What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4778038 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4778038?

Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778038?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778038?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10286945-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4778038 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4778038?

Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778038?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778038?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10286945-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

177 Cecil Road, Wilton, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4778038 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4778038 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: unlawful entry	$500.00	unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details
Quinovic Property Management - Kent Terrace Limited Nadene Hunt must pay [The tenant/s] $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with [The tenant’s representative] representing the tenants, and Ms Hurst representing the landlord.
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord entered the premises on 18 December 2023 without prior consent to show the premises to prospective tenants. The tenants seek compensation of two weeks’ rent for the breach and a formal apology.
Section 48(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that with the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants.
The landlord explained that when they received notice from the tenants not to continue the tenancy, they emailed a letter to all the tenants on 14 December 2023 describing the end of tenancy procedures. The letter states: “We will commence advertising shortly and will contact you when we have prospective tenants to show through the property. If we cannot reach you, or if you cannot attend, with your consent we will arrange the appointment with prospective tenants and leave a business card to show that we have visited the property. A Quinovic representative will always be present when showing prospective tenants through the property. If you would like us to approach this in any other way, then please contact me to discuss.”
The landlord then advertised the property and received interest from several prospective tenants. The landlord uses a Trade Me platform to advertise and arrange viewings. In particular, notice of viewings is given to tenants using the Trade Me Viewing Tracker software. Quinovic provide a cell phone number for a tenant (who they refer to as the primary or head tenant) and the software system generates text messages to that cell phone to advise of upcoming viewings.
Ms Hurst explained that Quinovic provided the cell phone number of [Tenant 1] for this purpose, which was also the cell phone number provided on the tenancy agreement for the tenants generally. She noted that during the tenancy, [Tenant 1] had been the contact person for various work orders with the landlord advising contractors to contact her on that cell phone number to arrange dates and times for work. Therefore, Quinovic viewed her as the primary contact person. The Trade Me Viewing Tracker software generated two text messages to [Tenant 1]’s cell phone on 15 December 2023 advising of viewings at the property on 18 December 2023. Two reminder texts were also sent on the day of the viewings.
[Tenant 1] says she never received the text messages and the tenants were unaware of the viewings scheduled to take place on 18 December 2023. On the day of the viewings, [Tenant 2] arrived home to find several people (she says at least 10) at the property. One of her flatmates was at home unwell and in bed. She was distressed by multiple people trying to enter her room, although the door was locked.
The tenants were extremely upset and uncomfortable about what happened, noting that they had not received notice of, let alone given consent to, the viewings. They had also not had an opportunity to secure personal and valuable belongings before people entered the property. They immediately contacted Quinovic for an explanation.
Quinovic maintained that their letter of 14 December 2023 was notice of the upcoming viewings. They also explained the text messaging process and provided proof of the sent texts. They offered to change the contact cell phone number to another tenant, noting that only one person can be used as the contact. The tenants were not satisfied with this response noting that contact by other means (e.g. to an email address for service on the tenancy agreement) would be more suitable and pointing out that the landlord was required to obtain the tenants prior consent to viewings not just give a notice of the time and date of a viewing.
[Tenant 1] confirmed that she was not aware that she was perceived as the head tenant for contact purposes nor that her cell phone number had been provided to Trade Me for the Viewing Tracker platform. Quinovic had not advised the tenants of this process.
The landlord provided evidence that the text messages were sent to the correct cell phone number for [Tenant 1] and said they were not aware of any system failures that might’ve prevented transmission. Equally, [Tenant 1] did not receive the messages and was not aware of any transmission or receiving problems with her cell phone.
Although the landlord sent messages to the correct cell phone number for [Tenant 1], I find that the landlord has failed to comply with section 48(3) RTA in several respects, so that their entry into the premises on 18 December 2023 was unlawful.
A review of the tenancy agreement shows that the cell phone number for the tenants on the tenancy agreement is simply recorded beside the heading Mobile Number. It is not given nor recorded as a form of address for service. Beside the heading Address for Service and Contact Address is the postal address of the premises. Beside the heading Email Address used for Service are the email addresses for each of the tenants. There is also an alternative service address provided. Therefore, when giving notice of the proposed viewings, the landlord did not use a valid service address. A cell phone number is not sufficient for this purpose.
The fact that the landlord may have used the cell phone number as a contact number for contractors to contact the tenants, also does not mean that the cell phone number can be treated as an address for service.
More importantly, it is not open to the landlord to simply give notice of the viewing and turn up for the viewing without receiving affirmative consent to the date and time of the viewing from the tenants. The landlord did not obtain prior approval from the tenants before entering the premises and showing them to prospective tenants as required by s48(3) RTA.
The fact that the tenants did not respond to the letter from the landlord on 14 December 2023 cannot be taken as the tenants’ consent to any future viewings. The letter says that if the landlords cannot reach the tenants when organising a prospective viewing, “with your consent, we will arrange the appointment ....and leave a business card....If you would like us to approach this in any other way, then please contact me to discuss.” I do not accept that in the absence of the tenants contacting the landlord to discuss the approach, they can be deemed to have given consent to future viewings without specific dates and times.
The landlord submitted that they are a large organisation managing many hundreds of tenancies and they often experience difficulties in obtaining affirmative responses from tenants. That is why they have a system of giving notice on the basis that no response will be taken as approval to show the premises. They say otherwise, the system would not be workable. However, the RTA is clear that tenants are required to give prior approval for viewings. Section 48(3) must be distinguished from s48(2) and (2B) which allow the landlord to simply give notice of the dates and times of various inspections and enter without having to obtain prior approval. The same process does not apply to a viewing under s48(3).
The tenants are entitled to compensation for the breach. They expressed their understandable distress and upset at what happened. They also say that they did not receive an apology from Quinovic which has added to their upset. Ms Hurst believes she apologised to one of the tenants over the phone, but she was not sure who. I cannot order Quinovic to apologise formally in writing, but I can award compensation for the invasion of privacy and breach of quiet enjoyment suffered. I consider $500 is a reasonable amount.
Both parties applied for suppression orders. As the tenants have succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details. The landlord has not succeeded in defending the claims. Therefore, they are not entitled to suppression. The tenants are also awarded reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4778038 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: unlawful entry	$500.00	unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details
Quinovic Property Management - Kent Terrace Limited Nadene Hunt must pay [The tenant/s] $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with [The tenant’s representative] representing the tenants, and Ms Hurst representing the landlord.
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord entered the premises on 18 December 2023 without prior consent to show the premises to prospective tenants. The tenants seek compensation of two weeks’ rent for the breach and a formal apology.
Section 48(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that with the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants.
The landlord explained that when they received notice from the tenants not to continue the tenancy, they emailed a letter to all the tenants on 14 December 2023 describing the end of tenancy procedures. The letter states: “We will commence advertising shortly and will contact you when we have prospective tenants to show through the property. If we cannot reach you, or if you cannot attend, with your consent we will arrange the appointment with prospective tenants and leave a business card to show that we have visited the property. A Quinovic representative will always be present when showing prospective tenants through the property. If you would like us to approach this in any other way, then please contact me to discuss.”
The landlord then advertised the property and received interest from several prospective tenants. The landlord uses a Trade Me platform to advertise and arrange viewings. In particular, notice of viewings is given to tenants using the Trade Me Viewing Tracker software. Quinovic provide a cell phone number for a tenant (who they refer to as the primary or head tenant) and the software system generates text messages to that cell phone to advise of upcoming viewings.
Ms Hurst explained that Quinovic provided the cell phone number of [Tenant 1] for this purpose, which was also the cell phone number provided on the tenancy agreement for the tenants generally. She noted that during the tenancy, [Tenant 1] had been the contact person for various work orders with the landlord advising contractors to contact her on that cell phone number to arrange dates and times for work. Therefore, Quinovic viewed her as the primary contact person. The Trade Me Viewing Tracker software generated two text messages to [Tenant 1]’s cell phone on 15 December 2023 advising of viewings at the property on 18 December 2023. Two reminder texts were also sent on the day of the viewings.
[Tenant 1] says she never received the text messages and the tenants were unaware of the viewings scheduled to take place on 18 December 2023. On the day of the viewings, [Tenant 2] arrived home to find several people (she says at least 10) at the property. One of her flatmates was at home unwell and in bed. She was distressed by multiple people trying to enter her room, although the door was locked.
The tenants were extremely upset and uncomfortable about what happened, noting that they had not received notice of, let alone given consent to, the viewings. They had also not had an opportunity to secure personal and valuable belongings before people entered the property. They immediately contacted Quinovic for an explanation.
Quinovic maintained that their letter of 14 December 2023 was notice of the upcoming viewings. They also explained the text messaging process and provided proof of the sent texts. They offered to change the contact cell phone number to another tenant, noting that only one person can be used as the contact. The tenants were not satisfied with this response noting that contact by other means (e.g. to an email address for service on the tenancy agreement) would be more suitable and pointing out that the landlord was required to obtain the tenants prior consent to viewings not just give a notice of the time and date of a viewing.
[Tenant 1] confirmed that she was not aware that she was perceived as the head tenant for contact purposes nor that her cell phone number had been provided to Trade Me for the Viewing Tracker platform. Quinovic had not advised the tenants of this process.
The landlord provided evidence that the text messages were sent to the correct cell phone number for [Tenant 1] and said they were not aware of any system failures that might’ve prevented transmission. Equally, [Tenant 1] did not receive the messages and was not aware of any transmission or receiving problems with her cell phone.
Although the landlord sent messages to the correct cell phone number for [Tenant 1], I find that the landlord has failed to comply with section 48(3) RTA in several respects, so that their entry into the premises on 18 December 2023 was unlawful.
A review of the tenancy agreement shows that the cell phone number for the tenants on the tenancy agreement is simply recorded beside the heading Mobile Number. It is not given nor recorded as a form of address for service. Beside the heading Address for Service and Contact Address is the postal address of the premises. Beside the heading Email Address used for Service are the email addresses for each of the tenants. There is also an alternative service address provided. Therefore, when giving notice of the proposed viewings, the landlord did not use a valid service address. A cell phone number is not sufficient for this purpose.
The fact that the landlord may have used the cell phone number as a contact number for contractors to contact the tenants, also does not mean that the cell phone number can be treated as an address for service.
More importantly, it is not open to the landlord to simply give notice of the viewing and turn up for the viewing without receiving affirmative consent to the date and time of the viewing from the tenants. The landlord did not obtain prior approval from the tenants before entering the premises and showing them to prospective tenants as required by s48(3) RTA.
The fact that the tenants did not respond to the letter from the landlord on 14 December 2023 cannot be taken as the tenants’ consent to any future viewings. The letter says that if the landlords cannot reach the tenants when organising a prospective viewing, “with your consent, we will arrange the appointment ....and leave a business card....If you would like us to approach this in any other way, then please contact me to discuss.” I do not accept that in the absence of the tenants contacting the landlord to discuss the approach, they can be deemed to have given consent to future viewings without specific dates and times.
The landlord submitted that they are a large organisation managing many hundreds of tenancies and they often experience difficulties in obtaining affirmative responses from tenants. That is why they have a system of giving notice on the basis that no response will be taken as approval to show the premises. They say otherwise, the system would not be workable. However, the RTA is clear that tenants are required to give prior approval for viewings. Section 48(3) must be distinguished from s48(2) and (2B) which allow the landlord to simply give notice of the dates and times of various inspections and enter without having to obtain prior approval. The same process does not apply to a viewing under s48(3).
The tenants are entitled to compensation for the breach. They expressed their understandable distress and upset at what happened. They also say that they did not receive an apology from Quinovic which has added to their upset. Ms Hurst believes she apologised to one of the tenants over the phone, but she was not sure who. I cannot order Quinovic to apologise formally in writing, but I can award compensation for the invasion of privacy and breach of quiet enjoyment suffered. I consider $500 is a reasonable amount.
Both parties applied for suppression orders. As the tenants have succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details. The landlord has not succeeded in defending the claims. Therefore, they are not entitled to suppression. The tenants are also awarded reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4778038 — Tenancy dispute at 177 Cecil Road, Wilton, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4778038 — Tenancy dispute at 177 Cecil Road, Wilton, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions