But the tenant has been warned she will not get the same latitude if she appears in any further tribunal cases within five years. Tribunal adjudicator R Kee described her behaviour towards the landlords as “atrocious”.

The tribunal had been told the tenant’s bitter abuse, face-to-face altercations and string of baseless allegations against the landlords, who have name suppression, started within hours of her moving into a studio apartment above their garage on February 1 last year. By February 8 she had moved out, although she had signed a 12-month fixed-term tenancy.

So horrific were the tenant’s verbal tirades that the female landlord was forced to leave her home to protect her young children and refused to return until the tenant vacated.

During the eight-day tenancy, both sides called the police and, on February 10, the landlord trespassed the tenant in case she returned.

The tribunal ruled on the tenant’s substantive claims (about cleanliness of the apartment, harassment and breaches of her privacy) in April this year, but Kee reserved his decision on name suppression so he could hear more evidence on why it should be granted.

Ultimately, he granted name suppression but noted landlords in general had a legitimate interest in knowing about the tenant’s conduct.  And because of her concerning behaviour, the tenant’s name suppression came with some conditions.

The tenant is not allowed to contact the landlords and if she does her name suppression case could be reopened. The decision was to be sent to the tenant’s current landlords after she had time to warn them about it. Tribunal adjudicators are to have the decision put in front of them if the tenant appears in any other cases within five years, so they can decide if her name and identifying details should be published.

It was not the first time the tenant had been involved with the tribunal. Records show four other previous applications. In 2017, the tenant was respondent in a vacated arrears and costs case; in 2021 she was the successful applicant in an unlawful residential premises case; and in 2022 she twice applied to end fixed-term tenancies early due to personal circumstances.

At the start of the tribunal hearing over name suppression, the tenant said she was suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, which was triggered by having to recount events. She felt re-traumatised, overwhelmed, suffered from brain freeze and was unable to clearly remember all the events.

She claimed she was not being listened to and asked if the hearing could be adjourned and heard by a female adjudicator. This was declined.

Barrage of abusive messages

The day before the tenant moved into the apartment, the landlords, who were in Tauranga on holiday, sent a message saying the unit was clean and tidy and ready for her and the handover form would be left on a shelf. It also asked the tenant to note via WhatsApp any damage that concerned her.

The next day, when she was moving in, the tenant sent a message back thanking them for the for the “love, welcome and the wine. I am very grateful and lucky to have lovely landlords”. It was accompanied by several photos of existing damage, saying she would send “loads” more photos by email. She also asked where the handover form was.

The landlord replied he had forgotten it and would be back later that night to leave it on the shelf. He also queried a reference to damage and asked her to send six pictures.

Other messages went back and forth in a short time about cleanliness, damage and the handover form until the tenant said she was exhausted and stressed as a friend had died the previous day and she wanted to be left alone to unpack and settle in.

The landlord agreed, told her to take a break, and said he would see her in the next few days.

The tenant’s messages after that amounted to an argumentative barrage in reply to what were the landlords’ routine messages about the flat’s cleanliness and any damage, Kee said.

A couple of hours after she moved in, the tenant sent the landlords a Stuff news report on a case of a tenant who was awarded $5786 against a landlord, saying, “This was me.”

A couple of hours later she messaged the landlords saying she was not responding to further emails as it was not safe. She claimed the situation had become emotionally abusive and they were bullying and harassing her.

Ten minutes later she sent another message “around my peace, comfort and privacy and the condition of the property upon move in can be sorted at the tribunal”.

Two hours later she again messaged the landlords saying she had applied to the tribunal for compensation for breaches of her peace, privacy and quiet enjoyment and also a ruling on several other issues where they had not met their obligations as landlords and had acted in a manner that may be deemed unlawful.

Kee said the landlords’ messages were not intended to upset the tenant. “They contain detail that upset and ultimately overwhelmed the tenant, but they are responsive to the tenant’s emails and are appropriate.

“The tenant was tired and distressed having suffered a bereavement and having to move in difficult circumstances. She reacted emotionally to the landlords’ messages which were relatively innocuous. They would have been manageable for another tenant who was not so distressed.”

Doorstep confrontations

Arriving home about 8.30pm the male landlord was confronted by the tenant when he placed the handover form on the shelf and knocked on her door.

There were several face-to-face altercations on the doorstep. Some were filmed – one with the tenant shouting extremely insulting and profane comments that Kee said had a threat element. He did not recount the content in his decision because the extremity would “potentially attract unwarranted salacious interest”.

The next day the male landlord sent the tenant two anti-social behaviour notices. He also told her if she wished to terminate the tenancy, he and his wife would gladly let her. “Please, we are peaceful people, and we do not want trouble, especially not for our children. My wife is petrified, and we are trying at least to shield our children from this.”

Just after 10pm the tenant messaged the male landlord and claimed that as a teacher she could see signs of abuse in his wife and children.

“Your wife is going to leave you this year because you are such an abuser, and [she] is already making plans to take the children. She will earn custody of them, and you will see them a couple of days a week only.

“She will return to her family who are already involved behind the scenes and whom I will notify of your abuse of me, sending all evidence. She secretly thanked me today for telling you to leave me alone and stop being harassing and abusive.”

A third anti-social notice was sent to the tenant. Neither side agreed on terms for ending the tenancy.

The claims

The tenant and landlords filed tribunal claims for interference with reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, and sought compensation and exemplary damages. Both claims were thrown out.

The landlords’ claim was dismissed as they could not direct Kee to a Residential Tenancies Act provision or a legal principle that provided for a landlord claim against a tenant for harassment.

The tenant also sought compensation for the landlord being unlawfully on her premises and the apartment being left in a less than reasonable state of cleanliness and repair. She was awarded $200 for the cleanliness claim.

Her claim for the landlord being unlawfully on her premises was thrown out after she said during the hearing she had a vague memory of waking to see someone sitting on the end of her bed. She had not allowed anyone to enter the studio, and claimed the person was the male landlord.

It was the first time the claim had been made. “This emerged as a lightning bolt and a thunderclap from the blue,” Kee said. There was nothing that hinted an allegation of this nature might be made as the tenant had copiously emailed the landlords and tribunal detailing her complaints at the time of the tenancy and later.

“It is well known that victims of abuse can find it difficult to complain about it for social and psychological reasons, and that they may delay complaining a long time. However, the tenant’s claim is far-fetched. Her other allegations were immediate, detailed, and pulled no punches. It does not make sense that she would omit this claim if it were true.”

The landlords had contacted the police by the time this incident would have occurred. “It would be bizarre for the landlord to break into the premises and thereby commit a serious criminal offence when the police were involved,” Kee said.

“The tenant had exploded so vituperatively and conducted herself so concerningly the landlord’s wife felt compelled to remove herself and the children from the premises.

“The tenant’s outbursts were spurred by relatively mundane issues to do with the tenancy. It defies common sense the male landlord would do something so provocative as to enter the premises while the tenant was sleeping against this backdrop. This claim is far-fetched. I find it to be untrue.”

‘Web of lies’

Despite granting name suppression in his reserved decision, Kee said the tenant’s conduct was of a kind that potential landlords would be inclined not to grant her a tenancy if they were aware of it.

While the tribunal must give deference to the principle of open justice, there is discretion under RTA s 95A (4) to order non-publication as long as the interests of the parties and the public interest is considered.

Strenuously opposing name suppression for the tenant, the landlords asked the tribunal not to fall for more of the tenant’s manipulation when it had to filter through a web of lies and manipulation sometimes successfully, sometimes not, despite third party and photographic evidence.

“The tribunal cannot in good conscience, and must not, take at face value any representation made by the tenant, including any mental health claim without a robust and independent psychiatric evaluation.”

Producing letters from her GP, a financial mentor, her current landlord, a previous landlord and her mother, the tenant said she acted completely out of character because of the situation and severe stress and distress. Nothing like this had happened in a tenancy in her 25 years of renting.

She told the tribunal it was a one-off situation, an isolated event, and not an accurate reflection of how she normally is in a tenancy situation or otherwise, which landlord references from before and after this tenancy showed, as did character references from her time as a teacher support.

Her medical history showed significant anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and that she suffered a head injury in 2020.

Public interest

Without considering the tenant’s interests, Kee said the public interest favoured publication. “Potential landlords have a legitimate interest in knowing about the tenant’s conduct in this case.”

However, the public interest also included a vested interest in the parties’ interests. “What is good for the tenant’s mental wellbeing, for instance, may also be in the public interest.”

He said the tribunal is not a therapeutic jurisdiction, however, it is possible the potential harm of publication to the tenant could outweigh the concern that other landlords are not forewarned of what happened in this case.

On the other hand, the landlords also had an interest in vindication for the harm they suffered. “They have not been compensated for the stress and anxiety the tenant caused them because the tenant’s atrocious conduct did not breach a relevant legal duty under the RTA. If the tribunal held the tenant to account by at least publishing her name, there would be some acknowledgement of what the tenant put them through.”

He accepted the tenant caused the landlords serious emotional harm and publication of her name would provide a measure of vindication and the satisfaction of protecting other landlords from a similar episode.

“While the landlords are convinced the tenant is but one small step away from physically harming others, thankfully her behaviour did not involve any physical violence or damage to property nor threats of physical harm or damage.”

Kee said that is not to minimise the serious psychological impact the tenant’s conduct had on the landlords, but it does place the conduct at a less serious point in the spectrum of concerning conduct. “In my view, the conduct itself does not point to the likelihood that next time (even if it were to recur) it would escalate to violence or threats of violence.”

Considering the tenant’s interests, Kee said she has significant problems, and those problems are exacerbated by stress.

“The tenant’s mental health issues are real, and her behaviour was probably largely out of character, although it’s likely not the first time she has behaved in this way. The tenant presents a risk of behaving similarly, but significantly in my view, says she has learnt from this.”

It was concerning that in her texts and emails to the landlords, she aggressively asserted her RTA rights. “She used the act as a sword rather than a shield as it should be used and ‘weaponised’ her tribunal rights. However, the tenant succeeded with her cleanliness claim.”

Kee said importantly, the tenant’s submissions seeking suppression expressed some regret, and did not repeat the outlandish allegations. That, he said, was an indication of acceptance that the behaviour was poor, which provided some assurance it will not be repeated.

His concern was that publication could result in general publication, not just a publication to potential landlords. If that happened, the tenant could suffer unwarranted public opprobrium for conduct that was influenced by her mental health problems.

The public interest imperative of protecting future landlords would be answered to some degree by directing under RTA s 95A(5) that should the tenant appear before the tribunal again this decision will to be brought to the adjudicator’s attention, that the tenant is not to contact the landlords, and that this decision is sent to the tenant’s current landlord.