What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310939 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 5310939?

Compensation: $1,096.58 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310939?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12849733-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310939 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 5310939?

Compensation: $1,096.58 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310939?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12849733-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310939 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310939 — net $1,096.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,096.58	Compensation
Net award	$1,096.58
Bond	$2,220.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,096.58

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310939 — net $1,096.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,096.58	Compensation
Net award	$1,096.58
Bond	$2,220.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,096.58

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,220.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately. 3.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, with [the landlord/s supporter] attending in support of the landlord.
This tenancy began on 23 November 2018. It was initially for a one-year fixed term. The tenancy has continued beyond this date.
The parties agree that [the third party] is no longer a tenant of the premises
There are two applications to be determined. The tenant’s application, number 5310939, involves the following claims: a. The landlord’s notice to end the tenancy was invalid, as the tenancy was for a 12 month fixed term. b. The bond claimed by the landlord was incorrect. c. Compensation of $1,609.16 for materials purchased when carrying out work on the premises. d. Breach of quiet enjoyment/privacy and concerns regarding the landlord’s entry to the property.
The landlord has filed a counterclaim, application number 5317139, as follows: a. Termination and possession of the premises following a notice to end the tenancy b. Tenant’s breach regarding the number of people occupying the premises c. The tenant made changes to the premises without approval or consent.
The landlord also claimed rent arrears and water charges. At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that rent was no longer being sought as it had been paid by the tenant. The landlord also confirmed that the water charges had been resolved.
The landlord further claimed that the tenant had unreasonably refused to give access to the premises.
The landlord has withdrawn the claim for compensation for damage arising from work done by the tenant at the premises.
The Tribunal issued an order on the issue of whether there is a fixed term tenancy from 8 March 2025 to 7 March 2026, or whether the tenancy became periodic from 8 March 2025. It was determined that the tenancy became a periodic tenancy at the end of the fixed term. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to give notice ending the tenancy following the required 90 days. The tenancy ended on 19 November 2025.
The landlord has since advised that he has authorised the refund of the bond in full to the tenant. In the event the bond has not been paid, it is to be paid to the tenant, as recorded in my order above.
The balance of the claims are considered below. General principles
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. 1 Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. Tenant’s application: 5310939 The amount of the bond
The tenant claims the landlord has asked him to pay an additional $300.00 to top up the bond. He believes this request is not valid. He states the rent was increased by $40.00 this year, and he originally paid a bond equal to 3 weeks rent. Based on this, the correct bond top up should be $120.00 and not $300.00. He has provided a copy of the e-mail from the landlord seeking a top up of the bond.
In response, the landlord explained that the tenant paid 3 weeks rent as a bond, based on a weekly rent of $740.00. This made a total of $2,220.00. The current rent is $840.00 a week and therefore, the bond ought to be $2,520.00. The difference is $300.00. Both parties agree that the current bond held at the Bond Centre is $2,220.00.
The bond is money paid under a tenancy agreement as security for the performance of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement and the 1 See Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 RTA. 2 Under section 18 of the RTA, a landlord should not require payment of a bond of more than four weeks rent. Section 18(2) states that, on the lawful increase of the rent, the landlord “may require payment by way of bond of a further sum not exceeding the amount by which the rent payable for four weeks has been increased.” This provision allows a landlord to seek an increase to the amount of the bond, up to the bond equivalent of four weeks rent.
In this case, the tenant was paying the equivalent of 3 weeks rent as the bond. The landlord was entitled to seek a top up to the bond. The maximum level of the bond is 4 weeks rent. Under this tenancy, as the bond paid by the tenant does not exceed 4 weeks rent, and as the amount sought by the landlord has not exceeded the statutory maximum, I find the landlord has not been in breach of any obligations concerning the level of the bond. In any event, the bond held at the Bond Centre was $2,220.00, which is less than the equivalent of 3 weeks rent paid by the tenant. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Compensation for materials purchased
The tenant seeks reimbursement for expenses incurred when he undertook work at the premises, including removal of wallpaper and painting. His evidence is that in January 2024, he met the landlord at his home and discussed the poor condition of the property, noting the wallpaper was old, worn and peeling off. He states that during the meeting, they came to a mutual agreement that he would remove the wallpaper and repaint parts of the property to improve its condition. The landlord gave full approval and told him that he would pay the cost incurred. He agreed to undertake this work, without claiming the cost of his labour, and only requested reimbursement for materials and expenses.
The tenant has provided evidence of his communication with the landlord, including a text on 15 April 2024. He notes the landlord visited the property twice during the process and never raised any concerns. He then sought payment via e-mail on 15 April 2025, seeking $1,609.06 for the materials and reimbursement within two weeks. The landlord did not respond within the timeframe and replied he would not pay and denied the existence of the agreement. The tenant provided photographs of the work he undertook. He says he started the work on 10 April 2024 and finished in October 2024. He states the issue only arose on 16 June 2025, when the landlord visited the property with his wife, who stated she did not like the paint colour. After this visit, the landlord changed his stance.
In response, the landlord states he agrees that he did talk about the property with the tenant and acknowledged that the wallpaper was peeling. The tenant had mentioned that his parents were coming. The discussion in January 2024 2 Section 2(1) definition of “bond” indicated that some painting was involved. He says he had not approved ripping out the wallpaper. He denied that the emoji in the text was his approval. He notes the walls were painted in a dark colour and not where the wallpaper was peeling off.
The landlord states that there had been no communication on the paint colours. Whenever he had gone to the property and asked to see the bedrooms, access was denied. He only saw the property in May 2024 and the next property inspection was in June 2025. In between, he may have been at the property, but did not go upstairs. He had wanted the wallpaper to remain in place. He does not deny that the work was done.
In reply, the tenant states that he had started this work in good faith, and he accepts that he should have emailed the costs sooner. However, the landlord was kept informed and he continued with the work. It took some time to locate all the invoices.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties I find that the parties did agree that the tenant was to undertake work at the premises and was to be reimbursed for expenses incurred. However, there was a lack of communication by the tenant as to the expenses he was incurring and he delayed providing evidence of the costs incurred. The landlord ought to have been provided with the invoices at the time they were incurred. Furthermore, some of the costs are not supported by invoices, although the tenant has provided evidence of the date and amount of payment. The parties also disagree on the extent of the work the tenant was to undertake.
Understandably, the landlord is concerned about the delay in receiving the invoices and the ability to verify expenses, particularly since much of the expenses were incurred 12 months before the invoices were provided. This meant the landlord was not given the opportunity to review or dispute the expenses at the time they were incurred.
Taking those factors into account, I decline to award costs where there are no invoices. Therefore, compensation for the payments made on 25 March 2024 ($134.99), 24 April 2024 ($99.45), and 17 October 2024 ($156.19) are declined.
For the balance, where there are invoices, the tenant has explained that, for the Bunnings invoice dated 25 March 2024 for $236.44, the amount of $21.98 is to be deducted, making the amount due for that invoice to be $214.46. The other invoices are dated 26 March 2024 ($528.14), 5 April 2024 ($444.29), and 26 March 2024 ($31.54). Therefore, the total amount for the expenses supported by invoices is $1,218.43.
On balance, I find the tenant is entitled to reimbursement of the majority of the expenses incurred that are supported by invoices, as he was authorised to undertake work at the premises. However, given the delay in seeking reimbursement, the resulting difficulty for the landlord in verifying the full amount, and the lack of agreement regarding the extent of the work, I consider it reasonable to award 90% of this amount. Therefore, from the total of $1,218.43 ($1,218.43 x 90%) the amount payable by the landlord to the tenant is $1,096.58, which is awarded above. Breach of quiet enjoyment and landlord’s entry to the premises
The tenant claims there has been a beach of his quiet enjoyment arising from three main incidents. He states the first occurred during an inspection, when the landlord and his wife walked through the entire house, including bedrooms and bathrooms. The landlord was wearing shoes in the rooms and bathrooms, which they found to be disrespectful. Other household members were concerned about his manner. On the second visit, the landlord had locked the door with the chain on the inside and they were uncomfortable about this. On the third occasion, there were issues with the shower hose being placed at the bottom of the shower, the landlord taking a photo and emailing it to them, claiming they were not maintaining the property. They also objected to being asked personal questions about the other occupants residing at the premises.
In response, the landlord states that whenever he has visited the property, he only does so with the approval of the tenant, and he always gets their permission. He had never entered without notice. In reference to him wearing shoes inside the property, he says he was wearing new shoes, and he had asked permission, which he believed he had been given. In terms of the shower, the landlord states the plumber was there to fix the shower rail and he had only asked if there were any issues with the shower.
Section 38(1) of the RTA states that the tenant is entitled to have “quiet enjoyment” of the premises without interruption by the landlord or anyone acting on the landlord’s behalf. This provision imposes a limited duty on the landlord not to do anything to interrupt the tenant’s use of the premises. 3 Section 38(2) of the RTA further provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment. In this context “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 4 This right is commonly used in reference to the uninterrupted use of the premises, and can include the right not to have the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents.
Where this obligation has been breached in circumstances that amount to harassment, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be 3 ‘Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice’ 4 th edition, D. Grinlinton (2012) 4 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018) awarded, 5 up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 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." 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. See section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA.
Overall, having considered the evidence and submissions, I do not find the tenant as established that the landlord has breached his quiet enjoyment. The landlord is permitted to carry out inspections of the premises provided the required permission is obtained. In this case, the landlord had the necessary permission to be in the premises. The landlord has also provided reasonable explanations for the incidents that occurred.
Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord. Balanced against that, however, landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them, on a personal level. While noting some of these events were initially denied by the landlord, and acknowledging that the tenant felt upset, I do not find the landlord’s overall conduct has reached a level where the tenant’s rights have been breached.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Landlord’s application: 5317139 Number of residents in the premises
The landlord claims the tenant has exceeded the maximum allowed under the tenancy agreement. He states that under the agreement, the maximum number of residents allowed is 4, however there were more residents, around 6 or 7. The landlord notes the tenant had confirmed in writing that there was no change to the number of residents at the premises. However, previously, in July 2019, the tenant informed him there were 5 tenants living at the property. On 14 July 2025 he had asked the tenant to provide the names and details of all tenants currently residing at the property and had not received a response.
The landlord states that on 28 July 2025, he issued a 14 day notice to the tenant to fix this issue, noting there should be no more than 4 tenants at the property. He had not received a response. He notes there are 6 cars parked at the property. 5 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA 6 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. He provided photographic evidence. The landlord further states that he had seen two residents in the master bedroom and upstairs bedroom 1, one individual in the upstairs bedroom 2, one in the upstairs bedroom 3, and the tenant occupied the downstairs lounge (which had been converted into a bedroom).
In reply, the tenant states that he listed all the residents in the premises on 30 June 2019 and he never received an updated tenancy agreement from the landlord. Those listed in 2018 were never updated following his e-mail of 30 June 2019. He believes an updated tenancy agreement should have been issued at that point.
In terms of the cars parked at the premises, the tenant explained that two of these are his, and the other is owned by the couple living at the property. Altogether 3 cars were parked within the property, and the others were parked on the road.
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. Breaching this obligation, without reasonable excuse, is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
In this case, the tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of 4 people may live in the premises during the tenancy. Therefore, while the tenant refers to the need for the tenancy agreement to be updated to reflect this, the email correspondence indicates the landlord was opposed to increasing the number of residents allowed. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the landlord agreed to increase the number permitted to reside to 5 or more people.
I accept that, from time to time, there may have been temporary visitors, staying as guests. However, on balance, I find, during this tenancy, it is likely that the tenant was in breach of the tenancy agreement in terms of the maximum number of persons residing.
The tenant’s evidence at the hearing is that there are currently 5 people staying at the premises, whom he named. There is evidence to show that in 2019, the landlord asked the tenant to clarify the number residing at the premises and reminded him about the maximum number allowed under the agreement. The landlord has reminded the tenant of his obligations, and issued a 14 day notice. It appears this breach was not remedied within that period.
Therefore, the landlord has established that the tenant was in breach. However, it is unclear what loss was suffered as a result of the breach. In the absence of evidence of proven loss, I decline to award compensation. Access to the premises
The landlord claims the tenant has been denying him access to the premises to undertake repairs. He states that on 8 August 2025, he was denied access to measure the extent of damage to the exterior wall.
The tenant denies that he has prevented the landlord accessing the property. He has provided photographic evidence showing scaffolding in place at the front of the house. These photographs were taken between 14 and 18 August 2025. He states this shows that he was fully co-operating.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy 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, without reasonable excuse, is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(b) and Schedule 1A of the RTA
Taking the overall evidence into account, I am not persuaded that the actions of the tenant amounted to a breach. I find the evidence does not establish that the tenant failed to co-operate or unreasonably refused access, so this claim is dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
Both parties seek name suppression, and each has had some success with their claims. 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.
As each party has had some success with their application, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310939 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310939 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions