What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212794 about?

The tribunal order states: Glasshouse Property Management Limited as Agent for [The tenant/s] party] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $25.00 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 5212794?

Compensation: $25.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212794?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212794?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12243755-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212794 about?

The tribunal order states: Glasshouse Property Management Limited as Agent for [The tenant/s] party] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $25.00 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 5212794?

Compensation: $25.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212794?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212794?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12243755-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Oaklands Drive, Cambridge, Cambridge 3434 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5212794 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5212794 — net $25.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation unlawful entry 07 December 2019	$25.00	Compensation unlawful entry 07 December 2019
Net award	$25.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$25.00

The tenant appeared. Mr Baker, Director for Glasshouse Property Management, appeared for the landlord.

On 27 March 2025, the tenant filed a claim alleging that: i. Mr and Mrs Woodhouse had on 07 December 2019 entered the property unlawfully, ii. Between 27 March 2025 to 21 May 2025 that the employees of the agent acting on behalf of the landlord had interfered with their reasonable peace comfort and privacy amounting to harassment.

On 30 April 2025, the landlord filed a counterclaim alleging that the tenant: i. Owed outstanding rent arrears, ii. Failed to allow inspections without reasonable excuse (seeking exemplary damages and a work order directing the tenant allow inspections), iii. Failed to report necessary repairs.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the party making it. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. Each party must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).

The parties advised that the tenancy ended on 21 May 2025, that the rent arrears had been settled, and that the balance of the bond had been refunded to the tenant. The landlord withdrew the claim that the tenant had failed to notify them of damage. As the tenancy has ended, the landlord no longer seeks a work order to allow inspections. Did the landlord enter the property unlawfully,

Section 48 of the Act provides for the entry into a property by the landlord with notice. Under section 48(1) a tenant may consent to the proposed entry, or the landlord may give written notice relying on the grounds contained in subsection 48(2). A landlord who enters without consent or without written notice commits a breach and an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded under section 48(4)(a). Evidence

The tenant states that around 18 months after the commencement of the tenancy the letter box was damaged by a third party. At the time, the parties enjoyed a reasonably amicable landlord / tenant relationship. The tenant arranged for the letterbox to be replaced.

On 06 December 2019, the tenant texted the landlord with photographs of the damaged and replacement letterbox. In the text the tenant advised that they were unsure whether their screws would be sufficient. The tenant advised that they would be away over the weekend and asked the landlord to install the letter box while they were away.

On 07 December 2019, the landlord texted that they had installed the letter box, explaining that they had needed to enter the property to use a power point for their drill, and asked how much they owed the tenant for the letterbox.

The tenant states they were shocked that the landlord had entered the property, as they had envisaged the work being completed without needing to do so. Despite this, the tenant replied thanking the landlord adding that they hoped the property had not been too messy and that the cat had not escaped.

The tenant states that the matter was not urgent, and that the landlord should have advised them before entering. The tenant states confidential material was left inside, and that the entry was a gross breach of privacy marking a turning point in the relationship. The tenant states that they raised this concern with the landlord during an inspection early the next year, but their concerns had been dismissed.

The tenant also claims they were told by a reliable tenancy advice source that making a formal complaint would affect their tenancy. They now seek compensation and exemplary damages.

Mr Baker argued that there was a statutory bar on the claim for exemplary damages because it had been more than twelve months after the alleged incident. He is correct. While the claim for compensation was brought within the six-year limitation period, under section 109(2)(b) the exemplary damages claim is out of time.

The landlord provided written submissions but did not attend the hearing. They appear to believe there was urgency installing the letterbox. The landlord states: “the [ landlord] had his long extension lead (electricians have very long extension leads) and electric drill (not battery powered).” The landlord states that they had quickly let themselves in and accessed the power point nearest the front door. The landlord goes on to state: “I naively thought because we were there doing repairs requested by [ tenant] that I could enter the property to gain access to the power.” The landlord states the work took less than an hour.

The tenant disputes the landlord’s claim, stating that they had keys to the garage which is located at the front of the property and could have easily accessed power from there. The tenant was concerned that the landlord may have “looked around” while inside. The tenant believes the landlord only mentioned the entry because a neighbour saw them inside. Decision

I am not satisfied that the landlord was entitled to conclude that the tenant had given their consent to enter the property. There is no suggestion in the tenant’s text message that the matter was urgent and had to be addressed immediately. A reasonable bystander would have assumed that the work would not involve entry into the property. The landlord’s claim that electricians do not possess cordless drills is unconvincing.

I am satisfied that there has been a breach. The landlord has been careless. However, as the tenant’s own evidence indicates the relationship had been amicable prior to this. The landlord conducted regular three-monthly inspections, and there is no plausible reason for the landlord to have manufactured a pretext to enter the property to have a “look around.”

Compensation is generally awarded for actual loss, or in some cases for less tangible losses such as a diminished enjoyment, a loss of amenity. Here, there has been no actual loss. The tenant has filed their claim nearly 6 years after the incident. Despite claiming their relationship with the landlord had deteriorated, they have resisted the involvement of a property manager. I am not satisfied that there has been a tangible loss of amenity. I award nominal damages of $25.00. Has there been an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy?

Section 38(1) of the Act provides that the tenant shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or their agents.

The common law covenant for quiet enjoyment was set out in the case of Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499 (CA) in which Pearson LJ stated at 511: The implied covenant for quiet enjoyment is not an absolute covenant protecting a tenant against eviction or interference by anybody but is a qualified covenant protecting the tenant against interference with the tenant’s quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or persons claiming through or under the landlord. The basis of it is that the landlord, by letting the premises, confers on the tenant the right of possession during the term and impliedly promises not to interfere with the tenant’s exercise and use of the right of possession during the term. I think the word ‘enjoy’ used in this connection is a translation from the Latin word ‘fruor’ and refers to the exercise and use of the right and having the full benefit of it, rather than to derive pleasure from it.

Section 38(2) of the Act states that a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

In Lucas v Patterson [2005] DCR 76 the Court considered that the common law covenant, enshrined by section 38(1) of the Act, had been widened by section 38(2) with the inclusion of references to peace, comfort, and privacy.

In Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated: Quiet enjoyment effectively means the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Balanced against that, however, one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type.

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". See MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

Black’s Law Dictionary 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.”

These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: “Although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”

An interference that also amounts to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.

Parties to a tenancy agreement are entitled to exercise their rights under the agreement and the Act. However, while a landlord may be entitled to exercise their rights, they may be found to have done so in manner constituting an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.

Whether interference has occurred will depend on the proven facts and an objective assessment of whether the act in question exceeds what a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure under the circumstances. Evidence

The tenant states that around 7.30am on 28 March 2025, they received a call from an unknown female who proceeded to state that they required access to the property. The tenant states that they work irregular hours, something known to the landlord, and that it took a while to gain their bearings. When they did, they discovered the female caller was a property manager purporting to have been engaged as an agent by the landlord, who they said was going overseas.

The tenant has expressed a strong mistrust of property managers and agents, believing that they prioritise rent increases for their own, and the landlords financial gain, at the expense of the tenants, and that it was, “all about the money.”

Although the tenant had not personally experienced such conduct themselves, they stated they knew others who had. The tenant objected to the involvement of an agent preferring to deal directly with the landlord, as they had done since 2018.

During the call, the subject of a rent increase arose. The tenant states they offered an opinion on the merits of such an increase but were shut down by the property manager who stated that they did not respect or value the tenant’s opinion.

The tenant stated that the call was an interference because they had not received notice of the landlord’s intention to appoint an agent, and that the property manager who had called, had been “entitled, demanding, overbearing, and unprofessional.”

The tenant described Mr Baker as arrogant. Although they had not met in person before the hearing, the tenant stated that meeting him for the first time at the hearing confirmed their opinion.

The tenant stated that they had complained to Mr Baker about the conduct of the property manager but were dissatisfied with the response. Instead, she states that Mr Baker sent several unsolicited harassing emails.

Mr Baker stated he had been approached by the landlord to function as agent, and denied the landlord was moving overseas. Mr Baker stated before agreeing to take on the agency his practice was to call the tenants directly to build a rapport and arrange an inspection. Mr Baker stated that the call was made at an appropriate time. Mr Baker stated that he had discussed the tenant’s claim with the property manager who had given a different account.

Mr Baker denied that his correspondence was unsolicited and stated that the tenant had actively engaged in the exchanges, and that his emails were intended to explain rights and obligations under the Act. Decision

I am not satisfied that there has been an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. As in Smith v Floris, the catalyst for this dispute appears to be a clash of personalities. Underlying the tenant’s interactions with both the female property manager and Mr Baker is a deep mistrust and suspicion regarding the role of property managers. I am not satisfied that the property manager and Mr Baker could have necessarily done anything to change the tenant’s view.

During the hearing, the tenant referred to Mr Baker using a derogatory phrase to describe his character. The tenant complained that Mr Baker had been dominating the hearing, although on several occasions the tenant had to be asked to allow the other party an uninterrupted opportunity to present their case.

The tenant was startled and then somewhat annoyed by the property managers call, which has clearly strayed onto subjects beyond an introduction and rapport building. A prudent property manager would have realised that they were not building rapport and ended the call rather than pressing on.

Based on the email correspondence between Mr Baker and the tenant produced I am not satisfied it constitutes harassment amounting to an interference. Mr Baker is clearly setting out the legal obligations of the parties, something which he is reasonably entitled to do on behalf of the landlord and attempting to resolve matters. There is nothing to suggest that his manner or conduct in these communications was inappropriate. The claim that there has been an unreasonable interference is dismissed.

Has the tenant failed to allow inspections without a reasonable excuse?

Under section 48(2) of the Act, landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance.

A notice of inspection issued under section 48(2)(a) to conduct an inspection must be given with at least 48 hours’ notice, but with no more than 14 days.

Under section 136(1)(d) notices may be sent to an email address provided by the tenant as an address for service.

A tenant who fails to allow an inspection without reasonable excuse commits an unlawful act under section 48(4)(b) for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. Evidence

On 07 April 2025, Mr Baker emailed the tenant advising that from 10 April 2025 Glasshouse would be the landlord’s property manager. In doing so, they met the definition of an agent of the landlord under section 2(1) of the Act and were therefore entitled to issue notices on the landlord’s behalf.

Mr Baker stated that the landlord was keen to determine the Healthy Homes status compliance before the compliance date for the tenancy, 01 July 2025.

On 24 April 2025, Glasshouse issued a notice to inspect the property on 29 April 2025. The parties agreed to move the inspection to 30 April 2025. On 30 April 2025, the tenant advised that one of the other occupants was unwell and that the inspection would have to be rescheduled. Mr Baker replied that he saw no reason the inspection could not proceed, and asked whether, if he attended with the Healthy Homes assessor whether the tenant would deny them entry. The tenant responded that trying to enforce an inspection with a sick occupant was “tantamount to harassment.” The inspection did not proceed.

At 5.35 pm on the same day, Mr Baker sent a notice advising of an inspection on 07 May 2025. The tenant replied that they had previously advised in writing that they were going to be working from home on that day and suggested 06 May 2025 instead. The tenant went onto state they felt Mr Baker’s attempt to schedule the date knowing that it was unsuitable was a deliberate act designed to cause “maximum nuisance.”

Mr Baker replied that he had made a mistake and he had not intended to intentionally aggravate the tenant and referred to the landlord’s right to conduct inspections under the Act.

The tenant then gave 21 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy effective 21 May 2025. On 01 May 2025, the tenant advised that any inspection could wait until 21 May 2025. Mr Baker replied acknowledging the tenant’s notice but stated that the inspection would take place on the “amended date” of 06 May 2025. The inspection did not proceed. Decision

The primary issue in this case is whether valid notices were issued. If the notices are invalid, the tenant cannot be liable for failing to allow any inspection to proceed. There are no provisions allowing a notice of inspection to be unilaterally varied. It is also unclear whether the notice, once issued, may be varied at all. However, if it can, the variation should be in writing and would therefore constitute a fresh notice.

The notice issued on 24 April 2025, was valid and properly served. There appears to be no dispute that the parties then agreed to reschedule the inspection from 29 April 2025 to 30 April 2025. The sick occupant was a reasonable excuse for asking the inspection be rescheduled.

Upon issuing the second notice on 30 April 2025 for 07 May 2025, Mr Baker acknowledged that the date was in error. Thereafter, I am not satisfied that there was a meeting of the minds to reschedule to 06 May 2025. It would have been prudent for Mr Baker to issue a fresh notice.

The blanket denial of all inspections by the tenant until 21 May 2025, cannot, in my view, be considered a refusal to allow entry, as no valid notice for 06 May 2025 or any subsequent date had in fact been issued. The claim is dismissed. Costs

Where a party has been partly successful with a claim, the Tribunal has the discretion to reimburse the filing fee. Although the tenant has been partly successful, in the circumstances I am not satisfied that reimbursing the filing fee is justified, and I make no orders. Name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord and the agent do not seek name suppression. The tenant seeks name suppression. However, the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful, and no suppression orders are made.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5212794 — net $25.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation unlawful entry 07 December 2019	$25.00	Compensation unlawful entry 07 December 2019
Net award	$25.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$25.00