How much money was awarded in case 5466229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5466229?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5466229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13848305-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5466229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5466229?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5466229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13848305-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5466229 — Harassment

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5466229 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,140.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The rest of the tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 1 July 2026.
The premises are one of two premises within the same building. The parties referred to the premises as the “back house.” The back house has one bedroom, one bathroom, a kitchen and a small living area. The front house has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, one kitchen and a lounge. The two house are separated by an internal wall.
The landlord wanted to merge the two premises by installing a door in the dividing wall. The landlord wanted rent the entire premises out under one tenancy agreement, not two. The tenant claims that the landlord asked them for permission to compete the renovations and queried whether the tenant would be interested in renting out the entire premises with flatmates. The tenant declined this offer and claims that the landlord ended the tenancy in response. The tenant also claims that the landlord pestered them with repeated requests to leave the tenancy early. The issues I must determine are: a. Is the termination notice retaliatory? b. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? c. Should the tenant be refunded the bond? Standard of proof
As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence was given at the hearing. The parties can be assured that I have considered it however, this decision will only refer to the relevant parts. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

The law

Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) deals with retaliatory notice. It relevantly states: 54Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1)This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U). (2)The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise of performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. ...
Section 51 RTA relevantly states: 51Termination by notice (1) A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice. (2)A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 42 days’ notice if – (a)the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family; or (b)the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession; or ...
Section 60A RTA discusses when a fixed-term tenancy ends or becomes a periodic tenancy. It states: 60AFixed-term tenancy becomes periodic unless contrary notice given (1)On the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy. (2)However, the tenancy does not continue as a periodic tenancy if – (a)before the expiry, the parties renew or extend the existing tenancy agreement; or (b)before the expiry, the parties agree not to continue with the tenancy; or (c)within the effective period, either party gives to the other party written notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy; or (d)Before the expiry, a party gives notice as specified in any of section 50(1)(a) to (ac) that terminates the tenancy on or before the expiry. (2A) The effective period is the period that starts on the 90 th day before the date on which the tenancy expires and ends on the 21 st day before that date. Analysis
On 9 January 2026, the landlord sent the tenant the following email: Dear [the tenant], This letter serves as notice to terminate the fixed-term tenancy agreement at the above address. The last day of the tenancy will be 4 April 2026. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires me to give you at least 21 days’ notice (and not continue it as a periodic tenancy after the expiry date) to terminate the fixed-term tenancy. We are planning to commence renovations and would be grateful if you considered vacating the property earlier. If you are able to move out by the end of January 2026, we would be pleased to offer you a payment of $1000. Please contact me if you have any questions. Yours sincerely, Raymond Gin
The first issue I must determine is whether this notice complies with section 51 RTA. This is because the retaliatory provisions of the RTA under section 54 only apply to notices that comply with section 51. 1
Both parties agree that the tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy at the time the notice was given. For this reason, I find the notice does not comply with section 51 RTA. This is because a notice under section 51 RTA can only be given to end a periodic tenancy, not a fixed-term tenancy.
The notice given by the landlord is a type of notice given under section 60A(2)(c) RTA. The notice expresses the landlord’s intention not to continue with the tenancy after the expiry of the fixed-term on 4 April 2026. The notice was given on 9 January 2026, which is 85 days from 4 April 2026. Therefore, the notice was given within the effective period.
Because the notice does not comply with section 51 RTA, it cannot be retaliatory. For this reason, this claim is dismissed.
For completeness, I note that even if the notice complied with section 51 RTA, I would not have found it to be retaliatory. It is clear from the evidence submitted that the landlord wanted to merge the premises under one tenancy. The landlord advised the tenant of their desire to do this and proposed that a door be added to the dividing wall and that the tenant take on a new tenancy for the whole premises. The tenant declined this offer, which they were entitled to do. The landlord then gave notice to the tenant that they did not want to continue with the tenancy after expiry of the fixed-term. The landlord’s decision to merge the two premises preceded the tenant’s decision to decline the landlord’s offer. The landlord was unable to merge the two premises if the tenant’s fixed-term tenancy continued. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the motivating factor behind the landlord’s decision to end the tenancy was to enable them to merge the two premises and have one tenancy. I am not convinced that the landlord was wholly or partly motivated by the exercise of the tenant of their right to decline the landlord’s offer. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54(1). Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? The law
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 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.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act. 2
In the context of section 38, “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 3
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in section 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987), the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.” 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 3 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018). Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims that after they declined the landlord’s offer to install a door in the dividing wall and rent the premises out under one tenancy agreement, the landlord began constantly asking them when they were leaving and pressuring them to leave early. The tenant claims that the landlord and their mother sent numerous emails, text messages and phone calls. They also claim the landlord and their mother visited the property a number of times unannounced and uninvited asking the tenant when they were going to leave. The tenant also claims that, on one occasion, the landlord tried to store a cabinet from the front house in the storage area allocated to the back house, which the tenant declined to allow.
The landlord disagrees that they or their mother constantly asked the tenant when they were going to leave or pressured them to leave early. The landlord claims their mother is an 85 year old woman who formed a friendship with the tenant, particularly [the tenant]. The landlord claims that their mother and [the tenant] would exchange food and small gifts, such as chocolates, on occasion. The landlord accepts that they and their mother were in regular contact with the tenant in late 2025 to discuss the proposal to merge the two premises into one. The landlord claims the tenant was initially open to the idea, but later advised them they did not want to proceed. The landlord claims that they respected the tenant’s decision. Analysis
The tenant submitted a number of emails between themselves and the landlord. Only two emails sent by the landlord mention the possibility of the tenant leaving the premises early. The first email is dated 7 November 2025 and relevantly states: ...We are happy to agree to an early termination of your current tenancy agreement should you find a suitable place to move to before the lease end date...
The second email is dated 9 January 2026. In it, the landlord states that they would be grateful if the tenant considered leaving the premises before the end of the fixed-term and offers them $1,000.00 to leave by the end of January 2026.
Other than these two emails, no further written evidence was submitted of the landlord asking the tenant when they intended to leave or encouraging the tenant to leave early.
The landlord submitted a number of text messages between the parties however, [The party] of them mention the ending of the tenancy.
The tenant submitted a copy of their call-log history, which shows the landlord’s mother called the tenant on the following dates: a. 2 November 2025 (2x calls made) b. 23 December 2025 c. 23 January 2026
The call-log history alone does not prove that the landlord’s mother asked the tenant when they were leaving or pressured them to leave early during these phone calls. The landlord’s mother was not called as a witness, and the tenant accepts that they were friendly with the landlord’s mother. The emails submitted by the parties also establish that there was a lot of discussion in late 2025 around the landlord’s proposal to merge the two properties and have one tenancy, rather than two. The landlord’s mother was involved in these discussions. It is reasonably possible that the phone calls by the landlord’s mother in late 2025 were about this proposal, rather than queries about when the tenant would leave the premises.
The tenant has not submitted enough evidence to convince me, on the balance of probabilities, that the phone calls made by the landlord’s mother involved her asking the tenant when they were going to leave or pressuring them to leave early.
The tenant has also not submitted enough evidence to convince me, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord or the landlord’s mother visited the premises uninvited and unannounced numerous times asking the tenant when they were going to leave. The landlord denies this occurred and the tenant has not submitted any supporting evidence. No specific dates for the alleged visits were given. No photographs or videos of the landlord or their mother at the premises was submitted. No contemporaneous, written evidence such as, emails to the landlord asking them not to visit the premises uninvited and unannounced was submitted. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord or the landlord’s mother visited the premises uninvited and unannounced multiple times, asking the tenant when they intended to leave.
The tenant has proven that the landlord sent them two emails asking them to consider leaving the premises early and offering them $1,000.00 to leave by the end of January 2026. The end of 2025 appears to have been a stressful time for the tenant who had university exams and was experiencing a health condition. These factors most likely contributed to the tenant’s feelings of frustration and pressure at receiving these two emails however, I do not find that the emails alone reach the level of breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. This is because only two emails were sent and the tone in both emails is very respectful. The landlord is not rude or demanding. I do not consider that an inappropriate level of pressure was put to bare on the tenant by the emails.
For all of these reasons, the tenant has not proven that the landlord interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
This application is dismissed.

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

The tenancy has now ended and the tenant seeks a refund of their bond.
The landlord has not filed a cross-application. Therefore, I order that the bond be refunded to the tenant in full. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I do not order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Because they have not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim, I am not required to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA. I do, however, have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
This decision refers to the fact that the tenant was experiencing a health condition at the end of 2025. Disclosure of this type of personal information leans in favour of suppressing the tenant’s name. I also consider that publication of the tenant’s name might prejudice their ability to obtain private rental accommodation in the future. This is because landlords may be deterred from taking on a tenant who has taken a previous landlord to the Tribunal.
The public interest in publication of the tenant’s name is low, because this decision does not concern the breach of any duty owed by the tenant.
Taking all of these matters into account, I find that the tenant’s interest in suppression outweighs the public’s interest in publication. For this reason, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
I also have a discretion to order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. Publication of the landlord’s name in this decision is likely to negatively affect their reputation. This is because the tenant has alleged that the landlord breached the RTA. The tenant has not proven these claims. For this reason, I find the public interest in publication of the landlord’s name to be low and outweighed by the landlord’s interest in suppression. I also order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,140.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

The rest of the tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 1 July 2026.

The premises are one of two premises within the same building. The parties referred to the premises as the “back house.” The back house has one bedroom, one bathroom, a kitchen and a small living area. The front house has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, one kitchen and a lounge. The two house are separated by an internal wall.

The landlord wanted to merge the two premises by installing a door in the dividing wall. The landlord wanted rent the entire premises out under one tenancy agreement, not two. The tenant claims that the landlord asked them for permission to compete the renovations and queried whether the tenant would be interested in renting out the entire premises with flatmates. The tenant declined this offer and claims that the landlord ended the tenancy in response. The tenant also claims that the landlord pestered them with repeated requests to leave the tenancy early. The issues I must determine are: a. Is the termination notice retaliatory? b. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? c. Should the tenant be refunded the bond? Standard of proof

As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Katipo 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 of 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.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

A lot of evidence was given at the hearing. The parties can be assured that I have considered it however, this decision will only refer to the relevant parts. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

The law

Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) deals with retaliatory notice. It relevantly states: 54Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1)This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U). (2)The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise of performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. ...

Section 51 RTA relevantly states: 51Termination by notice (1) A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice. (2)A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 42 days’ notice if – (a)the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family; or (b)the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession; or ...

Section 60A RTA discusses when a fixed-term tenancy ends or becomes a periodic tenancy. It states: 60AFixed-term tenancy becomes periodic unless contrary notice given (1)On the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy. (2)However, the tenancy does not continue as a periodic tenancy if – (a)before the expiry, the parties renew or extend the existing tenancy agreement; or (b)before the expiry, the parties agree not to continue with the tenancy; or (c)within the effective period, either party gives to the other party written notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy; or (d)Before the expiry, a party gives notice as specified in any of section 50(1)(a) to (ac) that terminates the tenancy on or before the expiry. (2A) The effective period is the period that starts on the 90 th day before the date on which the tenancy expires and ends on the 21 st day before that date. Analysis

On 9 January 2026, the landlord sent the tenant the following email: Dear [the tenant], This letter serves as notice to terminate the fixed-term tenancy agreement at the above address. The last day of the tenancy will be 4 April 2026. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires me to give you at least 21 days’ notice (and not continue it as a periodic tenancy after the expiry date) to terminate the fixed-term tenancy. We are planning to commence renovations and would be grateful if you considered vacating the property earlier. If you are able to move out by the end of January 2026, we would be pleased to offer you a payment of $1000. Please contact me if you have any questions. Yours sincerely, Raymond Gin

The first issue I must determine is whether this notice complies with section 51 RTA. This is because the retaliatory provisions of the RTA under section 54 only apply to notices that comply with section 51. 1

Both parties agree that the tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy at the time the notice was given. For this reason, I find the notice does not comply with section 51 RTA. This is because a notice under section 51 RTA can only be given to end a periodic tenancy, not a fixed-term tenancy.

The notice given by the landlord is a type of notice given under section 60A(2)(c) RTA. The notice expresses the landlord’s intention not to continue with the tenancy after the expiry of the fixed-term on 4 April 2026. The notice was given on 9 January 2026, which is 85 days from 4 April 2026. Therefore, the notice was given within the effective period.

Because the notice does not comply with section 51 RTA, it cannot be retaliatory. For this reason, this claim is dismissed.

For completeness, I note that even if the notice complied with section 51 RTA, I would not have found it to be retaliatory. It is clear from the evidence submitted that the landlord wanted to merge the premises under one tenancy. The landlord advised the tenant of their desire to do this and proposed that a door be added to the dividing wall and that the tenant take on a new tenancy for the whole premises. The tenant declined this offer, which they were entitled to do. The landlord then gave notice to the tenant that they did not want to continue with the tenancy after expiry of the fixed-term. The landlord’s decision to merge the two premises preceded the tenant’s decision to decline the landlord’s offer. The landlord was unable to merge the two premises if the tenant’s fixed-term tenancy continued. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the motivating factor behind the landlord’s decision to end the tenancy was to enable them to merge the two premises and have one tenancy. I am not convinced that the landlord was wholly or partly motivated by the exercise of the tenant of their right to decline the landlord’s offer. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54(1). Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? The law

Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 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.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act. 2

In the context of section 38, “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 3

The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in section 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.

In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987), the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.” 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 3 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018). Evidence and submissions of the parties

The tenant claims that after they declined the landlord’s offer to install a door in the dividing wall and rent the premises out under one tenancy agreement, the landlord began constantly asking them when they were leaving and pressuring them to leave early. The tenant claims that the landlord and their mother sent numerous emails, text messages and phone calls. They also claim the landlord and their mother visited the property a number of times unannounced and uninvited asking the tenant when they were going to leave. The tenant also claims that, on one occasion, the landlord tried to store a cabinet from the front house in the storage area allocated to the back house, which the tenant declined to allow.

The landlord disagrees that they or their mother constantly asked the tenant when they were going to leave or pressured them to leave early. The landlord claims their mother is an 85 year old woman who formed a friendship with the tenant, particularly [the tenant]. The landlord claims that their mother and [the tenant] would exchange food and small gifts, such as chocolates, on occasion. The landlord accepts that they and their mother were in regular contact with the tenant in late 2025 to discuss the proposal to merge the two premises into one. The landlord claims the tenant was initially open to the idea, but later advised them they did not want to proceed. The landlord claims that they respected the tenant’s decision. Analysis

The tenant submitted a number of emails between themselves and the landlord. Only two emails sent by the landlord mention the possibility of the tenant leaving the premises early. The first email is dated 7 November 2025 and relevantly states: ...We are happy to agree to an early termination of your current tenancy agreement should you find a suitable place to move to before the lease end date...

The second email is dated 9 January 2026. In it, the landlord states that they would be grateful if the tenant considered leaving the premises before the end of the fixed-term and offers them $1,000.00 to leave by the end of January 2026.

Other than these two emails, no further written evidence was submitted of the landlord asking the tenant when they intended to leave or encouraging the tenant to leave early.

The landlord submitted a number of text messages between the parties however, [The party] of them mention the ending of the tenancy.

The tenant submitted a copy of their call-log history, which shows the landlord’s mother called the tenant on the following dates: a. 2 November 2025 (2x calls made) b. 23 December 2025 c. 23 January 2026

The call-log history alone does not prove that the landlord’s mother asked the tenant when they were leaving or pressured them to leave early during these phone calls. The landlord’s mother was not called as a witness, and the tenant accepts that they were friendly with the landlord’s mother. The emails submitted by the parties also establish that there was a lot of discussion in late 2025 around the landlord’s proposal to merge the two properties and have one tenancy, rather than two. The landlord’s mother was involved in these discussions. It is reasonably possible that the phone calls by the landlord’s mother in late 2025 were about this proposal, rather than queries about when the tenant would leave the premises.

The tenant has not submitted enough evidence to convince me, on the balance of probabilities, that the phone calls made by the landlord’s mother involved her asking the tenant when they were going to leave or pressuring them to leave early.

The tenant has also not submitted enough evidence to convince me, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord or the landlord’s mother visited the premises uninvited and unannounced numerous times asking the tenant when they were going to leave. The landlord denies this occurred and the tenant has not submitted any supporting evidence. No specific dates for the alleged visits were given. No photographs or videos of the landlord or their mother at the premises was submitted. No contemporaneous, written evidence such as, emails to the landlord asking them not to visit the premises uninvited and unannounced was submitted. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord or the landlord’s mother visited the premises uninvited and unannounced multiple times, asking the tenant when they intended to leave.

The tenant has proven that the landlord sent them two emails asking them to consider leaving the premises early and offering them $1,000.00 to leave by the end of January 2026. The end of 2025 appears to have been a stressful time for the tenant who had university exams and was experiencing a health condition. These factors most likely contributed to the tenant’s feelings of frustration and pressure at receiving these two emails however, I do not find that the emails alone reach the level of breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. This is because only two emails were sent and the tone in both emails is very respectful. The landlord is not rude or demanding. I do not consider that an inappropriate level of pressure was put to bare on the tenant by the emails.

For all of these reasons, the tenant has not proven that the landlord interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

This application is dismissed.

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

The tenancy has now ended and the tenant seeks a refund of their bond.

The landlord has not filed a cross-application. Therefore, I order that the bond be refunded to the tenant in full. Filing fee and name suppression

The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I do not order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant has applied for name suppression. Because they have not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim, I am not required to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA. I do, however, have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’

This decision refers to the fact that the tenant was experiencing a health condition at the end of 2025. Disclosure of this type of personal information leans in favour of suppressing the tenant’s name. I also consider that publication of the tenant’s name might prejudice their ability to obtain private rental accommodation in the future. This is because landlords may be deterred from taking on a tenant who has taken a previous landlord to the Tribunal.

The public interest in publication of the tenant’s name is low, because this decision does not concern the breach of any duty owed by the tenant.

Taking all of these matters into account, I find that the tenant’s interest in suppression outweighs the public’s interest in publication. For this reason, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

I also have a discretion to order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. Publication of the landlord’s name in this decision is likely to negatively affect their reputation. This is because the tenant has alleged that the landlord breached the RTA. The tenant has not proven these claims. For this reason, I find the public interest in publication of the landlord’s name to be low and outweighed by the landlord’s interest in suppression. I also order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5466229 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5466229 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions