of exactly what her neighbour said. She refers to abuse late at night on 15 February, but the text she sent to her landlord was sent that morning.
- Although the landlord should have let the tenant know that her concerns would be looked into, the tenant has not established on the balance of probabilities that her quiet enjoyment was breached by the landlord’s other tenants, and accordingly the tenant’s application is dismissed. Did the landlord breach any obligations by duct-taping the notice confirming the end of the tenancy to the tenant’s door?
- When the tenancy was nearing an end, the landlord emailed and mailed the tenant and also taped a letter to her front door.
- Section 136 sets out the ways in which service of documents may be effected. These include: a. by post (section 136(1)(b)) b. delivering to the premises and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position (section 136(1)(c)) c. emailing to an electronic address provided as an address for service (section 136(1)(d).
- The landlord has breached no obligation by attaching the notice to the tenant’s door.
- This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord breach any obligations by contacting the tenant outside business hours, including during Easter weekend?
- The email that the tenant complains about was sent at 5.24pm on Thursday 2 April, which is the Thursday before Easter weekend. I understand that in the Christian calendar, this day, also known has Maundy Thursday has significance. However, it is not a public holiday.
- There is no law about the time at which communications between landlord and tenant should take place. The operation of a tenancy is not limited to business hours. The parties need to communicate outside Monday to Friday, 9 to 5.
- There might be circumstances in which a late-night phone call might be considered a breach of quiet enjoyment, but there is nothing unusual about an email 5.24pm on a Thursday.
- In fact, in this instance the tenancy had ended and the landlord was chasing up the bond form. The email reads: Please can you return the bond refund form with your signature and bank account number. I don’t have to go to the Tenancy Tribunal. I have just about finished wiping all the walls down. The flat smells a lot fresher. Happy Easter.
- There is nothing unprofessional about the tone or content of this email. It is entirely reasonable for a landlord to chase up a bond form following the end of a tenancy and to make it clear that if it is not signed, then the landlord will have to apply to the Tribunal to have the bond released. The tenant’s claim has no basis.
- The tenants’ claims are dismissed.
- Because the landlords have been successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression. There is an order for the suppression of their names as well as the addresses of this tenancy and the neighbouring one.
- Although the tenant has not been successful, I have granted name suppression in the hope that she can leave this episode behind.