What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5251279 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 5251279?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5251279?

The primary dispute was Illegal Lockout. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5251279?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12045072-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5251279 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 5251279?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5251279?

The primary dispute was Illegal Lockout. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5251279?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12045072-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5251279 — Illegal Lockout

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy which ended on 14 June 2025. She seeks an order terminating the tenancy as at 31 March 2025. In addition, she seeks: a. Compensation in the form of a rent rebate of $3,850 paid for the period 1 April to 14 June 2025 due to alleged breach of quiet enjoyment and being locked out of the premises; b. Exemplary damages for removing keys and locking the tenant out of the premises; c. Exemplary damages for unlawful entry.
The tenant has the burden of proving her claims. The standard of proof required is the usual civil standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Put another way, the applicant must persuade me that what she says is more likely than not to be the case.
In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral testimony). The evidence must be reasonable; there should be no probative defects such as inconsistency or improbability to any material extent, and the evidence must be consistent or supported by other acceptable evidence. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight (such as direct witness evidence rather than indirect hearsay evidence), which must be taken into account when weighing all evidence. Background
The premises are a studio flat situated above a garage and carport on the front of the section facing the street. Entrance to the flat is through a door off the carport. The garage and carport are not part of the tenancy and are used by the landlords. A stairway from the carport leads to a bridge/pathway connected to a separate house on the back of the section which is the landlord’s residence. Parking for the tenant is on an area of front lawn to the side of the studio flat and garage. The studio flat also has an exterior deck.
The parties entered a fixed term tenancy agreement for the flat commencing on 15 June 2024 and ending on 14 June 2025. The tenant specifically chose the flat because it was not connected to other houses. The tenant emailed the landlord before viewing the flat to ask about any noise from the garage below the flat. The landlord replied that they would be using the garage for storage. This satisfied the tenant that any noise would be minimal and occasional.
[Landlord 1] and [Landlord 2] had only just purchased the property and moved in shortly before the tenant. They explained that they had many boxes in the garage that they were slowly unpacking and sorting through. Did the landlords breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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. Evidence
The tenant says that after she moved in and got settled, she found the noise was more than she was expecting. She complains that the landlords used the carport and garage a lot, slamming car doors that would shake the flat multiple times each day and late at night during sleep hours. The tenant also complains that the landlords stamped heavily up and down the wooden steps to and from their house. The tenant says the worst noise came from the garage with loud banging and scraping noises for many hours at a time.
On 5 -7 August 2024, the parties exchanged the following emails:
8.24 at 8.07am, tenant to landlords: “Kia Ora...I hope you’re well. I’m finding a lot of noise to be coming from the garage and it’s disturbing me in the flat. Thanks...”
8.24 at 8.31am, landlords to tenant: “...Really sorry to hear that- [Landlord 1’s] home, so I asked him to go out and check. Unsure what that might have been, hopefully not somebody trying to break in?? He’ll get in touch with you. Thanks for the update...”
8.24 at 9.17am, tenant to landlord: “...Thanks for your email. Sorry for the confusion—I meant noise since I moved in...”
8.24 at 9.22am, landlord to tenant: “...Sorry to hear that noise in garage has been disturbing. We do need to use this space but will continue to ensure it’s reasonable use. Occasionally, the roller door will be opened or closed.....Very occasionally, [Landlord 1] will need to drill something or do some sanding. Do you have set days that you are in the office/working from home? If you do [Landlord 2] can plan any noisy work around that...he will be doing quite a lot of moving boxes, as we slowly unpack, but I would assume this is not disturbing.....”
On 7 August 2024, [Landlord 1] sent the tenant a message apologising for their teenage son making noise in the night which included opening the garage roller door beneath the flat. The tenant replied on 7 August thanking the landlord for the message and said: “....I’m sorry to hear about your son’s troubles. Yes. I did hear a lot of noise from
15pm until about midnight. Was he getting something out of the garage? The other noises could be unpacking. They are banging, scraping, and slamming sounds. For example, from 8.30am on Saturday, still going when I went out at 1.30pm. And on many other days and evenings.”
The tenant says she noticed the noise reduced after these emails, but she still heard a lot of noise. Other issues also developed with the landlord’s teenager often heard screaming and swearing. It made her feel uncomfortable, but she did not raise the issue with the landlord. The landlord explained at the hearing that their son is currently having serious mental health difficulties and they acknowledge that there would have been instances of him causing disturbances.
In December 2024, [Landlord 1] asked to do an inspection. The tenant agreed and left the premises during the inspection time as she did not wish to be present. She complains that the landlord did not do the inspection as arranged which she felt was unprofessional and inconsiderate. The landlord was apologetic about missing the arranged time and for the inconvenience. An inspection was arranged for the next day.
The tenant complains that noise in the garage increased over January and February 2025 with the landlords moving boxes around and leaving boxes in the carport area which obstructed her easy access to and from the flat. The tenant felt she had no privacy. However, she did not raise this with the landlord.
The tenant complains that on 11 March 2025, [Landlord 2] was in the garage and carport area all day which caused the tenant to become very stressed. The tenant had a counselling appointment that day by telephone but felt that this could not go ahead because the landlord would overhear. The tenant says she had a panic attack which resulted in her Doctor prescribing anxiety medication. The tenant determined these premises were not a good place for her to live as peace, quiet and privacy is very important to her. She also provided medical evidence that she has anxiety and autism. Again, the tenant did not advise the landlords about her concerns about noise and privacy and how it was impacting her.
The tenant started to look for other flats. The landlord was contacted for a reference for the tenant by a property manager. This prompted [Landlord 1] to email the tenant on 8 April 2025 to see what her thoughts were about the tenancy, in anticipation of the fixed term expiring on 14 June 2025. The landlord said: “I just got an email today .....for a reference for you, so I’m guessing you are keen to end the tenancy then, and not move over to a periodic tenancy. No problem if that is the case. In this case, I’d like to advertise the studio apartment in 2-3 weeks’ time and show prospective tenants through on the weekends of either 10-11 May or 17-18 May. If those days are suitable for you......” The tenant replied: “Sorry, that’s not convenient. 24/25 May, 31 May/1June.” The landlord replied: “Alright then. Also I will provide you with a reference, but I would typically expect to be given a heads-up or be asked first. If there are other agencies that will be getting in contact, please let me know first.”
The tenant did not communicate with the landlords any further about her plans to move nor that she had found another flat from 10 May 2025. The tenant also states that she thought the above emails from [Landlord 1] were unprofessional and indicated that the landlord was annoyed about giving a reference. Therefore, the tenant felt even more uncomfortable about continuing to live in the flat and seeing the landlords in person. She arranged to stay with family and house sit until her new tenancy was ready.
On 22 April 2025, the landlords noticed that the tenant’s car had been gone for about 3 weeks. They took the opportunity to remove some garden waste and dirt mounds where she usually parked her car. The landlords sent a message advising that they had been doing some landscaping and digging work while the tenant was gone and said: “Let us know if you’ll be back so we can make sure it’s tidied up/clear out the front before then.” The tenant replied on 23 April “You can’t block access to my property while I have a current tenancy.” [Landlord 1] replied that they had not blocked access and just dug out the area beside her parking space. The landlord also said: “I’m pretty surprised at the rude tone in all your correspondence to be honest.”
The tenant then rang Police for advice about the landlords allegedly restricting access and she brought forward the date of her new tenancy. She also decided to vacate this flat by using professional packers, movers, and cleaners so that she did not need to return to the flat. I do not find that the landlords’ email at all implies that they were restricting access to the flat and the tenant’s interpretation of this is not in my view justified. However, I accept that this is how it felt from her point of view. She says that it felt like the landlords were asking her to inform them if she wanted to access her flat which she felt intimidated by.
At the hearing, the landlords noted that the email exchanges between 5-7 August were the only time that the tenant raised concerns about noise, and they were very cautious about going into the garage after this. However, they were unaware that the tenant was unhappy. They wished she had told them about her concerns, so they could’ve addressed them.
On 26 April 2025, the tenant arranged for packers to pack up her belongings. The packers reported to her that the landlord was nosey and asking questions of them about the tenant. [Landlord 1] acknowledges that when the packers turned up and let themselves into the flat, she was outside at the time and did ask whether they were the tenant’s friends. She asked them to keep the area around the landlords’ car in the carport clear but offered to move the car out of the way. She also noticed someone sitting in the kitchen and asked them if the tenant was moving out. In that regard, the landlord acknowledges that perhaps she was nosey, but she was curious to know what was going on.
I consider the incident which occurred on 29 April 2024 (regarding the allegations of locking the tenant out of the premises) separately. However, I first consider whether the events up to that date amounted to a breach by the landlords of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. Discussion and findings on quiet enjoyment
The duty in s38(2) RTA not to interfere is modified by the degree of interference being to the “reasonable peace, comfort or privacy” of the tenant in the use of the premises. Temporary inconvenience or discomfort does not constitute a basis for a breach. There will be several circumstances, as with this case, where the landlord’s rights (such as to access an area adjacent to the leased premises) may be inconsistent with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. In that case, it is a balancing act to determine the level of intrusion or nuisance that a tenant can reasonably expect to endure.
For a breach of section 38(1) or (2) RTA, the usual procedure would be for the tenant to first ask the landlord to stop the offending activity and, if the landlord fails to do so, apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for appropriate orders.
After carefully considering the evidence, I am not persuaded that the tenant has proved that the landlord was making noise or disturbing the tenant to such an extent that it interfered with reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in her use of the premises. That is not to say that the tenant had no cause for complaint, but there is insufficient evidence to establish the claim.
It is also relevant that the tenant rented the flat in full knowledge that it was located above a garage and carport owned and accessed by the landlord living at the same property. Some noise would be expected from the use of the garage and carport in those circumstances. It would also be expected that the tenant would be more likely to see the landlords given that they live on the same property. This would inevitably result in more interaction between the parties than if the landlords lived elsewhere.
The landlords asked the tenant in their email dated 6 August 2024 whether the tenant had set days in the office/working from home so that the landlord could plan any noisy work around that, which is a reasonable and practical response. The tenant did not reply.
The tenant has raised issue with the landlords’ communications, stating that the landlord seemed angry about giving a reference and telling the tenant that her messages were rude in tone. She was also upset that the landlord’s message on 22 April 2025 indicated that they were blocking her access to the property, and she considers the landlords were being nosey about her affairs. Clearly, by this time the tenant was unhappy at the premises, and this is evident in the blunt tone of some of her messages. However, I consider that the tenant has misinterpreted the messages from the landlord. I find that the landlord’s communications were reasonable and appropriate and are not adequate to establish any breach of quiet enjoyment claim.
Most importantly, the tenant did not communicate complaints about any ongoing noise and disruption to the landlord after the email exchanges in early August 2024. I also find on the evidence that the tenant likely has a particular sensitivity about noise and privacy that the landlord was not aware of. If a landlord is not advised about a problem, then they cannot be held liable for failing to address it.
In summary, for the reasons detailed, I am not satisfied that the landlords breached their obligations under s38 RTA, and the claim is dismissed. Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises and lock the tenant out of the premises?
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 and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA. 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.
A landlord must also provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A RTA. Tenant case
The tenant left her key at the premises for a removal company to gain access and remove her belongings to a storage unit on 29 April 2025. When meeting them at the storage unit, the tenant asked them for the key and whether they had collected a TV Stand. The moving company crew did not have those items. Their story as to what happened was conveyed in two statements by the moving company manager that contains conflicting accounts.
In a text message to the tenant on 30 April 2025, the manager stated that the crew arrived at 8.36am and during the move, a man arrived who the crew leader assumed to be the [Landlord 2] or someone in charge. The crew leader’s report was that the man grabbed the key and came inside the flat and started asking questions about why the tenant was moving out. They just told him they didn’t know anything as they were just the movers. The man became visibly upset and stormed off.
On 26 May 2025, the manager emailed the landlord and the tenant with a slightly different version of events. It states that the landlord entered the premises and asked about the truck blocking the driveway; he also asked why the tenant was leaving as he had not been informed. However, the statement then says that after the movers loaded the truck, they went to retrieve the key left in the front door, but it was gone, so they left without it. They assumed the landlord took the key. This is quite different to their earlier statement in which they allege the landlord grabbed the key from the door lock.
This later statement made by the manager also did not make sense in some respects. He stated “At storage, the customer was informed that [tenant] had forgotten the key. This caused some distress for the customer.”
After meeting the tenant at the storage, the movers returned to the premises to retrieve the key and the TV stand, but the door was locked, and the landlord was not on site. Another person on site said he would find a key but after waiting 10 minutes, the movers said he did not return, so the movers left. They also allege that they returned to the premises again later but could not gain access because of the missing key.
While the moving company manager sent these statements to the tenant and the landlord, he was not present at the job. Also, neither the manager nor any of the crew were called by the tenant as witnesses to give direct evidence and be questioned. The manager’s statement is hearsay and of limited evidential weight. Certainly, the movers could not be questioned about their conflicting statements. Landlord case
The landlords dispute the moving company version of events and believes that they have made up a story to cover the fact that they carelessly left the key in the front door with the door open when they left the premises. [Landlord 2] gave detailed evidence about what happened. He was walking to his car parked in the carport to run errands. He noticed the moving van blocking access to his car in the carport which he wanted to use that morning. He saw the door to the premises open and knocked on the door. No-one answered but a crew member leaned over the balcony and the landlord asked if they could move their van forward so that it wasn’t blocking the car. He denies entering the flat and denies asking them questions about the tenant. The crew said they would be finished in 5 minutes or so which the landlord was happy about and he waited. Meanwhile, [Landlord 1]’s father and a live-in worker arrived to do work in the garage. After a further 20 minutes or so, the movers finished loading the van and one came into the garage saying: “Thanks Boss” and the movers got into the van and drove away.
[Landlord 2] headed to his car and noticed that the front door to the flat was wide open with the key still in it. The landlords produced photos [Landlord 2] took at the time showing the door open and the key in the door. [Landlord 2] also produced a text to [Landlord 1] at 9.58am telling her that the movers had just gone leaving the door to the flat wide open. The time of this text coincides with a statement from the moving company that they departed the premises at
58am. [Landlord 2] decided to lock the door and put the key in his pocket to keep the premises secure. He then drove away.
Not long after, [Landlord 2] received a call from his worker that the movers had returned and needed to get back into the flat because they had left something behind. The moving company statement says they returned to the premises at
49am. The landlord explained that he had the key in his pocket but would be home in a few minutes if they waited. He suggested where the worker could find a spare key. He also messaged his wife at 10.54 am to ask about the spare keys. She sent a text to the worker at 10.58am to advise that the master key he had should open the flat. The worker confirmed that he tried to look for a spare key to no avail and then received the text from [Landlord 1] advising that his house key should unlock the flat. When he went back to help the movers they were gone, and he sent a text to [Landlord 1] confirming this shortly after
58am. He also says that he left the door unlocked in case the movers returned. Based on the various text message time stamps, the movers left the premises within approximately 10 minutes after arriving. [Landlord 2] returned home shortly after and was there the rest of the day. He says the movers did not return again.
[Landlord 1]’s father gave evidence at the hearing that he arrived on site at
30am and for the 30 minutes he was there, [Landlord 2] did not enter the flat or have any conversations with the movers. However, he was not present when the movers arrived at 8.36am so cannot say what interactions may have occurred before he arrived.
The worker also provided a statement confirming [Landlord 2]’s version of events when the workers returned at 10.49am although he did not attend the hearing to be questioned. Findings on the conflicting evidence
I find that evidence from the moving company manager is hearsay, of limited value, and unreliable in several respects because he has given conflicting accounts of some aspects. The landlord’s evidence is supported by text messages and photos.
On balance, I am not persuaded that the landlord “grabbed the key” from the door when the movers were at the premises and find the landlord’s version of events is more likely—that the movers left the door open with the key in it by mistake and the landlord locked the door and took the key to secure the premises.
I also find that there is insufficient proof that [Landlord 2] unlawfully entered the premises while the movers were there.
I find that even if [Landlord 2] asked questions of the movers about the tenant and whether she was moving out, that is not a breach of any obligation under the RTA. In the circumstances, the landlords would naturally be wondering what was happening given that the tenant had not communicated with them. I accept that the tenant is not required to advise the landlord of her plans. However, given the proximity of the landlord’s residence to her flat, it was inevitable that they would see the movers and wonder what was going on, given the tenancy was to run for a further 6 weeks or so. Events after key removed
The tenant reported to the Police that the landlord had unlawfully entered her flat and taken her key. She then asked a friend to act as her agent and email the landlords the same day (29 April 2025) to ask why the key was taken and how and when it would be returned. [Landlord 1] replied asking the tenant to call [Landlord 2] and he would explain what had happened. However, the tenant did not call that day or the next.
On 1 May 20205, the landlords were messaged by a neighbour that the doors from the flat out to the balcony were wide open. The landlord sent the tenant and her agent an urgent text and email seeking permission to enter the flat and close the doors as there were severe winds at the time. The tenant asked for proof of the neighbour’s message. The landlord replied with a copy of the message and a photo of the open doors. The tenant replied on 1 May: “By all means, if you want to close them, please do. The property has been in your possession since Tuesday 29 April 2025, when you took the keys and locked me out......It’s your property, now. Over to you.”
The landlord replied by a further email on 1 May stating: “We understand that there has been some miscommunication regarding the situation with your key and access to the property. We want to assure you that we did not lock you out and your key is here...” The landlord went on to explain what happened with the movers driving off leaving the door open with the key in it. The tenant did not respond to this email.
In another email to the tenant and her agent on 2 May 2025, the landlord provided further detail about what happened and explained that he closed the door and kept the key as a courtesy, since it was wide open and visible from the street. He was concerned to secure the premises for the tenant. The landlords offered to return the key to the tenant, her agent, or the movers. The tenant did not reply to this email with any instructions about the key and lodged this claim with the Tribunal the same day. Final discussion and findings
There is insufficient evidence to prove that [Landlord 2] entered the premises unlawfully when the movers were at the property on 29 April 2025. Furthermore, it is likely that he did not enter the premises unlawfully. I also find that the landlord did not lock the tenant out of the premises so as to deprive her of possession of the property on 29 April 2025 and there is no reason why he would do so. The landlords’ text messages and emails to the tenant and the movers after the incident set out reasonable and consistent explanations about what happened and why. I accept that [Landlord 2] taking the key was in good faith and for a sound reason. The landlord also made clear that the key remained available to the tenant. However, she did not provide the landlord with any instructions for returning the key during the remainder of the tenancy.
The claims that the landlord entered the premises unlawfully and locked the tenant out of the premises unlawfully are dismissed.

Are there grounds to reduce the fixed term and terminate the tenancy early?

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy (even retrospectively) where: there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) RTA.
The tenant seeks early termination based on her claims of breach of quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry and the landlord locking her out of the premises. She claims that she felt harassed and intimidated by the events she outlined. Because none of those claims have been proved, it follows that I find is there has not been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. As this first ground for an application under s66 has not been proved, it is unnecessary to consider the other grounds. The claim for early termination is dismissed.
The parties discussed at the hearing that rent was paid up to the termination date on 14 June 2025. The landlord agreed that the bond could be fully refunded to the tenants. The parties also discussed and agreed that the landlords would dispose of food, a TV Stand and any other rubbish still at the property without any cost to the tenant.
Both parties have applied for suppression of their names and identifying details. Section 95A RTA provides that 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.
The landlords have succeeded in defending the proceedings and are therefore entitled to suppression. However, I also grant the tenant suppression on the basis that she has disclosed a medical diagnosis of anxiety and autism. I consider publication of her name would not be in her best interests of her health. However, because she has not succeeded with her claims, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5251279 — Illegal Lockout

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5251279 — Illegal Lockout

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are there grounds to reduce the fixed term and terminate the tenancy early?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are there grounds to reduce the fixed term and terminate the tenancy early?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions