What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277467 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 5277467?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277467?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277467?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12472664-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277467 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 5277467?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277467?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277467?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12472664-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277467 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277467 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
ndlordTenant Compensation for loss of amenity due to lack of access to the deck and carports between 10 October 2024 and	$750.00	ndlordTenant Compensation for loss of amenity due to lack of access to the deck and carports between 10 October 2024 and
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$777.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Karen Waters and Graham Waters must pay [The tenant/s] $777.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The landlords must provide explicit written notice of entry in compliance with section 48 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and limit entry to the times specified.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held on 26 August 2025.
This matter relates to a tenancy which commenced on 25 March 2010. Rent is $800 per week, with a bond of $1,470 lodged. [The tenant/s] (“the tenant”), has brought a claim against Mr and Mrs Waters (“the landlords”), seeking compensation of $1,600 for loss of enjoyment and use of the deck area over a prolonged period due to maintenance delays, and also seeks exemplary damages for the landlords’ alleged pattern of failing to give proper notice for access, harassment, and inappropriate conduct.
The issues stem from deck repair works initiated by the landlord on 10 October 2024 and said to be completed only by 26 January 2025. During this period, the tenant alleges they were unable to use the deck—a key living space within the premises—and were also deprived of access to private carports. In addition, the tenant complains of frequent, unnotified access by the landlord and his tradespeople, as well as repeated failures by the landlord to properly communicate access requirements over the years. Tenant’s Position
The tenant provided a detailed timeline of events, photographs of the deck during repair, and correspondence including 14-day notices. The tenant argued that the deck formed a central part of their daily living, being the only outdoor space accessible directly from the lounge and bedroom. The area was used for meals, socialising, plant care, and as a resting spot for the household pet.
The tenant claimed that after one day of repair work, communication from the landlord ceased, and scaffolding was left in place. Carports were used as work zones, requiring the tenant to park on the street. Over the period from October 2024 to late January 2025, the tenant said the premises were effectively treated like an open worksite. There were workers present without proper notice, the landlord used the facilities at will, and the tenant was left with uncertainty over who would be present on any given day. The tenant described a loss of quiet enjoyment, especially over the summer holiday period.
The tenant also alleged a longstanding pattern of inappropriate behaviour and communication by the landlord throughout the tenancy. He referred to numerous occasions when the landlord arrived outside agreed times or failed to provide notice at all. The tenant described the landlord’s behaviour as dismissive, aggressive, and intimidating. He stated that these experiences made him anxious and reluctant to raise maintenance issues, for fear of confrontation. He produced video footage and text communications to support his position. Landlords’ Position
The landlords accepted that the deck needed repairs and that initial work commenced on 10 October 2024. They acknowledged some delays due to illness and later issues sourcing correct materials. They said that by 6 December 2024, substantial work had been completed, although final boarding and painting were postponed to align with other plumbing repairs identified in early December.
The landlords produced photographs of the deck area and argued that the tenant had alternative outdoor access to a shared courtyard. They denied that the period of works significantly impaired the tenant’s use of the property or justified compensation. They believed the tenant’s claims were exaggerated.
Regarding access, the landlords said they always tried to work with the tenant and claimed that tradespeople sometimes gave short notice, which made advance planning difficult. They believed they had given sufficient notice and said the tenant was often uncooperative. They denied entering without permission and rejected any suggestion of harassment or intimidation. Relevant Law
Section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires a landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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) 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.
Section 48 outlines the notice requirements for access, including a minimum of 24 hours’ notice for repairs or maintenance. Entry without consent or proper notice is a breach. Section 48(4) specifically states that if a landlord enters the premises other than as permitted by section 48, the landlord commits an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,5000.00.
Schedule 1A of the RTA sets out the maximum exemplary damages that can be awarded for unlawful acts. To award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must be satisfied (per section 109(3) RTA) that: a. The landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally (not just by mistake or negligence). b. The Tribunal must consider: The intent of the landlord. The effect of the unlawful act. The interests of the tenant. The public interest. Whether it is just to make the award.
Section 77(2)(n) allows compensation orders. Analysis
The Tribunal accepts that the deck formed a significant part of the tenant’s living space and was unavailable for normal use for over three months. The landlord’s own evidence confirms delays in completing the work, which were neither adequately communicated nor managed to minimise disruption. The deck remained unusable until at least late January 2025.
The deck was a central living space, used daily for dining, pets, and social activities. The absence of access deprived the tenant of full use of the premises.
The Tribunal also accepts the tenant’s evidence that the carports were used for work storage and that workers had frequent access to the house. The disruption over the summer period was significant.
The tenant’s claim for $1,600 is based on $100 per week for 16 weeks. Having regard to the loss of amenity and inconvenience, I find compensation of $750.00 (at $50 per week for 15 weeks) is fair and proportionate, balancing both parties’ positions.
As to unlawful entry and communication, the tenant has produced evidence of multiple occasions where the landlord accessed the premises or arranged contractors without appropriate notice, as well as inappropriate behaviour undermining the tenant’s peace and comfort. I accept this evidence and find breaches of section 48 and section 38 established. However, exemplary damages are awarded only where conduct is deliberate and serious. While I accept the tenant’s evidence of poor communication and some unlawful access, I do not find the conduct rises to the threshold of warranting exemplary damages.
The repeated communication failures, however, justify a clear order under section 78 requiring the landlord to provide explicit written notice for any future access and to restrict access to the times notified. This is necessary to ensure the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and reduce further conflict.
As the tenant has been substantially successful in his claims, I order the landlords to reimburse the filing fee and grant suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details. The landlord has not been successful in defending the key claims and there are no grounds to justify discretionary suppression. See sections 102(4) and 95A of the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277467 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
ndlordTenant Compensation for loss of amenity due to lack of access to the deck and carports between 10 October 2024 and	$750.00	ndlordTenant Compensation for loss of amenity due to lack of access to the deck and carports between 10 October 2024 and
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$777.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Karen Waters and Graham Waters must pay [The tenant/s] $777.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The landlords must provide explicit written notice of entry in compliance with section 48 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and limit entry to the times specified.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held on 26 August 2025.
This matter relates to a tenancy which commenced on 25 March 2010. Rent is $800 per week, with a bond of $1,470 lodged. [The tenant/s] (“the tenant”), has brought a claim against Mr and Mrs Waters (“the landlords”), seeking compensation of $1,600 for loss of enjoyment and use of the deck area over a prolonged period due to maintenance delays, and also seeks exemplary damages for the landlords’ alleged pattern of failing to give proper notice for access, harassment, and inappropriate conduct.
The issues stem from deck repair works initiated by the landlord on 10 October 2024 and said to be completed only by 26 January 2025. During this period, the tenant alleges they were unable to use the deck—a key living space within the premises—and were also deprived of access to private carports. In addition, the tenant complains of frequent, unnotified access by the landlord and his tradespeople, as well as repeated failures by the landlord to properly communicate access requirements over the years. Tenant’s Position
The tenant provided a detailed timeline of events, photographs of the deck during repair, and correspondence including 14-day notices. The tenant argued that the deck formed a central part of their daily living, being the only outdoor space accessible directly from the lounge and bedroom. The area was used for meals, socialising, plant care, and as a resting spot for the household pet.
The tenant claimed that after one day of repair work, communication from the landlord ceased, and scaffolding was left in place. Carports were used as work zones, requiring the tenant to park on the street. Over the period from October 2024 to late January 2025, the tenant said the premises were effectively treated like an open worksite. There were workers present without proper notice, the landlord used the facilities at will, and the tenant was left with uncertainty over who would be present on any given day. The tenant described a loss of quiet enjoyment, especially over the summer holiday period.
The tenant also alleged a longstanding pattern of inappropriate behaviour and communication by the landlord throughout the tenancy. He referred to numerous occasions when the landlord arrived outside agreed times or failed to provide notice at all. The tenant described the landlord’s behaviour as dismissive, aggressive, and intimidating. He stated that these experiences made him anxious and reluctant to raise maintenance issues, for fear of confrontation. He produced video footage and text communications to support his position. Landlords’ Position
The landlords accepted that the deck needed repairs and that initial work commenced on 10 October 2024. They acknowledged some delays due to illness and later issues sourcing correct materials. They said that by 6 December 2024, substantial work had been completed, although final boarding and painting were postponed to align with other plumbing repairs identified in early December.
The landlords produced photographs of the deck area and argued that the tenant had alternative outdoor access to a shared courtyard. They denied that the period of works significantly impaired the tenant’s use of the property or justified compensation. They believed the tenant’s claims were exaggerated.
Regarding access, the landlords said they always tried to work with the tenant and claimed that tradespeople sometimes gave short notice, which made advance planning difficult. They believed they had given sufficient notice and said the tenant was often uncooperative. They denied entering without permission and rejected any suggestion of harassment or intimidation. Relevant Law
Section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires a landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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) 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.
Section 48 outlines the notice requirements for access, including a minimum of 24 hours’ notice for repairs or maintenance. Entry without consent or proper notice is a breach. Section 48(4) specifically states that if a landlord enters the premises other than as permitted by section 48, the landlord commits an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,5000.00.
Schedule 1A of the RTA sets out the maximum exemplary damages that can be awarded for unlawful acts. To award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must be satisfied (per section 109(3) RTA) that: a. The landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally (not just by mistake or negligence). b. The Tribunal must consider: The intent of the landlord. The effect of the unlawful act. The interests of the tenant. The public interest. Whether it is just to make the award.
Section 77(2)(n) allows compensation orders. Analysis
The Tribunal accepts that the deck formed a significant part of the tenant’s living space and was unavailable for normal use for over three months. The landlord’s own evidence confirms delays in completing the work, which were neither adequately communicated nor managed to minimise disruption. The deck remained unusable until at least late January 2025.
The deck was a central living space, used daily for dining, pets, and social activities. The absence of access deprived the tenant of full use of the premises.
The Tribunal also accepts the tenant’s evidence that the carports were used for work storage and that workers had frequent access to the house. The disruption over the summer period was significant.
The tenant’s claim for $1,600 is based on $100 per week for 16 weeks. Having regard to the loss of amenity and inconvenience, I find compensation of $750.00 (at $50 per week for 15 weeks) is fair and proportionate, balancing both parties’ positions.
As to unlawful entry and communication, the tenant has produced evidence of multiple occasions where the landlord accessed the premises or arranged contractors without appropriate notice, as well as inappropriate behaviour undermining the tenant’s peace and comfort. I accept this evidence and find breaches of section 48 and section 38 established. However, exemplary damages are awarded only where conduct is deliberate and serious. While I accept the tenant’s evidence of poor communication and some unlawful access, I do not find the conduct rises to the threshold of warranting exemplary damages.
The repeated communication failures, however, justify a clear order under section 78 requiring the landlord to provide explicit written notice for any future access and to restrict access to the times notified. This is necessary to ensure the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and reduce further conflict.
As the tenant has been substantially successful in his claims, I order the landlords to reimburse the filing fee and grant suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details. The landlord has not been successful in defending the key claims and there are no grounds to justify discretionary suppression. See sections 102(4) and 95A of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277467 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277467 — 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