What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5166471 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5166471?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Amenity @ Per Week 24/12/24…: $821.43 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166471?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11626573-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5166471 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5166471?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Amenity @ Per Week 24/12/24…: $821.43 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166471?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11626573-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

95D Raglan Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5166471 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5166471. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Loss of amenity @ per week 24/12/24 to 25/03/25		$821.43	Loss of amenity @ per week 24/12/24 to 25/03/25
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5166471. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Loss of amenity @ per week 24/12/24 to 25/03/25		$821.43	Loss of amenity @ per week 24/12/24 to 25/03/25
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The tenancy between the parties for the tenancy address terminates at the end of Sunday 27 April 2025 and possession vests in the landlord from the beginning of Monday 28 April 2025.
The weekly rent for the tenancy is reduced from $850.00 per week to $787.50 from 26 March 2025 until the end of the tenancy.
Rakesh Rattan must pay [the tenants] $848.43 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionTenant Loss of amenity @ $62.50 per week 24/12/24 to 25/03/25$821.43 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$848.43

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing in person. 1
Navpreet Dhillon of Urban South Property Management attended the hearing for the landlord. 2
The landlord attended the hearing by telephone because he is living in Australia.
The tenants claim: a. The landlord unlawfully entered the premises. b. The landlord interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy by using his surveillance cameras to watch the tenants and asking intrusive questions and making unlawful directions about the tenants’ visitors. . c. The landlord failed to remove his goods from the downstairs master bedroom, en suite, and kitchenette and hand over possession of that area, thereby depriving the tenants of possession of that area.
For remedy, the tenants seek orders for compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenants also applied for an order that their fixed-term tenancy be reduced. However, during the hearing, the parties agreed that the tenancy will end on 27 April 2025.
An order is made terminating the tenancy as agreed. Background
The tenancy began on 22 November 2024 and will end by agreement on 28 April 2025.
The tenancy was advertised for rent at $940.00 per week. However, the tenants agreed with the landlord’s former property manager that the rent would be $900.00 per week. They also agreed that the rent would be $850.00 per week until 24 December 2024 until the landlord removed his goods from the downstairs master bedroom, en suite, and kitchenette area. 3 1 I heard this matter at Manukau District Court on 20 March 2025. 2 One of the tenants had to remain outside the courtroom to look after the tenants’ children. 3 The tenants’ evidence was persuasive. The landlord said he did not agree to this and had emails to prove it. The Tribunal directed the landlord to supply the emails by 2:00pm. The emails have not been received. In any event, the agent had ostensible authority and therefore had the power to bind the landlord. I accept the tenants’ evidence about this.
However, the landlord has still not removed his goods and the tenants continue to pay the weekly rent at the rate of $850.00 per week.
Aside from the landlord not removing his goods, the tenancy seems to have gone well enough to begin with. However, the tenancy rapidly deteriorated when the landlord returned from Melbourne in January 2025.
On 25 January 2025, the landlord, his wife, and his son carried out an unannounced inspection. The landlord had asked his property manager to advise the tenants of the inspection, but the property manager did not do so. One of the tenants, however, agreed to the landlord and two family members carrying out the inspection.
The tenants say the landlord was intrusive and confrontational towards them. They were particularly disturbed by the landlord telling them he had seen various comings and goings using the premises security cameras. The tenants also say that the landlord gave them inappropriate directives about family matters such as how long people could stay at the premises.
The landlord denies that his conversations with the tenants were contentious or that he said he told the tenants that he used the security cameras to observe events at the premises . He maintains that he had deactivated the cameras on 3 October 2024 prior to the tenancy beginning.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

The tenants allege that the landlord and his family members carried unlawfully entered the premises in carrying out an inspection without notice. Legal principles
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance. 4
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 5
In this regard, s 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 48(1) and (2). 5 RTA, s 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A. 48 Landlord’s right of entry (1) The landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except— (a) with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry; or (b) in any of the circumstances described in subsections (2) to (3). (2) The landlord may enter the premises— (a) in any case of emergency; or (b) for the purpose of inspecting the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on a day specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry, and not more frequently than once in any period of 4 weeks;... Discussion
The landlord and two family members went to the premises on 25 January 2025 to carry out an inspection.
The landlord provided evidence that he had texted the former property manager on Thursday at 4:29pm to “please let them know that we will be inspecting the property on Saturday...morning”.
The property manager had replied, “Okji”.
However, it appears the property manager did not give the tenants notice. But, even if the property manager had given notice it would have been unlawful because Saturday morning was less than 48 hours after the landlord sent his text to the property manager.
Nonetheless, although, the landlord did not give the tenants notice for the inspection in accordance with s 48(2)(b) of the RTA, one of the tenants consented to the inspection which means the inspection was authorised under s 48(1)(a).
It follows, the landlord’s entry to inspect the premises was not unlawful.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort?
The tenants say the landlord admitted to watching the premises on his surveillance cameras and that he has asked them intrusive questions about guests to the premises. They submitted: The presence of surveillance cameras has made me feel uncomfortable and concerned about my privacy. As the landlord claimed that he has been watching us through the cameras and has been observing us for past weeks... I have also felt that we have been unfairly questioned about our visitors which goes beyond the reasonable scope of the landlord’s right to monitor the property. Legal principles
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 6
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 7 :.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person": MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Black’s Law Dictionary 8 defines “harassment” as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English“ 9 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation”. Discussion
The issue of whether the landlord watched the tenants on his security cameras is in dispute.
The tenants say the landlord mentioned events at the premises that he could only know about if he had observed the events on the surveillance cameras 6 RTA, s 38(2). 7 RTA, s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 8 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 9 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998). including a brother-in-law checking the premises at about 10-11:00pm, a visitor who carried a briefcase, and another visitor who had a truck.
The landlord insists he deactivated the cameras before the tenancy ended. At one point I understood him to say, “I maybe made up a story for those guys”. However, he later seemed to clarify that he meant “the tenants made up a story”.
The landlord confirmed he has friends living next door to the premises. The landlord’s property manager suggested the landlords probably reported their observations of the tenants back to the landlord. That source, it was submitted, gave the landlord the knowledge of the events mentioned even though he was in Australia at the time.
The tenants say they removed an SD memory card from one of the cameras and viewed its contents on a computer. They say the memory card contained images of themselves taken at the premises on 20 November 2024 when they viewed the premises prior to renting it. The tenants submit that this evidence proves that the landlord did not deactivate the cameras as he claims on 3 October 2024. They suspect the landlord used his neighbour-friend’s Wi-Fi to access the security cameras.
I do not find the tenants’ evidence about the SD memory card determinative. The landlord says the cameras worked off the premises’ Wi-Fi. He disconnected the premises’ Wi-Fi modem, which he believed deactivated the cameras. It is quite possible on the evidence I have heard – and I have not heard expert evidence on this - that the cameras continued to work and record images to their SD memory cards without being connected to any Wi-Fi modem. Moreover, the tenants did not see images of footage taken during the tenancy.
The information that the tenants say the landlord must have gotten from the surveillance cameras could equally have come from the tenants’ neighbours’ observations.
Therefore, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord retained access to the camera surveillance.
The issue of the landlord’s comments about visitors is also disputed.
The tenants say the landlord told the tenants they could not have a boarder, and only family members could remain in the premises long-term. The landlord maintains he said no more than confirm the terms of the tenancy agreement.
It is probable that the landlord’s interactions with the tenants in January of 2025 annoyed the tenants and that the landlord’s comments lacked tact. However, not every negative interaction between landlords and tenants can be characterised as an interference with tenants reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
I am not satisfied that the landlord’s communications amounted to an interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to remove his goods from the premises?

The landlord’s previous property manager warranted that by 24 December 2024, the landlord’s belongings would be removed from a self-contained area comprising a master bedroom, ensuite, and kitchenette-type area.
The landlord never removed his belongings, and the tenants still have no access to the area.
The landlord’s failure to remove the goods is a breach of contract and an interference with the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment under s 38(1) of the RTA, “to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”.
The tenants agreed to a $50.00 per week rent reduction to 24 December 2024 because it would only be a month. However, they submit they ought to be compensated at a greatly weekly amount because their consequent loss of amenity is worth more than that.
The tenants say that if that area were available, two of the tenants who are spouses would have moved into the bedroom, giving everybody the ability to enjoy more separate living. That couple’s original bedroom could then have been used as a prayer room/playroom. However, none of that could happen.
The house has a floor area of about 250m 2 . It has five bedrooms, three bathrooms, and an additional toilet. The inaccessible area is not large, perhaps less than 20m 2 . However, they area would have provided the tenants and their family with significant amenity.
I assess the amenity in the unusable rooms at 12.5 percent of the weekly rent.
5 percent of $900.00 is $112.50. The current rent is reduced by $50.00 per week already. The difference is $62.50.
I order the landlord to compensate the tenants at the rate of and additional $62.50 per week from 24 December 2024 to today’s date. From the end of today, the premises’ weekly rent is reduced by $112.50 until the end of the tenancy. The weekly rent is therefore $787.50 from today until the end of the tenancy. Filing fee
The landlord must reimburse the tenants for the filing fee. Non-publication
The tenants seek an order for non-publication of their names.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 10
The tenants have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants’ request for non-publication is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166471 — 14-day notice at 95D Raglan Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166471 — 14-day notice at 95D Raglan Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord fail to remove his goods from the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord fail to remove his goods from the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions