What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309319 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 5309319?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309319?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309319?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12466906-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309319 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 5309319?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309319?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309319?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12466906-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Greenwich Street, Papamoa, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5309319 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The application for exemplary and compensatory damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims exemplary damages for unlawful entry/breach of quiet enjoyment in relation to two separate incidents at the property towards the end of the fixed term.
I am satisfied having considered the evidence that the first incident did not occur as the tenant described on 3 June 2025. The contractor alleged to have attended at the property without notice that morning, has confirmed in writing that they did not fix the door seal on 3 June, they fixed it on 17 June at 9:30 am, with the appointment time having been confirmed with the tenant on 13 June.
The applicant has failed to provide evidence to establish this claim to the civil law standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities.
The tenants second claim is that property managers attended to show prospective tenants through the property earlier than they had agreed on 17 July 2025. The parties had agreed that the viewings would occur at 4:45pm. Two property managers arrived at 4:05 pm as they were in the area. They were expecting to wait for the viewing until 4:45. However, the first prospective tenants arrived early and at 4:17pm the property manager knocked on the door and asked the tenant if they could start the viewings early. He said he agreed to that but advised he was on a work video meeting and asked if they could please be quiet.
Three viewings then occurred with the last one commencing at 4:45 pm.
The tenant says he was working in the lounge, and he could hear the interaction between the property manager and those viewing the property. This disrupted his work meeting, and his employer was annoyed and threatened to withdraw his working from home privilege if this occurred again.
The property manager has apologised for the inconvenience caused but say they would not have entered without the tenant’s consent and stressed that they took care to remain as quiet as possible in line with the tenant’s request that they do so.

What does the law say?

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.
Section 48 sets out a landlord’s right of entry and states that a landlord may enter with notice and or with the consent of the tenant given at or immediately before the time of entry.
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.
I am not satisfied that there has been an intentional breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment or unlawful entry.
The tenant gave his permission for the property viewing to occur slightly more than 20 minutes earlier than the agreed time, that is consent given at the time of entry. I accept that the property managers would have delayed the viewing until the agreed time if the tenant had said no to the earlier time when asked.
They were therefore entitled to consider they had approval, so long as they were quiet.
Having failed to establish either unlawful entry or an intention to breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment or harassment the claim is dismissed.
As noted, the finding would be entirely different if the tenant had not expressly agreed to the earlier start time and the property manager had then proceeded regardless. That would be unlawful entry. Enty with consent is not unlawful.
If the tenant was not happy with the slightly changed earlier viewing time, then quite simply he should have said so when asked.
The property managers have apologised for the inconvenience caused, when they subsequently became aware of the tenant’s displeasure, and I am confident that is the correct remedy. I am also confident they will proceed with the utmost caution if faced with a similar scenario, in future.
Despite the application not being successful, I have granted both parties name suppression request as I do not consider there is a public interest in publishing either parties’ names.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The application for exemplary and compensatory damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims exemplary damages for unlawful entry/breach of quiet enjoyment in relation to two separate incidents at the property towards the end of the fixed term.
I am satisfied having considered the evidence that the first incident did not occur as the tenant described on 3 June 2025. The contractor alleged to have attended at the property without notice that morning, has confirmed in writing that they did not fix the door seal on 3 June, they fixed it on 17 June at 9:30 am, with the appointment time having been confirmed with the tenant on 13 June.
The applicant has failed to provide evidence to establish this claim to the civil law standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities.
The tenants second claim is that property managers attended to show prospective tenants through the property earlier than they had agreed on 17 July 2025. The parties had agreed that the viewings would occur at 4:45pm. Two property managers arrived at 4:05 pm as they were in the area. They were expecting to wait for the viewing until 4:45. However, the first prospective tenants arrived early and at 4:17pm the property manager knocked on the door and asked the tenant if they could start the viewings early. He said he agreed to that but advised he was on a work video meeting and asked if they could please be quiet.
Three viewings then occurred with the last one commencing at 4:45 pm.
The tenant says he was working in the lounge, and he could hear the interaction between the property manager and those viewing the property. This disrupted his work meeting, and his employer was annoyed and threatened to withdraw his working from home privilege if this occurred again.
The property manager has apologised for the inconvenience caused but say they would not have entered without the tenant’s consent and stressed that they took care to remain as quiet as possible in line with the tenant’s request that they do so.

What does the law say?

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.
Section 48 sets out a landlord’s right of entry and states that a landlord may enter with notice and or with the consent of the tenant given at or immediately before the time of entry.
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.
I am not satisfied that there has been an intentional breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment or unlawful entry.
The tenant gave his permission for the property viewing to occur slightly more than 20 minutes earlier than the agreed time, that is consent given at the time of entry. I accept that the property managers would have delayed the viewing until the agreed time if the tenant had said no to the earlier time when asked.
They were therefore entitled to consider they had approval, so long as they were quiet.
Having failed to establish either unlawful entry or an intention to breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment or harassment the claim is dismissed.
As noted, the finding would be entirely different if the tenant had not expressly agreed to the earlier start time and the property manager had then proceeded regardless. That would be unlawful entry. Enty with consent is not unlawful.
If the tenant was not happy with the slightly changed earlier viewing time, then quite simply he should have said so when asked.
The property managers have apologised for the inconvenience caused, when they subsequently became aware of the tenant’s displeasure, and I am confident that is the correct remedy. I am also confident they will proceed with the utmost caution if faced with a similar scenario, in future.
Despite the application not being successful, I have granted both parties name suppression request as I do not consider there is a public interest in publishing either parties’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309319 — Harassment at 17 Greenwich Street, Papamoa, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309319 — Harassment at 17 Greenwich Street, Papamoa, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does the law say?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does the law say?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions