What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343700 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5343700?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343700?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343700?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12897191-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343700 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5343700?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343700?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343700?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12897191-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

47 Intermediate Street, Solway, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343700 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenants’ applications are dismissed.
There are no orders for suppression.

Reasons

Both tenants attended the hearing. Lois and Jim Reynolds appeared for the owners, Reynolds Family Trust, and Megan Jones appeared for Tremain Real Estate.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). They claim the landlords are responsible for the following: a. Not acting reasonably during inspections, section 48 b. Harassment, section 38 c. Discrimination, section 12 d. Retaliatory notice, section 54.
The onus of proof is on the tenants to establish their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
The property is owned by the Reynolds Family Trust. Jim and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] are two trustees. When they entered into a tenancy agreement with the tenants, [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s], they appointed an agent, a property management company, Hamill Realty Limited, who trade as Harcourts. The property manager was Megan Jones. The tenancy agreement was a fixed term agreement from 3 September 2024 to 2 September 2025.
The tenancy continued after the fixed term had ended.
In July 2025, Mr Reynolds notified the tenants that they would be taking over management of the tenancy.
On 22 August 2025, Mr Reynolds rang Mr Wadham and asked if he could visit on 25 August to gather a sample of stones from the driveway. He wanted to order the same gravel for his home. Mr Wadham agreed to this.
On 25 August, while at the property, Mr Reynolds questioned Mr Wadham about a garden shed that had been erected and asked about cables and wires.
On 2 September an inspection took place. There is no dispute that proper notice was given. During the inspection, Mr Reynolds insisted that the garden shed was opened. He then made comments about the set-up. It is these comments that Mr Wadham says were inappropriate.
On 11 September 2025 the parties had a phone discussion about the water mixer for the kitchen sink.
On 12 September 2025, the tenants filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking compensation of $5,000 and exemplary damages arising from a visit by Mr Reynolds on 25 August 2025, an inspection which took place on 2 September 2025 and the phone call on 11 September 2025, in which Mr Wadham says that Mr Reynolds made misogynistic and racist remarks.
On 17 October 2025, Megan Jones, having moved from Harcourts to Tremains, notified the tenants that they had taken over management of the property.
A further inspection was undertaken by Ms Jones and Mr Thomas of Tremains on 20 October.
On 23 October 2025, the landlord issued a fourteen day notice to remedy some breaches, being the placement of extension cords above water sources, and running extension cords outside, weeding and lawn mowing. The notice also states that there is a concern about the generator in the shed, although it does not specify that the generator should be removed.
On the same day, a 90-day notice to terminate was issued, with a termination date of 22 January 2026.
On or about 24 October 2025, the tenant added the following to his Tenancy Tribunal application: Hi So it was interesting that on the phone Megan mentioned she will be issuing us with a breach but the email she sent is about remedy. So was she threatening initally and then based on our conversation she changed it? Also the extension lead from the bathroom goes out to a water proof fan to the hot house. Its been like this for most of the year and is clearly not been an issue previously and is proof that this is retaliatory. The other cables that run from the office building back to the house is a must as my business requires 24/7 internet and power to power my customers servers and website hosting. The fibre ONST is in the house in the lounge and my servers and UPS backups etc are in the office (as you would expecct them to be) Thus i run a industrial grade safe waterproof extension lead between the two. I feel its my autonomy and common sense to know what is right, safe, allowable.
On the basis of this communication, the tenants’ application was updated to include retaliatory notice. There was no application to declare the notice of no effect.
The issues to determine are: a. Has the landlord breached any obligations under section 48 which relates to landlord entry into the premises? b. Has the landlord breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment or harassed the tenants? c. Has the landlord discriminated against the tenants under section 12? d. Is the notice given on 23 October retaliatory? e. If the answer to any of these is yes, should compensation or exemplary damages should be ordered?

Has the landlord breached any obligations under section 48?

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claims Mr Reynolds has breached his obligations under section 48 because of the way Mr Reynolds spoke to them during an inspection on 2 September 2025.
The tenants are also upset because they did not know that a second person would be coming with Ms Jones for the inspection on 20 October 2025.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no suggestion that the required notices under section 48 had not been given.
Section 48 contains no requirement about the way in which the landlord conducts the inspections.
It is reasonable that a landlord should make enquiries of the contents of a shed that has been erected without their consent.
Ms Jones believed she had told them that she was bringing another agent with her to the inspection on 20 October 2025, but even if she had not done so, there is nothing unreasonable or abnormal about a property inspection being undertaken by two staff members. It is not necessary that the tenants are informed that two people will be coming.
The tenants have not established that Mr Reynolds or Tremains have breached their obligations under section 48.
Mr Wadham also suggested that the inspections should only have been every three months. He is right that most property management companies conduct inspections quarterly, but under section 48(2)(b), a landlord is entitled to conduct an inspection every four weeks.
On or about 25 November 2025, the tenants added the following to their applications: During my organising for this hearing I came across an old YouTube link that exposes our personal belongings and home layout on a public video platform. Harcourts used this as a way to share their inspection video of the interior of our home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9SPOrqU88s This video was taken during an inspection on 16 October 2024 by Harcourts (property manager Megan Jones). Without clearly explaining what she intended to do or getting our informed consent, she walked through the inside of our home recording a video, then later emailed us a YouTube link to that video along with a Dropbox link to inspection photos. I made it known that day that we were not happy with video being taken inside our home. I later followed up in writing (18 October 2024) to say that, as a quiet and private family, we accepted that a few photos for maintenance records were reasonable, but routine internal videoing was intrusive and not what we had agreed to. I also raised concern that the video had been upload...”
This is in reference to an inspection undertaken by Harcourts in 2024. Harcourts are not a party to these proceedings. However, I make the following observations:
Clause 18 of the tenancy agreement provides: Inspections and Photographs - The Tenant acknowledges that photographs or videos will be taken to record the condition of the Property. The Tenant agrees to move or cover any personal effects that might be photographed. If the Tenant fails to move or cover any item, then the Tenant agrees to those items being included in any photographic record.
Such clauses are common in tenancy agreements. The Tribunal regularly receives photographs and videos of inspections. It does not amount to a breach of section 48.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the retention or storage of personal information. If the tenants consider there has been a breach of their rights in relation to this, they will need to pursue a remedy elsewhere. Has the landlord breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment or harassed the tenants or discriminated against them?
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.
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.
The tenants say that they have been harassed by the landlord as follows: a. On 25 August 2025, while visiting the premises, i. Mr Reynold asked about a shed that had been erected and questioned cables and wires. ii. Mr Wadham felt uncomfortable having to justify his setup for getting internet and power etc to the detached office building that is part of the rental. iii. Mr Reynold made comments that the garden had weeds. b. On 2 September, during a house inspection, Mr Reynolds i. repeatedly questioned Mr Wadham about personal property and structures without clearly stating his concerns, which created confusion, stress and feeling of being belittled. ii. pressured Mr Wadham to open a small shed housing Mr Wadham’s back-up generator for his IT business, iii. then made dismissive and belittling remarks, calling the setup “shoddy”. Mr Wadham felt humiliated in his own home. c. On 11 September during a phone call, Mr Reynolds made misogynistic and racist remarks about Ms Yoon, generalising about “Asians” and referencing a “Chinese lady” and “Koreans” leaving taps running. He repeatedly referred to Ms Yoon as “your wife” instead of her name. The call was taken in the car and was on speaker phone. Ms Yoon and their primary school age children heard the comments and this caused additional distress and concern for their well-being.
The conversation on 11 September was in the context of a discussion about getting some tradespeople to look at the water mixer in the kitchen. The mixer was very sensitive and difficult to get on an even temperature, meaning it was often too hot when used to wash hands.
Mr Wadham said that he does the dishes, not his wife.
Mrs Reynolds read a statement from her husband. He said: a. at the visit on 25 August, he noticed that a small garden shed had been put between the house and the office and he asked what it was being used for. Mr Wadham said it was for garden tools. Mr Reynolds noticed that it was held down with a piece of firewood jammed under the eaves. He asked what else was supporting it and was told that pegs had been put in the ground. Mr Reynolds pointed out that putting pegs in the ground risked damaging the sewerage and water pipes underneath. He also offered to provide some Roundup for the weeds, but Mr Wadham said it was a dangerous product that could affect the family’s health. b. At the inspection on 2 September, Mr Reynolds noticed that the shed had been moved and was sitting clos up against the wall of the office. The piece of wood under the eaves was gone. Mr Reynolds asked if he could see inside it because he was worried that if the shed was not properly secured, it could do damage if it flew around. Initially, Mr Wadham refused, but on the third time of asking, he opened the door, showing a 6kw petrol generator with wires “leading everywhere”. He was worried that if the generate was being used, the wires were going into the open window of the office and someone could be asphyxiated. He was also concerned about wires on the metal window frame shorting out and making the frame live. When he asked how it was being held down, Mr Wadham told him it was pegged down. Mr Reynolds was concerned that the pegs were over underground wires taking power from the house to the office. He was also worried about the close proximity to the main bedroom window. In fact, the shed was not pegged down. c. On 11 September, Mr Reynolds wanted to explain the research he had done on the tap mixer. He started to tell Mr Wadham that he was staying with his son whose partner is Chinese. Mr Wadham had noticed that she washes dishes under continuous warm running water. He was about to ask if that was what Sunhye would like, but before he could continue, Mr Wadham slammed the phone down.
Mr Reynolds went on to explain that he is not racist and gave examples of the cultural diversity within his family. Mrs Reynolds said that she was excited to find that their tenant was Korean because they had visited Korea and love it there.
Ms Yoon was offended by that comment. She does not appreciate being singled out or noticed for being different. She wants to live her life without that attention. She said she washes her dishes in the sink with soap and water like everyone else.
Ms Yoon said that whenever she looks at the tap now, she feels hurt, and has still had no apology.
Mr Wadham said that as a result of the landlord’s behaviour, he was very stressed and had to take a week off work. He provided a letter dated 16 September 2025 from a doctor at a local medical centre certifying that he was assessed on 11 September and was unfit to work for one week from 12 September to 19 September. Mr Wadham sought compensation for lost wages.
Mr Wadham’s request for an apology has gone unanswered. Discussion
A comment by a landlord about the weeds or lawns does not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment. This is particularly so when under clause 20 the tenancy agreement, the tenants agreed to keep the lawns and gardens weeded and in a generally tidy condition. It is entirely reasonable for a landlord to make a comment about the garden.
It is not unreasonable for the landlord of a property to ask questions about a shed that has been placed on the premises without the landlord’s consent.
Section 42 of the Act says that the tenant must not “affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises” unless it is provided for in the tenancy agreement or the landlord has given prior written consent. Alteration includes installing or erecting structures such as a garden shed.
Asking about the structure and how it is secured does not amount to a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment. Mr Reynolds was concerned that the alteration posed potential danger. It was perfectly reasonable during the inspection for the landlord to ask questions about how the shed was secured and seek reassurance about that. Mr Wadham’s reluctance to show him inside the shed would have understandably contributed to Mr Reynolds’ discomfort with the structure.
I accept that Mr Wadham felt offended by the comment that it was “shoddy”, but the fact that he felt belittled or humiliated does not mean that Mr Reynolds breached any obligation as a landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I accept Ms Yoon is offended by Mr Reynolds referring to her being Asian and his comment might be construed as implying that dishes are a woman’s domain, but the evidence does not establish that he was intentionally rude and in any event, as noted in a previous Tribunal decision: 1 The Tribunal is a court of law, not a court of manners. It is not unlawful for a landlord to be rude. It is not a breach of a legal duty for the landlord and tenant to dislike each other.
Referring to Ms Yoon as Mr Wadham’s partner, rather than using her name is not a breach of the tenants’ rights under the Act. I do not find that any of Mr Reynold’s comments amount to a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The combination of comments has upset the tenants, but that does not mean that it amounts to a pattern of behaviour directed at the tenants. Each comment was made in either in the context of trying to conduct a lawful inspection of the property or trying to address an issue of maintenance, raised by the tenant. There is nothing to indicate that the landlord contacted the tenant unreasonably or directed a pattern of behaviour towards the tenants. The conduct falls well short of the threshold for a finding of harassment.
The tenants have not established that the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment or harassed them.
Nor has a breach of section 12 been established. Section 12 says that it is an unlawful act if a landlord discriminates against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993; or directs someone else to do so.
Grounds for discrimination under that statute include sex, race and ethnicity, 2 but the tenants have produced no evidence that the landlords have discriminated against them on any ground under the Human Rights Act in 1 TT4325097 2 Human Rights Act 1993 section 21. respect of any of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of the tenancy. The tenants’ claim under section 12 is dismissed.

Is the notice to terminate retaliatory?

On 23 October 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 22 January 2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
This tenancy started as a fixed-term tenancy but that ended on 2 September 2025. There was no renewal of the fixed-term and so it became a periodic tenancy. Under section 51, a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants say that the right they were exercising was their ongoing issues with maintenance, including getting the mixer on the taps fixed.
The evidence shows that the landlord was making endeavours to have this addressed. In a text dated 11 September, Mr Reynolds said, “I have spoken to Sparkies and they will call you to fix the hot water temperature.” The tenants rang the landlord.
The next day the tenants filed their application in the Tribunal.
On 18 September Mrs Reynold emailed the tenants. The communication covered the following matters: a. She proposed getting an independent person, Eric Nyboer to inspect the safety of the installation. b. She had made enquiries with the local council and with their insurers and had been advised to let neighbours know if the generator was going to be used. c. She also advised that to accommodate the tenants’ needs they had sourced a new insurance company. This meant they needed a new valuation of the property for their insurance. A registered valuer would be in touch. d. Eric Nyboer would be in touch to check out reported issues with the toilet door, and he would check out the generator shed at the same time.
Mrs Reynolds also raised the issue of tidying the gardens.
The notice to terminate was issued some 5 weeks after this, on 23 October.
In the meantime, a tradesperson was sent to fix the toilet door and a registered valuer visited to conduct and inspection for the valuation.
A signed statement from the registered valuer, Stuart McCoshim, was provided to the Tribunal. He said that he had contacted Mr Wadham and arranged to visit the property on 29 September to undertake an inspection for a valuation for insurance purposes. When he attended, a tradesman was inside. Mr Wadham did not let Mr McCoshim inside to conduct an inspection, but Mr McCoshim was able to value the premises based on information provided.
The parties confirmed that the tradesman was there fixing the toilet door.
The landlords say that they decided to terminate the tenancy because they felt uncomfortable with the behaviour of the tenants.
The notice of termination was given over seven weeks after the inspection of 2 September, and nearly four weeks after the valuer’s visit, when the toilet door was being fixed. The landlord was endeavouring to fix the issue with the mixer tap. Such an issue would be very unlikely to motivate a landlord to terminate a tenancy rather than dealing with it.
The tenants’ evidence does not establish that on the balance of probabilities the landlords terminated that the tenancy was terminated because they were exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. Costs
Because the tenants have not been successful, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee or any costs associated with the proceedings. Other
The tenants may like to better inform themselves of their rights.
Section 48 says that the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time with the prior consent of the tenant for the purposes of showing the premises to a registered valuer engaged in the preparation of a report on the premises.
The landlords had let the tenant know that a valuer would be in touch. The valuer contacted the tenant to arrange a time but was then not allowed entry. Section 48(3A) provides that a tenant may not withhold his consent unreasonably.
When either party is in breach of the Act or a term of their agreement, they may issue a notice requiring the breach to be remedied. Section 56 provides that a party may apply for termination of the tenancy if they can establish that the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days, and the breach has not been remedied.
Usually the timeframe of 14 days is given, meaning that these notices are often called “14-day” notices or “breach notices”. In this case, the landlord issued such a notice on the same day as the notice to terminate. That sometimes happens when the landlord wants an item remedied before the 90-day notice has expired. The notice should specify the breach and what is required to remedy the breach.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343700 — 14-day notice at 47 Intermediate Street, Solway, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343700 — 14-day notice at 47 Intermediate Street, Solway, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord breached any obligations under section 48?

Is the notice to terminate retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord breached any obligations under section 48?

Is the notice to terminate retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.