Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5322062 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 510, 47 Vivian Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011
Decided 22 Dec 2025 · Published 22 Dec 2025 · Application 5322062
- Cleanliness
- Compensation
- Exemplary damages
- Filing Fee
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Wellington
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
K Stirling
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $528.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $528.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensation for unlawful entry | $500.00 | Compensation for unlawful entry | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $528.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $528.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5322062 — net $528.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Compensation for unlawful entry
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Compensation for unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $528.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Wellington Management Limited Trading As Wellington Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Chisnall and Mr Paulo appearing for Wellington Management Limited Trading As Wellington Property Management (WML), and Ms Campbell attending for Smart Property Management Limited (SPM). A Cantonese interpreter was provided for the tenant, Mr Liang.
- Mr Liang claims Mr Paulo, as agent for the landlord, entered the premises without consent or notice to conduct a viewing with prospective tenants. He seeks compensation and exemplary damages for the breach.
- Section 48(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that with the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants. Subsection (3A) provides that the tenant—may not withhold their consent unreasonably; and (b) may make the consent subject to any reasonable conditions.
- Breach of the obligations in s48 by the landlord 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 RTA.
- This tenancy commenced on 18 July 2024 for one year and ended on 7 August 2025. The premises are a small one bedroom flat in a multi-level apartment building. Towards the end of the tenancy there was a change of property management company from SPM with Shauna Campbell acting to WML with Fred Paulo acting. The tenant was advised that the change would take effect on 1 August 2025, shortly before his tenancy was to end on 7 August 2025.
- SPM had already begun the process of advertising these premises for let and arranging for prospective tenant viewings before management changed. Tenant evidence
- On 5 August 2025, the tenant had showered and was taking a nap on his bed at lunchtime. The bedroom is directly opposite the entrance door to his flat at a distance of 2-3 metres. If the bedroom door is open, there is a direct view into the bedroom from the entrance door.
- Shortly after 1pm, the tenant heard a key unlocking the door. He yelled “wait” but the door was opened. Mr Paulo (who the tenant did not know and had not previously met) stood in the entrance of the open door and advised that he was there to conduct a viewing. The tenant advised that it was not convenient. He says Mr Paulo insisted that the viewing proceed and the tenant had to repeat that it was not a good time and asked him to leave. He says Mr Paulo only left after repeated requests and did not apologise for what happened.
- The tenant says that his consent was not obtained for the viewing and nor had he received any prior notice. He says that Mr Paulo opened the door without knocking first.
- The landlord submitted time stamped CCTV footage from the building which showed that Mr Paulo arrived in his car at the forecourt of the apartment building at 13.08; met two prospective tenants and they all entered the building at 13.10.51. At 13.12, the footage shows them exiting the lift on the tenant’s floor and turning left. At 13.12.12, Mr Paulo is seen turning left again down a short corridor (which everyone agreed is approximately one metre from the front door to the tenant’s flat) where he is out of view of the lift lobby camera. The two people with him also turned the corner out of view at 13.12.28. Not long after, one person came back into view at 13.12.37 and the other person at 13.13.03. Mr Paulo came back into view at 13.13.08. This indicates he would have been at the apartment entrance for less than one minute between 13.12.12 and
- 13.08 (56 seconds). The footage does not show the door to Mr Liang’s apartment and there is no sound.
- The tenant claims that the CCTV footage is incorrectly timestamped. He provided evidence of some text messages he sent his friend (who also gave evidence) at 13.09 complaining about the incident. Therefore, he says that Mr Paulo must have been at his apartment well before 13.09 and not between
- 12.30 and 13.13.08 as shown on CCTV.
- At 2.43 pm the same day, the tenant emailed the landlord to formally complain about the incident. He said the sudden intrusion not only disturbed his sleep but caused significant stress and anxiety as he felt his privacy was seriously violated. He noted that the incident was both a breach of quiet enjoyment under s38 RTA and unlawful entry under s48 RTA. He sought an apology and compensation of $1,000 by 5pm on Monday 11 August 2025. He also added that if the matter was not resolved in 48 hours, he intended to being a claim to the Tribunal.
- Ms Khera from WML emailed Mr Liang on 11 August advising that they had investigated what happened. They explained that Mr Paulo had received a message from the former property manager, Ms Campbell, that the viewing had been scheduled and he needed to attend. WML then advised that they noticed the shower was not clean during the post tenancy inspection but agreed to waive any charge as a good will gesture because of the incident.
- By return email on 11 August, Mr Liang disputed that the shower required cleaning and stated that the goodwill gesture was misplaced in those circumstances. He also replied that Mr Paulo had unlocked and entered the studio without notice, without consent, and without knocking while he was nude and resting. He also reiterated that neither Ms Campbell nor Mr Paulo notified him of the viewing. He also complained that there had been no apology.
- Later on 11 August, Mr Paulo emailed Mr Liang directly and sincerely apologised. Mr Liang felt this was too little too late. Landlord evidence
- Mr Paulo gave evidence that for the most part aligned with the tenants version of the incident. While the building CCTV footage is time-stamped later than the tenant’s message to his friend complaining about the incident, I do not think that is significant. While the time might be incorrect, the footage shows Mr Paulo visiting the apartment and how long he was there. Mr Paulo’s evidence differs from the tenant in that he says he knocked on the door firmly but there was no response. He waited 20 seconds before opening the door. He stood at the entrance because the tenant immediately said “wait’ and he saw the tenant in bed covered by blankets. He explained that he was there for a viewing and the tenant advised that it was not a good time. Mr Paulo says that he told the tenant that Ms Campbell from SPM had texted him and told him to attend the viewing. He then apologised and left. His evidence is consistent with the CCTV footage which establishes that less than a minute elapsed from the time he disappeared from the view of the camera near the lift to knock on the tenants door to the time he returned to the lift lobby area.
- The reason Mr Paulo went to the apartment is because this viewing had already been organised by SPM and Ms Campbell sent him a text message earlier that day advising him to attend. In her message she sent him a screen shot of the appointment scheduled for 1.15pm on the Renti property management system. Ms Campbell does not dispute that she advised Mr Paulo that the viewing had been arranged by her prior to the change of managers and he should attend. Dispute between property managers
- Both SPM and WML first contended that Mr Liang would have been sent notice of the viewing. However, WML says that they relied on SPM’s advice that the viewing was scheduled and any failure to give notice is SPM’s fault. Therefore, SPM should be liable for any breach. SPM contends that even if there was a problem with notice, WML should have checked the property management system and/or called the tenant to check that he was aware of the viewing.
- As I explained at the hearing, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine disputes between property managers. Given that WML was the property manager from 1 August and Mr Paulo from WML conducted the viewing on 5 August, I consider that any order must be against WML. If WML believes that the breach was caused by SPM’s failure to notify the tenant, then their remedy is to pursue a claim against WML. This could be done through the Disputes Tribunal.
- However, the first issue to determine is whether there has been an unlawful entry and central to that issue is whether the tenant was notified and consented to the viewing. While the focus of the parties at the hearing was on giving the tenant notice of the viewing, the strict wording of s48(3) RTA requires the landlord to obtain the tenant’s consent to viewings.
- Ms Campbell from SPM and Ms Chisnall from WML spent some time at the hearing explaining the Renti and PropertyMe management systems run by SPM; what access WML had to these systems after they took over SPM’s portfolio on 1 August 2025; and, how a tenant is notified of viewings. It was common ground that the handover between management companies was messy and there are several issues in dispute between them.
- Ms Campbell explained as follows: a. There are two systems: Renti and PropertyMe. Renti is a subscription based platform. Property Me is a property management software system with automated workflows and templates. Renti is integrated with PropertyMe; b. When a tenant gives notice to end the tenancy (as in this case) SPM use PropertyMe to reply to the tenant and send notifications and templated emails; c. One of the templated emails covers viewings and tells the tenant that they will be arranged through Renti; d. Viewings are set up using the Renti system and notification of the viewings (for the landlord) is through Renti. Ms Campbell said that she usually set up the viewings so that they would be the same days and times each week; e. However, Ms Campbell also stated that she would notify a tenant of viewings verbally or through an email on the PropertyMe system, and in this case it would have been done before the change of property managers. Tenants were not notified of the viewings by her through Renti; f. Ms Campbell says she has no idea how Mr Liang was notified because due to the change of property managers she was cut off from the Property system on 31 July.
- Ms Chisnall from WML explained that because Renti is a subscription service personal to the user, from 1 August 2025 WML did not have access to SPM’s Renti subscription. Therefore, WML could not see any viewings set up in Renti prior to this date and were relying on Ms Campbell to advise them. WML only had access to PropertyMe. However, as Ms Campbell confirmed, she was not using the notification feature on Renti which sends reminders of upcoming viewings to tenants. Her notifications to tenants were either verbal or by email through PropertyMe.
- In summary, when the property managers changed, WML could not access SPM’s subscription to Renti and, in relation to SPM’s PropertyMe system, WML could access it but SPM was cut off.
- Given the evidence that notice to Mr Liang was likely through PropertyMe, and Ms Chisnall had access to the system on her laptop at the hearing, I asked her to check it. She and Mr Campbell did so and were unable to find any record that Mr Liang was notified about the viewing on 5 August. Discussion and findings
- I am satisfied on the evidence as follows: a. There is no evidence that SPM notified Mr Liang of the viewing arranged on 5 August 2025 or obtained his consent to a viewing. SPM did not use Renti to remind tenants of upcoming viewings and there was no record of notice sent out to Mr Liang on PropertyMe. Ms Campbell also had no diary notes or records of advising Mr Liang verbally; b. Ms Campbell advised Mr Paulo to attend the viewing which she was able to see had been scheduled on Renti. She sent Mr Paulo a screen shot of the Renti notification; c. Mr Paulo attended the viewing; d. I accept Mr Paulo’s evidence that he knocked on the tenant’s door before opening it and when he did open the door he remained standing in the doorway for a fairly brief period. Ms Chisnall suggested that this was not an unlawful entry. I disagree. Opening the door with a key for a viewing (in circumstances where the tenant has not received prior notice and not consented) is an unlawful entry under s48. Even if I am wrong, I certainly find that it is a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment in the use of the premises under s38; e. Mr Liang is entitled to compensation for the breach.
- WML was the property manager on 5 August when their agent, Mr Paulo, entered the apartment unlawfully and/or breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Therefore, orders must be made against WML not SPM. There is considerable dispute between the parties about who should be held responsible for the breach. WML relied on SPM’s advice. SPM suggests that WML should have called Mr Liang to check he was aware of the viewing. There are also other disputes between the property management companies about the sale and purchase of SPM’s portfolio and the “hand-over” process generally which may have a bearing on the issue. This Tribunal is not privy to the contract between the parties and each party’s rights and obligations regarding the transfer process. Both may have credible arguments but, as already explained, this Tribunal is not the forum to hear them.
Should compensation and exemplary damages be awarded?
- It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as he would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
- I accept in this case that the incident was extremely upsetting and shocking for Mr Liang. The failure to ensure not only that he was notified but consented to the viewing makes the intrusion a serious violation of his right to privacy and security. However, I accept that Mr Paulo acted as well as he could in the situation, leaving the apartment reasonably quickly after the entry. He appeared as a credible witness who was concerned about what happened. I accept that he probably offered an apology at the time.
- I also accept that while a formal apology was made by Mr Paulo 6 days later on 11 August, WML could have responded to the complaint earlier. The response was no doubt delayed because of the dispute about “hand-over issues” with SPM but that is not the tenant’s problem. WML’s approach at the hearing was also initially to cast doubt on Mr Liang’s complaint and his integrity. However, this was misplaced in my view, given the evidence. Ms Chibnall’s’ submission also sought to raise a significant counterclaim against Mr Liang for the time and inconvenience they spent addressing his complaint, which I also consider was ill-advised.
- Taking all factors into account, I consider compensation of $500 is an appropriate award of compensation.
- The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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) RTA.
- In this particular case, I am not satisfied that the landlord acted intentionally and I do not consider an award of exemplary damages is appropriate.
- As the tenant has substantially succeeded, he is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(3), s18, s26, s38, s48, s48(3)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
- Dispute theme: compensation
Property management
- WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT LIMITED trading as Wellington Property Management (respondent)
- SMART PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (respondent)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322062 about?
The tribunal order states: Wellington Management Limited Trading As Wellington Property Management
How much money was awarded in case 5322062?
Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322062?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322062?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12902751-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.