What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5301642?

The tribunal order states: Xiangyan (Sophie) Ruan must pay Neil David Priestley $1,978.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5301642?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Terminating tenancy wi…: $1,350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301642?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301642?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13490721-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5301642?

The tribunal order states: Xiangyan (Sophie) Ruan must pay Neil David Priestley $1,978.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5301642?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Terminating tenancy wi…: $1,350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301642?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301642?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13490721-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 218 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301642 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301642 — net $1,978.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$600.00	t seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of their quite enjoyment. I find $600.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a.
Compensation: Terminating tenancy without grounds	$1,350.00	eks compensation for the landlord’s unlawful termination of the tenancy. I find $1,350.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,978.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,978.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301642 — net $1,978.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$600.00	t seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of their quite enjoyment. I find $600.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a.
Compensation: Terminating tenancy without grounds	$1,350.00	eks compensation for the landlord’s unlawful termination of the tenancy. I find $1,350.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,978.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,978.00

Order

Xiangyan (Sophie) Ruan must pay Neil David Priestley $1,978.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 1 April 2026.
The premises are a three bedroom house owned by the landlord. The tenant first moved into the premises sometime in early 2020 and occupied a bedroom for $150.00 per week. The tenant was a flatmate at this point and the Residential Tenancies At 1986 (RTA) did not apply.
In late 2020, the landlord renovated the premises and created a second bathroom. The tenant left during the renovations and returned around 21 April 2021. When they returned, a new bathroom had been built and attached to their bedroom. The landlord also provided the tenant with a microwave and single gas stovetop. The tenant now paid $350.00 per week in rent. For reasons discussed in an order dated 9 February 2026, I find the relationship between the parties became one of landlord and tenant from 21 April 2021. From this date until 12 November 2022, the RTA applied and governed the relationship between the parties.
The tenant lived in the premises from 21 April 2021 – 12 November 2022 and again from 26 November 2022 – 1 December 2022.
Sometime in late 2022, a disagreement arose about whether the tenant owed rent arrears. The relationship between the parties significantly deteriorated as a result of this dispute.
The tenant claims the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment and terminated the tenancy without grounds at various times during the tenancy. They seek compensation and exemplary damages. They also seek a refund of their bond and overpaid rent.
In relation to the period between 21 April 2021 – 12 November 2022, the issues I must determine are whether the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and terminated the tenancy without grounds. In relation to the period between 26 November 2022 – 1 December 2022, the issue I must determine is whether a residential tenancy was in place.
Before determining the tenant’s claims, I discuss the general law that applies to this case.

GENERAL LAW

Standard of proof

The tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence and submissions were given at the hearing. These events occurred 4 – 5 years ago. The parties both experienced difficulties in recalling specific dates and there is limited written evidence from the time. Whilst this decision might not refer to all of the evidence given, the parties can be assured that I have considered it in reaching my decision. Compensation & Exemplary Damages
The purpose of compensation is to restore the injured party, so far as money can, to the same position they would have been in had the contract not been breached.
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, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • 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.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts however, a tenant may not apply for exemplary damages more than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. 2 Breach of quiet enjoyment (section 38 RTA)
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 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(2)(b). the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act. 3
In the context of section 38, “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 4
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in section 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.” Terminating a tenancy without grounds (section 60AA)
Section 60AA RTA prohibits landlords from giving a notice to terminate a tenancy without grounds. This section was introduced as part of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020 and is a key provision in protecting tenants from arbitrary or unjustified terminations. It states: 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 4 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018). A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application. TENANT’S CLAIMS August 2021 Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims that they lived in the premises from 21 April 2021 until around August 2021 when the landlord verbally told them to leave. The tenant claims they had a disagreement with the landlord and were outside muttering to themselves. The tenant claims they said something along the lines of, “oh I feel like leaving this place,” and the landlord overheard them. The tenant claims the landlord approached them approximately 3 – 4 weeks later and told them they had found a new tenant and that the tenant had to leave by the end of the week.
The tenant claims it was very stressful to have to leave the premises with such short notice, because they had nowhere to go. They gave evidence that they sought the assistance of Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) who approved them for emergency accommodation. The tenant claims they stayed at a boarding house in Otahuhu, which was very bad, before moving to alternative emergency accommodation in Glen Eden.
The tenant claims the landlord called them approximately 3 – 4 weeks after they left and asked them to move back in. According to the tenant, the landlord did not like the new tenant, who the tenant claims was a prostitute and had lots of men visiting. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord denies that they told the tenant to leave. The landlord claims the tenant advised them that they had found a new property and were leaving. Therefore, the landlord found a new tenant.
The landlord denies the new tenant was a prostitute and claims they were living in New Zealand on a work or visitor visa. The landlord claims they got on well with the new tenant who had to leave once their visa expired.
The landlord claims the tenant contacted them shortly after leaving, advising that their new place fell through. The landlord claims the tenant asked to move back in, but the landlord said this was not possible, because they had secured a new tenant. Sometime later, the landlord claims the tenant contacted them again, advising that they were living in a state house and that their car tyres had been slashed. The tenant asked to move back in again and the landlord agreed. Analysis – Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?
The tenant’s claim relates the allegation that the landlord verbally told them to leave with one weeks’ notice. The tenant claims the landlord terminated the tenancy without grounds by doing this.
The parties gave conflicting versions of events about what occurred. No text messages or emails between the parties from this time were submitted to substantiate either party’s version of events.
The landlord submitted a document signed by the tenant on 8 September 2021. It states: I, Neil Preistly, am moving my bond money for final one week payment moving out I will leave on 15 September 2021.
This document does not support either party’s version of events. On the one hand, it might be interpreted as the tenant giving notice to leave the premises, rather than the other way around. On the other hand, it might be interpreter as simply recording the fact that the tenant will use their bond to pay the last weeks rent for the tenancy.
The tenant submitted a document from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). The document records a debt of $1,805.79 as being owed by the tenant. The tenant claims this debt was incurred when they borrowed money for emergency accommodation after being given verbal notice to leave by the landlord. The problem is that no particulars are recorded on the document about what the debt is for or when it was incurred. The document states that the financial information provided is based on information held by MSD on 19 July 2022. This means that the debt recorded could have been accrued at any time between August 2021 – 19 July 2022. For these reasons, I am not convinced this document proves that the debt was incurred to fund emergency accommodation for the tenant around August/September 2021.
The tenant bares the onus of proving their version of events, on the balance of probabilities. The parties gave conflicting evidence and there is a lack of supporting evidence to substantiate the tenant’s claim. For this reason, I find the tenant has not proven that the landlord terminated the tenancy without grounds in August 2021, and this claim is dismissed. 27 & 28 October 2022 Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims the landlord believed the tenant owed them rent arrears, which they did not. The tenant claims that on Thursday, 27 October 2022, they were at work in the evening when they received a text message from the landlord stating that the locks had been changed and the tenant was trespassed from the premises. The tenant gave evidence that they left work early to check that they could still get into the premises. The locks had not been changed and the tenant believed the whole thing to have been a scare.
On Friday, 28 October 2022, the tenant claims they were at work in the evening and received another text message from the landlord. They claim the landlord told them that the locks had been changed and the tenant was trespassed from the premises. The tenant claims they left work early again and called the Police to seek advice.
The tenant claims that when they got home, the door was locked and they had to kick it in. The tenant claims the landlord called the Police and the Police arrived while the tenant was having a shower. The tenant claims this caught them by surprise and the landlord tried to evict the tenant on the spot. The tenant claims the landlord told the Police that the tenant owed rent arrears, but the tenant was able to show the Police their bank statements and prove this was not the case. The tenant claims the Police helped the landlord to write a document giving the tenant two weeks’ notice to leave the premises, which the landlord gave to the tenant to sign.
The tenant gave evidence that they had until 11 November 2022 to vacate the premises but left on 12 November 2022. The tenant claims the notice provided was too short and they were unable to find alternative accommodation. As a result, the tenant lived in their car until 26 November 2022 when they moved back into the premises for a short time. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims that the tenant owed them rent arrears and was being evasive. The landlord claims that they tried to talk with the tenant about the rent arrears, but could not get a hold of them. The landlord gave evidence that this was frustrating, because they were very busy with work and did not have time to constantly be chasing the tenant about rent arrears.
The landlord gave evidence that they had no way to sort the situation out, because the tenant was not replying to their messages. Therefore, the landlord sent the tenant a text message on 27 October 2022 advising that if the tenant did not pay the rent arrears, the landlord would lock them out. Although they threatened this, the landlord claims they did not change the locks. The landlord claims that they hoped the text message would prompt the tenant to talk to them about the rent arrears.
The landlord accepts that on 28 October 2022, they locked the chain lock on the back door while the tenant was at work. The landlord claims the tenant could have used the other entrance or asked the landlord to let them in. The landlord claims that the reason they locked the chain on the back door was to try to get the tenant to talk to them about the rent arrears. The landlord claims they were not aware of the law and were behaving in a way that they thought was appropriate.
The landlord denies calling the Police on 27 or 28 October 2022.
The landlord accepts that the Police arrived on 28 October 2022, but says this was in response to a phone call made by the tenant. The landlord claims that the tenancy agreement permits them to end the tenancy by giving two weeks’ notice and the Police drafter the document giving the tenant two weeks’ notice on the landlord’s behalf. The landlord accepts that they understood the nature and effect of the document. Analysis - Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The tenant submitted copies of the text messages sent to them by the landlord on 27 and 28 October 2022. They read as follows: Thursday, 27 October 2022 at 9:09pm No. I call the police. If you come is trespass. I change the key. Friday, 28 October 2022 at 8:09pm I changed the key. You don’t trespass. Because I spend a lot of money to make toilet and shower for you. But you don’t want to pay the rental. You should remember when you move in...
By sending the tenant these two text messages, advising that the locks have been changed and that the tenant was trespassed from returning to the premises, I find the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The content of these messages would have been distressing to receive. I accept the tenant’s evidence that they were panicked when they received these messages and left work early to check on the situation.
I also find that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment on 28 October 2022 by locking the main entry door to the tenant’s premises from the inside. While the tenancy was in place, the tenant had the right to the full use and benefit of the premises. By locking the main entry door from the inside, the landlord limited the tenant’s use of the premises.
Where a landlord believes a tenant owes rent arrears, the appropriate course of action is to send the tenant a 14-day notice. If the tenant does not pay the arrears in accordance with the 14-day notice, the next step is to file an application in the Tribunal. It is never a good idea to send text messages advising that the locks have been changed and that the tenant is trespassed from returning to the premises.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord called the Police on 28 October 2022. This is because the landlord denies that they called the Police on this date, and the tenant accepts that they called the police for advice about what to do if they had been locked outside of the premises. Even if the landlord did call the Police, it is reasonably possible that the Police’s arrival on 28 October 2022 was in response to the tenant’s phone call.
I do not find that the behaviour of the landlord reached the level of harassment. The landlord sent the tenant two similar text messages over the course of two days, which indicates the beginning of a pattern of behaviour however, I find the frequency to be too low to constitute harassment. Whilst the tenant was alarmed and distressed to receive the text messages, I am not convinced they were worn out, tired or exhausted as a result.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of their quite enjoyment. I find $600.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. The breach is serious, because it involves three separate incidences where the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Further, all of the breaches reflect attempts by the landlord to prohibit the tenant’s access to the premises without notice and without any lawful basis. b. The duration of the breach. The breaches occurred over two days. c. The effect of the breach on the party. I accept the tenant’s evidence that receiving the landlord’s text messages was alarming and caused them distress. They panicked and left work early to check on the situation. They were concerned enough to call the Police on 28 October 2022 and had to kick the door in to gain access to the premises on this date.

