What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5236312?

The tribunal order states: MSA Investments Limited to pay Chris O’Halpin $727.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5236312?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5236312?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5236312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12167989-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5236312?

The tribunal order states: MSA Investments Limited to pay Chris O’Halpin $727.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5236312?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5236312?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5236312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12167989-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 26 Marjorie-Jayne Cres, Otahuhu, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5236312 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat 4, 26 Marjorie-Jayne Cres, Otahuhu, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5236312 — Tenancy dispute | 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 5236312 — net $727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$700.00	tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of quiet enjoyment. I find $700.00 to be reasonable.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$727.00

Claims and awards for application 5236312 — net $727.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of quiet enjoyment. I find $700.00 to be reasonable.

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $727.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $727.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

MSA Investments Limited to pay Chris O’Halpin $727.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The termination notice dated 7 April 2025 is invalid and of no effect.
The tenant’s application that the termination notice dated 7 April 2025 be declared retaliatory is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. Jo Pere and Dawn Job attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant claims the landlord has breached the following provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): a. Retaliatory notice (section 54) b. Quiet enjoyment (section 38)
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
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. COMPENSATION & EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – THE LAW GENERALLY
The Tribunal may award compensation for losses arising from a proven breach by a landlord or tenant of the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 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 from compensation. They are designed to punish and 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.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines an unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in 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; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 1 that: Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to 1 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.

RETALIATORY NOTICE

The law

Section 54 RTA 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). (emphasis added) (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 tenancy by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any other 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 or 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 states: 51Termination by notice (1)A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice. ... (3)Every notice to terminate a tenancy shall – (a) be in writing; and (b) identify the premises to which it relates; and (c) specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and (ca) if the landlord gives less than 90 days’ notice, set out the reasons for the termination; and (d) be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord sent them a 90 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenant claims they received the notice on 7 March 2025 and the notice is incorrectly dated as having been sent on 7 April 2025.
The tenant claims the end date recorded in the notice of 6 June 2025 is less than 90 days from 7 April 2025.
The tenant claims the notice has been given in retaliation to two previous applications the tenant has filed with the Tribunal in 2022 and 2024. These applications also included claims for retaliatory notice.
The tenant claims the notice came out of the blue and no reason was given for terminating the tenancy. Therefore, the tenant submits it must have been given in retaliation to the previous proceedings.
Both parties confirmed that the landlord has not sought to enforce the termination notice and the tenancy is ongoing.
The landlord denies that the notice ending the tenancy was given in retaliation to previous proceedings brought by the tenant in the Tribunal. The landlord claims they are not required to provide the tenant with a reason for ending the tenancy if 90 days’ notice is given.
The landlord claims the caravan the tenant lives in is approximately 6 – 7 years old and needs maintenance. The landlord gave evidence that they intend to sell the caravan, along with a number of other caravans, which are also old this year. This is the reason the landlord claims the termination notice was given.
No evidence was submitted regarding the age and state of the tenant’s caravan, and the landlord accepted that none of the other caravans referred to in their evidence had been sold yet.
The tenant disputes that their caravan is old and requires maintenance or to be sold. Analysis
Before the Tribunal can consider whether a notice ending a tenancy is retaliatory, section 54(1) RTA requires the Tribunal to first be satisfied that the notice complies with the requirements in section 51 RTA.
Section 51(1) RTA permits a landlord to end a tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice. In this case, the notice ending the tenancy is dated 7 April 2025 and the end date of the tenancy is recorded as 6 June 2025. The number of days between 7 April 2025 and 6 June 2025 is less than 90 and therefore, the notice does not comply with section 51(1) RTA.
The notice ending the tenancy does not comply with section 51(1) RTA. Therefore, I cannot consider whether it was retaliatory or not. I do, however, declare the notice to be invalid and of no effect.
The tenant’s application to have the termination notice declared retaliatory is dismissed.

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, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be ordered.
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 section 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.” Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims that the landlord has a history of sending them notices to terminate the tenancy that are invalid and retaliatory. The tenant claims the termination notice incorrectly dated 7 April 2025 is a further example of this.
The tenant gave evidence that receiving the termination notice dated 7 April 2025 caused them significant stress and anxiety, as they thought they might have to move. Even though the landlord has not sought to enforce the termination notice and the tenancy is ongoing, the tenant claims the effect of receiving successive notices ending the tenancy creates uncertainty about their living situation. The tenant feels worried about when it will happen again.
The landlord accepts that they recorded the incorrect date in the notice terminating the tenancy dated 7 April 2025 and claims this was a genuine mistake. By the time the landlord realised their mistake, they claim it was too late to do anything about it.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant is a good tenant and they did not issue the notice ending the tenancy to be spiteful or nasty, but because the caravan is old and requires maintenance.
The landlord also stated that the tenant is not the easiest tenant to manage and claims the tenant’s behaviour towards them has been inappropriate and aggressive at times. The tenant disputes this and claims it is the landlord who has behaved inappropriately and aggressively. Analysis
I am satisfied that by giving the tenant a termination notice that was invalid, the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. I accept the tenant’s evidence that receiving the notice caused them stress and concern about whether they would be evicted. By giving an invalid termination notice, I find the landlord interfered with the tenant’s peace, comfort and use of the premises.
This is the fourth time the landlord has given the tenant an invalid termination notice. On 29 July 2022, the Tribunal found two termination notices given to the tenant on 13 January 2022 and 14 May 2022 to be invalid and of no effect. On 8 May 2024, the Tribunal found another notice terminating the tenancy dated 15 December 2023 to be invalid and of no effect.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord has engaged in a pattern of behaviour of sending the tenant invalid termination notices that reaches the level of harassment. The tenant has received four invalid termination notices within a three year period. I accept the tenant’s evidence that receiving these notices has caused them stress, worry and in the tenant’s own words, has been mentally debilitating.
I decline to order exemplary damages in this case, as I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has acted intentionally when sending the tenant invalid termination notices.
In respect of the termination notice dated 7 April 2025, I accept the landlord’s evidence that they recorded the wrong date by mistake, and this was not intentional. As the District Court held in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, “negligence does not equate to intention.”
From the Tribunal order dated 29 July 2022, it is clear that the termination notices sent to the tenant on 13 January 2022 and 14 May 2022 were sent in circumstances where the landlord genuinely believed on reasonably grounds that the premises were exempt from the RTA under sections 5(1)(k) and 5(1)(t).
I am prepared to give the landlord the benefit of the doubt that the termination notices dated 13 January 2022, 14 May 2022 and 7 April 2025 were not purposefully sent to the tenant in circumstances where the landlord knew or suspected they were invalid.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of quiet enjoyment. I find $700.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have considered the following factors: a. I accept the tenant’s evidence that receiving an invalid termination notice was distressing, particularly because they have been living in the premises for seven years and are well settled. b. I find the landlord’s behaviour reaches the level of harassment however, I accept the landlord did not intentionally harass the tenant. c. This is the fourth invalid termination notice the landlord has sent the tenant within a three year period. This history of receiving invalid termination notices undoubtedly increased the tenant’s feelings of stress and anxiety on this occasion.

FILING FEE

Because Chris O'Halpin has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

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 5236312 — net $727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$700.00	tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of quiet enjoyment. I find $700.00 to be reasonable.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$727.00

Claims and awards for application 5236312 — net $727.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of quiet enjoyment. I find $700.00 to be reasonable.

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $727.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $727.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

MSA Investments Limited to pay Chris O’Halpin $727.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The termination notice dated 7 April 2025 is invalid and of no effect.
The tenant’s application that the termination notice dated 7 April 2025 be declared retaliatory is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. Jo Pere and Dawn Job attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant claims the landlord has breached the following provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): a. Retaliatory notice (section 54) b. Quiet enjoyment (section 38)
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
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. COMPENSATION & EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – THE LAW GENERALLY
The Tribunal may award compensation for losses arising from a proven breach by a landlord or tenant of the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 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 from compensation. They are designed to punish and 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.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines an unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in 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; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 1 that: Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to 1 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.

RETALIATORY NOTICE

The law

Section 54 RTA 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). (emphasis added) (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 tenancy by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any other 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 or 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 states: 51Termination by notice (1)A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice. ... (3)Every notice to terminate a tenancy shall – (a) be in writing; and (b) identify the premises to which it relates; and (c) specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and (ca) if the landlord gives less than 90 days’ notice, set out the reasons for the termination; and (d) be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord sent them a 90 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenant claims they received the notice on 7 March 2025 and the notice is incorrectly dated as having been sent on 7 April 2025.
The tenant claims the end date recorded in the notice of 6 June 2025 is less than 90 days from 7 April 2025.
The tenant claims the notice has been given in retaliation to two previous applications the tenant has filed with the Tribunal in 2022 and 2024. These applications also included claims for retaliatory notice.
The tenant claims the notice came out of the blue and no reason was given for terminating the tenancy. Therefore, the tenant submits it must have been given in retaliation to the previous proceedings.
Both parties confirmed that the landlord has not sought to enforce the termination notice and the tenancy is ongoing.
The landlord denies that the notice ending the tenancy was given in retaliation to previous proceedings brought by the tenant in the Tribunal. The landlord claims they are not required to provide the tenant with a reason for ending the tenancy if 90 days’ notice is given.
The landlord claims the caravan the tenant lives in is approximately 6 – 7 years old and needs maintenance. The landlord gave evidence that they intend to sell the caravan, along with a number of other caravans, which are also old this year. This is the reason the landlord claims the termination notice was given.
No evidence was submitted regarding the age and state of the tenant’s caravan, and the landlord accepted that none of the other caravans referred to in their evidence had been sold yet.
The tenant disputes that their caravan is old and requires maintenance or to be sold. Analysis
Before the Tribunal can consider whether a notice ending a tenancy is retaliatory, section 54(1) RTA requires the Tribunal to first be satisfied that the notice complies with the requirements in section 51 RTA.
Section 51(1) RTA permits a landlord to end a tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice. In this case, the notice ending the tenancy is dated 7 April 2025 and the end date of the tenancy is recorded as 6 June 2025. The number of days between 7 April 2025 and 6 June 2025 is less than 90 and therefore, the notice does not comply with section 51(1) RTA.
The notice ending the tenancy does not comply with section 51(1) RTA. Therefore, I cannot consider whether it was retaliatory or not. I do, however, declare the notice to be invalid and of no effect.
The tenant’s application to have the termination notice declared retaliatory is dismissed.

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, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be ordered.
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 section 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.” Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims that the landlord has a history of sending them notices to terminate the tenancy that are invalid and retaliatory. The tenant claims the termination notice incorrectly dated 7 April 2025 is a further example of this.
The tenant gave evidence that receiving the termination notice dated 7 April 2025 caused them significant stress and anxiety, as they thought they might have to move. Even though the landlord has not sought to enforce the termination notice and the tenancy is ongoing, the tenant claims the effect of receiving successive notices ending the tenancy creates uncertainty about their living situation. The tenant feels worried about when it will happen again.
The landlord accepts that they recorded the incorrect date in the notice terminating the tenancy dated 7 April 2025 and claims this was a genuine mistake. By the time the landlord realised their mistake, they claim it was too late to do anything about it.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant is a good tenant and they did not issue the notice ending the tenancy to be spiteful or nasty, but because the caravan is old and requires maintenance.
The landlord also stated that the tenant is not the easiest tenant to manage and claims the tenant’s behaviour towards them has been inappropriate and aggressive at times. The tenant disputes this and claims it is the landlord who has behaved inappropriately and aggressively. Analysis
I am satisfied that by giving the tenant a termination notice that was invalid, the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. I accept the tenant’s evidence that receiving the notice caused them stress and concern about whether they would be evicted. By giving an invalid termination notice, I find the landlord interfered with the tenant’s peace, comfort and use of the premises.
This is the fourth time the landlord has given the tenant an invalid termination notice. On 29 July 2022, the Tribunal found two termination notices given to the tenant on 13 January 2022 and 14 May 2022 to be invalid and of no effect. On 8 May 2024, the Tribunal found another notice terminating the tenancy dated 15 December 2023 to be invalid and of no effect.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord has engaged in a pattern of behaviour of sending the tenant invalid termination notices that reaches the level of harassment. The tenant has received four invalid termination notices within a three year period. I accept the tenant’s evidence that receiving these notices has caused them stress, worry and in the tenant’s own words, has been mentally debilitating.
I decline to order exemplary damages in this case, as I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has acted intentionally when sending the tenant invalid termination notices.
In respect of the termination notice dated 7 April 2025, I accept the landlord’s evidence that they recorded the wrong date by mistake, and this was not intentional. As the District Court held in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, “negligence does not equate to intention.”
From the Tribunal order dated 29 July 2022, it is clear that the termination notices sent to the tenant on 13 January 2022 and 14 May 2022 were sent in circumstances where the landlord genuinely believed on reasonably grounds that the premises were exempt from the RTA under sections 5(1)(k) and 5(1)(t).
I am prepared to give the landlord the benefit of the doubt that the termination notices dated 13 January 2022, 14 May 2022 and 7 April 2025 were not purposefully sent to the tenant in circumstances where the landlord knew or suspected they were invalid.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of quiet enjoyment. I find $700.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have considered the following factors: a. I accept the tenant’s evidence that receiving an invalid termination notice was distressing, particularly because they have been living in the premises for seven years and are well settled. b. I find the landlord’s behaviour reaches the level of harassment however, I accept the landlord did not intentionally harass the tenant. c. This is the fourth invalid termination notice the landlord has sent the tenant within a three year period. This history of receiving invalid termination notices undoubtedly increased the tenant’s feelings of stress and anxiety on this occasion.

FILING FEE

Because Chris O'Halpin has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5236312 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 4, 26 Marjorie-Jayne Cres, Otahuhu, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5236312 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 4, 26 Marjorie-Jayne Cres, Otahuhu, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RETALIATORY NOTICE

QUIET ENJOYMENT

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RETALIATORY NOTICE

QUIET ENJOYMENT

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions