What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5354822 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and the Landlord’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5354822?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $13,185.75 awarded to landlord; TV Remote: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $325.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5354822?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5354822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12763992-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5354822 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and the Landlord’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5354822?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $13,185.75 awarded to landlord; TV Remote: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $325.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5354822?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5354822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12763992-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5354822 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5354822 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5354822 — net $6,245.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$13,185.75		Rent arrears
Water rates	$325.15		Water rates
TV remote	$207.00		TV remote
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation		$600.00	Compensation
Total award	$13,945.90	$600.00
Net award	$6,245.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,245.90

Claims and awards for application 5354822 — net $6,245.90 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $13,185.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $325.15
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

TV remote

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: TV remote

Cleaning

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Compensation

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and the Landlord’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to release the bond of $7,100 to [The respondent/s]
[The applicant/s] must pay [The respondent/s] $6,245.90 as set out in the table below.

Reasons

This was a 12-month fixed term tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 18 July 2025 and ended prematurely on 2 November 2025, after the Tenants had moved out and the Landlord had found replacement tenants. This decision deals with the aftermath of that tenancy. The claims
The Tenants filed a claim seeking an order retrospectively terminating the tenancy, to recover the bond, compensation and exemplary damages. They say that the Landlord entered the premises on three occasions without providing the required notice or in a manner that breaches their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. The also say that the Landlord has harassed them via repeated, condescending, all-caps emails questioning their honesty, circulating screenshots of their bank website to colleagues and demanding irrelevant financial details.
The Tenants say that the Landlord’s conduct is such that they should be released from the remainder of the fixed term, awarded exemplary damages and compensation of $7,100 for those breaches and ongoing losses including relocation, temporary housing, storage and shipping costs.
The Tenants also made claims under the Trespass Act 1980. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider claims under that Act. However, where relevant, I have considered whether the Landlord’s alleged trespass breaches any of its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The Landlord filed a counter claim to recover rent arrears, which it says amounted to $13,185,75 by the end of the Tenancy and outstanding water rates. On the morning of the hearing, the Landlord also sought to extend its cross claim to recover cleaning costs and the cost of replacing a television remote control. The Tenants agreed to those claims being heard, so I also deal with them in this decision. The issues
The issues that I must determine in this case are: The Landlord’s claims (a)Do the Tenant’s owe rent and water rates? (b)Are the Tenant’s liable for cleaning costs and the lost television remote? The Tenants’ claims (c)Did the Landlord give the required notice before entering the premises? (d)Did the Landlord breach the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment by entering the premises? (e)Did the Landlord harass the Tenants? (f)What remedies are the Tenants entitled to? Rent arrears and water rates Rent
The weekly rent was $1,775. The Landlord has provided a rent summary, which shows that, as of 15 September 2025, the Tenants owed rent arrears of $1,014.32. They paid no rent after that date, so at the end of the tenancy, the rent arrears were $13,185.75.
The Tenants did not challenge the accuracy of that rent summary. They say they stopped paying the rent due to the Landlord’s ongoing breaches of its obligations.
I find that the Landlord has proven that the Tenants owe rent arrears of $13,185.75. Water rates
The Landlord also seeks to recover $424.83 in unpaid water rates. It has provided invoices from Energyco, which supplies water to the premises to prove that amount is owing.
I have considered those invoices and find that the Landlord is not entitled to recover the whole amount sought because it seeks to recover fixed daily charges that the Tenants are not liable for.
The Tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities, including the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. 1
The Landlord is liable for any fixed daily charges relating to the supply of water as these are typically charges that would be incurred even if the premises were unoccupied.
Even if the fixed charges were not imposed on unoccupied premises, as is sometimes the case in unit titles premises, the Landlord remains liable. 2 I therefore deduct the following fixed daily charges from the outstanding water rates invoices (a)July invoice $24.60 (b)August invoice $25.42 (c)September invoice $25.42 (d)October invoice $26.24. 1 Residential Tenancies Act, s 39(3) and (4) 2 None v Barfoot & Thomson Ltd [2025] NZTT 5212772 (27 May 2025)
That means the Tenants are liable for $325.15 for unpaid water rates.

Are the Tenants liable for cleaning costs and the lost television remote?

Cleaning

The Tenants were required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy state, free of rubbish. 3 The premises need not be left in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The Landlord wants to recover $741.08 for cleaning and rubbish removal. I have assessed the evidence provided by the Landlord, particularly the photographs of the premises at the end of the tenancy. Those photographs show that the premises were generally clean and tidy, aside from the bathroom, where some residue of toiletries (maybe toothpaste or similar) is apparent on surfaces. The Tenants also left behind items of rubbish and unused food. Weighing that evidence, I consider that $200 is a reasonable estimate of the cost incurred by the Landlord to return the premises to the required condition. I award that amount to the Landlord. The television remote
The premises were fully furnished, including a television and television remote. That remote is now missing. It seems that the Tenants’ movers may have packed and shipped the television remote with the Tenants’ other items.
The Landlord is therefore entitled to recover the cost of replacing that lost item. It seeks to recover $207, which is the cost it incurred to have the remote supplied and set up by Blue Star Connect. The Landlord is entitled to recover that amount.

Did the Landlord give the required notice before entering the premises?

The law

A landlord may only enter premises during a tenancy as allowed by section 48 of the RTA. Relevant to this case, the Landlord was entitled to enter the premises: (a)at any time, with the consent of the Tenants freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry; 4 (b)to inspect the premises, at any time between 8 am and 7 pm, but only after giving the Tenants notice of the intended entry at least 48 hours and not more than 14 days’ before the intended entry; 5 and 3 Residential Tenancies Act, s 40(1)(e)(iii). 4 Residential Tenancies Act, s 48(1)(a). 5 Residential Tenancies Act, s 48(2)(b). (c)to perform necessary repairs or maintenance, at any time between 8 am and 7 pm, but only after giving the Tenants notice of the intended entry at least 24 hours before the intended entry. 6
The Tenants also says: (a)Under section 48(1A) of the RTA, a landlord may only enter at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner; and (b)Under section 48(4), if a tenant refuses to consent to entry, the landlord must seek the approval of the Tribunal.
That is not the law. There is no section 48(1A) and section 48(4) relates to unlawful act and does not permit a tenant to withhold consent. I therefore apply the law, as set out in paragraph [20] above. The facts
The Tenants say that the Landlord unlawfully entered the premises on three occasions. They say: (a)On 9 July 2025, the Landlord came to the premises to inspect a leak. The Tenants had consented to the Landlord coming to the premises, but the Tenants say that the Landlord used an entry fob to enter without the Tenants’ consent. (b)On 18 July 2025, the Landlord entered the premises without consent to remove a mattress. The Tenants had asked the Landlords to remove the mattress, and the Landlord had given notice of the date and time that it would do so. Nonetheless, the Tenants complain that the Landlord entered the premises without consent. (c)On 24 September 2025, the Landlord came to the premises to perform a routine inspection. The Landlord had given the required notice, but the Tenants complain that the property manager then entered the premises without announcing herself while the Tenants were inside and unclothed.
The Landlord says it gave the required notice on each occasion. It says: (a)On 9 July 2025, the property manager called the Tenants shortly before entering and asked for permission to enter the premises to check for a leak. The Tenants consented. (b)On 17 July 2025, the property manager notified the Tenants that she would come to the premises at 10am on 18 July 2025 to collect the mattress. The Tenants consented. 6 Residential Tenancies Act, s 48(2)(d). (c)On 10 September 2024, the Landlord sent an email to the Tenants advising that it would inspect the property on “Wednesday 24/09/2025 between 9.00am and 6:00pm”.
I accept the Landlord’s evidence as to the notice given to the Tenants. That evidence includes emails and text messages confirming that notice was given. I therefore find that the Landlord has complied with its notice obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act and was entitled to enter the premises on the relevant days.
The Tenants believe that they were entitled to refuse to consent to entry if the Landlord did not enter on their terms. On this point, the Tenants are mistaken as to the law. The Tenants cannot refuse consent to entry if valid notice is given. Once the Landlord has provided the required notice, it has the right to enter. A Tenant who refuses to allow entry following valid notice commits an unlawful act. 7 Did the Landlord breach the Tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
Tenants are entitled to quiet enjoyment. 8 Even where the Landlord has given the required notice of entry, its entry must not interfere with the Tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises. 9 Entry on 9 July
The Landlord did not breach the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment on 9 July 2025. The Landlord’s property manager sent the Tenants a text message saying she was downstairs with a plumber inspecting a leak in another apartment and wanted to check whether there was an issue with the Tenants’ bathroom. She then called the Tenants, and the Tenants consented to her entry.
The Tenants were therefore aware that the property manager was about to enter and had an opportunity to adequately prepare for that entry. I am satisfied that the property manager then knocked on the door and quickly opened it and announced her arrival. She did not wait for the Tenants to answer the door.
I understood the Tenants to say she should have waited to open the door and her failure to do so was a breach of their quiet enjoyment. Although she probably should have waited for the Tenants to answer the door, because that is the polite thing to do when entering someone else’s home, I am not satisfied that there has been a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The property manager had a right to enter, the Tenants were expecting her arrival at that time and had an opportunity to adequately prepare for the entry. I also note that the property manager did not fully enter the premises – she opened the 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 48(4)(b). 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(2). door and called out her name. I find that the manner of that arrival was not a breach of quiet enjoyment. Entry on 18 July
For similar reasons, the Landlord has not breached the Tenants’ quiet enjoyment on 18 July 2025 when the property manager arrived with two men to collect a mattress. Again, valid notice was given that the property manager would arrive at 10am, which she then did.
The Tenants were expecting the Landlord’s arrival at that time. I find it likely that the property manager knocked and then promptly opened the door and announced her arrival, as she had on 9 July. That seems to be her established practice. She did not fully enter the premises. She opened the door and announced herself. In the circumstances – particularly given her expected arrival and the fact that she did not fully enter the premises – I am not satisfied that she has breached the Tenants’ quiet enjoyment.
I pause to make an observation, one which will hopefully be heeded by these and other property managers and landlords. Although, on the facts of this case, the property manager’s conduct on 9 and 18 July does not technically amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment because her arrival was expected and the property manager opened the door and announced her arrival without fully entering – it was close to the line and similar conduct in other cases may amount to a breach – dependant on precisely what happens.
Rental properties are tenants’ homes. That must be respected. Property managers and landlords visiting a tenant’s home are not police officers urgently executing a search warrant needing to enter premises without prewarning to the occupants. There is usually no genuine urgency accompanying a property manager or landlord visit, irrespective of how busy the property manager or landlord may feel.
Consequently, to avoid this kind of situation arising, it seems sensible that property managers and landlords should desist from opening the door without first making a reasonable effort to notify the tenant of a pending entry – perhaps along the lines of those set out in paragraphs [41] and [42] of this decision. Entry on 24 September
The entry on 24 September 2025 involved a different property manager, and I am satisfied that this entry did breach the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment.
The notice given to the Tenants did not specify a time of entry. It said that entry would occur at any time between 9am and 6pm. That is a broad window.
Where there is no precisely specified time of entry – only a broad window – it is only reasonable for a landlord to properly announce its arrival before entering to enable any tenants present to prepare for the entry into their home. It cannot be that the tenants are expected to be on constant alert over such a long period of time awaiting the landlord’s arrival, or that the landlord has an absolute right to enter without announcement at an uncertain time of its choosing. Neither is a landlord entitled to enter without proper announcement just because they think that it is unlikely that the tenant would be home.
Certainly, where valid notice has been given, a landlord had a right to enter, but that right to enter must be exercised reasonably and consistent with the tenant’s right to privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their home. Where there is no precisely specified time of entry, or where the entry occurs at a different time from that specified, a landlord should make reasonable efforts to notify the tenants of its pending entry before entering.
This obligation is not onerous and can be easily satisfied in many ways. A landlord can call or message a tenant to advise of their arrival. Typically, landlords have a tenant’s phone number.
Alternatively, a landlord can knock or ring the doorbell and wait for the tenant to answer the door, as any other visitor would. Where the tenant does not answer within a reasonable time, it seems sensible to knock or ring the bell again, as any other visitor would when visiting someone else’s home. The tenant may be unable to promptly answer the door. They may be in the shower, using the bathroom, dealing with a child – there are countless possibilities. So courtesy and commonsense dictates that a proper announcement before entry is reasonable.
But different from any other visitor, where the landlord has given the required notice and made a reasonable announcement, the landlord is then entitled to enter the premises if the tenant does not answer the door. But that right to enter does not allow the landlord to enter unexpectedly without reasonable announcement.
In this case, I find that the Landlord did not properly announce its arrival or give the Tenants adequate opportunity to prepare for the Landlord’s entry on 24 September 2025. I accept the Tenants’ evidence in this regard.
The Tenants had showered and were dressed in towels only. 10 That is normal use of their home. Although they knew the property manager intended to inspect the premises at some stage between 9am and 6pm, they did not know precisely when that would occur and were entitled to expect forewarning. That is particularly the case where the Tenants had earlier raised concerns about the Landlord entering the premises without telling them when they had arrived.
I find that the property manager (who was a different manager from the earlier encounters) did not knock, or at least did not knock audibly. I accept the Tenants’ 10 In their application and in other evidence, the Tenants say they were naked. Their evidence during the hearing was that they were dressed in towels. evidence that they were standing beside the door and heard no knock. I also find that the property manager did not call out before opening and looking around the door. Again, I accept the Tenant’s evidence that the first they knew of the property manager’s presence was when they saw her looking at them, standing dressed in their towels. She then advised them who she was. I suspect the property manager did not announce her presence earlier as she did not expect the Tenants to be home at that time, as she thought the Tenants were still overseas, so she was caught by surprise by the presence and state of undress of the Tenants.
By entering the premises on 24 September 2025 without proper announcement, I find that the Landlord breached the Tenants’ privacy and right to quiet enjoyment.

Did the Landlord harass the Tenants?

The Tenants pleaded harassment as a separate cause of action, relying on section 12 of the RTA. Section 12 prohibits discrimination. It does not address harassment. Instead, allegations of harassment in a tenancy situation are covered by section 38 of the RTA – the quiet enjoyment provision.
The Tenants say that the Landlord has harassed them via repeated, condescending, all-caps emails questioning their honesty, by circulating screenshots of their bank website to colleagues and by demanding irrelevant financial details.
I have seen the emails and relevant evidence. The emails all relate to the Tenants’ failure to pay rent. The emails were firm, at times direct and many property managers would not have chosen to express themselves in that manner. However, the payment of rent on time is fundamental to the rental system, and a property manager is obliged to robustly pursue unpaid rent. Although the tone of some of the correspondence was perhaps too robust, it was not threatening or abusive, and I do not consider that it amounts to harassment.
Likewise, although the property manager could have been more tactful in its correspondence regarding the issues the Tenants were having with their bank accounts and about the number of credit cards they had and the use of that card to pay the rent, that correspondence does not constitute harassment. The Tenants were behind in the rent and the property manager was trying to get the rent paid. Again, although the property manager could have expressed herself in a more moderate way, her conduct was not harassment.
I have also considered whether the property manager’s conduct in entering the premises on 9 and 18 July and 24 September amounted to harassment. Harassment is a pattern of unreasonable and distressing behaviour that interferes with the other party’s peace, comfort, or privacy.
As I have found above, there is only one proven instance of a breach of the Tenants’ privacy – the entry on 24 September. That is not a pattern of behaviour. Therefore, the Landlord has not harassed the Tenants. What remedy are the Tenants’ entitled to?
The Tenants seek: (a)An order retrospectively terminating the tenancy; (b)Compensation for breaches of the RTA by the Landlord; (c)Compensation for the cost of moving out of the premises; and (d)Exemplary damages Early termination of the tenancy
As set out above, the Landlord has breached the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment by entering the premises on 24 September 2025 without proper announcement. That breach is not capable of remedy because the events have occurred and cannot be unwound.
Where one party to a tenancy agreement has breached the provisions of the RTA and the breach is incapable of remedy, the Tribunal may terminate the tenancy (including with retrospective effect) if the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach is of such a nature that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. 11
I do not think that it would be inequitable to refuse to make that order. I acknowledge that the breach of privacy on 24 September 2025 deeply upset the Tenants. They were unprepared and vulnerable and understandably concerned. But this was a single breach only, and I am satisfied that it was unlikely to occur again.
The Tenants submitted that there was no reassurance that there would be no future an invasion of their privacy. It is impossible to predict the future, so I must look to the evidence to assess whether there would likely have been further privacy breaches. I think the best evidence as to what may have happened in the future comes from an audio recording made by the Tenants.
The Tenants have provided an audio recording of a meeting between the Tenants and senior managers at the property management company that occurred shortly after 24 September. The property managers were not aware that the meeting was being recorded, but they have consented to the Tribunal considering that audio recording as evidence.
That recording shows that the property managers were prepared to go to significant lengths to avoid a recurrence of the privacy breach that occurred on 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 56(1). 24 September and to address the Tenants’ concerns. The property managers offered to: (a)Ensure that a different property manager – who was a senior employee of the company – dealt exclusively with the Tenants. (b)Put a flag on the Tenants’ file that all visits to the premises had to be confirmed in advance with the Tenants and that no one was to enter the premises without being let in by the Tenants. (c)Ensure that the Tenants were always called before any scheduled visit; (d)Install a privacy lock on the door, to ensure that no one could enter the premises without being let in by the Tenants.
In those circumstances, given the one-time breach of the right to quiet enjoyment and the steps the property manager was prepared to take to avoid recurrence and to address the Tenants’ concerns, I am not satisfied that there was any significant risk of a recurrence of the breach of quiet enjoyment. I therefore find that it is not inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
In reaching this view, I note that the Tenants’ claim was prefaced on their belief that there had been recurring unlawful entries, privacy breaches and harassment. As set out above, they have not proven unlawful entry, harassment or privacy breaches to the extent claimed.
I am also left with the impression that the Tenants’ beliefs as to their rights as tenants and the remedies that ought to be entitled to are based on their experience renting in other jurisdictions and their mistaken understanding of what New Zealand residential tenancy law requires. Tenants do have a right to quiet enjoyment and privacy. But that right has limits, including that the RTA provides landlords with very broad rights of entry that can impinge on those privacy rights. Landlords must exercise that right reasonably, but not on terms dictated by the tenant.
I therefore conclude that, although the Tenants consider that early termination of the tenancy is warranted, once I consider the facts and apply the relevant law, I do not. Compensation/General damages
But I do think that compensation, by way of general damages, is warranted for the breach of privacy that occurred on 24 September 2025. That was a material breach and involved the Landlord entering premises without proper announcement, catching the tenants unaware and only partially clothed. I consider that damages of $600 is sufficient to compensate the Tenants for the emotional harm suffered. I therefore order that the Landlord must pay $600 to the Tenants.
The Tenants are not entitled to compensation for the cost of moving out of the premises. As I have found above, they were not entitled to terminate the tenancy early. The Landlord cannot therefore be liable for any moving costs. Exemplary damages
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. 12
The Landlord has not committed an unlawful act. It has breached the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment, but such a breach is only an unlawful act if it amounts to harassment. 13 For the reasons set out earlier in this decision, the Landlord’s conduct was not harassment. The application for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
The Landlord has been largely successful in this claim. It is therefore entitled to name suppression and to recover the filing fee. The Tenants have been largely unsuccessful, so they are not entitled to recover the filing fee they paid. The Tenants also seek suppression. I consider it to be in the public interest to grant that suppression. These events largely arose from the Landlord’s breach of their privacy.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5354822 — net $6,245.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$13,185.75		Rent arrears
Water rates	$325.15		Water rates
TV remote	$207.00		TV remote
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation		$600.00	Compensation
Total award	$13,945.90	$600.00
Net award	$6,245.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,245.90

Claims and awards for application 5354822 — net $6,245.90 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $13,185.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $325.15
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

TV remote

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: TV remote

Cleaning

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Compensation

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and the Landlord’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to release the bond of $7,100 to [The respondent/s]
[The applicant/s] must pay [The respondent/s] $6,245.90 as set out in the table below.

Reasons

This was a 12-month fixed term tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 18 July 2025 and ended prematurely on 2 November 2025, after the Tenants had moved out and the Landlord had found replacement tenants. This decision deals with the aftermath of that tenancy. The claims
The Tenants filed a claim seeking an order retrospectively terminating the tenancy, to recover the bond, compensation and exemplary damages. They say that the Landlord entered the premises on three occasions without providing the required notice or in a manner that breaches their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. The also say that the Landlord has harassed them via repeated, condescending, all-caps emails questioning their honesty, circulating screenshots of their bank website to colleagues and demanding irrelevant financial details.
The Tenants say that the Landlord’s conduct is such that they should be released from the remainder of the fixed term, awarded exemplary damages and compensation of $7,100 for those breaches and ongoing losses including relocation, temporary housing, storage and shipping costs.
The Tenants also made claims under the Trespass Act 1980. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider claims under that Act. However, where relevant, I have considered whether the Landlord’s alleged trespass breaches any of its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The Landlord filed a counter claim to recover rent arrears, which it says amounted to $13,185,75 by the end of the Tenancy and outstanding water rates. On the morning of the hearing, the Landlord also sought to extend its cross claim to recover cleaning costs and the cost of replacing a television remote control. The Tenants agreed to those claims being heard, so I also deal with them in this decision. The issues
The issues that I must determine in this case are: The Landlord’s claims (a)Do the Tenant’s owe rent and water rates? (b)Are the Tenant’s liable for cleaning costs and the lost television remote? The Tenants’ claims (c)Did the Landlord give the required notice before entering the premises? (d)Did the Landlord breach the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment by entering the premises? (e)Did the Landlord harass the Tenants? (f)What remedies are the Tenants entitled to? Rent arrears and water rates Rent
The weekly rent was $1,775. The Landlord has provided a rent summary, which shows that, as of 15 September 2025, the Tenants owed rent arrears of $1,014.32. They paid no rent after that date, so at the end of the tenancy, the rent arrears were $13,185.75.
The Tenants did not challenge the accuracy of that rent summary. They say they stopped paying the rent due to the Landlord’s ongoing breaches of its obligations.
I find that the Landlord has proven that the Tenants owe rent arrears of $13,185.75. Water rates
The Landlord also seeks to recover $424.83 in unpaid water rates. It has provided invoices from Energyco, which supplies water to the premises to prove that amount is owing.
I have considered those invoices and find that the Landlord is not entitled to recover the whole amount sought because it seeks to recover fixed daily charges that the Tenants are not liable for.
The Tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities, including the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. 1
The Landlord is liable for any fixed daily charges relating to the supply of water as these are typically charges that would be incurred even if the premises were unoccupied.
Even if the fixed charges were not imposed on unoccupied premises, as is sometimes the case in unit titles premises, the Landlord remains liable. 2 I therefore deduct the following fixed daily charges from the outstanding water rates invoices (a)July invoice $24.60 (b)August invoice $25.42 (c)September invoice $25.42 (d)October invoice $26.24. 1 Residential Tenancies Act, s 39(3) and (4) 2 None v Barfoot & Thomson Ltd [2025] NZTT 5212772 (27 May 2025)
That means the Tenants are liable for $325.15 for unpaid water rates.

Are the Tenants liable for cleaning costs and the lost television remote?

Cleaning

The Tenants were required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy state, free of rubbish. 3 The premises need not be left in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The Landlord wants to recover $741.08 for cleaning and rubbish removal. I have assessed the evidence provided by the Landlord, particularly the photographs of the premises at the end of the tenancy. Those photographs show that the premises were generally clean and tidy, aside from the bathroom, where some residue of toiletries (maybe toothpaste or similar) is apparent on surfaces. The Tenants also left behind items of rubbish and unused food. Weighing that evidence, I consider that $200 is a reasonable estimate of the cost incurred by the Landlord to return the premises to the required condition. I award that amount to the Landlord. The television remote
The premises were fully furnished, including a television and television remote. That remote is now missing. It seems that the Tenants’ movers may have packed and shipped the television remote with the Tenants’ other items.
The Landlord is therefore entitled to recover the cost of replacing that lost item. It seeks to recover $207, which is the cost it incurred to have the remote supplied and set up by Blue Star Connect. The Landlord is entitled to recover that amount.

Did the Landlord give the required notice before entering the premises?

The law

A landlord may only enter premises during a tenancy as allowed by section 48 of the RTA. Relevant to this case, the Landlord was entitled to enter the premises: (a)at any time, with the consent of the Tenants freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry; 4 (b)to inspect the premises, at any time between 8 am and 7 pm, but only after giving the Tenants notice of the intended entry at least 48 hours and not more than 14 days’ before the intended entry; 5 and 3 Residential Tenancies Act, s 40(1)(e)(iii). 4 Residential Tenancies Act, s 48(1)(a). 5 Residential Tenancies Act, s 48(2)(b). (c)to perform necessary repairs or maintenance, at any time between 8 am and 7 pm, but only after giving the Tenants notice of the intended entry at least 24 hours before the intended entry. 6
The Tenants also says: (a)Under section 48(1A) of the RTA, a landlord may only enter at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner; and (b)Under section 48(4), if a tenant refuses to consent to entry, the landlord must seek the approval of the Tribunal.
That is not the law. There is no section 48(1A) and section 48(4) relates to unlawful act and does not permit a tenant to withhold consent. I therefore apply the law, as set out in paragraph [20] above. The facts
The Tenants say that the Landlord unlawfully entered the premises on three occasions. They say: (a)On 9 July 2025, the Landlord came to the premises to inspect a leak. The Tenants had consented to the Landlord coming to the premises, but the Tenants say that the Landlord used an entry fob to enter without the Tenants’ consent. (b)On 18 July 2025, the Landlord entered the premises without consent to remove a mattress. The Tenants had asked the Landlords to remove the mattress, and the Landlord had given notice of the date and time that it would do so. Nonetheless, the Tenants complain that the Landlord entered the premises without consent. (c)On 24 September 2025, the Landlord came to the premises to perform a routine inspection. The Landlord had given the required notice, but the Tenants complain that the property manager then entered the premises without announcing herself while the Tenants were inside and unclothed.
The Landlord says it gave the required notice on each occasion. It says: (a)On 9 July 2025, the property manager called the Tenants shortly before entering and asked for permission to enter the premises to check for a leak. The Tenants consented. (b)On 17 July 2025, the property manager notified the Tenants that she would come to the premises at 10am on 18 July 2025 to collect the mattress. The Tenants consented. 6 Residential Tenancies Act, s 48(2)(d). (c)On 10 September 2024, the Landlord sent an email to the Tenants advising that it would inspect the property on “Wednesday 24/09/2025 between 9.00am and 6:00pm”.
I accept the Landlord’s evidence as to the notice given to the Tenants. That evidence includes emails and text messages confirming that notice was given. I therefore find that the Landlord has complied with its notice obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act and was entitled to enter the premises on the relevant days.
The Tenants believe that they were entitled to refuse to consent to entry if the Landlord did not enter on their terms. On this point, the Tenants are mistaken as to the law. The Tenants cannot refuse consent to entry if valid notice is given. Once the Landlord has provided the required notice, it has the right to enter. A Tenant who refuses to allow entry following valid notice commits an unlawful act. 7 Did the Landlord breach the Tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
Tenants are entitled to quiet enjoyment. 8 Even where the Landlord has given the required notice of entry, its entry must not interfere with the Tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises. 9 Entry on 9 July
The Landlord did not breach the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment on 9 July 2025. The Landlord’s property manager sent the Tenants a text message saying she was downstairs with a plumber inspecting a leak in another apartment and wanted to check whether there was an issue with the Tenants’ bathroom. She then called the Tenants, and the Tenants consented to her entry.
The Tenants were therefore aware that the property manager was about to enter and had an opportunity to adequately prepare for that entry. I am satisfied that the property manager then knocked on the door and quickly opened it and announced her arrival. She did not wait for the Tenants to answer the door.
I understood the Tenants to say she should have waited to open the door and her failure to do so was a breach of their quiet enjoyment. Although she probably should have waited for the Tenants to answer the door, because that is the polite thing to do when entering someone else’s home, I am not satisfied that there has been a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The property manager had a right to enter, the Tenants were expecting her arrival at that time and had an opportunity to adequately prepare for the entry. I also note that the property manager did not fully enter the premises – she opened the 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 48(4)(b). 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(2). door and called out her name. I find that the manner of that arrival was not a breach of quiet enjoyment. Entry on 18 July
For similar reasons, the Landlord has not breached the Tenants’ quiet enjoyment on 18 July 2025 when the property manager arrived with two men to collect a mattress. Again, valid notice was given that the property manager would arrive at 10am, which she then did.
The Tenants were expecting the Landlord’s arrival at that time. I find it likely that the property manager knocked and then promptly opened the door and announced her arrival, as she had on 9 July. That seems to be her established practice. She did not fully enter the premises. She opened the door and announced herself. In the circumstances – particularly given her expected arrival and the fact that she did not fully enter the premises – I am not satisfied that she has breached the Tenants’ quiet enjoyment.
I pause to make an observation, one which will hopefully be heeded by these and other property managers and landlords. Although, on the facts of this case, the property manager’s conduct on 9 and 18 July does not technically amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment because her arrival was expected and the property manager opened the door and announced her arrival without fully entering – it was close to the line and similar conduct in other cases may amount to a breach – dependant on precisely what happens.
Rental properties are tenants’ homes. That must be respected. Property managers and landlords visiting a tenant’s home are not police officers urgently executing a search warrant needing to enter premises without prewarning to the occupants. There is usually no genuine urgency accompanying a property manager or landlord visit, irrespective of how busy the property manager or landlord may feel.
Consequently, to avoid this kind of situation arising, it seems sensible that property managers and landlords should desist from opening the door without first making a reasonable effort to notify the tenant of a pending entry – perhaps along the lines of those set out in paragraphs [41] and [42] of this decision. Entry on 24 September
The entry on 24 September 2025 involved a different property manager, and I am satisfied that this entry did breach the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment.
The notice given to the Tenants did not specify a time of entry. It said that entry would occur at any time between 9am and 6pm. That is a broad window.
Where there is no precisely specified time of entry – only a broad window – it is only reasonable for a landlord to properly announce its arrival before entering to enable any tenants present to prepare for the entry into their home. It cannot be that the tenants are expected to be on constant alert over such a long period of time awaiting the landlord’s arrival, or that the landlord has an absolute right to enter without announcement at an uncertain time of its choosing. Neither is a landlord entitled to enter without proper announcement just because they think that it is unlikely that the tenant would be home.
Certainly, where valid notice has been given, a landlord had a right to enter, but that right to enter must be exercised reasonably and consistent with the tenant’s right to privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their home. Where there is no precisely specified time of entry, or where the entry occurs at a different time from that specified, a landlord should make reasonable efforts to notify the tenants of its pending entry before entering.
This obligation is not onerous and can be easily satisfied in many ways. A landlord can call or message a tenant to advise of their arrival. Typically, landlords have a tenant’s phone number.
Alternatively, a landlord can knock or ring the doorbell and wait for the tenant to answer the door, as any other visitor would. Where the tenant does not answer within a reasonable time, it seems sensible to knock or ring the bell again, as any other visitor would when visiting someone else’s home. The tenant may be unable to promptly answer the door. They may be in the shower, using the bathroom, dealing with a child – there are countless possibilities. So courtesy and commonsense dictates that a proper announcement before entry is reasonable.
But different from any other visitor, where the landlord has given the required notice and made a reasonable announcement, the landlord is then entitled to enter the premises if the tenant does not answer the door. But that right to enter does not allow the landlord to enter unexpectedly without reasonable announcement.
In this case, I find that the Landlord did not properly announce its arrival or give the Tenants adequate opportunity to prepare for the Landlord’s entry on 24 September 2025. I accept the Tenants’ evidence in this regard.
The Tenants had showered and were dressed in towels only. 10 That is normal use of their home. Although they knew the property manager intended to inspect the premises at some stage between 9am and 6pm, they did not know precisely when that would occur and were entitled to expect forewarning. That is particularly the case where the Tenants had earlier raised concerns about the Landlord entering the premises without telling them when they had arrived.
I find that the property manager (who was a different manager from the earlier encounters) did not knock, or at least did not knock audibly. I accept the Tenants’ 10 In their application and in other evidence, the Tenants say they were naked. Their evidence during the hearing was that they were dressed in towels. evidence that they were standing beside the door and heard no knock. I also find that the property manager did not call out before opening and looking around the door. Again, I accept the Tenant’s evidence that the first they knew of the property manager’s presence was when they saw her looking at them, standing dressed in their towels. She then advised them who she was. I suspect the property manager did not announce her presence earlier as she did not expect the Tenants to be home at that time, as she thought the Tenants were still overseas, so she was caught by surprise by the presence and state of undress of the Tenants.
By entering the premises on 24 September 2025 without proper announcement, I find that the Landlord breached the Tenants’ privacy and right to quiet enjoyment.

Did the Landlord harass the Tenants?

The Tenants pleaded harassment as a separate cause of action, relying on section 12 of the RTA. Section 12 prohibits discrimination. It does not address harassment. Instead, allegations of harassment in a tenancy situation are covered by section 38 of the RTA – the quiet enjoyment provision.
The Tenants say that the Landlord has harassed them via repeated, condescending, all-caps emails questioning their honesty, by circulating screenshots of their bank website to colleagues and by demanding irrelevant financial details.
I have seen the emails and relevant evidence. The emails all relate to the Tenants’ failure to pay rent. The emails were firm, at times direct and many property managers would not have chosen to express themselves in that manner. However, the payment of rent on time is fundamental to the rental system, and a property manager is obliged to robustly pursue unpaid rent. Although the tone of some of the correspondence was perhaps too robust, it was not threatening or abusive, and I do not consider that it amounts to harassment.
Likewise, although the property manager could have been more tactful in its correspondence regarding the issues the Tenants were having with their bank accounts and about the number of credit cards they had and the use of that card to pay the rent, that correspondence does not constitute harassment. The Tenants were behind in the rent and the property manager was trying to get the rent paid. Again, although the property manager could have expressed herself in a more moderate way, her conduct was not harassment.
I have also considered whether the property manager’s conduct in entering the premises on 9 and 18 July and 24 September amounted to harassment. Harassment is a pattern of unreasonable and distressing behaviour that interferes with the other party’s peace, comfort, or privacy.
As I have found above, there is only one proven instance of a breach of the Tenants’ privacy – the entry on 24 September. That is not a pattern of behaviour. Therefore, the Landlord has not harassed the Tenants. What remedy are the Tenants’ entitled to?
The Tenants seek: (a)An order retrospectively terminating the tenancy; (b)Compensation for breaches of the RTA by the Landlord; (c)Compensation for the cost of moving out of the premises; and (d)Exemplary damages Early termination of the tenancy
As set out above, the Landlord has breached the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment by entering the premises on 24 September 2025 without proper announcement. That breach is not capable of remedy because the events have occurred and cannot be unwound.
Where one party to a tenancy agreement has breached the provisions of the RTA and the breach is incapable of remedy, the Tribunal may terminate the tenancy (including with retrospective effect) if the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach is of such a nature that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. 11
I do not think that it would be inequitable to refuse to make that order. I acknowledge that the breach of privacy on 24 September 2025 deeply upset the Tenants. They were unprepared and vulnerable and understandably concerned. But this was a single breach only, and I am satisfied that it was unlikely to occur again.
The Tenants submitted that there was no reassurance that there would be no future an invasion of their privacy. It is impossible to predict the future, so I must look to the evidence to assess whether there would likely have been further privacy breaches. I think the best evidence as to what may have happened in the future comes from an audio recording made by the Tenants.
The Tenants have provided an audio recording of a meeting between the Tenants and senior managers at the property management company that occurred shortly after 24 September. The property managers were not aware that the meeting was being recorded, but they have consented to the Tribunal considering that audio recording as evidence.
That recording shows that the property managers were prepared to go to significant lengths to avoid a recurrence of the privacy breach that occurred on 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 56(1). 24 September and to address the Tenants’ concerns. The property managers offered to: (a)Ensure that a different property manager – who was a senior employee of the company – dealt exclusively with the Tenants. (b)Put a flag on the Tenants’ file that all visits to the premises had to be confirmed in advance with the Tenants and that no one was to enter the premises without being let in by the Tenants. (c)Ensure that the Tenants were always called before any scheduled visit; (d)Install a privacy lock on the door, to ensure that no one could enter the premises without being let in by the Tenants.
In those circumstances, given the one-time breach of the right to quiet enjoyment and the steps the property manager was prepared to take to avoid recurrence and to address the Tenants’ concerns, I am not satisfied that there was any significant risk of a recurrence of the breach of quiet enjoyment. I therefore find that it is not inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
In reaching this view, I note that the Tenants’ claim was prefaced on their belief that there had been recurring unlawful entries, privacy breaches and harassment. As set out above, they have not proven unlawful entry, harassment or privacy breaches to the extent claimed.
I am also left with the impression that the Tenants’ beliefs as to their rights as tenants and the remedies that ought to be entitled to are based on their experience renting in other jurisdictions and their mistaken understanding of what New Zealand residential tenancy law requires. Tenants do have a right to quiet enjoyment and privacy. But that right has limits, including that the RTA provides landlords with very broad rights of entry that can impinge on those privacy rights. Landlords must exercise that right reasonably, but not on terms dictated by the tenant.
I therefore conclude that, although the Tenants consider that early termination of the tenancy is warranted, once I consider the facts and apply the relevant law, I do not. Compensation/General damages
But I do think that compensation, by way of general damages, is warranted for the breach of privacy that occurred on 24 September 2025. That was a material breach and involved the Landlord entering premises without proper announcement, catching the tenants unaware and only partially clothed. I consider that damages of $600 is sufficient to compensate the Tenants for the emotional harm suffered. I therefore order that the Landlord must pay $600 to the Tenants.
The Tenants are not entitled to compensation for the cost of moving out of the premises. As I have found above, they were not entitled to terminate the tenancy early. The Landlord cannot therefore be liable for any moving costs. Exemplary damages
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. 12
The Landlord has not committed an unlawful act. It has breached the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment, but such a breach is only an unlawful act if it amounts to harassment. 13 For the reasons set out earlier in this decision, the Landlord’s conduct was not harassment. The application for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
The Landlord has been largely successful in this claim. It is therefore entitled to name suppression and to recover the filing fee. The Tenants have been largely unsuccessful, so they are not entitled to recover the filing fee they paid. The Tenants also seek suppression. I consider it to be in the public interest to grant that suppression. These events largely arose from the Landlord’s breach of their privacy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5354822 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5354822 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the Tenants liable for cleaning costs and the lost television remote?

Did the Landlord give the required notice before entering the premises?

Did the Landlord harass the Tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the Tenants liable for cleaning costs and the lost television remote?

Did the Landlord give the required notice before entering the premises?

Did the Landlord harass the Tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions