What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5319480 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 5319480?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $78.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenity 7 days…: $1,365.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,646.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319480?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319480?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12910407-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5319480 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 5319480?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $78.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenity 7 days…: $1,365.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,646.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319480?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319480?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12910407-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 501, 169 The Terrace, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5319480 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5319480 — net $1,231.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 August 2025	$2,646.38		Rent arrears to 19 August 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: loss of amenity 7 days at		$1,365.00	loss of amenity 7 days at
Compensation: loss of amenity		$78.00	loss of amenity
Total award	$2,674.38	$1,443.00
Net award	$1,231.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,231.38

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Leta Quartermain must pay [The landlord/s] $1443.00 from the bond, as set out in the table:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,231.38 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $328.62 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Leta Quartermain immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement for a two bedroom apartment. There were three serious water leaks in the apartment during the five month tenancy. The leaks all required Chemdry to come and lift carpets, open wall and ceiling cavities, and run fans to dry the apartment out. The parties agreed the tenancy could end by the tenant giving 21 days notice. The landlord is claiming rent arrears to 9 September 2025. The tenant wants compensation and exemplary damages because of the leaks, the maintenance issues, and alleged breaches by the tradesmen who the tenant said entered the apartment unlawfully.
At the hearing I dismissed the claim the building manager discriminated against the tenant by not giving her car parking facilities. This is because the building manager was not the landlord and carparking was not part of the tenancy agreement.
The remaining questions I have to decide include: • Were there breaches of the duty to notify the tenant of entry? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Should the landlord pay compensation? • How much is owed for rent?

Were there breaches of the duty to notify the tenant of entry?

The tenant claims the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
There were two entries that concerned the tenant. The first was on 17 June 2025 when the tenant emailed the landlord and said a worker could not come back that afternoon because she had to go out. The landlord did not see the email in time and the worker returned to complete the work. I have looked at the timelines and the emails. I find there was no breach here. The landlord gave notice on 12 June that the work would be done and the work was done. The tenant does not have a right to be present for the work if proper notice has been given. There was a follow up email from the landlord on 17 June advising that the windows would siliconed and not to open them. There was no breach here either because of the tenant received notice on 12 June for this work as well.
The second entry understandably alarmed the tenant. On 14 July 2025 the tenant was woken up by a man talking from the lounge. He said he was a plumber and he had to check for water leaks because there were leaks in other apartments. The tenant told him to get out and immediately contacted the landlord. The landlord then sent an email explaining about the leaks and how access was required to check the apartment.
While I completely understand how this would have been frightening, I am not persuaded there was a breach by the landlord. This is because the RTA allows access without notice when there is an emergency. I can see from the Chemdry report that there were serious leaks affecting a number of apartments in the building, including the tenancy premises the next day. The tenant was asleep and cannot prove the plumber did not knock first. I find this was not an unlawful entry.
The claims for unlawful entry are dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims the landlord has harassed her. 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. See section 38 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.
The tenant said there was a breach of quiet enjoyment when she moved in because the apartment needed maintenance and repairs which meant tradespeople were constantly coming to the apartment to carry out work. I do not find this was a breach of quiet enjoyment because the landlord responded properly to complete maintenance and repairs. That said, I do find there was a loss of amenity because of the hole in the wall.
The tenant said the way the inspection was done at the start of the tenancy was a breach of quiet enjoyment because there were many things wrong with the apartment and the chattels provided. She also said the landlord harassed her about a missing knob on the hobs. I have read the submissions and the emails. Overall I find the landlord’s communication was professional. I do not find the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The tenant said there was a breach of quiet enjoyment the three times the apartment leaked. I agree there was a loss of amenity but I do not find there was breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment. This is because the leaks were not the landlord’s fault and sometimes disruptive and inconvenient things happen during a tenancy.
All claims relating to breaches of quiet enjoyment and harassment are dismissed.

Should the landlord pay compensation?

The tenant has proved there was a loss of amenity during the tenancy because she could not use the apartment as intended. I find the large hole in the bedroom wall should have been repaired before the tenancy started. It was unsightly and draughty. It took about two weeks to be repaired and checked. I have allowed $39 a week for compensation.
The tenant has proved there was a loss of amenity during the leaks. There were three leaks in total. The landlord reduced the rent by 50% for 13 days and provided a rent summary to show how this was calculated. The tenant does not agree this was sufficient compensation because she had to move out. She wants al the rent to be refunded.
I have seen the reports and photos provided by Chemdry. While the leak might have stopped for a few days in July the reality for the tenant was chaos and uncertainty from 14 – 30 July. There was also a loss of amenity from 18 August to the end of the tenancy when the landlord inspected and found more leaks. Even though the tenant was staying with her daughter at the time, she could not have fully used the apartment if she wanted to.
I find the landlord’s calculation of a 50% rent reduction to be fair in the circumstances. Some of the apartment could still be used because there was access to the kitchen, bathroom, and a second bedroom which the tenant could have slept in. However I find the landlord should compensation for 7 more days, these being the days between the first and second leaks and for the third leak.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 9 September, which was the end of the tenant’s 21 days notice. I have read everything and I find the tenancy should have ended on 19 August 2025, which is when the tenant wrote giving her notice. The context for the notice was that the landlord had carried out a routine inspection on 18 August and found soaking wet carpets in the lounge, again. At that point in time there was no guarantee the tenancy would be able to continue without leaks. I find the landlord should have released the tenant immediately. I have calculated the rent owed to 19 August 2025. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties have made an application for suppression. The landlord is granted suppression because it is the most successful party. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest when tenants owe rent at the end of the tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5319480 — net $1,231.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 August 2025	$2,646.38		Rent arrears to 19 August 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: loss of amenity 7 days at		$1,365.00	loss of amenity 7 days at
Compensation: loss of amenity		$78.00	loss of amenity
Total award	$2,674.38	$1,443.00
Net award	$1,231.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,231.38

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Leta Quartermain must pay [The landlord/s] $1443.00 from the bond, as set out in the table:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,231.38 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $328.62 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Leta Quartermain immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement for a two bedroom apartment. There were three serious water leaks in the apartment during the five month tenancy. The leaks all required Chemdry to come and lift carpets, open wall and ceiling cavities, and run fans to dry the apartment out. The parties agreed the tenancy could end by the tenant giving 21 days notice. The landlord is claiming rent arrears to 9 September 2025. The tenant wants compensation and exemplary damages because of the leaks, the maintenance issues, and alleged breaches by the tradesmen who the tenant said entered the apartment unlawfully.
At the hearing I dismissed the claim the building manager discriminated against the tenant by not giving her car parking facilities. This is because the building manager was not the landlord and carparking was not part of the tenancy agreement.
The remaining questions I have to decide include: • Were there breaches of the duty to notify the tenant of entry? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Should the landlord pay compensation? • How much is owed for rent?

Were there breaches of the duty to notify the tenant of entry?

The tenant claims the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
There were two entries that concerned the tenant. The first was on 17 June 2025 when the tenant emailed the landlord and said a worker could not come back that afternoon because she had to go out. The landlord did not see the email in time and the worker returned to complete the work. I have looked at the timelines and the emails. I find there was no breach here. The landlord gave notice on 12 June that the work would be done and the work was done. The tenant does not have a right to be present for the work if proper notice has been given. There was a follow up email from the landlord on 17 June advising that the windows would siliconed and not to open them. There was no breach here either because of the tenant received notice on 12 June for this work as well.
The second entry understandably alarmed the tenant. On 14 July 2025 the tenant was woken up by a man talking from the lounge. He said he was a plumber and he had to check for water leaks because there were leaks in other apartments. The tenant told him to get out and immediately contacted the landlord. The landlord then sent an email explaining about the leaks and how access was required to check the apartment.
While I completely understand how this would have been frightening, I am not persuaded there was a breach by the landlord. This is because the RTA allows access without notice when there is an emergency. I can see from the Chemdry report that there were serious leaks affecting a number of apartments in the building, including the tenancy premises the next day. The tenant was asleep and cannot prove the plumber did not knock first. I find this was not an unlawful entry.
The claims for unlawful entry are dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims the landlord has harassed her. 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. See section 38 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.
The tenant said there was a breach of quiet enjoyment when she moved in because the apartment needed maintenance and repairs which meant tradespeople were constantly coming to the apartment to carry out work. I do not find this was a breach of quiet enjoyment because the landlord responded properly to complete maintenance and repairs. That said, I do find there was a loss of amenity because of the hole in the wall.
The tenant said the way the inspection was done at the start of the tenancy was a breach of quiet enjoyment because there were many things wrong with the apartment and the chattels provided. She also said the landlord harassed her about a missing knob on the hobs. I have read the submissions and the emails. Overall I find the landlord’s communication was professional. I do not find the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The tenant said there was a breach of quiet enjoyment the three times the apartment leaked. I agree there was a loss of amenity but I do not find there was breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment. This is because the leaks were not the landlord’s fault and sometimes disruptive and inconvenient things happen during a tenancy.
All claims relating to breaches of quiet enjoyment and harassment are dismissed.

Should the landlord pay compensation?

The tenant has proved there was a loss of amenity during the tenancy because she could not use the apartment as intended. I find the large hole in the bedroom wall should have been repaired before the tenancy started. It was unsightly and draughty. It took about two weeks to be repaired and checked. I have allowed $39 a week for compensation.
The tenant has proved there was a loss of amenity during the leaks. There were three leaks in total. The landlord reduced the rent by 50% for 13 days and provided a rent summary to show how this was calculated. The tenant does not agree this was sufficient compensation because she had to move out. She wants al the rent to be refunded.
I have seen the reports and photos provided by Chemdry. While the leak might have stopped for a few days in July the reality for the tenant was chaos and uncertainty from 14 – 30 July. There was also a loss of amenity from 18 August to the end of the tenancy when the landlord inspected and found more leaks. Even though the tenant was staying with her daughter at the time, she could not have fully used the apartment if she wanted to.
I find the landlord’s calculation of a 50% rent reduction to be fair in the circumstances. Some of the apartment could still be used because there was access to the kitchen, bathroom, and a second bedroom which the tenant could have slept in. However I find the landlord should compensation for 7 more days, these being the days between the first and second leaks and for the third leak.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 9 September, which was the end of the tenant’s 21 days notice. I have read everything and I find the tenancy should have ended on 19 August 2025, which is when the tenant wrote giving her notice. The context for the notice was that the landlord had carried out a routine inspection on 18 August and found soaking wet carpets in the lounge, again. At that point in time there was no guarantee the tenancy would be able to continue without leaks. I find the landlord should have released the tenant immediately. I have calculated the rent owed to 19 August 2025. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties have made an application for suppression. The landlord is granted suppression because it is the most successful party. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest when tenants owe rent at the end of the tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5319480 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Apartment 501, 169 The Terrace, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5319480 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Apartment 501, 169 The Terrace, Wellington

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Were there breaches of the duty to notify the tenant of entry?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should the landlord pay compensation?

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Were there breaches of the duty to notify the tenant of entry?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should the landlord pay compensation?

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions