What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5263626 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 5263626?

Compensation: $47.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5263626?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5263626?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12375662-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5263626 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 5263626?

Compensation: $47.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5263626?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5263626?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12375662-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5263626 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5263626 — net $47.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment	$47.50	Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment
Net award	$47.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$47.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5263626 — net $47.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment	$47.50	Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment
Net award	$47.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$47.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $47.50 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant claimed compensation on the grounds that the Landlord disturbed her peace and quiet during the tenancy, and misrepresented the weekly rent prior to commencement. The Tenant also sought exemplary damages for the Landlord’s alleged breach of her right to quiet enjoyment under the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy began on 14 February 2025 and ended on 25 April 2025. The Landlord lived next door to the property. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The Tenant claimed that the Landlord repeatedly attended the property, and contacted her via phone calls and text messages, to undertake non-urgent maintenance tasks and remove the spa pool. Prior to moving in on 17 February 2025, the Landlord advised the Tenant at the time of signing the tenancy agreement that there were a few outstanding matters to be attended to, including testing the spa and weeding the garden. The Tenant agreed to this at the time.
The Tenant claimed the Landlord attended the property on the following occasions: •17 February 2025 – The Landlord attended to test obtain sample spa water. She remained at the property for approximately 30 minutes. •18 February 2025 – With the Tenant’s permission, the Landlord returned to empty the spa and an electrician attended which took approximately 30 minutes. •19 February 2025 – The Landlord returned to collect another water spa sample and the visit was also agreed to by the Tenant. The Tenant was not home. •20 February 2025 – The Landlord attended to add chemicals to the spa, with the Tenant’s consent. •21 February 2025 – The Landlord painted a window ledge and weeded the garden again with the Tenant’s consent. The Tenant was working from home at the time. •24 February 2025 – The Landlord attended to meet a contractor to clean the roof. The Tenant provided access to the house but was not present. •25 February 2025 – The Landlord returned the next day to meet the roofing contractor, repaint the window and measure the spa lid. The Tenant agreed and no access inside the house was required. •9 April 2025 – The Landlord attended without notice to issue a breach notice after becoming aware that a dog was residing at the property. •14 April 2025- A real estate agent attended to conduct an appraisal and the Landlord attended to remove a curtain. The Tenant agreed and was at work. •16 April 2025 – A roof inspector attended to check a leak outside and undertake maintenance which the Tenant did not consent to. She eventually allowed access. •24 April 2025 – An electrician attended to disconnect the spa power. The Tenant refused to allow entry after the landlord gave 24 hour’s notice. The Tenant initially refused entry due to frustration but later allowed access after speaking with the Landlord.
The Tenant argued that the Landlord’s visits were excessive and could have been consolidated. She stated that the Landlord was overbearing, and that she only consented to the repeated attendances due to uncertainty about her legal rights. She described the frequency of the visits as intrusive. In support of that claim, the Tenant provided the following evidence - text messages and emails between the parties, statements from the electrician and Property Managers.
The Landlord accepted that she attended the property on the dates mentioned. She stated that several of the visits were for essential maintenance, including addressing the roof leak, removing the spa and painting the window sill etc. She also noted that the Tenant had granted consent for each attendance except the electrician. The Landlord explained that she was emotionally invested, well- meaning and wished to keep the property well maintained. She would always ask the Tenant for a convenient time and the text communication was very amicable. She had no idea that the Tenant was finding the visits inconvenient. She further stated that her visit on 9 April 2025 was prompted by concerns regarding the presence of a dog, and potential damage to the property. The visit on the week of 13 April 2025 was not five visits but one visit on 13 April 2025 for the arborist and one on the 14 April 2025 for the real estate. The spa had to be removed. She even offered $50.00 compensation to the Tenant. The Law
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the tenant shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption from the landlord. Section 38(2) of the Act states that the landlord shall not cause any interference with the reasonable peace comfort or privacy of the tenant.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord did breach the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises in February 2025. Although each individual visit was relatively brief, the frequency of the attendances—occurring almost daily during the initial period of the tenancy—was excessive and could reasonably have been consolidated. For instance, the Landlord could have arranged to complete the necessary tasks over one or two visits during the first week, thereby minimising disruption to the Tenant.
I do not find that the Landlord’s subsequent visits in April 2025, including those by her real estate agents, constituted a breach of quiet enjoyment. These visits were related to the impending sale of the property and appear to have been carried out with appropriate notice. There was no evidence before the Tribunal to support the claim that the Landlord’s electrician was unreasonably restricted in availability or that the visit to disconnect the spa could not have been scheduled more appropriately.
In light of the above, I consider that an award of compensation equivalent to 5% of the rent paid for the period 17 to 24 February 2025 is appropriate. No compensation is awarded for the April 2025 attendances.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Tenant also sought compensation on the basis that the Landlord initially represented the weekly rent as $895.00 during tenancy negotiations. However, on the day she moved into the property, she was charged $950.00 per week. The Tenant claimed reimbursement of the $55.00 difference over a period of eight weeks.
The Landlord submitted that the Tenant signed a tenancy agreement which clearly set the weekly rent at $950.00. She stated that the property was originally advertised at $995.00 per week, and that she advised the Tenant the rent would be $950.00 if the Tenant wished to keep a cat at the premises.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the Tenant’s execution of the tenancy agreement at a rent of $950.00 per week constitutes acceptance of that rental amount. The Tenant had an opportunity to raise any concerns or decline to proceed at that stage but chose not to do so.
The claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The Tenant also sought exemplary damages, alleging that the Landlord breached her right to quiet enjoyment through multiple and repeated attendances at the property, some of which she claimed were unlawful entries. She submitted that the Landlord's conduct caused her emotional distress and made her feel as though she was being monitored. The Tenant stated that she only consented to the Landlord’s visits due to a perceived power imbalance and a lack of understanding of her rights. She described the ongoing disruptions during work hours as particularly stressful, given her role as a contracts department manager, and said they negatively impacted her ability to perform her job. As a result of the situation, she chose to vacate the property early and has since moved in with a friend. She stated this arrangement is far from ideal, as the household includes four children and several animals. The Tenant provided a summary of relocation costs incurred due to her decision to leave the tenancy.
In response, the Landlord submitted that her visits were for essential maintenance, including attending to the spa after it had been overfilled by the Tenant, and cleaning moss from roof coverings. She also noted that the property was being prepared for sale, and the real estate agents had advised that the spa should be removed as it was in a state of disrepair and detracted from the presentation of the home. The Landlord referred to letters from previous tenants, which she submitted as character references, describing her as kind and understanding in her dealings. The law
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.
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.
The Tenant stated the Landlord repeatedly attended the property for non-urgent maintenance. I find they have committed an unlawful act in February 2025.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Landlord submitted that they never intended to breach the Tenants quiet enjoyment. They always asked the Tenant when a convenient time was to attend the property and the intention was to ensure the property was well maintained.
The Tenant submitted the impact of the breach was that she was distressed and not her usual self.
In considering, the evidence, the Tenant has not proven that the Landlord intended to breach the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The Landlord breaching was motivated by her desire to ensure the property was well-maintained or to ensure the property was ready to sell.
For this reason the claim is dismissed.
Section 95(A)(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states “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”.
As the Tenant has not been substantially successful, name suppression is declined to the Tenant.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5263626 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5263626 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions