A Porirua tenancy dispute has delivered a pointed reminder: tenants can breach their responsibilities without giving a landlord grounds to pressure them out of their home.

Former tenants have been awarded a payment of $3,391.64 after the Tenancy Tribunal found harassment and unlawful entry in a dispute involving repeated threats of eviction.

The tenants were not cleared of all wrongdoing. They were also ordered to pay more than $700 on the landlord’s claims.

But the Tribunal’s findings drew a distinction between addressing tenancy breaches and using the prospect of eviction to push occupants towards the door.

According to reporting by RNZ’s Ellen O’Dwyer, adjudicator Kristen Koller found an “intentional campaign to end a tenancy using baseless threats of eviction”.

PORIRUA TENANCY DISPUTE ESCALATED AFTER AN INSPECTION

The parties were approximately 10 months into a fixed-term tenancy when the dispute escalated.

An inspection led to allegations concerning a spa pool installation, removal of a smoke alarm and failure to report damage. A 14-day notice was subsequently served.

The property was managed through Quinovic. RNZ reported that the landlord instructed the property manager to tell the tenants an eviction application was being pursued.

However, the adjudicator found that the three issues identified would not have justified terminating the tenancy in this case.

The distinction matters. Identifying a breach, asking for it to be remedied and obtaining an order ending a tenancy are different steps. They should not be presented as interchangeable.

PROPERTY MANAGER HAD WARNED EVICTION WAS UNLIKELY

One significant detail in RNZ’s account is that Quinovic had advised the landlord that the Tribunal was unlikely to evict the tenants over the issues raised.

Despite that advice, the landlord continued to express a strong desire for the tenants to leave.

The Tribunal considered the subsequent email exchanges and the pressure experienced by the occupants as they sought another home.

Koller found that the landlord’s ongoing conduct caused worry and distress, breaching the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment in circumstances amounting to harassment.

The reported consequences included pressure to find another rental quickly and fear of eviction if they could not do so.

These were findings about the conduct in this particular dispute. They do not mean every warning about a possible Tribunal application is harassment.

HARASSMENT AND UNLAWFUL ENTRY ATTRACTED DAMAGES

The decision, dated 26 August and subsequently published online, named Helen Beswick-Cousins, Stephen James Pask and Porirua Property Management Limited as parties ordered to pay the tenants.

RNZ reported awards of:

  • $2,500 in exemplary damages for harassment.
  • $1,000 for unlawful entry.

The reported amount ordered payable to the tenants was $3,391.64, following the Tribunal’s determination of the competing claims.

That figure should be distinguished from the individual damages awards. The dispute involved several claims in both directions, rather than a single standalone payment.

TENANTS ALSO HELD RESPONSIBLE

The tenants’ successful harassment claim did not remove their own obligations.

They were ordered to pay more than $700 to the landlord, with the adjudicator requiring payment for a further four hours of cleaning, mainly involving kitchen areas and joinery.

That part of the outcome is important.

A tenant does not have to establish that they complied perfectly with every responsibility before the Tribunal can consider a landlord’s unlawful conduct. Equally, a finding against a landlord does not automatically defeat legitimate claims for cleaning or other losses.

The Tribunal assessed the competing issues separately.

A 14-DAY NOTICE IS NOT AN EVICTION ORDER

For landlords and tenants reading the case, one practical distinction deserves attention.

A 14-day notice to remedy identifies a breach and gives the recipient an opportunity to address it. It does not itself order someone out of their home.

Tenancy Services’ own notice template explicitly distinguishes a remedy notice from an eviction notice.

Its guidance explains that where a breach remains unresolved, a party can apply to the Tribunal. What happens next depends on the circumstances, the evidence and the legal grounds for the orders requested.

The lesson is to communicate accurately about the process. An intention to apply is not the same as a Tribunal decision, and a disputed breach is not proof that termination will follow.

QUIET ENJOYMENT EXTENDS BEYOND NOISE

“Quiet enjoyment” can sound like a rule about loud music or noisy neighbours. In tenancy law, it also concerns a tenant’s ability to live in their home without improper interference from the landlord.

Tenancy Services explains that landlords must respect tenants’ peace, comfort and privacy.

A landlord can raise legitimate concerns, arrange lawful inspections and pursue appropriate remedies. However, the manner and frequency of communication can become relevant when the conduct is alleged to interfere with those rights.

In the Porirua case, the Tribunal found that the pressure crossed the line into harassment.

TENANTS’ NAMES SUPPRESSED

Koller suppressed the tenants’ names.

The landlord’s name remained published, with the adjudicator identifying a public interest in naming landlords who breach the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants’ identities are therefore omitted from this report.

THE LESSON FOR PROPERTY OWNERS AND MANAGERS

The case offers a practical warning about allowing a dispute to become a campaign to secure a preferred outcome.

For landlords, a desire to recover possession must be separated from whether the circumstances provide a lawful basis to do so.

For property managers, accurate advice and carefully worded communication matter when an owner’s instructions go beyond what the available grounds support.

For tenants, a breach notice should be taken seriously, but it should also be understood for what it actually is.

The central lesson is straightforward: enforce the agreement through the proper process, and do not present eviction as inevitable when it is not.

Reporting source: Ellen O’Dwyer, RNZ, as republished by 1News on 17 October 2026. Case details above are attributed to that reporting; the underlying Tribunal order was not independently reviewed.