Analysis - Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The first issue I must determine is whether the landlord can rely on the clause in the tenancy agreement that states that either party may end the tenancy by giving 14 days’ notice.
The tenancy agreement does not contain a fixed period for the tenancy. Therefore, the tenancy was a periodic tenancy.
Section 51 RTA states that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving 90 days’ notice if no reason for the termination is given, or 42 days’ notice if one of the specific reasons in section 51(2) RTA applies. 5 Section 51(3) states that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving 21 days’ notice.
The clause in the tenancy agreement that states that either party may end the tenancy by giving 14 days’ notice is inconsistent with section 51 RTA. Section 11 RTA deals with contrary provisions in a tenancy agreement and states: 11Act generally to apply despite contrary provisions (1)Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless – (a) the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or (b) the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted. (2)Subsection (1) shall not prevent a landlord from waiving voluntarily all of any of the rights and powers conferred on landlord’s by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by this Act. (3)Any purposed waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.
The RTA does not expressly permit landlords and tenants to agree to shorter notice periods being given to end a tenancy. I find the inconsistency should not be permitted for the following reasons: a. Compliance with the RTA is to be encouraged, and the Tribunal should be slow to legitimise agreements that are inconsistent with its provisions. b. The notice provisions in section 51 RTA protect tenants by requiring the landlord to give 42 or 90 days’ notice to end a tenancy. The purpose of these 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 51(1) & (2). timeframes is to provide the tenant with sufficient time to arrange their affairs and find alternative accommodation. In this case, the tenant had not found alternative accommodation when the landlord issued the notice or at the expiry of 14 days.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the Tribunal should permit the inconsistency. This means that the clause in the tenancy agreement that permits either party to end the tenancy by giving 14 days’ notice is of no effect and the landlord cannot rely on it to argue that they validly ended the tenancy.
The landlord was required to give the tenant 90 days’ notice (or 42 days’ notice if any of the situations in section 51(2) RTA applied) to end the tenancy. By only giving 14 days’ notice, I find the landlord gave a notice to terminate to the tenancy knowing they were not entitled under the RTA to do so. The fact that the landlord might not have been aware of their legal requirements is no defence. All landlords are expected to know and comply with their obligations under the RTA. The Tribunal cannot excuse a breach of the Act on the basis that the landlord did not know the law.
I have considered the involvement of the Police in drafting the notice however, this does not alter my finding. This is because the landlord accepts that the Police were acting on their behalf when they drafted the notice, and that the landlord understood the nature and effect of the document. The landlord has also signed the notice.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s unlawful termination of the tenancy. I find $1,350.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. Terminating a tenancy without grounds is a serious breach, as evidenced by the fact that it constitutes an unlawful act, attracting up to $6,500.00 in exemplary damages. b. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant acted on the notice and left the premises on 12 November 2022. The notice period given was very short and I accept the tenant’s evidence that they did not have enough time to organise alternative accommodation. I also accept the tenant’s evidence that they lived in their car for approximately 2 weeks until returning to the premises on 26 November 2022. The tenant gave evidence they were depressed and had nowhere to go. They claim their car was full of belongings, which they had to first store at a friend’s warehouse to make room in the backseat of their car for the tenant to sleep. I accept the tenant suffered stress, anxiety and emotional suffering as a result of the landlord’s breach.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Terminating a tenancy without grounds is an unlawful act, for which a maximum amount of $6,000.00 in exemplary damages may be ordered. 6
The unlawful act occurred on 28 October 2022, which is the date the notice was given. The tenant filed their application on 8 July 2025, which is more than 12 months later.
The tenant is out of time to apply for exemplary damages. 26 November 2022 – 29 November 2022
By this date, the landlord had decided to leave the premises and move in with their long term partner. They wanted to rent the entire premises to a single tenant.
The tenant contacted the landlord asking if they could move back into the premises for a short period of time.
At this stage, there was still a disagreement between the parties about whether the tenant owed the landlord rent arrears. The landlord agreed to allow the tenant to move back into the premises for two weeks only, pending the beginning of a new tenancy. The landlord’s offer was conditional on the tenant paying them $700.00 in rent for the two weeks, plus an additional $150.00 for the alleged arrears. The following text messages were exchanged between the parties: Landlord to tenant You can stay here for 2 weeks. Because I rent out whole building. They will in next 2 weeks. Tenant to landlord Ok that will help me. Thanks,be alright to fix you up on Tuesday as get good pay.i will pay for the two weeks together,if alright put key under rear door mat as finish at nine, thanks Sophie Landlord to tenant But you have to pay me 150 for last time. Because you just pay me 90+150. Because you move out on Thursday. One day is 50 plus 350. It is 400,400 minus 250 is 150. So you have to pay me 150 for last time too Tenant to landlord 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 60AA and Schedule 1A. So alright to give you 700 Tuesday for two weeks, finish in two hours so let me know otherise I will leave it
The landlord did not respond to this text message from the tenant.
The tenant arrived at the premises later in the evening on 26 November 2022 and no key was under the mat. Therefore, they climbed into the premises through a window.
The tenant gave evidence that they did not worry about the landlord’s request for a further $150.00, because the tenant did not owe rent arrears, as claimed by the landlord.
The landlord gave the key to the tenant the next morning however, on Thursday, 1 December 2022, the tenant only paid the landlord $350.00. Because the tenant did not pay the landlord the agreed amount, which was $850.00, the landlord called the Police and had the tenant removed from the premises immediately.
The tenant claims the landlord’s actions constituted another breach of their quiet enjoyment and unlawful termination. Further, the tenant claims that they paid $350.00 for one week, but were forced to leave after only staying at the premises for four nights. They claim the landlord should pay them $150.00 in overpaid rent. Analysis – Was there a residential tenancy between 26 November 2022 – 1

December 2022?

The RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided. 7 The term “tenancy” is defined in section 2 RTA as follows: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy
I find there was no residential tenancy in place between 22 November 2022 – 1 December 2022. This is because the landlord offered to rent the premises to the tenant, provided the tenant paid them $850.00 (two weeks’ rent of $700.00, plus an additional $150.00 towards the alleged arrears). The tenant’s response to this offer was that they would pay $700.00. By responding in this way, the tenant declined the landlord’s offer and made a counteroffer to rent the premises for $700.00. The landlord never responded to this counteroffer, which means they did not accept it. Because there was no acceptance of the tenant’s counteroffer, there was no contract and therefore, no residential tenancy. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 4.
For these reasons, I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the tenant’s claims in relation to what occurred between 22 November 2022 – 1 December 2022.
The tenant’s claim in relation to this time period is dismissed.

Should the tenant be refunded their bond?

The tenant claims that they paid the landlord a bond of $350.00 and one weeks rent in advance of $350.00 at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims that they should be refunded their bond, because they never owed any rent arrears.
The issue of the alleged rent arrears owed by the tenant has already been determined in an order made by the Disputes Tribunal on 13 July 2023. A lot of time was spent at the hearing discussing the question about whether the tenant owed rent arrears or not, as well as the decision of the Disputes Tribunal. As I explained at the hearing, because the issue of rent arrears has already been determined by the Disputes Tribunal on 13 July 2023, I cannot revisit the issue and determine it again.
For this reason, the tenant’s claim for a refund of their bond is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
The tenant has been substantially successful in their application. Therefore, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant did not seek name suppression however, the landlord did. I have a discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The landlord claims that they should be given name suppression to avoid embarrassment caused by publication of their name. They claim that their friends and work colleagues warned the landlord not to allow the tenant to move back into the premises, but the landlord went against this advice. Further, the landlord is concerned their children will find out about the outcome of the decision.
The fact that publication of adverse findings against the landlord might cause shame and embarrassment is a natural and ordinary consequence of the proceedings. It applies to any landlord or tenant who is found to have breached the RTA. Whilst I have some sympathy for the landlord’s position, the reasons advanced are not unusual or extraordinary. For these reasons, I find the public interest in publication outweighs the landlord’s interest in suppression.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301642 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 218 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights,

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301642 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 218 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LAW

Analysis - Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

December 2022?

Should the tenant be refunded their bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LAW

Analysis - Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

December 2022?

Should the tenant be refunded their bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions