What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277739 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 5277739?

Compensation: $1,350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277739?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12573986-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277739 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 5277739?

Compensation: $1,350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277739?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12573986-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277739 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277739 — net $1,377.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,350.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,377.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,377.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 15/11/2019, and subsequently rolled over to a periodic tenancy at now $450.00 per week.

The tenant seeks compensation of $25,000.00 due to the harm caused to her by the stress and insecurity involved with the sale of the premises and repair work.

In addition, the tenant wants exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment, failure to advise the property was for sale or sold, rooms contaminated with fumes, unlawful entry, two inspections within two weeks, and no availability of a shower for 24 hours.

The unit rented by the tenant is the back unit of a block of three.

Settlement of the sale and purchase of the premises took place on 22/5/2025.

The landlord was advised by the new owner on 16/5/2025 that they would retain management of the premises. Standard of proof

This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the tenant must establish, with evidence, that her claim is more likely than not. If she fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.

Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.

Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed her by interfering with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy with having to allow viewings, especially at short notice, and dealing with the real estate agent.

In particular the tenant was concerned that the real estate agent had taken photographs of personal possessions which could identify her and had posted these online against her wishes.

The tenant confirmed that the relevant photographs were removed the same day after she contacted the real estate agent.

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.

I am persuaded that the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in her use of the premises was interfered with by the actions of the real estate agent in asking for short notice viewings and posting online photographs of private possessions.

However, I do not consider this interference amounted to harassment and I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Unfortunately, when a property is on the market for sale some disruption is to be expected in daily routines to accommodate viewings by prospective purchasers.

It is incumbent on landlords and real estate agents to ensure the process for tenants is as unobtrusive as possible and in particular that privacy issues with photographing tenants’ possessions do not occur.

Has the landlord breached their obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to tell her what maintenance was required at the premises and when it was taking place.

The tenant submitted that on 26/5 she received advice from the landlord that a tradesperson from Woodfort Construction would be carrying out maintenance at the premises but not what the maintenance was for.

The following day a further email from the landlord set out the work the tradesperson was to undertake. This included resealing the bath vanity and bathroom floor, painting window trims, repairing sagging ceiling tiles, adjusting and draught stopping the front door, electrical work and surveying the roof and repairing any damaged fittings.

In response the landlord submitted that the tradesperson had contacted them on 26/5 on behalf of the new owner to carry out some maintenance.

At that point in time the landlord submitted they were unaware the tradesperson had access to keys for the property.

Internal painting work had not been completed at the time of the hearing due to the dispute between the parties.

Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

The evidence supports that when the landlord gave the tenant notice about the tradesperson, they were unaware of what maintenance was required.

However, I consider it may have been prudent for the landlord to make further enquiries about what was needed rather than just advising the tenant that the tradesperson would be in touch.

Did the landlord fail to notify the tenant the premises were for sale?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations because they failed to advise her the property was for sale and when it had been sold.

The tenant suggested that when she received the email from the landlord dated 14/2/2025 asking for a property investor to view the premises she was unaware that the property was for sale.

Further the tenant was unhappy that when the viewings occurred it was a real estate agent and not the landlord who showed “multiple groups of several people through my home without my knowledge or consent”.

The tenant believed this breached her rights and was a risk to her safety due to her employment.

In response, the landlord submitted that when the email was sent to the tenant the owner had not confirmed whether the property was for sale but was just weighing up her options.

The landlord confirmed that they had given the tenant notice under section 48(2)&(3) for an agent to view for the purposes of an appraisal.

Further the landlord suggested it was not until 22/2/2025 that the owner confirmed the property was being listed for sale and who the real estate agent was. This information was advised to the tenant two days later.

Under section 47, a landlord must give written notice to the tenants, as soon as practicable if the premises are placed on the market. A landlord must also advise any prospective tenants if the house is on the market.

Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 See section 47(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I am persuaded by the evidence that when the landlord gave notice for the viewing on 14/2 that the premises had not been put on the market because they had not received confirmation from the owner the property was for sale.

While it is understandable the tenant may have had concerns about the property being sold and asked how she could end her tenancy, I find the landlord did not commit an unlawful act when they gave notice of the appraisal.

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord’s agent entered the premises without consent on 27/5/2025.

There is no dispute that the tradesperson from Woodfort Contracting used a key to enter the premises on 27/5/2025 after being refused access the night before because the tenant was ill.

In addition, the tenant was unhappy about the landlord arranging two inspections within two weeks in breach of section 48(2)(b).

The landlord submitted that after the entry breach they advised the tradesperson entry using the key without the consent of the tenant was not acceptable and he could only return at times agreed to with the tenant.

Any work undertaken by the tradesperson on 27/5 the landlord suggested was outside the other two units.

Further the landlord submitted that the new owner and NZ Property Buyers had arranged the tradesperson, without their knowledge.

The landlord submitted that the pre-purchase inspection carried out on 19/5 was arranged by the real estate agent.

While a routine inspection was originally arranged for 3/6 the landlord submitted due to staff sickness this was postponed until 12/6.

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. Entry cannot be more frequently than once in any period of 4 weeks. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching these obligations 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.

I am persuaded by the evidence that the tradesperson was acting as an agent of the landlord when he unlawfully entered the premises on 27/5.

Although the landlord did not instruct the tradesperson to do the work, they were aware he was undertaking maintenance at the behest of the owner and told the tenant the tradesperson would contact her.

There is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to make the tradesperson aware of his obligations regarding access, but rather simply left the tradesperson to directly contact the tenant.

I find the landlord committed an unlawful act when the tradesperson entered the premises.

However, I consider the entries into the premises on 12/6 for the postponed routine inspection and 19/6 for the pre-purchase inspection were undertaken with the consent of the tenant after the required notice and do not amount to a breach of section 48(2)(b).

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed an unlawful act I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.

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.

Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).

An award of exemplary damages is made at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved, as in this case, that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.

In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3), the first of which is intent.

The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do, (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00 DC Auckland, 1/5/2001)

For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.

I consider the evidence supports that the tradesperson intentionally entered the premises on 27/5, using a key obtained from the real estate agent, without the consent of the tenant.

However, having considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect of the unlawful act on the tenant, the immediate apologetic response from the landlord and the mitigating fact that the landlord did not provide the tradesperson with a key, I consider it would not be just to award any exemplary damages.

Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.

However, I consider it is reasonable to award compensation because the landlord’s actions have caused the tenant stress, emotional harm and safety concerns due to their “hands off” attitude to management of the tenancy, particularly during the sale process.

As mitigating factors, I have taken into account the landlord’s offer of compensation for lack of use of the shower during sealing in the bathroom, involvement of the real estate agent and New Zealand Property Buyers, the last mentioned of whom arranged via emails of 23/5 for the tradesperson to pick up the key from the real estate agent without the knowledge or consent of the landlord.

I have set the compensation award at the equivalent of three weeks rent, being $1,350.00.

As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.

Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A(1) because she largely succeeded with the proceedings.

I have also granted suppression to the landlord pursuant to section 95A(4) to protect the privacy of the tenant because the tenancy is ongoing.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277739 — net $1,377.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,350.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,377.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,377.00