What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331197 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 5331197?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331197?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331197?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12752470-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331197 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 5331197?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331197?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331197?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12752470-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331197 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331197 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$1,500.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331197 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$1,500.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

This was a fixed term tenancy that began on 19 July 2024 and ended on 4 August 2025.
[City 1] Real Estate Ltd (Harcourts [City 1]) acted as property manager during the tenancy. Mr Ken Williams lives in [City 2]. His parents, Gavin & Barbara Williams, live in [City 1]. Gavin & Barbara assisted with the day-to-day management of the tenancy - arranging minor repairs, etc.
The tenants’ application seeks refund of the cost of gas bottle rental ($120) and raises issues relating to interference with peace, comfort, and privacy, and unlawful entry, in particular relating to an incident that occurred on 22 July 2025.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 31 October 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Gavin & Barbara Williams participated in the hearing as witnesses. Gas bottle refund
Mr Williams paid [The tenant/s] $120 in cash at the hearing. Incident on 22 July 2025
The incident involved [Tenant 1] and Mr & Mrs Williams.
[Tenant 1] said that: a. At 10.20am she received a text message from the Harcourts property manager informing her about an email (sent at 9.30 that morning). The email said that Mr & Mrs Williams were coming to the property at 11am to inspect a possible leak around the shower. b. She got to the house at approximately 11.13am. Mr & Mrs Williams were waiting outside in their car. She entered the house, leaving the door open. When she turned around Mr & Mrs Williams were in the doorway, insisting that they come in to inspect the bathroom leak. c. She told Mr & Mrs Williams that she had not received adequate notice, and she did not consent to them coming into the house. d. Mrs Williams stepped onto the threshold of the door and attempted to force her way in. Mr & Mrs Williams were abusive and used bad language. They told her it was not her house. They threatened to keep the bond. e. She rang the police. The police advised her to shut and lock the door. f. As she attempted to shut the door, Mrs Williams put her hand against the glass pane to try to keep the door open. g. She was able to force the door closed and lock it. Mr & Mrs Williams left soon after, and the police arrived.
Mr & Mrs Williams said that: a. They were concerned about the leak around the shower. They wanted to address it as soon as possible to prevent water damage and rot. b. They understood that the tenants had been told about their visit and they were not told that the tenants did not consent. c. They arrived for the 11am appointment. [Tenant 1] arrived a short time after this, driving into the property at speed and appearing agitated. d. They went to the doorway assuming that [Tenant 1] was there to let them in. Instead, she was very confrontational. e. They could not understand why [Tenant 1] did not want them to inspect and address the leak. f. Mrs Williams had her foot in the doorway. [Tenant 1] then began forcefully closing the door. Mrs Williams put her hand against the door to protect her foot. g. They did not yell or swear at [Tenant 1], and they did not threaten to withhold her bond.
[The tenant/s] provided a brief (14 second) video recording showing part of the incident. The recording was taken by a security camera in the house. The camera shows the area, but the doorway is partially obscured by a cupboard.
The video begins at 11.14.42am. [Tenant 1] can be seen, standing at the doorway. She is talking to Mr & Mrs Williams, who cannot be seen but can be heard.
The recording begins with [Tenant 1] saying, very calmly “I do not appreciate the way you are speaking to me. I would like you to leave”.
Mrs Williams’ reply is inaudible in the recording, but [Tenant 1] responds “No you’re not coming in”. Mrs Williams replies “I’m sorry but we are”.
At 11.14.49, [Tenant 1] puts her hand on the door and attempts to shut it. [Tenant 1] reiterates “you’re not coming in” and Mrs Williams shouts back “I am! I am!”. At 11.14.53 a hand can be seen coming through the doorway and holding the door, clearly attempting to prevent [Tenant 1] from closing the door.
Landlords must not enter the premises during the tenancy except: 1 a. In the case of an emergency; or b. With the consent of the tenant, given immediately before the entry; or c. For the purposes of necessary inspection and repairs, provided that the landlord has given the tenant at least 24 hours’ notice of the entry.
The definition of ‘landlord’ includes an agent of the landlord. 2 1 Section 48 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 2 RTA
If a landlord enters the premises other than when lawfully permitted, they have committed an unlawful act. 3 The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,500 for this unlawful act.
Even if the landlord has a legal right to enter, they may never use force of the threat of force to enter the premises when the tenant is in the property. A breach of this duty is a criminal offence. 4 Upon conviction, a landlord is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 3 months or a fine of not more than $3000. 5
My finding is that Mrs Williams entered the premises unlawfully on 22 July. She had no legal right to enter the premises. The leak in the bathroom was not an emergency. The tenants had not been given at least 24 hours’ notice of the proposed entry. The tenants did not give consent to the entry.
Mrs Williams unlawfully entered the premises by, at the very least, putting her foot inside the threshold and her arm inside to grip the door.
Although the extent of physical entry was minimal, the video shows that this was an intentional and aggravated unlawful entry that justifies and award of exemplary damages.
The incident was also an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace comfort and privacy. It is not appropriate to penalise a landlord under two separate provisions for the same action. The incident is most accurately described as an unlawful entry, and therefore I will consider exemplary damages under section 48(4) RTA.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 6 a. The intent of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance: Mrs Williams’ actions were deliberate and unacceptable. I acknowledge that when Mr & Mrs Williams first arrived at the property they may have mistakenly assumed that the tenants had consented to them entering the house. However, [Tenant 1] made it very clear that was not the case. Despite this, Mrs Williams insisted that she was going to enter. The video 3 Section 48(4)(a) RTA 4 Section 48(5) RTA 5 Section 48(6) RTA 6 Section 109 RTA recording doesn’t show Mr & Mrs Williams swearing at [Tenant 1], or threatening to keep the bond. I do not know whether those things were said. The video does show Mrs Williams shouting that she is coming into the house despite the absence of consent it does show her telling [Tenant 1] “this is not your house”. Worse still, it shows Mrs Williams forceably attempting prevent [Tenant 1] from closing the door. I do not accept Mrs Williams’ explanation that she instinctively put up her hand to protect her foot. Mrs Williams grabbed the door at the same time that she shouted that she was going inside the house. Her intention was clear. a. The incident was very stressful and frightening for [Tenant 1], and also upsetting for [Tenant 2]. b. There is a strong and legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords do not enter tenanted premises unlawfully. Tenants have the right to quiet possession and use of the premises during the tenancy.
The aggravating factors in this instance are that Mrs Williams ignored [Tenant 1]’s clear statement that she did not consent to the entry and that she wanted them to leave, and that she used force to attempt to prevent [Tenant 1] from closing the door.
Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $1,500.00. Other breach of quiet enjoyment issues
[The tenant/s] raised issues relating to: a. The landlord consistently giving insufficient notice of entry for the purpose of maintenance. b. Mr & Mrs Williams allegedly parking nearby and looking at the house on multiple occasions a. Insufficient notice
[The tenant/s] said that there were multiple occasions during the tenancy when they were given less than 24 hours’ notice for maintenance work.
They said that they did not deny entry on those occasions or insist on the correct notice because they did not want to be difficult.
The tenants argued that this shows a pattern of behaviour by the landlords – that they expected to be able to enter the property when it suited them.
As noted above, landlords may legally enter the premises at any time with the consent of the tenant. Tenants can deny consent if they want to. Landlords may legally enter the premises without requiring the tenant’s consent if they give at least 24 hours’ notice.
It is certainly good practice for a landlord to give at least 24 hours’ notice if they need to access the property for repairs / maintenance rather than relying on the tenant’s consent. There is often a power imbalance between landlords and tenants and tenants can feel pressure to agree even if no pressure was intended by the landlord.
In this instance there is not enough evidence to establish that the landlord’s behaviour amounted to harassment of the tenants rather than it being explained by other factors – late communications from tradespeople, or an assumption that the tenants were OK with accommodating ‘last minute’ requests for access.
None of these entries (apart from the 22 July incident) were unlawful because the tenants gave consent.
Therefore I find that there is no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages for harassment or unlawful entry. b. Mr & Mrs Willliams observing the property
[The tenant/s] said that on several occasions during their tenancy they saw Mr & Mrs Williams park on the road directly outside the house and remain there, apparently observing them in the house.
Mr & Mrs Williams denied that they did this. They said that they drove past the property on occasion, and on occasion they checked the state of the hedge (understanding that it was the landlord’s responsibility to trim it if necessary).
The tenants’ allegation is difficult to evidence. The only information available to me is the conflicting oral evidence of [The tenant/s] and Mr & Mrs Williams.
[The tenant/s] have the burden of proof.
My finding is that it is not proven that Mr & Mrs Williams engaged in the behaviour alleged by the tenants.
Similar considerations apply to the tenants’ accusation that Mrs Williams behaved in a rude / intrusive manner when she was in the house when the stove was replaced. [The tenant/s] and Mrs Williams have different recollections of what happened on that day, and there is no independent evidence.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee, name suppression
The tenants sought name suppression.
Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the tenants were substantially successful in the proceedings. 7
On the same grounds, I will also award the tenants the filing fee for the application. 8

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331197 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331197 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions