The Tenancy Tribunal has ordered the landlord of a Porirua property to pay their former tenants over $3000 for "using baseless threats of eviction", and other breaches.

The tribunal said the tenants felt bullied in emails back-and-forth with property management company Quinovic, though they themselves were also found through the dispute to have breached the agreement, and were ordered to pay over $700 to the landlord.

Landlord Helen Beswick-Cousins, Stephen James Pask and Porirua Property Management Limited, however, were ordered to pay the tenants $3391.64 immediately, in the Tribunal decision dated 26 August, and now published online.

Adjudicator Kristen Koller said the parties had a fixed term tenancy, and about 10 months in the tenants had a series of emails with Quinovic who had by then been told by the landlord, "I want you to tell the tenants I am applying for eviction".

Both the landlord and tenants would go on to seek compensation via the tribunal, with different claims.

The landlord sought compensation claiming damage to the property, among other issues, and the tenants sought compensation and exemplary damages because of the way they said they were treated before they moved out.

Koller said the landlord served a 14-day notice after an inspection found alleged breaches, including the installation of a spa pool, tenants removing a smoke alarm, and failure to report damage.

"There is no way the Tribunal would have ended a tenancy because of these three breaches," Koller said in her decision.

Koller said Quinovic had told the landlord that the tribunal was unlikely to evict the tenants based on these issues.

The landlord reply to Quinovic said it was their "strongest desire they leave", referring to the tenants, Koller said.

The adjudicator said there were then a number of emails between Quinovic and the tenants as they "did their best to move out".

"I find tenants were troubled, worried and distressed by the landlord's ongoing behaviour, which means there was a breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment."

Koller found the actions amounted to an "intentional campaign to end a tenancy using baseless threats of eviction".

"The affect [sic] for the tenants was unnecessary stress, unfair pressure, a shortened period for finding a new tenancy, fear they would be evicted if they did not find a house soon enough, and a lasting feeling they were bullied."

Koller ordered the landlords to pay $2500 in exemplary damages for harassment, and $1000 for unlawful entry. She ordered the tenants to pay for another four hours of cleaning - mostly of joinery and in the kitchen.

Koller said the tenants should have their names suppressed in her decision, but the landlord's name would be published because "I find there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA".