What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5105621?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5105621?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5105621?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5105621?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12088089-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5105621?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5105621?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5105621?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5105621?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12088089-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 20 Wiremu Street, Redwood, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5105621 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 8 July 2025. Ms Rea and Ms Levett represented the landlord. Background
The tenants have been tenants of the landlord for 30 years; their tenancy started in I995.
Their premises share a driveway with other premises whose tenants are also tenants of the landlord.
The shared driveway has been described as an easement and as a right-of- way. As I will mention later, the Tribunal is not required on this application to determine the legal status of the shared driveway.
The tenants believe that Kāinga Ora has failed in its responsibilities as a landlord to prevent its other tenants from interfering with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in their use of the premises.
The tenants allege that the tenants at Flat 2/20 Wiremu Street block part of the shared driveway by parking a 9m camper bus in the driveway impeding access. On one occasion they say that prevented a first responder from being able to drive up the driveway to attend to the tenant who experienced a medical event.
As well they state that they have been subject to abuse by those tenants whom they say engage in loud anti-social behaviour and act in an intimidating manner. The application
The tenant has applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord failing to prevent its other tenants (those at Flat 2) interfering with their reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. The tenants also allege that the landlord failed to keep proper records and has provided false or misleading information.
The Tribunal has considered everything placed before it including the audio and video evidence, the evidence the tenants’ witness gave, the documentary evidence, and the written submissions the parties provided. Relevant law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Section 45(1)(e) RTA provides that the landlord shall: Take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. Other legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
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 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion Exemplary damages
The Tribunal could not award exemplary damages in this case because a breach of section 45(1)(e) RTA by a landlord, even if proved, is not a defined unlawful act. The application for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Compensation
The Tribunal could only consider awarding compensation to the tenants if the landlord, despite notifications, had unreasonably failed to do anything in response. That is not the case here.
Ms Rea detailed the actions the landlord has taken at pages 3-6 of her written submissions which include reminding the tenants (including these tenants) whose premises are located off the shared right-of-way where they can and cannot park. Based on those actions the Tribunal could not reasonably conclude that the landlord has failed in its section 45(1)(e) RTA responsibilities.
Ms Rea submitted that these tenants contribute to the parking issues by insisting that they have a right to park in an area the landlord considers to be part of the easement (or right-of-way). 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
The tenants insist they have a right to park there based on an agreement they reached with the landlord about 29 years ago. It appears to be an informal agreement reached following mediation, but not part of the tenancy agreement, nor a sealed mediator’s order.
Ms Rea correctly submitted that things could change over time. Any informal agreement nearly 3 decades ago between the landlord and several tenants about shared parking (most of the tenants no longer residing there) would not be an enforceable binding agreement now.
The tenants produced evidence relating to the right of way, its boundaries, and photos of where they park. They also provided photos of a large bus owned by the tenant with whom they are mostly in dispute, to show that that tenant parks over the easement/right-of-way impeding access.
The tenants said that many years ago they owned a campervan which the landlord required them to remove. Yet, the landlord now seemed to tolerate the 9m campervan owned and parked off the driveway (and sometimes over it) by the tenants in Flat 2.
The Tribunal is not required to determine the legal status of, or the boundaries of, the right-of-way (or the easement if there is one) because this is not a landlord application. That will only become relevant if the landlord prevents these (or other) tenants from parking in a manner that impedes access, issues a breach notice, and applies for orders from the Tribunal to remedy the breach. There is no landlord application before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal does not micromanage tenants’ lives. Its inquiry is simply this: has the landlord committed a breach of its statutory responsibilities? If yes, the Tribunal could then consider compensation. Compensation flows from a proven breach by any party of their statutory responsibilities.
But here, the answer to the Tribunal’s inquiry is no. The landlord has taken all reasonable steps to resolve the parking issues. That there is a continuing problem does not establish a landlord breach, but it may well establish a tenant breach.
The tenants’ complaints about general abuse and disruption from the neighbouring tenants have also been responded to by the landlord; they were not simply ignored. The parking issue seems to be at the root of some of that behaviour.
The tenants produced letters from their daughter and from other neighbours. Some of the details are vague (reference to the ‘goings-on’) and some are just wrong. One neighbour refers to being unable to enter her street due to it being a crime scene because there was a deceased person at a house in the street. It almost suggests some major criminal disturbance. Ms Rea was able to clarify that there was no ‘crime scene’. The police were present, but the person had died from natural causes.
Ms Rea said that during 2025 the landlord had not received any complaints from the tenants about their neighbours’ behaviour, although the tenants appeared not to agree with that.
I accept from the landlord’s evidence and submissions that the landlord has responded as best it can to complaints as they were raised. The tenants contribute to some of the behaviour complained of due to their insistence that they have a right to park where they do, which is part of the on-going aggravation.
The tenants want the Tribunal to order the landlord to terminate the tenancy of the neighbour with whom they are mostly in dispute or to require Kāinga-Ora to relocate them. That is not an order the Tribunal would, or could, make.
The tenants have alleged that the landlord has failed to keep records and has provided false information. This appears to principally relate to the mediated agreement made in 1996 which the landlord denied existed, as it had no record of it.
That the tenants managed to locate a copy of that agreement does not establish a breach by the landlord. Many government departments (which over time have changed names and structure) do not have documents dating back 3 decades. For the landlord to say it did not have the document would not constitute false or misleading information, which implies some kind of conspiracy to withhold information. It simply means the landlord was unable to locate the document. I accept Ms Rea’s submission that it was an honest mistake.
The tenants have not proved a compensable breach so far as the failure to provide information is concerned.
For all matters raised by the tenants I make no award of compensation. They have failed to prove an objective breach by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. Result
The tenants have failed to prove that the landlord breached its statutory responsibility to ensure that none of its other tenants breached their reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of their premises.
The tenants have not proved that the landlord failed to keep proper records or that it provided false or misleading information.
The application is dismissed. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as the application is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5105621 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 4, 20 Wiremu Street, Redwood, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5105621 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 4, 20 Wiremu Street, Redwood, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions