What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5503229 about?

The tribunal order states: Jules Henley As Trustee For Henley Mitchell Family Trust is granted possession

How much money was awarded in case 5503229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5503229?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5503229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13780276-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5503229 about?

The tribunal order states: Jules Henley As Trustee For Henley Mitchell Family Trust is granted possession

How much money was awarded in case 5503229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5503229?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5503229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13780276-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

756A Bruntwood Road, Tamahere, RD 3, Hamilton 3283 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5503229 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

756A Bruntwood Road, Tamahere, RD 3, Hamilton 3283 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5503229 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5503229. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages

Order

Jules Henley As Trustee For Henley Mitchell Family Trust is granted possession of the premises at 756A Bruntwood Road, Tamahere, RD 3, Hamilton 3283 immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed

Reasons

On 9 April 2026 the tenant filed an application seeking: a. Exemplary damages for failing to maintain fences. b. A work order to reinstate fencing. c. Compensation and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment.
On 7 May 2026 the tenant filed a further application seeking: a. An order setting aside the landlord’s 90-day notice on the basis it was retaliatory. b. Name Suppression. c. Reimbursement of the filing fees.
On 8 May 2026 the landlord filed a cross application seeking: a. Termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour. b. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded in person.
Ms Julie Mitchell, the landlord, appeared. She was supported by Ms Chrissie Kavanagh, who also appeared for the landlord.
The tenant appeared with the support of Mr Craig Brocket and Mr Peter Muirhead. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 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. Exemplary Damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
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 of the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. The Property
The tenant resides in Rose Cottage, a dwelling situated on the landlord’s equine block.
Rose Cottage shares a drive way with a second residential dwelling, also tenanted, and the equine block.
The landlords are neighbours of the tenant. History of the tenancy
The tenant moved into the property on 1 February 2024. At that time the Property was owned by Greg Reid.
Between 10 May 2025 and 4 June 2025 the previous owner/landlord, and the current/owner landlord, removed a significant number of trees and vegetation from around Rose Cottage, the orchard and a paddock.
On 6 June 2025 the property was sold to the Henley Mitchell Family Trust.
On 7 June 2025 the landlord and tenant entered into a periodic tenancy agreement.
On 7 September 2025 the landlord give the tenant written notice of a property inspection to take place on 12 September 2025. The notice asked the tenant to provide the landlord with a working set of keys to the property to ensure they complied with their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act’).
On 12 September 2025 the landlord provided the tenant with written notice advising that contractors would be onsite from Monday 15 September 2025 to: a. Complete earthworks at the equine premises. b. Complete work to realigned access to the tenants property to provide more privacy from the road. c. Complete work on the lawns to install new drainage for the new roof and gutters.
On 14 October 2025 the landlord provided the tenant written notice advising: a. That a routine property inspection would occur on 15 October 2025 at 5:30pm; and b. The locks would be changed and an attempt would be made to get a full set of keys for the property including the gun safe and safety door. A new hand towel rail would be installed, and draft tape would be applied to the laundry door.
On 24 November 2025 the landlord provided the tenant with written notice advising: a. A routine property inspection would take place on 4 December 2025 at 5:30pm; and b. The final lock change for the front door would be completed.
On 5 March 2026 the landlord gave the tenant 60 days’ notice of a rent increase effective 8 May 2026.
On 9 March 2026 the landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice terminating the tenancy effective 11 June 2026.
That same day the landlord served the tenant a 14-day breach notice requiring the tenant to provide evidence of her bank details and electricity accounts from May 2025 onwards. The landlord required the accounts to calculate and reimburse the tenant for any power used by the equine block.
On 8 May 2026 the landlord served the tenant with an anti-social behaviour notice specifying three occasions where antisocial behaviour allegedly occurred: a. 13 March 2026 – failing to return a miss delivered parcel. b. 10 April 2026 – disturbing one of the landlord’s other tenants with aggressive tones and loud banging. c. 14 April 2026 – a guest of the tenant’s arriving and leaving the property in a loud rotary vehicle disturbing the landlord in the neighbouring property. Tenant’s claims

Is the 90-day notice retaliatory?

On 9 March 2026 the landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice terminating the tenancy effective 11 June 2026.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) of the Act.
The test to be applied is summarised in the High Court Decision of Whakatihi v Rent Assured NZ Limited [2019] NZHC 2873: “On the balance of probabilities was the landlord 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.”`
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A of the Act. The tenant did not seek exemplary damages.
The tenants said that she was issued a 90-day notice because: a. On 6 March 2026 she challenged the landlord for gardening at the back of the property along the shed wall; and b. Due to ongoing dispute with the landlord over her request for the installation of a second power meter for Rose Cottage; and c. Due to a sustained campaign of harassment.
The landlords dispute the 90-day notice was retaliatory stating: a. When they purchased the property Rose Cottage it did not meet Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Significant work was undertaken to remediate disrepair at the property to ensure compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. b. Rose Cottage was never intended to be long term rental accommodation. The landlords initially intended to use Rose Cottage as their business premises and for storage. c. Rose Cottage is now required as accommodation for the landlords elderly parent. d. The landlord provided the Tribunal with a copy of the scope of works to be undertaken as Rose Cottage. They advised the work needs to be completed over the winter months due to their child’s elite sport commitments (an events calendar was provided to evidence those commitments). e. The landlord told the tenant, since purchasing they property they had discovered she had been paying for electricity used by the equine block and Rose Cottage. The former landlord had failed to disclose this to the tenant. The landlord wanted to compensate the tenant for any electricity their equine block had used since taking possession of the property. Despite repeated requests, the tenant failed to provide her power bill which resulted in a 14- day breach notice being issued. The power bills were required to allow the landlord to calculate the amount of power their equine block had used. The electricity meters for Rose Cottage and the equine block had been incorporated into one bill which the landlord wanted to remedy. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that by terminating the tenancy the landlord was motived wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or Act or by any complaint against the landlord.
The tenant alleges there has been a campaign of harassment by the landlord and that 90-day notice was issued following challenges over the landlord’s conduct and behaviour and following a request for a power meter to be installed at Rose Cottage.
The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that the 90-day notice to terminate was issued because of their ongoing plans to renovate Rose Cottage. The Tribunal accepts the landlords evidence that significant remedial work had been completed at the Rose Cottage to remedy disrepair and bring it up to HHS. Additional evidence was provided to show that the work at Rose Cottage was ongoing.
The evidence supports the landlord’s assertion that they were actively trying to resolve the dispute over power use by the equine block.
The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that Rose Cottage is now required to house an elderly relative following the death of their spouse.
While the tenant has taken issue with the landlord’s choices in managing and maintaining the property I have not seen sufficient evidence to establish that the landlord’s primary motivation for issuing the 90-day notice was retaliation. The landlord was entitled to issue a 90-day notice without providing a reason, and there is no persuasive evidence before me that the notice was given for a retaliatory purpose. The claim is therefore dismissed.

Should a Possession Order be made?

I have determined that the 90-day notice was not retaliatory. On that basis it is appropriate to consider whether a Possession Order should be made.
The tenancy ended on 11 June 2026 following the expiry of a 90-day notice that was served on the tenant on 9 March 2026. The notice was valid. The tenancy terminated less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Act are satisfied.
The landlord is granted immediate possession of the property.

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

The tenant claims that the landlord did not maintain the fences or the gate. The tenant wants the problem fixed.
The tenant explained that prior to the landlord’s taking possession of the property they, along with her former landlord, removed a significant number of trees and vegetation from around Rose Cottage. This removed their privacy. After taking possession of the property the landlords realigned the drive, removing and replacing some of the fencing. The tenant’s position is that this fencing and the gate needs to be reinstated. This will reinstate some of their privacy and prevent the neighbouring tenant’s dog from entering into their yard.
The tenancy has been terminated and the landlord has been granted possession of the property. The application for work orders is now moot and the claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations to maintain the property?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45(1)(b), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant alleges the landlord failed to maintain the properties fences and gates in a reasonable state of repair. Specifically the tenant argued that the removal of fencing and a gate to realign her driveway reduced her privacy and allowed the neighbouring tenant’s dogs to enter their yard.
The landlords dispute the fences and gates were poorly maintained or reduced the tenants privacy. A number of photographs were provided to show the property had a four-rail high, post and rain fence with gates. The photographs show the fencing to be in very good or new condition. The landlord said they decided to improve the fencing and realign the shared driveway to: a. Increase security at the equine block. b. To horse proof the property. c. Provided better access for farm vehicles and horse trucks on the shared driveway; and d. To provide Rose Cottage with better privacy from the road. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities the landlord has failed to maintain the fences and gates in a reasonable state of repair. The photographs provided show the fences and gates to be in new or very good condition. The gates are sturdy and show no sign of disrepair. The realignment of the driveway continues to provide the tenant with access to Rose Cottage, albeit for a different angle. I accept the landlord’s evidence that this realignment also afforded Rose Cottage better privacy from the road.
It is clear to the Tribunal there has been a break down in the relationship between the parties. The tenant dislikes the changes the landlords have made to the property and would have preferred the area surrounding Rose Cottage, including the trees and vegetation, fences, gates and driveway to have remained as they were.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The tenant claims 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.
A landlord is required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant. See section 45(1)(e) of the Act.
Upon receiving a complaint, the landlord has a duty to act responsible and with a reasonable timeframe to determine whether another tenant is causing a breach and to take appropriate steps to rectify this.
The tenant said her claim for breach of quiet enjoyment includes the following: a. Prior to the commencement of the tenancy the previous owner/landlord and the landlord removed trees and vegetation from around the property without giving proper notice. The tenant was subjected to noise from chainsaws, shovel and trailers. b. The landlord’s contractors breached her quiet enjoyment of the property. c. The landlord’s contractors were able to look into her home due to the removal of trees and vegetation which had previously afforded her privacy. d. The landlord has been planting hedging along the boundary fence and watering the plants without proper notice. e. The landlord entered onto the grounds of Rose Cottage without permission to investigate a noisy water pump. f. The tenant alleges that on at least five or six occasions her neighbours dogs have entered onto her land barking at her friends or at her two blind cats. The following events were specifically referred too: i. On 18 December 2025, the landlord allowed a new tenant to move into a neighbouring property with their two dogs. ii. On 27 December 2025, the dogs chased her friend up the driveway barking. iii. On an unknown occasion the tenant heard what sounded like dogs panting outside the toilet window. No dogs were sighted. iv. On 24 March 2026, the dogs were on her property barking at her friend and at her cats.
The landlord denies breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment. The landlord further denies failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the neighbouring tenants dogs did not cause or interfere with her right to reasonable peace, comfort and privacy.
The landlord responded: a. They have always followed the advice of Tenancy Services to ensure compliance with the Act when dealing the tenant and issues at the property. b. A lot of the trees and vegetation that were removed, did not constitute a part of the tenants property. Vegetation that was removed from around Rose Cottage was overgrown and/or had been identified as toxic to horses. Given the primary purpose of the land was to stable horses the decision was made to remove these plants to prevent them from spreading. c. Rose Cottage was in a state of disrepair when they purchased the property. d. At the commencement of the tenancy the tenant provided a list of defects at the property, including issues with vermin, which they worked to resolve. e. The tenant was fully informed of all building, ground and maintenance works ahead of the arrival of onsite contractors. Evidence was provided that some of those works were detailed in written notices. f. The landlord provided oversight of their contractors. No evidence was provided to the Tribunal to suggest the contractors had been anything but professional. g. The roof and guttering and drainage at Rose Cottage had to be urgently repaired and replaced to meet Healthy Homes Standards. h. The landlords undertook gardening around the fence line of the property. While the earthworks around Rose Cottage were in progress, the landlords assumed responsibility for lawn mowing and weed spraying to minimise the impact on the tenant. i. The landlord did enter the grounds of Rose Cottage to investigate a noisy water pump. Rose Cottage was not entered. The tenants right to quiet enjoyment was not breached. j. The landlord’s did not charge full market rent to compensate the tenant for the work was being undertaken at Rose Cottage and to the equine block. k. The landlord was only made aware of two occasions where the neighbouring tenants’ dogs got out. On the first occasion they spoke to that tenant, to reinforce the dogs must be kept within their fenced compound or exercised in the sand pit. On the second occasion, they discovered a contractor had failed to properly secure the gates allowing the dogs to leave their property. Analysis and decision
Section 38(2) of the Act confirms 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 40 of the Act sets out the tenant’s responsibilities which include an obligation that the tenant shall not: Cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
Section 45 of the Act sets out the landlord’s responsibilities, which include at 40(1)(e) that the landlord must: Take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants cause or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
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.
Having heard from the parties and reviewing all of the evidence I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the landlord has breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment.
The Tribunal heard Rose Cottage was in a poor state of repair at the time the property was purchased. This was accepted by the tenant. Under the Act, the landlord was required to bring Rose Cottage up to Healthy Homes Standards within a specified time period. Once ownership of the property transferred to the landlord they took immediate steps to complete this work. I accept the landlord’s evidence the tenant was kept fully informed of all building, ground, and maintenance work and that this work was, where possible, confined to dates and time to cause the least amount of distribution to the tenant. I also accept that some of this work was completed at the request of the tenant.
I am not satisfied the landlord breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment by removing trees and vegetation from around the property. It was accepted that this work commenced prior to the landlords taking ownership of the property. If there was a breach of the tenant’s rights under the Act prior to 7 June 2025, this is a matter that needs to be pursued against the tenant’s former landlord. I accept the landlord’s evidence that any trees or vegetation removed from the grounds of Rose Cottage was done so as part of their ongoing obligations to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. I also accept that the removal of toxic plants from Rose Cottage was done to prevent them spreading to the equine block.
There was insufficient evidence provided to prove the landlord failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the neighbouring tenants dogs did not cause or interfere with the tenants right to reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they were only made aware of two occasions were their tenants dogs entered the yard at Rose Cottage. The evidence provided did not show the dogs were aggressive or threatening to the tenant, her guests or to her cats. The Tribunal had the benefit of CCTV footage from the landlord, and a letter from the tenant’s visitor to assist in making this determination.
On both occasions, once informed, the landlord acted to resolve the issue. On the first occasion the landlord advised their tenant to keep the dogs within the securely fenced, dog proof section or sand pit. On the second occasion the landlord ascertain the dogs had been allowed to escape their yard after a contractor failed to secure a gate. There was no evidence to support the tenants claims the dogs had entered the yard at Rose Cottage on at least five or six occasions.
I am satisfied the landlord acted responsibly, proactively and within a reasonable timeframe to determine whether the other tenant had caused a breach of Ms Stringer’s right to quiet enjoyment. Based on the available evidence I am not satisfied that the dogs entering the grounds of Rose Cottage on two occasions amounts to a breach of quiet enjoyment. I am satisfied the landlord provided suitable advice and education to their other tenant on securing their dogs, resulting in appropriate steps being taken to rectify the situation.
The claim is dismissed. Landlord’s claims

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
In order to seek an order for termination under section 55A of the Act, the landlord must point to three separate notices of anti-social behaviour by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour was: a. On 13 March 2026, failing to return a miss delivered parcel to one of the landlord’s other tenants. b. On 10 April 2026, disturbing one of the landlord’s other tenants at a neighbouring property with aggressive tones and loud banging c. On 14 April 2026 allowing a guest to arrive and leave the property in a loud rotary vehicle disturbing the landlord in the neighbouring property. Analysis and decision
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti- social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
The purposes of being delivered a notice which expressly sets out the requirements of section 55A(2)(b) of the Act is to the tenant has the ability to apply to the Tribunal for orders challenging the notice or to otherwise seek to correct the alleged anti-social behaviour. 1
The landlord has produced one notice particularising three occasions where anti- social behaviour has allegedly occurred. The notice was issued on 8 May 2026. The landlord has failed to provide three separate notices in accordance with the 1 Airedale property Trust v Richard Lawson [2021] NZTT Auckland 4301453 at 16. requirements of section 55A of the Act and the claim for termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour is dismissed. Other matters
The tenant seeks name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings, nor was there sufficient evidence to show that the interest of the tenant outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. Therefore I do not grant suppression. See section 95A(1) & (4) of the Act.
The landlord did not seek name suppression for themselves but sought name suppression for their other tenant. Suppression orders relating to the name and identifying particulars of the landlord’s other tenant is ordered.

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5503229. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages

Order

Jules Henley As Trustee For Henley Mitchell Family Trust is granted possession of the premises at 756A Bruntwood Road, Tamahere, RD 3, Hamilton 3283 immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed

Reasons

On 9 April 2026 the tenant filed an application seeking: a. Exemplary damages for failing to maintain fences. b. A work order to reinstate fencing. c. Compensation and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment.
On 7 May 2026 the tenant filed a further application seeking: a. An order setting aside the landlord’s 90-day notice on the basis it was retaliatory. b. Name Suppression. c. Reimbursement of the filing fees.
On 8 May 2026 the landlord filed a cross application seeking: a. Termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour. b. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded in person.
Ms Julie Mitchell, the landlord, appeared. She was supported by Ms Chrissie Kavanagh, who also appeared for the landlord.
The tenant appeared with the support of Mr Craig Brocket and Mr Peter Muirhead. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 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. Exemplary Damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
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 of the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. The Property
The tenant resides in Rose Cottage, a dwelling situated on the landlord’s equine block.
Rose Cottage shares a drive way with a second residential dwelling, also tenanted, and the equine block.
The landlords are neighbours of the tenant. History of the tenancy
The tenant moved into the property on 1 February 2024. At that time the Property was owned by Greg Reid.
Between 10 May 2025 and 4 June 2025 the previous owner/landlord, and the current/owner landlord, removed a significant number of trees and vegetation from around Rose Cottage, the orchard and a paddock.
On 6 June 2025 the property was sold to the Henley Mitchell Family Trust.
On 7 June 2025 the landlord and tenant entered into a periodic tenancy agreement.
On 7 September 2025 the landlord give the tenant written notice of a property inspection to take place on 12 September 2025. The notice asked the tenant to provide the landlord with a working set of keys to the property to ensure they complied with their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act’).
On 12 September 2025 the landlord provided the tenant with written notice advising that contractors would be onsite from Monday 15 September 2025 to: a. Complete earthworks at the equine premises. b. Complete work to realigned access to the tenants property to provide more privacy from the road. c. Complete work on the lawns to install new drainage for the new roof and gutters.
On 14 October 2025 the landlord provided the tenant written notice advising: a. That a routine property inspection would occur on 15 October 2025 at 5:30pm; and b. The locks would be changed and an attempt would be made to get a full set of keys for the property including the gun safe and safety door. A new hand towel rail would be installed, and draft tape would be applied to the laundry door.
On 24 November 2025 the landlord provided the tenant with written notice advising: a. A routine property inspection would take place on 4 December 2025 at 5:30pm; and b. The final lock change for the front door would be completed.
On 5 March 2026 the landlord gave the tenant 60 days’ notice of a rent increase effective 8 May 2026.
On 9 March 2026 the landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice terminating the tenancy effective 11 June 2026.
That same day the landlord served the tenant a 14-day breach notice requiring the tenant to provide evidence of her bank details and electricity accounts from May 2025 onwards. The landlord required the accounts to calculate and reimburse the tenant for any power used by the equine block.
On 8 May 2026 the landlord served the tenant with an anti-social behaviour notice specifying three occasions where antisocial behaviour allegedly occurred: a. 13 March 2026 – failing to return a miss delivered parcel. b. 10 April 2026 – disturbing one of the landlord’s other tenants with aggressive tones and loud banging. c. 14 April 2026 – a guest of the tenant’s arriving and leaving the property in a loud rotary vehicle disturbing the landlord in the neighbouring property. Tenant’s claims

Is the 90-day notice retaliatory?

On 9 March 2026 the landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice terminating the tenancy effective 11 June 2026.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) of the Act.
The test to be applied is summarised in the High Court Decision of Whakatihi v Rent Assured NZ Limited [2019] NZHC 2873: “On the balance of probabilities was the landlord 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.”`
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A of the Act. The tenant did not seek exemplary damages.
The tenants said that she was issued a 90-day notice because: a. On 6 March 2026 she challenged the landlord for gardening at the back of the property along the shed wall; and b. Due to ongoing dispute with the landlord over her request for the installation of a second power meter for Rose Cottage; and c. Due to a sustained campaign of harassment.
The landlords dispute the 90-day notice was retaliatory stating: a. When they purchased the property Rose Cottage it did not meet Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Significant work was undertaken to remediate disrepair at the property to ensure compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. b. Rose Cottage was never intended to be long term rental accommodation. The landlords initially intended to use Rose Cottage as their business premises and for storage. c. Rose Cottage is now required as accommodation for the landlords elderly parent. d. The landlord provided the Tribunal with a copy of the scope of works to be undertaken as Rose Cottage. They advised the work needs to be completed over the winter months due to their child’s elite sport commitments (an events calendar was provided to evidence those commitments). e. The landlord told the tenant, since purchasing they property they had discovered she had been paying for electricity used by the equine block and Rose Cottage. The former landlord had failed to disclose this to the tenant. The landlord wanted to compensate the tenant for any electricity their equine block had used since taking possession of the property. Despite repeated requests, the tenant failed to provide her power bill which resulted in a 14- day breach notice being issued. The power bills were required to allow the landlord to calculate the amount of power their equine block had used. The electricity meters for Rose Cottage and the equine block had been incorporated into one bill which the landlord wanted to remedy. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that by terminating the tenancy the landlord was motived wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or Act or by any complaint against the landlord.
The tenant alleges there has been a campaign of harassment by the landlord and that 90-day notice was issued following challenges over the landlord’s conduct and behaviour and following a request for a power meter to be installed at Rose Cottage.
The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that the 90-day notice to terminate was issued because of their ongoing plans to renovate Rose Cottage. The Tribunal accepts the landlords evidence that significant remedial work had been completed at the Rose Cottage to remedy disrepair and bring it up to HHS. Additional evidence was provided to show that the work at Rose Cottage was ongoing.
The evidence supports the landlord’s assertion that they were actively trying to resolve the dispute over power use by the equine block.
The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that Rose Cottage is now required to house an elderly relative following the death of their spouse.
While the tenant has taken issue with the landlord’s choices in managing and maintaining the property I have not seen sufficient evidence to establish that the landlord’s primary motivation for issuing the 90-day notice was retaliation. The landlord was entitled to issue a 90-day notice without providing a reason, and there is no persuasive evidence before me that the notice was given for a retaliatory purpose. The claim is therefore dismissed.

Should a Possession Order be made?

I have determined that the 90-day notice was not retaliatory. On that basis it is appropriate to consider whether a Possession Order should be made.
The tenancy ended on 11 June 2026 following the expiry of a 90-day notice that was served on the tenant on 9 March 2026. The notice was valid. The tenancy terminated less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Act are satisfied.
The landlord is granted immediate possession of the property.

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

The tenant claims that the landlord did not maintain the fences or the gate. The tenant wants the problem fixed.
The tenant explained that prior to the landlord’s taking possession of the property they, along with her former landlord, removed a significant number of trees and vegetation from around Rose Cottage. This removed their privacy. After taking possession of the property the landlords realigned the drive, removing and replacing some of the fencing. The tenant’s position is that this fencing and the gate needs to be reinstated. This will reinstate some of their privacy and prevent the neighbouring tenant’s dog from entering into their yard.
The tenancy has been terminated and the landlord has been granted possession of the property. The application for work orders is now moot and the claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations to maintain the property?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45(1)(b), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant alleges the landlord failed to maintain the properties fences and gates in a reasonable state of repair. Specifically the tenant argued that the removal of fencing and a gate to realign her driveway reduced her privacy and allowed the neighbouring tenant’s dogs to enter their yard.
The landlords dispute the fences and gates were poorly maintained or reduced the tenants privacy. A number of photographs were provided to show the property had a four-rail high, post and rain fence with gates. The photographs show the fencing to be in very good or new condition. The landlord said they decided to improve the fencing and realign the shared driveway to: a. Increase security at the equine block. b. To horse proof the property. c. Provided better access for farm vehicles and horse trucks on the shared driveway; and d. To provide Rose Cottage with better privacy from the road. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities the landlord has failed to maintain the fences and gates in a reasonable state of repair. The photographs provided show the fences and gates to be in new or very good condition. The gates are sturdy and show no sign of disrepair. The realignment of the driveway continues to provide the tenant with access to Rose Cottage, albeit for a different angle. I accept the landlord’s evidence that this realignment also afforded Rose Cottage better privacy from the road.
It is clear to the Tribunal there has been a break down in the relationship between the parties. The tenant dislikes the changes the landlords have made to the property and would have preferred the area surrounding Rose Cottage, including the trees and vegetation, fences, gates and driveway to have remained as they were.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The tenant claims 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.
A landlord is required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant. See section 45(1)(e) of the Act.
Upon receiving a complaint, the landlord has a duty to act responsible and with a reasonable timeframe to determine whether another tenant is causing a breach and to take appropriate steps to rectify this.
The tenant said her claim for breach of quiet enjoyment includes the following: a. Prior to the commencement of the tenancy the previous owner/landlord and the landlord removed trees and vegetation from around the property without giving proper notice. The tenant was subjected to noise from chainsaws, shovel and trailers. b. The landlord’s contractors breached her quiet enjoyment of the property. c. The landlord’s contractors were able to look into her home due to the removal of trees and vegetation which had previously afforded her privacy. d. The landlord has been planting hedging along the boundary fence and watering the plants without proper notice. e. The landlord entered onto the grounds of Rose Cottage without permission to investigate a noisy water pump. f. The tenant alleges that on at least five or six occasions her neighbours dogs have entered onto her land barking at her friends or at her two blind cats. The following events were specifically referred too: i. On 18 December 2025, the landlord allowed a new tenant to move into a neighbouring property with their two dogs. ii. On 27 December 2025, the dogs chased her friend up the driveway barking. iii. On an unknown occasion the tenant heard what sounded like dogs panting outside the toilet window. No dogs were sighted. iv. On 24 March 2026, the dogs were on her property barking at her friend and at her cats.
The landlord denies breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment. The landlord further denies failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the neighbouring tenants dogs did not cause or interfere with her right to reasonable peace, comfort and privacy.
The landlord responded: a. They have always followed the advice of Tenancy Services to ensure compliance with the Act when dealing the tenant and issues at the property. b. A lot of the trees and vegetation that were removed, did not constitute a part of the tenants property. Vegetation that was removed from around Rose Cottage was overgrown and/or had been identified as toxic to horses. Given the primary purpose of the land was to stable horses the decision was made to remove these plants to prevent them from spreading. c. Rose Cottage was in a state of disrepair when they purchased the property. d. At the commencement of the tenancy the tenant provided a list of defects at the property, including issues with vermin, which they worked to resolve. e. The tenant was fully informed of all building, ground and maintenance works ahead of the arrival of onsite contractors. Evidence was provided that some of those works were detailed in written notices. f. The landlord provided oversight of their contractors. No evidence was provided to the Tribunal to suggest the contractors had been anything but professional. g. The roof and guttering and drainage at Rose Cottage had to be urgently repaired and replaced to meet Healthy Homes Standards. h. The landlords undertook gardening around the fence line of the property. While the earthworks around Rose Cottage were in progress, the landlords assumed responsibility for lawn mowing and weed spraying to minimise the impact on the tenant. i. The landlord did enter the grounds of Rose Cottage to investigate a noisy water pump. Rose Cottage was not entered. The tenants right to quiet enjoyment was not breached. j. The landlord’s did not charge full market rent to compensate the tenant for the work was being undertaken at Rose Cottage and to the equine block. k. The landlord was only made aware of two occasions where the neighbouring tenants’ dogs got out. On the first occasion they spoke to that tenant, to reinforce the dogs must be kept within their fenced compound or exercised in the sand pit. On the second occasion, they discovered a contractor had failed to properly secure the gates allowing the dogs to leave their property. Analysis and decision
Section 38(2) of the Act confirms 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 40 of the Act sets out the tenant’s responsibilities which include an obligation that the tenant shall not: Cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
Section 45 of the Act sets out the landlord’s responsibilities, which include at 40(1)(e) that the landlord must: Take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants cause or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
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.
Having heard from the parties and reviewing all of the evidence I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the landlord has breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment.
The Tribunal heard Rose Cottage was in a poor state of repair at the time the property was purchased. This was accepted by the tenant. Under the Act, the landlord was required to bring Rose Cottage up to Healthy Homes Standards within a specified time period. Once ownership of the property transferred to the landlord they took immediate steps to complete this work. I accept the landlord’s evidence the tenant was kept fully informed of all building, ground, and maintenance work and that this work was, where possible, confined to dates and time to cause the least amount of distribution to the tenant. I also accept that some of this work was completed at the request of the tenant.
I am not satisfied the landlord breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment by removing trees and vegetation from around the property. It was accepted that this work commenced prior to the landlords taking ownership of the property. If there was a breach of the tenant’s rights under the Act prior to 7 June 2025, this is a matter that needs to be pursued against the tenant’s former landlord. I accept the landlord’s evidence that any trees or vegetation removed from the grounds of Rose Cottage was done so as part of their ongoing obligations to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. I also accept that the removal of toxic plants from Rose Cottage was done to prevent them spreading to the equine block.
There was insufficient evidence provided to prove the landlord failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the neighbouring tenants dogs did not cause or interfere with the tenants right to reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they were only made aware of two occasions were their tenants dogs entered the yard at Rose Cottage. The evidence provided did not show the dogs were aggressive or threatening to the tenant, her guests or to her cats. The Tribunal had the benefit of CCTV footage from the landlord, and a letter from the tenant’s visitor to assist in making this determination.
On both occasions, once informed, the landlord acted to resolve the issue. On the first occasion the landlord advised their tenant to keep the dogs within the securely fenced, dog proof section or sand pit. On the second occasion the landlord ascertain the dogs had been allowed to escape their yard after a contractor failed to secure a gate. There was no evidence to support the tenants claims the dogs had entered the yard at Rose Cottage on at least five or six occasions.
I am satisfied the landlord acted responsibly, proactively and within a reasonable timeframe to determine whether the other tenant had caused a breach of Ms Stringer’s right to quiet enjoyment. Based on the available evidence I am not satisfied that the dogs entering the grounds of Rose Cottage on two occasions amounts to a breach of quiet enjoyment. I am satisfied the landlord provided suitable advice and education to their other tenant on securing their dogs, resulting in appropriate steps being taken to rectify the situation.
The claim is dismissed. Landlord’s claims

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
In order to seek an order for termination under section 55A of the Act, the landlord must point to three separate notices of anti-social behaviour by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour was: a. On 13 March 2026, failing to return a miss delivered parcel to one of the landlord’s other tenants. b. On 10 April 2026, disturbing one of the landlord’s other tenants at a neighbouring property with aggressive tones and loud banging c. On 14 April 2026 allowing a guest to arrive and leave the property in a loud rotary vehicle disturbing the landlord in the neighbouring property. Analysis and decision
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti- social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
The purposes of being delivered a notice which expressly sets out the requirements of section 55A(2)(b) of the Act is to the tenant has the ability to apply to the Tribunal for orders challenging the notice or to otherwise seek to correct the alleged anti-social behaviour. 1
The landlord has produced one notice particularising three occasions where anti- social behaviour has allegedly occurred. The notice was issued on 8 May 2026. The landlord has failed to provide three separate notices in accordance with the 1 Airedale property Trust v Richard Lawson [2021] NZTT Auckland 4301453 at 16. requirements of section 55A of the Act and the claim for termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour is dismissed. Other matters
The tenant seeks name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings, nor was there sufficient evidence to show that the interest of the tenant outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. Therefore I do not grant suppression. See section 95A(1) & (4) of the Act.
The landlord did not seek name suppression for themselves but sought name suppression for their other tenant. Suppression orders relating to the name and identifying particulars of the landlord’s other tenant is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5503229 — State of repair at 756A Bruntwood Road, Tamahere, RD 3, Hamilton 3283

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5503229 — State of repair at 756A Bruntwood Road, Tamahere, RD 3, Hamilton 3283

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the 90-day notice retaliatory?

Should a Possession Order be made?

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations to maintain the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the 90-day notice retaliatory?

Should a Possession Order be made?

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations to maintain the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the 90-day notice retaliatory?

Should a Possession Order be made?

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations to maintain the property?

Application for termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the 90-day notice retaliatory?

Should a Possession Order be made?

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations to maintain the property?

Application for termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions