What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5095188?

The tribunal order states: against a person. However

How much money was awarded in case 5095188?

See Section 109(3) Residential Tenan…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095188?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12030636-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5095188?

The tribunal order states: against a person. However

How much money was awarded in case 5095188?

See Section 109(3) Residential Tenan…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095188?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12030636-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Picton Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5095188 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5095188 — net $11,862.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 50. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a	$3,000.00	See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 50. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a
Net award	$11,862.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$11,862.71

Order

against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010 considered the 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.”
The tenant described an incident on the day he had just come off a flight from the USA and was just coming out of the shower and found a painter in his bedroom. The landlord says that the painters asked the tenant to leave the backdoor open so they could access the house and that the property manager had not been informed about this incident on the day it occurred and found out much later on. The tenant says he was so shocked he went straight to the head painter to make the complaint, Brian, who was never on site supervising the painters. He stated that the painters did not speak English, so it was difficult to find out from them who had given them permission to enter the house that day or why he had not been advised painters would be in his room on that day. He accepts he should have also raised this with the property manager and didn’t. I am satisfied that this was an unlawful entry that was distressing to the tenant and was also a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the property.
Simone, the tenant’s partner worked from home and stated an alarm person turned up to check the alarm without notice and then came again a few days later another tradesperson. When Simone and a fried of hers came out into that area of the house they got a fright as the alarm person was up the ladder and was attaching the alarm to the wall. She says he never knocked or sought her permission to enter the house. She informed the property manager of this incident and was told “there had been a mix up”. The property manager followed up the alarm person and was told that he had knocked on the door and he said he had as he had heard Simone and another person talking inside the house. He confirmed that there was no response and he had not been given permission to come in. I am satisfied that this was an unlawful entry that was distressing to the tenant’s partner and her friend and was also a breach of their quiet enjoyment of the property and their privacy.
The landlord accepted that it had not engaged in sound communications with the tenant and that as a result things dropped through the cracks and these unlawful incidents occurred. It accepted that these breaches were unlawful and could have been avoided with better communication channels being established between the parties at a time where painters, builders, handymen and other contractors were coming and going from the property. It also accepted that because the tenant’s partner was working from home these types of incidents were more likely to occur without sound communications being established between the landlord, tenant and third-party contractors. I find the landlord’s careless acts and omissions have led to these reasonably foreseeable breaches and as such consider the four unlawful acts to be intentional acts (two breaches of the landlord’s entry rights and two of the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a total sum of $3,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord allowed its contractors to engage in a pattern of behaviour it knew was reasonably foreseeable would result in breaches of the landlord’s entry obligations and/or the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment causing the tenant and his partner trouble, worry and distress and that they were becoming worn down by the property manager’s inability to manage the contractors in a way that would prevent these types of breaches occurring and it did not; b. The tenant and his partner suffered distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise he was paying to enjoy because of the contractors breach of the landlord’s entry rights and/or its privacy obligations ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise he was paying to enjoy; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their quiet enjoyment and entry rights obligations.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fees

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Goodwin Realty Limited T/As Goodwins As Agent For Reg Price has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claim, I dismiss its application for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Because Jedda Rangi Jakicevich has substantially succeeded with his claims I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed. M Pollak 25 June 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5095188 — net $11,862.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 50. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a	$3,000.00	See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 50. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a
Net award	$11,862.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$11,862.71

Order

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.”
The tenant described an incident on the day he had just come off a flight from the USA and was just coming out of the shower and found a painter in his bedroom. The landlord says that the painters asked the tenant to leave the backdoor open so they could access the house and that the property manager had not been informed about this incident on the day it occurred and found out much later on. The tenant says he was so shocked he went straight to the head painter to make the complaint, Brian, who was never on site supervising the painters. He stated that the painters did not speak English, so it was difficult to find out from them who had given them permission to enter the house that day or why he had not been advised painters would be in his room on that day. He accepts he should have also raised this with the property manager and didn’t. I am satisfied that this was an unlawful entry that was distressing to the tenant and was also a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the property.
Simone, the tenant’s partner worked from home and stated an alarm person turned up to check the alarm without notice and then came again a few days later another tradesperson. When Simone and a fried of hers came out into that area of the house they got a fright as the alarm person was up the ladder and was attaching the alarm to the wall. She says he never knocked or sought her permission to enter the house. She informed the property manager of this incident and was told “there had been a mix up”. The property manager followed up the alarm person and was told that he had knocked on the door and he said he had as he had heard Simone and another person talking inside the house. He confirmed that there was no response and he had not been given permission to come in. I am satisfied that this was an unlawful entry that was distressing to the tenant’s partner and her friend and was also a breach of their quiet enjoyment of the property and their privacy.
The landlord accepted that it had not engaged in sound communications with the tenant and that as a result things dropped through the cracks and these unlawful incidents occurred. It accepted that these breaches were unlawful and could have been avoided with better communication channels being established between the parties at a time where painters, builders, handymen and other contractors were coming and going from the property. It also accepted that because the tenant’s partner was working from home these types of incidents were more likely to occur without sound communications being established between the landlord, tenant and third-party contractors. I find the landlord’s careless acts and omissions have led to these reasonably foreseeable breaches and as such consider the four unlawful acts to be intentional acts (two breaches of the landlord’s entry rights and two of the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a total sum of $3,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord allowed its contractors to engage in a pattern of behaviour it knew was reasonably foreseeable would result in breaches of the landlord’s entry obligations and/or the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment causing the tenant and his partner trouble, worry and distress and that they were becoming worn down by the property manager’s inability to manage the contractors in a way that would prevent these types of breaches occurring and it did not; b. The tenant and his partner suffered distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise he was paying to enjoy because of the contractors breach of the landlord’s entry rights and/or its privacy obligations ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise he was paying to enjoy; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their quiet enjoyment and entry rights obligations.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fees

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Goodwin Realty Limited T/As Goodwins As Agent For Reg Price has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claim, I dismiss its application for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Because Jedda Rangi Jakicevich has substantially succeeded with his claims I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed. M Pollak 25 June 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5095188 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Picton Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5095188 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Picton Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions