What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245333 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 5245333?

Loss Of Use (Oven: $225.00 awarded to tenant; Overpaid Utilities: $157.67 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245333?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12510354-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245333 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 5245333?

Loss Of Use (Oven: $225.00 awarded to tenant; Overpaid Utilities: $157.67 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245333?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12510354-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

46 Queenstown Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245333 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245333 — net $382.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Overpaid utilities	$157.67	Overpaid utilities
Loss of use (oven	$225.00	Loss of use (oven
Net award	$382.67
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$382.67

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 August 2025.

The tenancy was from 16 November 2024 until 13 April 2025.

The landlord lived upstairs and the tenant lived downstairs. The downstairs area had 2 bedrooms, 1 study, 1 storage and an open kitchen lounge area and was designed to house 2 tenants.

When the tenant began her tenancy downstairs, there was already a pre-existing tenant in the other room.

The tenant became the sole tenant downstairs after the pre-existing tenant left few months later.

At the end the tenancy, the tenant made an application the Tribunal for the following claims: a. The premises had lack of food preparation facilities; b. There was a 6-week delay with installing fire alarms and 2-month delay in providing heating; c. Landlord charged for non-exclusive utilities for both internet and electricity; d. Tenant paid rent for the 21 days’ termination period despite being unable to live at the premises; e. Tenant had to pay for the cost of moving due to the landlord making her home unsafe; f. Landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre until 73 working days after receiving it; g. Landlord did not provide vacant possession; h. Landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by disrupting the tenant every few days; i. Landlord made multiple unlawful entries despite the tenant advising them of their lawful obligations; and j. Landlord carried out unconsented surveillance of tenant’s bedroom.

I address the claims in a more chronological order with reference to the evidence that was provided by the parties. Vacant possession

The parties signed a tenancy agreement which was a ‘house sharing’ type agreement rather than a proper tenancy agreement.

The agreement was for a fixed-term of 12 months from 16 November 2024 and the rent was $330.00 per week.

Despite it being a for a fixed-term, the agreement also stipulated that the tenancy could be terminated with 30 days’ notice given by either party in writing.

It also stated that the tenant must pay an equal percentage cost of shared electricity and internet each as the bills are received.

When the tenant was moving in, there were construction equipment and boxes of other miscellaneous items located in the office area. The tenant’s friend who was helping the tenant’s move in complained to the landlord about the office area and the landlord cleared the space for the tenant.

The tenant’s claim of vacant possession relates to this.

It is correct that section 37 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires the landlord to provide the tenant vacant possession of the premises. However, this tenancy was always for a single room downstairs and not exclusive use of all other premises.

Further to this, at the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord believed that the tenancy was a house-sharing situation and not a RTA tenancy.

In the circumstances, I do not find that there is a basis for any compensation for this. Failure to lodge the bond within the required time

It was not disputed that the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre until 73 working days after receiving it from the tenant.

Under section 19(1) RTA, a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

I accept that the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time as they did not know that they had to follow the RTA.

A representative from Tenancy Services told the landlord on 21 February 2025 that they must lodge the bond. The landlord lodged the bond, and it was received with the Bond Centre on 10 March 2025. That is 11 working days.

I do not find that the breach was intentional and there is no public interest in awarding exemplary damages in this situation. Lack of food preparation facilities

When the tenant viewed the property, the landlord advised that cooking facilities would be ready before the move-in date. When the tenant moved in, there was no cooking facilities. On the same day, the landlord provided a portable single- hob benchtop element, but not anything to enable baking.

The tenant waited for about 6 weeks before finally sending a message to the landlord on 7 January 2025 asking for an oven.

The landlord took 45 days from then to get an oven installed on 21 February 2025. To the landlord’s credit, the landlord kept the tenant in the loop by sending her photos of various oven models for her input. For the delay, the landlord explained that the landlord did not have the funds.

There was a dispute regarding whether or not there was a microwave oven downstairs for the tenant. The other tenant had a microwave and it was unclear whether that was being utilised or not.

The landlord only started looking into getting the tenant an oven when they got the message from the tenant.

Even if I accept that the landlord was unaware of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA to provide means of baking at the beginning of the tenancy, the 45 days to get the oven installed after being asked by the tenant on 7 January 2025 was too long.

I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $225.00 being a rate of $5.00 per day for the 45 days wait after informing the landlord. Delay in smoke alarm installation and providing a heater

The tenant noticed upon moving in that the landlord had not installed any smoke alarms at the premises.

The tenant reminded the landlord of this in writing on 6 January 2025.

Also, the tenant reminded that the landlord needed to provide a means of heating the premises.

The landlord installed smoke alarms on 12 January 2025.

The landlord provided a portable heater on 21 February 2025 following intervention from the Tenancy Services compliance team.

Failing to provide a smoke alarm is a serious breach and the landlord should have been better aware of this requirement whether or not it was a RTA tenancy or a house-sharing situation.

I accept that the requirement to provide a heater is not something that lay- landlords ordinarily know to provide especially in the summer. It is something that only exists under a true RTA tenancy situation.

Once the landlord was made aware of the smoke alarm issue, the landlord acted fairly promptly.

Although the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations, I find that this was not intentional and I do not find that it requires exemplary damages to be awarded. Overpaid utilities

The tenant and the other tenant downstairs shared a single submeter for the power. During the time when both tenants were occupying downstairs, the tenant simply paid half of the power used downstairs.

Under section 39(3) RTA, the tenant is only responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or the tenant’s use of the facilities.

Between 18 March 2024 and 12 April 2025, the tenant was the only one using downstairs. There is no issue with the $16.14 charged for power for that period.

However, the $173.81 that the tenant paid when the downstairs was being shared with the other tenant cannot be exclusively attributable to this tenant’s use of the facilities. This must be refunded to the tenant.

The internet is a different situation. The internet is a fixed-fee paid by the landlord regardless of its usage. The tenant paid $20.00 a month for 5 months to share the landlord’s internet. The alternative was for the tenant to get the tenant’s own internet. There is nothing wrong with the tenant agreeing to use the landlord’s internet for a fee. Landlord’s surveillance on the tenant

On 17 January 2025, a security camera had been installed on the fence. The tenant believed that it was at an angle that was able to capture both the tenant’s bedroom window and the entry to her home.

The landlord had not asked for the tenants’ permissions nor informed her that they intended for a security camera to be installed.

On the same day, the landlord knocked on the tenant’s door to provide an update on a plumbing situation. The tenant took that opportunity to ask about the camera’s installation, specifically whether it could see into her space and if it also captured audio.

The landlord did not provide answers to the tenant’s specific questions but the camera was removed the next day without any comment.

At the hearing, the landlord explained that the camera was not specifically aimed at the tenant’s area but more to the garage area downstairs.

Given that the landlord lives upstairs and had installed the camera to ensure their garage was safe, and that the landlord had immediately removed the camera when the tenant expressed concerns, I cannot see any justification for compensation or exemplary damages. Unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment

These were the main claims raised by the tenant.

Under section 48(1) and (2) RTA, landlords 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 and repairs and maintenance. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Under section 38(2) RTA, landlords must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

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.

At the hearing, evidence was given by the tenant, tenant’s witnesses and the landlord. It became clear that the landlord was too casual in approaching the tenant downstairs. The tenant was someone who had difficulty saying no in a face-to-face situation. Hence the tenant had asked for communications and notices to enter to be in writing. However, even when the landlord had given inadequate notice, the tenant never said no to the landlord’s request to enter.

The female landlord was more casual than the male landlord in going downstairs. This was also more complicated when the other tenant was still downstairs as they had a pre-existing understanding of more casual visits being allowed.

Unbeknown to the landlord, the tenant had been suffering with the landlord’s short-noticed requests for entries and maintenances. There were requests for viewings to fill the second tenant downstairs, and there were other maintenance works during the tenancy. There were less than the required notice periods given on 9 occasions between 28 January 2025 and 26 March 2025 mostly for viewings and some for non-urgent repairs, and no notice given at all on 4 occasions between 21 February 2025 and 7 March 2025. The tenant says that there was “coerced consent” on 3 March 2025 and entries without consent on 25 January 2025, 22 March 2025 and 26 March 2025.

The tenancy spanned a total of 149 days. The landlord made contact with the tenant in writing on 53 of those days. The tenant says that the landlord’s contacts were too frequent and breached her right to a quiet enjoyment of the premises.

The final straw for the tenant came when the tenant came back home around 8 pm to find workers working on the hot water cylinder downstairs together with the male landlord on 22 March 2025.

The landlord thought they had informed the tenant beforehand adequately about this but from the emails provided at the hearing, I do not find that it had been adequately communicated.

This followed on from the day before where the female landlord accessed the premises for “paint and carpet” which turned out to be putting up a “painting” and putting a “rug” in the lounge.

The tenant gave the landlord 21 days’ notice to terminate as a result of the 22 March 2025 incident.

The tenant was too distressed to stay at the premises for the last 21 days and stayed elsewhere.

This is the background behind the remaining four claims of unlawful entry, breach of quiet enjoyment, compensation for not being able to live at the premises, and compensation for moving costs.

At the hearing, the landlord explained that they were trying to make sure that the tenant was comfortable and they wanted to act politely to her as they had children and wanted to have a good relationship with the tenant. The landlord explained that they did not intend to do anything wrongfully against the tenant.

The tenant agreed that the landlord were not bad people but that she had simply asked the landlord to follow the law. The tenant said that it was scary to have to keep on asking the landlord to follow the law.

Unfortunately, I find that this was a situation where the parties were mostly incompatible with each other. The tenant was someone who had difficulty with saying no to the landlord’s requests for access. The landlord was someone who could not sense the tenant’s stress even when the tenant had requests for communications to be in writing as a result.

In the end, I do not find that there were any unlawful entries that justify exemplary damages. Even if the tenant had felt that she was coerced to allow entry, I do not find that there was any objective coercion. I have read through all written communications between the parties. I do not find that the contacts amounted to harassment to justify exemplary damages. Exemplary damages cannot be granted in situations where the unlawful entries were not intentional.

I accept that there was miscommunication for the 22 March 2025. The landlord believed due to a previous email that the water cylinder work had been communicated to the tenant properly before. It does not seem that the communication had been done to an adequate level and the tenant was distressed to find the landlord and workers working downstairs when she returned home around 8 pm. I do not find that this was an intentional unlawful entry by the landlord and this also does not justify exemplary damages.

The compensation for the tenant’s subsequent move out as a result is not something that is objectively warranted in the circumstances. The claim for the refund of the 21 days’ rent or costs of moving is declined. Name suppression

At the request of the parties, the names and identifying details of both parties are suppressed.

However, the address is not suppressed so that anyone in the future can know that this address is subject to the RTA and that all rules and regulations must be followed in accordance with the law.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245333 — net $382.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Overpaid utilities	$157.67	Overpaid utilities
Loss of use (oven	$225.00	Loss of use (oven
Net award	$382.67
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$382.67