What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5275959 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 5275959?

The reconciled net award was $50.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275959?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12921210-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5275959 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 5275959?

The reconciled net award was $50.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275959?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12921210-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5275959 — Harassment

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5275959 — net $50.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$50.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $50.00 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] appeared for the tenants and [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord.
This tenancy began on 27 April 2022. The current landlord took over management of the premises from May 2024. The property has three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
On 18 November 2024 the tenants requested permission to have flatmates. The tenant proposed renting out two of the three rooms at the premises. This request was declined by the landlord.
The tenancy has since come to an end. On 13 January 2025 the landlord gave notice of termination of the tenancy to the tenants. The notice explained that the owner wished to put the property on the market within 90 days after the termination date of 15 April 2025.
The tenants moved out on 21 February 2025. The landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears ([Order number redacted]). In my order following the hearing, it was determined that the tenants were required to give 21 days notice from 21 February 2025. Therefore, the tenancy was regarded as ending on 14 March 2025. The landlord was awarded the bond of $2,010.00 and the filing fee.
The owner sold the property on 18 June 2025.
The tenants have filed a counterclaim. In their application they claim the bond, unauthorised entry by the landlord, breach of quiet enjoyment, unfair treatment by the landlord during mediation, exemplary damages for the landlord’s unreasonable refusal to allow flatmates, and compensation for a ring doorbell camera, valued at $200.00. The tenants have since withdrawn the claim concerning the landlord’s actions during the mediation. The bond has been paid to the landlord.
The matters to be determined are as follows: • Was the landlord’s refusal to allow flatmates unreasonable? • Was the landlord’s entry to the premises on 21 November 2024 unauthorised and was the tenant’s quiet enjoyment breached? • Should the tenants be compensated $200.00 for the doorbell camera? Refusal to allow flatmates
At the hearing, the tenant explained that he was in financial hardship and was finding it difficult to pay the rent. Hence, he asked permission to have flatmates. He wanted to have two additional people in the house on a long term or short term basis.
The tenant states that when the property was managed by the previous property management company, [Previous property management company], he was allowed to have flatmates. He had flatmates in 2021, 2022 and 2023. The previous property manager said he could have flatmates, provided he did not exceed the maximum of 4 people.
The tenant states that he did not consider the sale of the property to be a valid reason to refuse his request to have flatmates. He also challenges the submission that the owner was selling under duress caused by the tenants. The sale of the property was the owner’s decision, and he ought to have the opportunity to have flatmates. However, he also accepted that he knew the owner was wanting to sell, but felt he could still expect to get a flatmate to contribute to the rent until the end of the 90 day notice period.
The owner of the premises has explained, in a letter dated 3 September 2025, the reasons why she did not wish to give permission for the tenant to have flatmates. She has written about the challenges she had encountered during this tenancy. She states she made every reasonable effort to respond to the tenants’ requests and concerns in a timely and satisfactory way. She found it stressful dealing with the issue over the unauthorised use of the property for short-term Airbnb rentals. When the request for approval for flatmates was made in November 2024, she declined. This was not done arbitrarily, but because she was actively considering selling the property and did not want to complicate the process. She did not believe this was an unreasonable refusal in the circumstances. She then detailed other issues that arose at the end of the tenancy.
The RTA does not specifically address the landlord’s obligations when a tenant requests permission to have flatmates. Section 44 of the RTA concerns assignment and subletting, which is different from having flatmates. Flatmates are not tenants or subtenants; they are additional occupants who do not have tenancy rights. The tenancy agreement does not restrict or prohibit flatmates.
However, the tenancy agreement does specify the maximum number of occupants. Under this tenancy agreement, the maximum is 3 occupants. Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) of the RTA.
The owner has provided detailed reasons, which are acknowledged. The background to this tenancy, including the tenant’s previous breach by advertising on Airbnb, and the owner’s intention to sell the property, are all understandable. These reasons, on their own, may not be sufficient grounds to refuse to allow flatmates.
However, the tenant requested permission to have two flatmates. If two flatmates were added, he would be in breach of the maximum occupation under the tenancy, which only allows for 3 people, since there are 2 tenants already occupying the premises. Therefore, as the tenant’s request would have breached the maximum occupant requirements under the tenancy agreement, and noting the other reasons set out above, I consider that the landlord’s refusal to allow flatmates was not unreasonable. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord’s entry to the premises was unlawful as they were not made aware that additional people would be present. The tenant states the owner, the landlord/property manager and two relatives of the owner were present.
The landlord states the required notice was given, the owner attended with her two relatives, and they were at the premises for 10 to 15 minutes. The owner had not seen the property for a while. The landlord had given 48 hours notice and they attended at the agreed time.
The RTA provides that 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) of the 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case I accept that the landlord notified the tenant about the entry to the premises. However, the tenants ought to have been better informed about the purpose of the visit and who was to be present. Therefore, the tenants are to be compensated, in the amount of $50.00, which is awarded above. I do not find exemplary damages to be warranted, since the required intent is not present.
Section 38(2) states that a landlord 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.
I do not find the tenant has established, with sufficient evidence, that there has been a breach of his quiet enjoyment, since this event was of short duration, he was made aware of the visit, and he was present throughout. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Doorbell camera
The tenants claim $200.00 in compensation for a doorbell camera, stating they installed it on the exterior doorframe in January 2024. When vacating the property, they were unable to remove it. They informed the landlord they were leaving the camera attached, and would attempt to retrieve it. Later, they discovered it was no longer there.
The landlord states the owner was not aware there was a camera installed. They do not know what has happened to it, and it was not the owner’s responsibility to look after it.
In this case, there is uncertainty about what happened to the camera after the tenants left. There is no photographic evidence of the camera, evidence of the price paid, or its likely value. Due to the lack of sufficient evidence in support, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As the tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression, and each has had some success. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5275959 — net $50.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$50.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $50.00 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] appeared for the tenants and [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord.
This tenancy began on 27 April 2022. The current landlord took over management of the premises from May 2024. The property has three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
On 18 November 2024 the tenants requested permission to have flatmates. The tenant proposed renting out two of the three rooms at the premises. This request was declined by the landlord.
The tenancy has since come to an end. On 13 January 2025 the landlord gave notice of termination of the tenancy to the tenants. The notice explained that the owner wished to put the property on the market within 90 days after the termination date of 15 April 2025.
The tenants moved out on 21 February 2025. The landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears ([Order number redacted]). In my order following the hearing, it was determined that the tenants were required to give 21 days notice from 21 February 2025. Therefore, the tenancy was regarded as ending on 14 March 2025. The landlord was awarded the bond of $2,010.00 and the filing fee.
The owner sold the property on 18 June 2025.
The tenants have filed a counterclaim. In their application they claim the bond, unauthorised entry by the landlord, breach of quiet enjoyment, unfair treatment by the landlord during mediation, exemplary damages for the landlord’s unreasonable refusal to allow flatmates, and compensation for a ring doorbell camera, valued at $200.00. The tenants have since withdrawn the claim concerning the landlord’s actions during the mediation. The bond has been paid to the landlord.
The matters to be determined are as follows: • Was the landlord’s refusal to allow flatmates unreasonable? • Was the landlord’s entry to the premises on 21 November 2024 unauthorised and was the tenant’s quiet enjoyment breached? • Should the tenants be compensated $200.00 for the doorbell camera? Refusal to allow flatmates
At the hearing, the tenant explained that he was in financial hardship and was finding it difficult to pay the rent. Hence, he asked permission to have flatmates. He wanted to have two additional people in the house on a long term or short term basis.
The tenant states that when the property was managed by the previous property management company, [Previous property management company], he was allowed to have flatmates. He had flatmates in 2021, 2022 and 2023. The previous property manager said he could have flatmates, provided he did not exceed the maximum of 4 people.
The tenant states that he did not consider the sale of the property to be a valid reason to refuse his request to have flatmates. He also challenges the submission that the owner was selling under duress caused by the tenants. The sale of the property was the owner’s decision, and he ought to have the opportunity to have flatmates. However, he also accepted that he knew the owner was wanting to sell, but felt he could still expect to get a flatmate to contribute to the rent until the end of the 90 day notice period.
The owner of the premises has explained, in a letter dated 3 September 2025, the reasons why she did not wish to give permission for the tenant to have flatmates. She has written about the challenges she had encountered during this tenancy. She states she made every reasonable effort to respond to the tenants’ requests and concerns in a timely and satisfactory way. She found it stressful dealing with the issue over the unauthorised use of the property for short-term Airbnb rentals. When the request for approval for flatmates was made in November 2024, she declined. This was not done arbitrarily, but because she was actively considering selling the property and did not want to complicate the process. She did not believe this was an unreasonable refusal in the circumstances. She then detailed other issues that arose at the end of the tenancy.
The RTA does not specifically address the landlord’s obligations when a tenant requests permission to have flatmates. Section 44 of the RTA concerns assignment and subletting, which is different from having flatmates. Flatmates are not tenants or subtenants; they are additional occupants who do not have tenancy rights. The tenancy agreement does not restrict or prohibit flatmates.
However, the tenancy agreement does specify the maximum number of occupants. Under this tenancy agreement, the maximum is 3 occupants. Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) of the RTA.
The owner has provided detailed reasons, which are acknowledged. The background to this tenancy, including the tenant’s previous breach by advertising on Airbnb, and the owner’s intention to sell the property, are all understandable. These reasons, on their own, may not be sufficient grounds to refuse to allow flatmates.
However, the tenant requested permission to have two flatmates. If two flatmates were added, he would be in breach of the maximum occupation under the tenancy, which only allows for 3 people, since there are 2 tenants already occupying the premises. Therefore, as the tenant’s request would have breached the maximum occupant requirements under the tenancy agreement, and noting the other reasons set out above, I consider that the landlord’s refusal to allow flatmates was not unreasonable. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord’s entry to the premises was unlawful as they were not made aware that additional people would be present. The tenant states the owner, the landlord/property manager and two relatives of the owner were present.
The landlord states the required notice was given, the owner attended with her two relatives, and they were at the premises for 10 to 15 minutes. The owner had not seen the property for a while. The landlord had given 48 hours notice and they attended at the agreed time.
The RTA provides that 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) of the 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case I accept that the landlord notified the tenant about the entry to the premises. However, the tenants ought to have been better informed about the purpose of the visit and who was to be present. Therefore, the tenants are to be compensated, in the amount of $50.00, which is awarded above. I do not find exemplary damages to be warranted, since the required intent is not present.
Section 38(2) states that a landlord 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.
I do not find the tenant has established, with sufficient evidence, that there has been a breach of his quiet enjoyment, since this event was of short duration, he was made aware of the visit, and he was present throughout. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Doorbell camera
The tenants claim $200.00 in compensation for a doorbell camera, stating they installed it on the exterior doorframe in January 2024. When vacating the property, they were unable to remove it. They informed the landlord they were leaving the camera attached, and would attempt to retrieve it. Later, they discovered it was no longer there.
The landlord states the owner was not aware there was a camera installed. They do not know what has happened to it, and it was not the owner’s responsibility to look after it.
In this case, there is uncertainty about what happened to the camera after the tenants left. There is no photographic evidence of the camera, evidence of the price paid, or its likely value. Due to the lack of sufficient evidence in support, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As the tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression, and each has had some success. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275959 — Harassment

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275959 — Harassment

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions