Landlord ordered to pay damages for harassing tenant

A109 Light Utility Helicopter flight with mayor Gisborne City from the air in November 2023.

A woman’s “terrifying” experience renting a house in Tamarau has ended with her landlord being ordered to pay her damages for harassment, verbal abuse, and late filing of her bond.

The woman told the Tenancy Tribunal she felt unsafe and terrified in her own home. The landlord and her husband constantly hassled her and invaded her privacy, coming over to do inspections unannounced and swearing at her. One incident turned into a shouting match and she had to remove her children as they were getting upset.

The ordeal triggered traumatic memories for her and the children of her past abusive relationship. Her mental health suffered and she was unable to sleep. She had panic attacks when the phone rang or someone knocked at the door, the woman said.

She applied to the tribunal for exemplary damages on the basis that her quiet enjoyment of the property had been breached. Finding in her favour, the tribunal ordered the landlord to pay $1000. It also found in favour of the woman’s claim that her bond had been filed about five months late and awarded her a further $500 for that.

The tribunal’s decision, following a hearing last year, was recently released online. The parties names were suppressed, the tribunal noting the tenancy dispute had an overlay of “complex family relationships and tensions”.

The tenant was the niece of the landlord’s husband but it gave the couple no right to mistreat her, adjudicator C. Price said.

“The relationship between the tenant and landlord here is a legal one, captured by a tenancy agreement, and their business obligations arise from that contract.”

Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Breaching that obligation amounts to harassment for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to $3000.

Using video footage to support her claims, the tenant told the tribunal that during August and early September last year she had seven or eight visits from the landlord or her husband, and was only given notice about two of those visits, which she had told them didn’t suit. She had at times been verbally abused by the couple and they had warned her they were doing drive-by checks of the house at night to see who was living there and that they intended to let themselves in to take photos if need be.

The tenant believed she had a verbal agreement with the landlord to have two boarders but the landlord disputed it and her husband threatened to throw the boarders’ belongings out on the road if they didn’t leave in 14 days.

The landlord had issued her with a 90-day notice to move out and pestered her as to when she was going, the tenant said.

The landlord cross-applied for termination of the tenancy alleging the tenant breached her obligations by having extra people living at the address and by ignoring the notice to quit. The landlord conceded having allowed the woman’s nephew to stay there, short term, but not his partner. Having too many people at the property would overwhelm its sewerage system.

The landlord claimed the tenant lied about the number of people living at the house, did not reply to texts, and sometimes locked herself inside refusing to open the door.

The landlord’s sister-in-law had offered her place for the tenant and her children to stay and the landlord had sent the tenant adverts for other places to live but she wouldn’t leave. The landlord admitted trying a few times to get an exit date from the tenant so they could make plans to begin renovating the property.

Reviewing each of the incidents described by the tenant, the tribunal said it was satisfied there had been a pattern of harassment and that it amounted to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.

“Whilst the landlord was no doubt motivated by trying to ensure that her property was looked after by not having too many occupants, her zeal in ensuring and monitoring this went over the line, in my view.”

Dismissing the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy, the adjudicator said there wasn’t sufficient evidence to determine exactly how many people had been living at the property.

“Whilst the landlord has provided some evidence, from the tenant’s grandmother and photographs of cars visiting the property, there were no statements from police confirming an alleged domestic incident at the property involving the tenant, or from other non-family neighbours about parties or other people living at the property, despite the landlord stating that there were other witnesses and events.

It appeared visitors to the property were mainly the two boarders and a few close friends or cousins, the adjudicator said.

The tenancy ended in March this year.