What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327232 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 5327232?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327232?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327232?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12567426-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327232 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 5327232?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327232?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327232?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12567426-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327232 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Tribunal by way of a declaration records that the tenant may require the landlord’s staff and contractors to remove their shoes when entering the tenant's premises, except on those occasions where health and safety issues require staff or contractors to keep their shoes on.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing. Paul Amaral, in his capacity as Chief Operating Officer, represented the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 11 May 2023.
The tenant filed this application with the Tribunal on 15 August 2025.
The tenant claims that there has been a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Section 38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that ; 38Quiet Enjoyment (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. (3) Contravention of subsection (2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared an unlawful act.
The background facts can be set out reasonably briefly. There was little disagreement between the parties as to what actually occurred.
The tenanted premises are a unit within a village operated by the landlord.
The landlord had provided the tenant with notice of the landlord's intention to conduct an inspection of the tenant’s premises. The inspection was to take place on Wednesday 7 May 2025.
In April 2025, the tenant had erected signs at both the front and back door to the premises. The sign required anybody entering the premises to remove their shoes prior to entry.
One of the landlord’s staff arrived at the premises on Wednesday 7 May 2025 to conduct the inspection. Despite the presence of the signs requesting the removal of shoes prior to entry, the staff member was wearing shoes. The tenant asked the staff member to remove their shoes before entering the premises. The staff member entered the premises without removing her shoes and conducted the inspection. The inspection was brief and the tenant accepted that the inspection took approximately 30 seconds.
The tenant subsequently wrote to the landlord on 3 June 2025 setting out his complaint against the staff member.
In the letter of complaint and during the hearing, the tenant made his concerns regarding the incident clear. The tenant adheres to Tikanga Māori. Tikanga sets out the appropriate customs, codes and system of values which have developed over time and are embedded in the social fibre of Māori society. The wearing of outdoor footwear inside, does not comply with those customs.
The tenant had made his wishes for those entering his unit clear, both by way of signs and in explaining his wishes to the staff member.
To the landlord’s credit, they have approached this matter with a degree of sensitivity. By email dated 2 July 2025, and again at the hearing, the landlord through its Chief Operating Officer has sincerely apologised to the tenant for the conduct of the staff member.
I was uncomfortable with one aspect of the landlord’s submissions. The landlord having investigated the matter said that the staff member had indicated that her failure to remove her shoes was an “oversight.” I do not accept that as a reason or an excuse. The tenant had made his wishes abundantly clear to that staff member. The tenant has put signs up and told the staff member of his requirements. Those wishes were simply ignored. I do not think that the actions can be simply brushed over as an “oversight.”
That staff member has subsequently carried out a further inspection in September 2025 and had removed her shoes prior to conducting the inspection.
The tenant said that he had felt ignored and disrespected by the actions of the staff member at the earlier inspection.
This was a “one off” action. It does not amount to harassment as required by s.38(3) RTA. Harassment will generally require an ongoing course of conduct or pattern of behaviour.
The tenant said that he wanted an apology from the landlord’s staff member. The landlord is a limited liability company. That company acts through its staff. The Chief Operating Officer has issued a written apology to the tenant prior to the hearing and verbal apology on behalf of the landlord at the hearing. In my view, the landlord has now issued an appropriate apology to the tenant.
Section 78(1)(a) RTA allows the Tribunal to make an order as to the rights and obligations of a party.
The tenant is entitled to the peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises. If the tenant requires people entering those premises to remove those shoes to remove their shoes, then they must do so. The only exception to that requirement, will be where either the landlord’s staff or contractors need to keep their shoes on for health and safety reasons. A declaration is made in favour of the tenant on that basis. No further order is appropriate in the circumstances as explained.
I wish to take this opportunity to express the sincere thanks of the Tribunal to both the tenant and the landlord’s representatives in dealing with this matter. Their clear explanations of what had occurred and calm and reasoned conduct made this hearing far more straightforward to conduct.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Tribunal by way of a declaration records that the tenant may require the landlord’s staff and contractors to remove their shoes when entering the tenant's premises, except on those occasions where health and safety issues require staff or contractors to keep their shoes on.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing. Paul Amaral, in his capacity as Chief Operating Officer, represented the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 11 May 2023.
The tenant filed this application with the Tribunal on 15 August 2025.
The tenant claims that there has been a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Section 38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that ; 38Quiet Enjoyment (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. (3) Contravention of subsection (2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared an unlawful act.
The background facts can be set out reasonably briefly. There was little disagreement between the parties as to what actually occurred.
The tenanted premises are a unit within a village operated by the landlord.
The landlord had provided the tenant with notice of the landlord's intention to conduct an inspection of the tenant’s premises. The inspection was to take place on Wednesday 7 May 2025.
In April 2025, the tenant had erected signs at both the front and back door to the premises. The sign required anybody entering the premises to remove their shoes prior to entry.
One of the landlord’s staff arrived at the premises on Wednesday 7 May 2025 to conduct the inspection. Despite the presence of the signs requesting the removal of shoes prior to entry, the staff member was wearing shoes. The tenant asked the staff member to remove their shoes before entering the premises. The staff member entered the premises without removing her shoes and conducted the inspection. The inspection was brief and the tenant accepted that the inspection took approximately 30 seconds.
The tenant subsequently wrote to the landlord on 3 June 2025 setting out his complaint against the staff member.
In the letter of complaint and during the hearing, the tenant made his concerns regarding the incident clear. The tenant adheres to Tikanga Māori. Tikanga sets out the appropriate customs, codes and system of values which have developed over time and are embedded in the social fibre of Māori society. The wearing of outdoor footwear inside, does not comply with those customs.
The tenant had made his wishes for those entering his unit clear, both by way of signs and in explaining his wishes to the staff member.
To the landlord’s credit, they have approached this matter with a degree of sensitivity. By email dated 2 July 2025, and again at the hearing, the landlord through its Chief Operating Officer has sincerely apologised to the tenant for the conduct of the staff member.
I was uncomfortable with one aspect of the landlord’s submissions. The landlord having investigated the matter said that the staff member had indicated that her failure to remove her shoes was an “oversight.” I do not accept that as a reason or an excuse. The tenant had made his wishes abundantly clear to that staff member. The tenant has put signs up and told the staff member of his requirements. Those wishes were simply ignored. I do not think that the actions can be simply brushed over as an “oversight.”
That staff member has subsequently carried out a further inspection in September 2025 and had removed her shoes prior to conducting the inspection.
The tenant said that he had felt ignored and disrespected by the actions of the staff member at the earlier inspection.
This was a “one off” action. It does not amount to harassment as required by s.38(3) RTA. Harassment will generally require an ongoing course of conduct or pattern of behaviour.
The tenant said that he wanted an apology from the landlord’s staff member. The landlord is a limited liability company. That company acts through its staff. The Chief Operating Officer has issued a written apology to the tenant prior to the hearing and verbal apology on behalf of the landlord at the hearing. In my view, the landlord has now issued an appropriate apology to the tenant.
Section 78(1)(a) RTA allows the Tribunal to make an order as to the rights and obligations of a party.
The tenant is entitled to the peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises. If the tenant requires people entering those premises to remove those shoes to remove their shoes, then they must do so. The only exception to that requirement, will be where either the landlord’s staff or contractors need to keep their shoes on for health and safety reasons. A declaration is made in favour of the tenant on that basis. No further order is appropriate in the circumstances as explained.
I wish to take this opportunity to express the sincere thanks of the Tribunal to both the tenant and the landlord’s representatives in dealing with this matter. Their clear explanations of what had occurred and calm and reasoned conduct made this hearing far more straightforward to conduct.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327232 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327232 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions