What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323439 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 5323439?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323439?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12547398-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323439 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 5323439?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323439?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12547398-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5323439 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5323439 — net $900.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,500.00		Rent arrears
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$1,600.00	Loss of amenity
Total award	$2,500.00	$1,600.00
Net award	$900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$900.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $900.00 immediately, being the balance of rent arrears to 9 October 2025 .

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 9 October 2025.
The landlord had lodged their claim with Tenancy Services on 11 August 2025.
Prior to the hearing, the tenant had informally lodged a claim for breach of his quiet enjoyment.
At the commencement of the hearing, the landlord consented to the tenant’s claim being heard without a formal application having been filed.
The tenancy commenced on 23 November 2023 and was current at the date of the hearing.
The landlord indicated at the commencement of the hearing that the applications for termination were no longer being pursued, but that the landlord wanted the issue as to rent arrears resolved. Rent arrears
The landlord provided rent records which show that as of the date of the hearing, the rent was in arrears in the sum of $2,500.00. The records show that but for a period of eight weeks in mid-2025, the rent has always been in credit. The tenant did not dispute that the rent had not been paid for the disputed period, but says that there a reason for non-payment of rent . Breach of Quiet enjoyment
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.
The tenant says that the landlords’ actions have amounted to a breach of his quiet enjoyment. The tenant’s informal application does not seek exemplary damages for the perceived breach. I have proceeded with the claim on the basis that the tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach.
Both parties say that at the heart of this dispute, is a lack of communication between them.
The tenanted premises and the landlord’s home are adjoining. The tenant says that three “blocks” of construction work were carried out by the landlord on the landlord’s premises over a period from 19 May 2025 to 4 August 2025.
During the first period complained of the landlord had contractors on site. The tenant said “However, between the 19th May and the 23rd May a team of carpenters was engaged in reconstruction activities concerned with modifying the front of the landlord’s building, replacing a major door in the room and altering the whole facade of the building which is at the point of connection with the building I occupy”.
The tenant said that he had not been informed by the landlord of the proposed work. He said that the work resulted in loud noises including the use of electric building tools.
On 26 May 2025, construction of a swimming pool on the landlords’ premises commenced. The tenant said “the noise generated with varying numbers groups of workmen, a huge digger machine digging a hole for the installation of a swimming pool, workmen altering the backyard environment, even descended to a compacting machine being used for two complete days created an noise increased noise environment where normal existence was impossible to maintain. An off site complete swimming pool was lifted by crane over my building on one occasion.... The noise thus generated by various teams within a few millimetres of my residence was acute and at times totally without enjoyment. At such times I had to leave my residence and drive to a place in an effort to find peace and quiet. The severity of the construction noise was total and complete, and living enjoyment in my accommodation completely destroyed. There were two occasions I noted where my building was impacted by severe vibrations created by the working teams.”(sic)
Construction of the swimming pool continued until approximately 6 June 2025.
The tenant said that the construction work started it approximately 7:30 in the morning and continued until 4:30 in the afternoon.
On approximately 3 June 2025, a team of landscapers commenced work on the site. This continued until the 1st of August. The landscapers did not work every day, but generally worked from 8 am until 4:30 pm. There were only a few days when both the pool contractors and landscapers were present at the same time.
The landlord accepted that the only notification of the work given to the tenant was an informal and verbal notification that they intended to install a swimming pool.
From the point in time when the tenant stopped paying his rent, the landlords found it very difficult to communicate with the tenant. On one occasion, they made a written offer to the tenant to reduce his rent by $300.00. There was some suggestion that this was to be a weekly reduction. The landlord denies that that was the intention and that it was to be a one off reduction. For the purposes of this hearing, this dispute is not of great significance.
A landlord-tenant relationship involves personal interaction and a clash of personality cannot be the sole basis for a claim of a breach of quiet enjoyment. However the tenant is clearly entitled to quiet enjoyment of their premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming through or under the landlord. “Quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property, not just deriving pleasure from it.
A landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant and the tenants use of the tenancy premises.
The Tribunal has previously held that a landlord will interfere with a tenants quiet enjoyment by a sustained physical presence of contractors and noise. In this case, the noise was created not in the renovation or maintenance of the tenant’s premises, but of the adjoining landlord premises.
In the circumstances as described by the tenant, I have no difficulty in finding that there has been a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. Essentially, there has been a loss of amenity to the tenant for a period of eight weeks. The task for the Tribunal is to decide on an appropriate level of compensation based on the evidence. Having reviewed the relevant evidence, I consider that an eight weekly reduction in rent of $200.00 per week is appropriate. The landlord is ordered to compensate the tenant in the sum of $1,600.00.
When that sum is deducted from the outstanding rent, it leaves a balance owing by the tenant to the landlord of $900.00.
It is unfortunate that the parties were required to refer the matter to the Tribunal for consideration. I found both parties to be genuine in their wish to have this matter dealt with appropriately and I thank both parties for their assistance.
Both parties applied for name suppression. Both parties have achieved a substantial degree of success in this matter. The names and details of both the tenant and landlord are suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5323439 — net $900.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,500.00		Rent arrears
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$1,600.00	Loss of amenity
Total award	$2,500.00	$1,600.00
Net award	$900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$900.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $900.00 immediately, being the balance of rent arrears to 9 October 2025 .

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 9 October 2025.
The landlord had lodged their claim with Tenancy Services on 11 August 2025.
Prior to the hearing, the tenant had informally lodged a claim for breach of his quiet enjoyment.
At the commencement of the hearing, the landlord consented to the tenant’s claim being heard without a formal application having been filed.
The tenancy commenced on 23 November 2023 and was current at the date of the hearing.
The landlord indicated at the commencement of the hearing that the applications for termination were no longer being pursued, but that the landlord wanted the issue as to rent arrears resolved. Rent arrears
The landlord provided rent records which show that as of the date of the hearing, the rent was in arrears in the sum of $2,500.00. The records show that but for a period of eight weeks in mid-2025, the rent has always been in credit. The tenant did not dispute that the rent had not been paid for the disputed period, but says that there a reason for non-payment of rent . Breach of Quiet enjoyment
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.
The tenant says that the landlords’ actions have amounted to a breach of his quiet enjoyment. The tenant’s informal application does not seek exemplary damages for the perceived breach. I have proceeded with the claim on the basis that the tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach.
Both parties say that at the heart of this dispute, is a lack of communication between them.
The tenanted premises and the landlord’s home are adjoining. The tenant says that three “blocks” of construction work were carried out by the landlord on the landlord’s premises over a period from 19 May 2025 to 4 August 2025.
During the first period complained of the landlord had contractors on site. The tenant said “However, between the 19th May and the 23rd May a team of carpenters was engaged in reconstruction activities concerned with modifying the front of the landlord’s building, replacing a major door in the room and altering the whole facade of the building which is at the point of connection with the building I occupy”.
The tenant said that he had not been informed by the landlord of the proposed work. He said that the work resulted in loud noises including the use of electric building tools.
On 26 May 2025, construction of a swimming pool on the landlords’ premises commenced. The tenant said “the noise generated with varying numbers groups of workmen, a huge digger machine digging a hole for the installation of a swimming pool, workmen altering the backyard environment, even descended to a compacting machine being used for two complete days created an noise increased noise environment where normal existence was impossible to maintain. An off site complete swimming pool was lifted by crane over my building on one occasion.... The noise thus generated by various teams within a few millimetres of my residence was acute and at times totally without enjoyment. At such times I had to leave my residence and drive to a place in an effort to find peace and quiet. The severity of the construction noise was total and complete, and living enjoyment in my accommodation completely destroyed. There were two occasions I noted where my building was impacted by severe vibrations created by the working teams.”(sic)
Construction of the swimming pool continued until approximately 6 June 2025.
The tenant said that the construction work started it approximately 7:30 in the morning and continued until 4:30 in the afternoon.
On approximately 3 June 2025, a team of landscapers commenced work on the site. This continued until the 1st of August. The landscapers did not work every day, but generally worked from 8 am until 4:30 pm. There were only a few days when both the pool contractors and landscapers were present at the same time.
The landlord accepted that the only notification of the work given to the tenant was an informal and verbal notification that they intended to install a swimming pool.
From the point in time when the tenant stopped paying his rent, the landlords found it very difficult to communicate with the tenant. On one occasion, they made a written offer to the tenant to reduce his rent by $300.00. There was some suggestion that this was to be a weekly reduction. The landlord denies that that was the intention and that it was to be a one off reduction. For the purposes of this hearing, this dispute is not of great significance.
A landlord-tenant relationship involves personal interaction and a clash of personality cannot be the sole basis for a claim of a breach of quiet enjoyment. However the tenant is clearly entitled to quiet enjoyment of their premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming through or under the landlord. “Quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property, not just deriving pleasure from it.
A landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant and the tenants use of the tenancy premises.
The Tribunal has previously held that a landlord will interfere with a tenants quiet enjoyment by a sustained physical presence of contractors and noise. In this case, the noise was created not in the renovation or maintenance of the tenant’s premises, but of the adjoining landlord premises.
In the circumstances as described by the tenant, I have no difficulty in finding that there has been a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. Essentially, there has been a loss of amenity to the tenant for a period of eight weeks. The task for the Tribunal is to decide on an appropriate level of compensation based on the evidence. Having reviewed the relevant evidence, I consider that an eight weekly reduction in rent of $200.00 per week is appropriate. The landlord is ordered to compensate the tenant in the sum of $1,600.00.
When that sum is deducted from the outstanding rent, it leaves a balance owing by the tenant to the landlord of $900.00.
It is unfortunate that the parties were required to refer the matter to the Tribunal for consideration. I found both parties to be genuine in their wish to have this matter dealt with appropriately and I thank both parties for their assistance.
Both parties applied for name suppression. Both parties have achieved a substantial degree of success in this matter. The names and details of both the tenant and landlord are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323439 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323439 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions