What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344462 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 5344462?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344462?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12844632-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344462 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 5344462?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344462?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12844632-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5344462 — State of repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord] must pay [The tenant] $1,370.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [the tenant] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing at NorthShore District Court on 20 November 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Rent overpayment
The tenancy ended on 16 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the overpayment amount owing to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says it retained this overpayment to offset some of the cost of the damages it says the tenant is responsible for.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord has produced photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenants produced evidence they had paid for a contractor to clean the house and carpets for $200.00. The photographic evidence produced by the landlord proves the cleaning was substandard and that there was rubbish around the yard, dirty floors, dirty oven and dust on surfaces and blinds. There was also drawings on blinds that there had been no effort to try and wipe off. The cooktop was sticky and there was oil on cupboard doors.
The tenant’s cleaners also did a poor job at carpet cleaning and no stain removal treatment. This had to be redone by the landlord’s commercial carpet cleaners.
The landlord’s evidence does not show any signs of cleaning from professionals.
The tenant says he had no opportunity to get his cleaners back to do a more professional job. Further he states that his cleaners are a premium quality and well-regarded cleaning company with an internet presence, unlike the cleaners the landlord used. In addition, because the landlord did the final inspection the day after the tenant moved out, he was denied the opportunity to get his cleaners back to complete the job.
The landlord says he was out of town on leave when the tenancy ended and had to do the inspection the following day. I note that once a tenancy has ended and vacant possession given to the landlord, it is under no obligation to allow the tenant or the tenant’s contractors back into the premise for any reason and may engage its own contractors to complete any cleaning or remedial work.
The landlord also noted that the most cost-effective price it can get for cleaning a two-bedroom apartment is between $300 and $500.00 and that cleaning an oven is an extra $50 .00 and a toilet $59.00. It also noted that it usually pays $230.00 to $350.00 for carpet cleaning, with no stain treatment. It therefore questions what was included in the $200.00 the tenants paid their cleaner as this price is so far below the market rates.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord proved with photographic evidence the following damage was caused during the tenancy by the tenant’s young children: a. Stains on the carpets in bedroom 1, hallway, bedroom 2 and living area; b. Drawings on bedroom and hallway walls; c. Drawings on doors; and d. Stickers on walls in bedroom 2.
The tenant confirmed he had young children and accepted the property inspection reports after the children came to live at the premise show that after they moved in there were additional stains on the carpet (some were present at the start of the tenancy) and children’s drawings on walls and doors.
The landlord has proven the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. The landlord is awarded 33% of the cost of the carpet replacement, being $606.43, and $2,277.00 to repaint the walls and doors. I note the effort the tenant made to touch up the paint work made things worse and required the entire room to be repainted to match the paint colour. The tenant provided video that he says shows the paint touch ups he did matched. The landlord’s photographs are clearer and, in my view, a more accurate representation of the state of the walls after the tenant’s touch up.
I have considered the pre-stains on the carpet as well as betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Is the tenant responsible for the other damage to the premises?

Fire alarm system

The landlord claims the tenant is also responsible for the costs it incurred having the fire module alarm reset after the tenant tampered with it to get the alarm to stop when it was triggered due to a fault and waking his very young children.
The landlord also claims the tenant is responsible for the cost of having the fire module replaced due to further tampering with it to get the alarm to stop when it was triggered multiple times during the night due to a fault and waking his very young children.
The tenant confirmed the 120-decibel alarm repeatedly went off at night and caused significant distress to his 3-month-old, 6-year-old and 11-year-old children when no one came to address the alarm and stop it for over 10 hours.
The tenant says he taped over the speaker in desperation to reduce the sound for the children and was particularly concerned about hearing loss and pain in the 3monh old baby.
The tenant also confirmed the alarm kept going off until the module was replaced, and that for two months it was an issue because the building manager and property manager could not successfully remediate the fault. He produced reports that proved the alarm went off on 11 July, 12 July and 13 July 2024 and that each time he emailed the landlord asking for the fault to be fully remediated. In August 2024, the technician replaced the panel of the alarm with a button so the tenant could silence the alarm for two minutes. He says he had to silence it all the time as it kept going off, which may have damaged the module.
It went off again on 5 September 2024 and the panel and alarm was replaced on 19 September 2024. That fixed the issue.
The landlord stated that it did not have much information on this issue until the 20 November 2025 hearing. It says a fire alarm detects smoke, and you cannot turn it off. It also commented that this had never happened before in 7 years in any other apartment. It also stated that there is a clear report from Triangle who deal with the fire alarms in the building and apartment.
Page three of the smoke alarm invoice from Triangle states there was a defect signal from the fire alarm, and they found the fire alarm panel module was showing as missing. The tenant in trying to lower the sound had accidentally turned the module address dial and then it needed to be reset. However, he also did so to try to stop the faulty alarm sounding in the 10-hour period it took for Triangle to come and address the issue.
The Triangle alarm report, dated 12 July 2025, states the alarm was going off intermittently and they replaced the smoke detector which was the source of the activation and the apartment module which had failed and restored the system back to the normal status. Triangle were clear that when the tenant tried to turn off the switches it had installed, the noise was stopped as the system was deactivated, but then the system had to be had to be reactivated.
The Triangle invoice, dated 5 September 2024, shows Triangle also replaced the three aged smoke alarms, due to intermittent activation, and decided to also replace the apartment module, due to a defect caused by tenant damage caused when he was trying to silence the alarm. This fixed the issue.
I find that the system was faulty and that the costs incurred to reactivate the system and to replace the module were incurred as a result of the landlord failing to maintain the fire alarm system in a reasonable condition, in all the circumstances, thereby putting the tenant in a position where he had to try to silence it during 10 hour periods or have 120 decibels of noise causing harm and distress to his young family.
The landlord’s claims for reimbursement of the cost of resetting the system and replacing the module are dismissed for the reasons set out above. Bathroom Vanity
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the costs it incurred getting the bathroom vanity replaced due to water damage it says was the result of the tenant’s careless use of the bathroom facilities. The landlord accepts some responsibility for the failure of the bathroom vanity but claims the tenant’s careless use caused significant damage in a short timeframe. It produced photographs of the same vanity in apartments the same age as the one the tenant occupied. These vanities were in pristine condition with no water damage. The landlord seeks a contribution of $350.00 towards the $1,127.00 cost of replacing the vanity, being 31% of the total replacement cost. The apartment was built in 2009, so was 16 years old at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant pointed out that these apartments had not had the same level of use as they had been rented out more intermittently on Air-b-n-b. Conversely, he had rented the apartment for him, his wife and three children for nearly five years.
The Inland Revenue Department’s depreciation list (IR265) states that fixtures such as the bathroom vanity have a life expectancy of around 8 years and can be depreciated at that rate.
The tenant provided evidence he had notified the landlord about the water damage to the vanity around end of May 2023 and that because the landlord did nothing about waterproofing or replacing it, he and his family have had to suffer health risks due to the bathroom vanity not being maintain and containing toxic black mould.
The tenant stated that at the start of 2025, a carpenter came and measured the vanity with the intention of replacing it and then did nothing.
The landlord says he raised the continuous water damage to the vanity with the tenant during a property inspection in 2024 and asked him to dry the vanity area after use. The landlord also stated this issue was noted in the inspection report. The tenant says that he and his family did this after each use but the steam in the bathroom affected the vanity anyway as it was not waterproofed and it keep getting worse and worse.
The landlord confirmed it had a contractor come to investigate and size up the vanity for replacement but cannot remember when. It says there was not a suitable vanity to put in and there were other apartments on that water pipe that would be affected when it was taken out and replaced, so the replacement was initially put off.
The landlord also confirmed the bathroom has a shower, vanity, washer/dryer, toilet, heated towel rail and a fan in the bathroom and a separate fan in the laundry area. When the landlord came to inspect, it found the room was damp asked the tenant to leave the fans on and not to turn them off after use to save power. The tenant says he did this as instructed but the room was still damp enough to cause water damage to the vanity as it was not waterproof or steam proof enough for consistent use over a five-year period.
I find that the bathroom vanity was not waterproof enough to be fit for purpose, that the other photographs of the vanities in other apartments were not comparable as they had not had the same level of consistent use by a family of five, and the IR265 depreciation schedule indicates the fixture was at the end of it life expectancy. The landlord’s claims for a contribution to the cost of replacing the bathroom vanity is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Is the tenant responsible for the Body Corporate breach notice fees?

