Unlawful Eviction Dispute at Tenancy Tribunal Ends with $2,027 Award
- Staircase Financial
- Oct 21
- 4 min read
In a May 2025 ruling, the New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal found that tenants were subjected to an unlawful eviction attempt after their landlords issued invalid termination and trespass notices. The dispute arose from repair issues, but escalated into harassment and threats of eviction. The Tribunal awarded the tenants $2,027 in compensation and costs, underscoring how unlawful eviction can breach tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment.
Case overview / what happened
Tenancy background
Periodic tenancy began 14 December 2019 at $300 per week.
The relationship was stable until a major plumbing issue arose in 2025.
March 2025 – leak discovered
Tenants reported a split pipe under the laundry causing damp and soft flooring.
Repairs required lifting floors and reinstalling bathroom fixtures; estimated duration was two weeks.
Landlords’ response
They insisted tenants vacate during repairs, saying it would be unsafe and unworkable if they stayed.
A 14-day termination notice was issued, claiming the house was uninhabitable.
Tenants’ position
Believed they could remain while repairs were done and issued a breach notice demanding timely repairs.
Refused to vacate under the landlords’ short notice.
Escalation
Landlords served a trespass notice and called Police, who confirmed eviction must go through the Tribunal.
Sent messages warning tenants they would “be evicted by the Courts” and later described them as “squatters.”
Dispute outcome
The situation created significant stress and disruption, leading to a Tribunal hearing over whether the landlords’ actions amounted to unlawful eviction and harassment.
Tribunal findings
Invalid termination notice
The landlords’ 14-day termination notice was ruled invalid because the property was still habitable despite the plumbing damage.
Evidence:
A split pipe under the laundry floor caused damage, but the house was still habitable with temporary fixes.
Landlords relied on their builder’s email stating the property was “not liveable” during repairs, but they admitted it was currently habitable.
Tenant’s Argument:
The property was still livable, so the 14-day termination notice was invalid.
Only the Tribunal could decide termination in such cases.
Landlord’s Argument:
Repairs required the tenants to vacate; they believed the premises were uninhabitable under section 59 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Claimed they acted on advice from tenancy services.
Tribunal’s Response:
The property was not “destroyed or uninhabitable” under section 59.
The landlords’ 14-day termination notice was invalid. A proper 90-day notice or Tribunal application was required.
Trespass notice improperly used
Serving a trespass notice and calling the police was unlawful since tenants were still legally occupying the property.
Evidence:
After tenants refused to vacate, landlords served a trespass notice and contacted the Police.
Police declined to act, saying eviction required Tribunal involvement.
Tenant’s Argument:
The trespass notice was unlawful since they were still tenants under a valid tenancy.
Landlord’s Argument:
Believed tenants had become trespassers once the termination notice expired.
They asserted that the police could enforce removal.
Tribunal’s Response:
Trespass notices cannot override tenancy rights.
Only the Tribunal can grant possession orders.
The landlords’ actions were improper and unlawful.
Harassment and breach of quiet enjoyment
Repeated threats from the landlords amounted to landlord harassment, breaching the tenants’ quiet enjoyment.
Evidence:
Landlords sent repeated messages (e.g., warning tenants they would be “evicted by the Courts” and calling them “squatters”).
Tenants reported significant stress and disruption to their daily lives.
Tenant’s Argument:
The landlords’ ongoing pressure and threats amounted to harassment.
Their right to quiet enjoyment was breached.
Landlord’s Argument:
Claimed tenants had invited them to serve a termination notice and said they would vacate.
Insisted their communications were attempts to resolve the situation.
Tribunal’s Response:
Even if tenants at times indicated willingness to move, they were also disputing the eviction.
Persistent threats and pressure by the landlords amounted to harassment and breach of quiet enjoyment under section 38(2).
Unintentional unlawful act
Although unlawful, the landlords’ actions were not considered intentional because they acted under a mistaken belief.
Evidence:
Landlords testified they relied on tenancy advice suggesting they could issue the notice.
Tenant’s Argument:
The landlords knowingly pressured them and should be held accountable for intentional harassment.
Landlord’s Argument:
They made an honest mistake, believing their actions were lawful.
Tribunal’s Response:
The acts were unlawful but not intentional.
The Tribunal accepted that the landlords had misunderstood the law, so exemplary damages were not awarded.
Outcome / ruling
The Tribunal concluded that the landlords acted unlawfully by issuing an invalid termination notice, serving a trespass notice, and pressuring the tenants with eviction threats. While these actions were not considered intentional, they caused serious stress and loss of quiet enjoyment.
The tenants were awarded $1,800 in compensation plus $27 in costs, for a total of $2,027. Tenant name suppression was granted, the landlords’ request for suppression was denied, and their claims for rent arrears were dismissed.
Key takeaways for tenants
This case highlights the risks tenants face when landlords try to bypass proper legal processes.
Know your rights. Landlords cannot force you out without a valid Tribunal order, even during major repairs.
Unlawful eviction is serious. Invalid notices and harassment can lead to significant compensation awards.
Document everything. Keep records of communications, notices, and repair issues.
Police cannot enforce evictions. Only the Tribunal can order and enforce possession.
Quiet enjoyment is protected. Any harassment or threats can be challenged and compensated.
Seek legal advice early. Tenancy Services and community law centers can help clarify rights.
Ultimately, the ruling reinforces that tenants are protected from unlawful eviction attempts and must have access to strong remedies when their rights are breached.
Insights from the tribunal case
This case highlights a recurring theme in tenancy law. Landlords who bypass the Tribunal expose themselves to liability for unlawful eviction. The ruling reaffirms tenants’ fundamental rights to quiet enjoyment and due process under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, particularly in light of broader NZ housing market economic impacts that may affect landlords' behavior.
For landlords, the lesson is clear: always seek a Tribunal order before attempting termination. For tenants, this case demonstrates that standing firm against unlawful eviction attempts can lead to not only protection but also compensation. Read more about how property market changes can impact your decisions in our property market slump investor lessons.
Need help understanding tenancy disputes or unlawful eviction risks? Visit Staircase to explore resources, expert advice, and legal support.
Comments