Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5327649 — Rent arrears
Decided 13 Nov 2025 · Published 13 Nov 2025 · Application 5327649
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
- The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Friday 19 September 2025.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,860.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative/s] represented the landlord.
- This tenancy commenced in February 2025 for a fixed term of a year. Unfortunately, the tenants had concerns from the outset and these increased over the course of the tenancy. They now seek to end the tenancy early, and compensation and/or exemplary damages for breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) they consider their landlord has committed.
- The landlord applies for termination of the tenancy on the basis of extensive rent arrears, the bond and a monetary order for the remaining arrears.
- As both parties seek the end of the tenancy, they have agreed to terminate the tenancy on Friday the 19 th of September. The tenants consent to the amount of rent arrears claimed. Accordingly, these orders are made by consent.
- I therefore consider each of the tenants’ claims individually as follows however firstly apologise for the delay in the issuing of this decision and thank the parties for their patience.
Was the property provided clean and tidy?
- [The tenant/s] consider that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. They say that it did not seem that any real attempt at cleaning had been undertaken prior to their arrival, for example the windows were smeared. They also say belongings were left in cupboards and the garage which they had to take steps to remove themselves including calling the Council to remove the street signs.
- [The tenant/s] seek $2,000 compensation for the inconvenience of moving into an unclean and uncleared house, and exemplary damages for the breach.
- [The landlord’s representative/s] says the property was provided reasonably clean and tidy. She agrees some items were left for the tenants’ use but when they weren’t required, she removed them. Some other items were left in the garage and garden she says which was not ideal, but she did have them removed in due course. She says [The tenant/s] have high standards as they are cleaners, but she considers the property was provided in line with statutory requirements.
- The question for the Tribunal is whether the premise was provided reasonably clean and tidy as required by section 45(1) of the RTA?
- “Reasonably” clean has been held to mean clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable in the circumstances. 1
- This was a first time let of a relatively new home 2 as the owner was vacating. There was only a short period between the owners leaving and the tenancy commencing, and the owners undertook the cleaning themselves.
- [The landlord’s representative/s] has provided photos of the home which do establish that it was generally clean and tidy. It was not spotless, and the ingoing inspection noted that some areas could do with a further wipe. There were also some items that had been left which should not have been.
- I accept the explanation that most items were left with an expectation they would be useful for the tenants to use. When it was accepted they were not, they were removed. There were however some items that were clearly not useful and should have been removed prior to the tenancy such as the items under the laundry sink and the debris in the garage and garden.
- Leaving rubbish such as planks of wood and street signs is not leaving a property in a reasonable state of cleanliness. I do note that a considerable pile of rubbish items were not removed until April, several months into the tenancy. Accordingly, I find the landlord has breached section 45(1)(a) of the RTA.
- Breaching s45(1)(a) RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- 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 sections 85 and 109(3) RTA.
- The landlord was aware of their obligations under the RTA and aware of the items left at the property, the breach was therefore an intentionally unlawful act. However, due to the minimal nature of the breach, I do not consider it just to make an award of exemplary damages.
- The actions remain a breach of the RTA and did result in inconvenience and hassle for the tenants. Having considered the situation carefully, I find that an award of $200 is just in the circumstances. The tenants were put to additional work, however it was not extensive and they did not raise concern at the time. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 2 Built in 2023
Did the landlord enter the home unlawfully?
- [The tenant/s] claim [The landlord’s representative/s] breached her legal obligations with respect to an inspection undertaken at a time they had indicated they would be absent.
- They say it was disingenuous of her to issue an inspection notice over a period they had advised they would be overseas. They consider this was intentionally planned and alongside other privacy concerns they had, makes [The landlord’s representative/s]’s behaviour suspicious.
- [The landlord’s representative/s]’s evidence is that the inspection notice was system generated. She did not receive a response to the notice and so sent a follow up text on the nominated morning. She says she had no intention of entering the property had they not been home, especially as they have an alarm that may have been set.
- When she attended the street to visit another property, she noticed they were home and so came to the door and asked if she could conduct the inspection. She says they allowed her in and at no point asked her to leave or rearrange which she would have done on request.
- Section 48(2)(b) of the RTA states that a landlord may enter the premises for an inspection provided they have given the required notice. 3 They may also enter with tenant consent. 4
- [The landlord’s representative/s] had given the required notice, and she did have consent to enter. There is therefore no breach of s48RTA. I accept her explanation that she would not have entered the home had the tenants not been present. This claim is therefore dismissed.
- I discuss [The tenant/s] concerns with privacy below. Has the landlord breached the tenants’ privacy?
- [The tenant/s] consider that the landlord has breached their rights or privacy, peace and comfort in their home in the following ways: a. The security alarm code was not provided to them when they moved in. b. The login for the cameras was not provided until some time after they had moved in. 3 S48(2)(b) for the purpose of inspecting the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on a day specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry, and not more frequently than once in any period of 4 week 4 See section 48(1)(a) RTA c. The setup of the cameras indicates that someone logged in on 31 March which has them concerned as to whether someone was watching them. d. They have had no reassurance that no one else has access to their cameras. e. The alarm code and camera login were not changed after the owners moved out. f. The inspection was arranged at a time they were not home. g. [The landlord’s representative/s] was slow in responding to them regarding a change they wanted to make to the named tenants on the agreement. h. [The landlord’s representative/s] did not engage with them in a timely or respectful manner.
- They say they have come from a previously abusive home, and this was their first attempt at creating a safe home for themselves. The cumulative behaviour of the landlord has made them feel unsafe and suspicious. As a result, they feel they have to leave the country.
- [The landlord’s representative/s] disputes the contentions saying in response: a. She had not been provided with the alarm code or camera login from the owners prior to tenancy commencement but provided it upon request. b. She has not been told by the owner if anyone else has access to the cameras however the login as seen was local which means it was from the setup within the house. c. There was no need to change any codes when the tenants moved in as the owners have moved overseas. d. There was no malintent with the date of the inspection, it was usual practice. e. She always responded to their queries as quickly as she could, and she respected their wish to only engage by email.
- Section 38(2) RTA is clear that 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 up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) 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.
- These actions indicate that generally there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person or persons which causes distress. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would generally be unlikely to amount to harassment. The definitions also require the act to be intentional; careless or negligence is not sufficient.
- At this point it is important to note that the onus of proof lies with the persons bringing the claim, [The tenant/s] here. It is the civil standard of “balance of probabilities “or “more likely than not” and if it is not met, the claim cannot succeed.
- Having considered the evidence very carefully, I do not find it established in evidence that [The landlord’s representative/s] has breached the tenants’ right to privacy and comfort, and especially not to the threshold of harassment. The alarm code and camera login should have been provided upon the tenancy commencement however I detect no malice in the fact that they were not. [The tenant/s] accept it was not an issue for them until they travelled overseas for a period.
- I do not find it established that the cameras have been logged into remotely. There is also no legal obligation upon landlords to change alarm codes or camera logins in between tenancies, just as they are not required to change locks each time. 5
- A landlord’s obligation pursuant to section 46 is to ensure the premises are reasonably secure. There is no evidence that they have failed in doing so here. Whilst I accept that to [The tenant/s] were concerned that the owner could, if they wished, log into the camera system, I am not satisfied that the RTA requires landlords to avoid such a scenario. An owner having a camera login or alarm code is akin to having another key to the home which is standard practice and meets the statutory requirement of ensuring the home is reasonably secure. [The tenant/s] could see on the system if a remote login was used which I find equates to the home being reasonably secure.
- The evidence also does not establish that [The landlord’s representative/s] failed to correspond in a timely way. To the contrary, when the tap was leaking she responded immediately. It was subsequently repaired within a matter of weeks which was a proportionate response to the slow leak into the basin. I accept that her efforts here in relation to this tenancy have been genuine and in good nature.
- I acknowledge that [The tenant/s] have had a difficult past. This naturally engenders them towards suspicion and distrust. Whilst I empathise with their 5 Luis Potrero & Ors v Rentex Ltd [2022] NZTT 4311585 situation, the landlord’s actions here have not been in breach of the RTA or their tenancy agreement. Other orders
- As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall.
- Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion whilst weighing up the parties’ interests and the public interest.
- Both parties have sought suppression orders.
- As the landlord was wholly successful in her claims I approve her application for suppression.
- The tenants were not, however given their background and personal circumstances as discussed at length at the hearing, I consider it just to approve their claim for suppression as well.