The landlord states the tenant is responsible for the Body Corporate breach notice fee of $155.25 from the 7 April 2025 Body Corporate notice after the tenant was issued a warning from the Body Corporate on 18 March 2025.
The tenant says he was not aware of this notice for months (in June 2025) and was not given any time to remedy the breach before the breach notice was issued.
The landlord says the tenant was issued a copy of the Body Corporate rules at the beginning of the tenancy and was aware that these rules prohibited hanging washing, towels or bedding over the railing or on clothes lines and the use of common areas or balconies as a storage area for rubbish, bins, brooms, mops, appliances, boxes, bikes etc. under any circumstances.
The landlord stated that it does not issue these warning letters and that the Body Corporate would have sent the notices directly to the tenant but not sure if it had done so. Further, it states the Body Corporate also send warnings through an application to tenants. The landlord also confirmed it was not aware of the breach at the time and had no documents for this issue. The landlord does not have any record that the Body Corporate sent the tenant the warning or notices but says the building manager reminded tenant back in October 2024 of the Body Corporate rules.
The tenant stated that rule 32 says the tenant will be given 7 days’ notice to remedy a breach before a fine is imposed and he did not get this notice. Further, he says the October issue was different.
The landlord stated the unapproved use of the courtyard by the tenant was similar on 20 June 2024, October 2024 and March 2025 so he was aware of the breach and kept repeating it but accepts that according to the rules the tenant should have been given 7 days’ notice before a breach notice and fine was issued.
The landlord’s claims for reimbursement of this Body Corporate notice cost is dismissed as there is insufficient evidence to prove the tenant was given a warning 7 days prior to the breach notice and fine being issued. Therefore, he was denied the opportunity to remedy the breach before the fine was imposed. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 6 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair.5 7 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The Court stated: “... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be”.
Breaching this s45(1) of the RTA obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00, if the breach(es) was intentional. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Fire alarm issues
The tenant says the landlord failed to provide and maintain the fire alarm system in the premise in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
Please refer to the commentary in paragraphs [34] to [45] above in relation to this issue.
I am satisfied the fire alarm system was faulty and that the tenant and his young family suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience as a result. I award 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. 6 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. 7 RTA, section 40(1)(d). the tenant 8 weeks compensation of $100.00 per week, for the period 11 July 2024 to 5 September 2024, being a total amount of $800.00.
I do not find the landlord intentionally protracted the period it took to identify the issue and complete this remedial work and as such do not consider that an award of exemplary damages is warranted for this breach. Bathroom vanity
The tenant says the landlord failed to provide and maintain the bathroom vanity in the premise in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
Please refer to the commentary in paragraphs [46] to [54] above in relation to this issue.
I am satisfied the vanity was not fit for purpose and that the tenant and his young family suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience as a result. I award the tenant 111 weeks compensation of $30.00 per week, for the period 31 May 2023 to 16 July 2025, being a total amount of $3,330.00.
I also find the landlord intentionally protracted the period it took to identify the issue and complete this remedial work and as such consider it just to require the landlord to pay a total sum of $900.00 in exemplary damages (one eights of the maximum available) because: a. The landlord had a contractor investigate and scope the vanity for replacement as it was significantly water damaged and mouldy and then it did not have the vanity replaced in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances because it would inconvenience other tenants and would need to be replaced with a vanity of a similar size which would take some time and effort to source; b. The tenant and his family suffered a loss of amenity he was paying to enjoy and a high level of stress and inconvenience due to this breach of the landlord’s obligations ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the loss of amenity he was paying to enjoy and the stress and inconvenience suffered; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their maintenance obligations. Did the landlord breach the healthy homes heating standards
[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 30 October 2020. Therefore, the premise had to comply with the heating standard by 1 July 2025.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The parties confirmed that no fixed heating was provided to the tenant until a heat pump was installed on 18 October 2022, some two years after the tenancy commenced.
The landlord stated that it was not aware that apartments had to be provided with a fixed heater that meets the approved heating standard requirements.
I note that: a. Apartments are not all automatically exempt from the heating standard; b. There may be an exemption where it is not reasonably practicable to install one or more qualifying heating device because a professional installer cannot access the area without: i. carrying out substantial building work; ii. causing substantial damage to the property; iii. creating greater risks to a person’s health and safety than is normally acceptable; and iv. it is otherwise not reasonably practicable for a professional installer to carry out the work. c. a freestanding electric heater is acceptable if the heating requirement of the apartment living room is less than 2.4kW. The electric heater it must have a thermostat; d. If the heating requirement is over 2.4kW then the landlord must provide a fixed wall heater if a heat pump cannot be installed because an exemption applies; and e. If the apartment has central heating, then another fixed form of heating is not required.
Most apartments don't allow heat pumps due to weather tight issues, but the installation of a fixed panel heater is usually possible. In this case, the installation of heat pumps was possible, but the Body Corporate got them installed in all apartments at once to save cost and disruption to tenants.
In this case I have determined that the landlord installed a heat pump well before the compliance date of 1 July 2025. Therefore, the tenant has not proven his claim, and it is dismissed as no breach has been proven on the balance of probabilities. Has the landlord or its representatives unlawfully entered the premise and/or breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment/privacy?
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without his consent or notice and in doing so breached his quiet enjoyment of the property and their privacy.
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010 considered the definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant described an incident when he and his family were in Rotorua and had told the landlord not to enter the premise to undertake the routine property inspection and had asked it to reschedule 23 April 2025 1:30pm inspection.
The tenant says his CCTV camera footage shows that the property manager entered the property without consent on 23 April 2025 and this was not an emergency and occurred despite his explicit instructions, constituting a clear breach of Section 48 of the RTA and of his right to quiet enjoyment. He also states this action reflects reckless disregard for tenant rights and an ongoing pattern of intimidating behaviour.
The landlord produced proof that it had sent a notice to the tenant on 17 April 2025 at 6:40pm informing him of the 23 April 2025 inspection. The tenant replied on 22 April 2025 at 1.17pm and asked to have the inspection rescheduled as he and his family were out of town. The landlord then replied 30 minutes later on the same day confirming the property manager was unable to reschedule with such late notice as the inspection needed to be done every 3 months for insurance purposes. The landlord confirmed it would SMS the tenant the entry and exit times.
The tenant says he misunderstood what the landlord meant about texting him the entry and exit times, and this is clear from the tenant’s reply text dated 23 April 2025 at 9:30am “Hi mate, please also let us know the next scheduled date in advance we will be grateful to you”. The tenant says that the landlord should have to reasonably accommodate his reschedule request and confirmed he had never consented to the landlord conducting an inspection in his absence.
The property manager confirmed he always tried to do property inspections when the tenant was home but did some when the tenant was not home as he did not always have flexibility to reschedule inspections in a timeframe that did not invalidate a landlord’s insurance. As he was not able to reasonably accommodate the changed time, he had to carry out the inspection on the scheduled date and time to comply with the insurance quarterly inspection requirements.
I find that the landlord gave the legally required notice for entry and had justifiable reasons for not being able to reasonably accommodate the tenant’s late request to reschedule the inspection and that this incident does not constitute an unlawful entry nor a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. This claim is dismissed as the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fees

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The landlord] and [the tenant] have both substantially succeeded with their respective claims, I have reimbursed both filing fees. Name suppression
The landlord and the tenant apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord and the tenant have substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s or the tenant’s conduct.
The landlord’s and the tenant’s application for name suppression is granted and non-publication of their names and identifying details ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344462 — State of repair

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344462 — State of repair

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for the other damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for the Body Corporate breach notice fees?

OTHER CLAIMS

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for the other damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for the Body Corporate breach notice fees?

OTHER CLAIMS