What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5355045 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And

How much money was awarded in case 5355045?

Costs Ordered 23 September 2025: $2,943.97 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5355045?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5355045?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12675796-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5355045 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And

How much money was awarded in case 5355045?

Costs Ordered 23 September 2025: $2,943.97 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5355045?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5355045?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12675796-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Hawkestone Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5355045 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

25 Hawkestone Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5355045 — Tenancy dispute | 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 5355045 — net $2,971.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Costs ordered 23 September 2025	$2,943.97	Costs ordered 23 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,971.97
Bond	$6,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,971.97

Claims and awards for application 5355045 — net $2,971.97 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Costs ordered 23 September 2025

Amount: $2,943.97
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Costs ordered 23 September 2025

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Landlord $2,971.97

Bond

Landlord $6,100.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,971.97

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — Can the legal costs be paid from the bond?
Property Damage — __________________________________________________________________________________ 53550454 Should the tenants pay for cleaning the spa?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Cleanliness Exemplary damages

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Katherine Mexted As Trustees For Mackenzie Family Trust $2,971.97 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,100.00 (3224740-010) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Katherine Mexted As Trustees For Mackenzie Family Trust [The tenant/s] landlord/s]: $2,971.97 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $3,128.03

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy ended on 14 September 2025. The house was for sale and the parties needed the assistance of the Tribunal to decide what was a fair schedule for viewing by potential purchasers and the agents. Orders were made for access in May 2025. The Adjudicator also made an order for exemplary damages and for legal costs in favour of the landlord. The tenants have filed an appeal against the order for costs which has not been heard yet. The landlord has now applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenants have applied for the refund of the bond and exemplary damages because the landlord did not comply with the access orders. The issues I must decide include: • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment and should I allow exemplary damages? • Should the tenants pay for cleaning the spa? • Can the legal costs be paid from the bond?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment and should I allow exemplary damages?

The tenants claim the landlord harassed them by not giving them the required notice that viewings would not take place. Their submission was that this caused a breach of their quiet enjoyment because they were not sure what to arrange, they sometimes cancelled meetings and appointments unnecessarily, and there was inconvenience and additional work for both tenants.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000. See section 38 and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person" (MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment 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.
These definitions suggest 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 [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, 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.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenants set out seven times when the landlord did not let them know if the agent needed access to the tenancy premises within the 48 hour window prescribed in the Tribunal order made on 29 May. They said this was a breach of their quiet enjoyment. They said the same public interest in paying exemplary damages should apply to the landlord as to the tenants.
The landlord agreed she did not give the tenants the full 48 hours notice confirming access before every Thursday and Sunday from 29 May until the end of the tenancy. She said there were 45 times she was required to give the 48 hours notice and she correctly did that 38 times. As an explanation the landlord said sometimes she forgot, one time she was sick, and one time there was a lot happening at the house.
I have been given copies of the relevant emails. I can see there were five times when access was not needed and the landlord was late letting the tenants know. The landlord still advised the tenants two days before the potential viewing, but less than 48 hours before. There were also two occasions when the notice was a day late. On both of these access was not required.
I accept that not meeting the requirements of the May order seven time is a pattern of behaviour. The tenants submitted the landlord must have acted intentionally. They said they were stressed and inconvenienced. The landlord submitted she was at a loss to see how the tenants could have been significantly impacted by her delay because they still knew well in advance that access was not required.
I accept the landlord should not have been late confirming access at all. I expect the tenants were acutely aware of every late notice, and they should not have had to chase the landlord. However, I am not persuaded by the tenants’ submission that the landlord acted intentionally or that there was harassment. The most the tenants had to do was email and check. They were never in the position where they had insufficient notice to prepare the house for viewings. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Should the tenants pay for cleaning the spa?

There is a large claim for cleaning the spa. The law requires tenants to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. This requirement would usually include the spa pool. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The tenants said they did not clean the spa because it was not part of the tenancy. They showed me the first page of the tenancy agreement where the word “spa” has been crossed out. Consequently they never used the spa.
The landlord submitted that she prepared a detailed chattels list for the tenants when they moved in. She said she did this because they were still finalising what furniture and appliances the tenants would use during the tenancy. I have read the emails and I accept this was a good reason for not providing the chattels list when the tenancy agreement was signed.
The spa pool is noted on the chattels list as a ”donated item” which is described as:
There are problems with this claim. The list of chattels is at odds with the tenancy agreement, where the spa is specifically excluded. Landlords cannot “donate” household items to tenants to avoid their responsibilities for maintenance. The inaccuracies in drafting and attempt to avoid maintenance fall on the landlord. I find the landlord cannot prove the tenants were responsible for the spa during the tenancy, or for cleaning the spa at the end of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

Can the legal costs be paid from the bond?

The landlord has claimed the previously awarded legal costs from the bond. This is an unusual claim because we do not have many orders for legal costs in the Tribunal. The section 2 definition of bond sets out that the bond means any sum of money paid under a tenancy agreement as security for the observance and performance of the tenant’s obligations under the agreement or the RTA. I find the legal costs were ordered because of the tenants’ breach of the RTA, which means I can make an order for payment of the costs from the bond.
The tenants have filed an appeal against the order for legal costs. The advice I have been given by the registry today is that the tenants have not applied for a stay, meaning there is no order from the District Court preventing the payment of legal costs to the landlord. See section 117(10) RTA.
I find the landlord has proved the legal costs should be paid from the bond. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

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 5355045 — net $2,971.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Costs ordered 23 September 2025	$2,943.97	Costs ordered 23 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,971.97
Bond	$6,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,971.97

Claims and awards for application 5355045 — net $2,971.97 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Costs ordered 23 September 2025

Amount: $2,943.97
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Costs ordered 23 September 2025

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Landlord $2,971.97

Bond

Landlord $6,100.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,971.97

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — Can the legal costs be paid from the bond?
Property Damage — __________________________________________________________________________________ 53550454 Should the tenants pay for cleaning the spa?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Cleanliness Exemplary damages

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Katherine Mexted As Trustees For Mackenzie Family Trust $2,971.97 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,100.00 (3224740-010) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Katherine Mexted As Trustees For Mackenzie Family Trust [The tenant/s] landlord/s]: $2,971.97 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $3,128.03

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy ended on 14 September 2025. The house was for sale and the parties needed the assistance of the Tribunal to decide what was a fair schedule for viewing by potential purchasers and the agents. Orders were made for access in May 2025. The Adjudicator also made an order for exemplary damages and for legal costs in favour of the landlord. The tenants have filed an appeal against the order for costs which has not been heard yet. The landlord has now applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenants have applied for the refund of the bond and exemplary damages because the landlord did not comply with the access orders. The issues I must decide include: • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment and should I allow exemplary damages? • Should the tenants pay for cleaning the spa? • Can the legal costs be paid from the bond?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment and should I allow exemplary damages?

The tenants claim the landlord harassed them by not giving them the required notice that viewings would not take place. Their submission was that this caused a breach of their quiet enjoyment because they were not sure what to arrange, they sometimes cancelled meetings and appointments unnecessarily, and there was inconvenience and additional work for both tenants.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000. See section 38 and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person" (MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment 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.
These definitions suggest 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 [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, 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.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenants set out seven times when the landlord did not let them know if the agent needed access to the tenancy premises within the 48 hour window prescribed in the Tribunal order made on 29 May. They said this was a breach of their quiet enjoyment. They said the same public interest in paying exemplary damages should apply to the landlord as to the tenants.
The landlord agreed she did not give the tenants the full 48 hours notice confirming access before every Thursday and Sunday from 29 May until the end of the tenancy. She said there were 45 times she was required to give the 48 hours notice and she correctly did that 38 times. As an explanation the landlord said sometimes she forgot, one time she was sick, and one time there was a lot happening at the house.
I have been given copies of the relevant emails. I can see there were five times when access was not needed and the landlord was late letting the tenants know. The landlord still advised the tenants two days before the potential viewing, but less than 48 hours before. There were also two occasions when the notice was a day late. On both of these access was not required.
I accept that not meeting the requirements of the May order seven time is a pattern of behaviour. The tenants submitted the landlord must have acted intentionally. They said they were stressed and inconvenienced. The landlord submitted she was at a loss to see how the tenants could have been significantly impacted by her delay because they still knew well in advance that access was not required.
I accept the landlord should not have been late confirming access at all. I expect the tenants were acutely aware of every late notice, and they should not have had to chase the landlord. However, I am not persuaded by the tenants’ submission that the landlord acted intentionally or that there was harassment. The most the tenants had to do was email and check. They were never in the position where they had insufficient notice to prepare the house for viewings. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Should the tenants pay for cleaning the spa?

There is a large claim for cleaning the spa. The law requires tenants to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. This requirement would usually include the spa pool. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The tenants said they did not clean the spa because it was not part of the tenancy. They showed me the first page of the tenancy agreement where the word “spa” has been crossed out. Consequently they never used the spa.
The landlord submitted that she prepared a detailed chattels list for the tenants when they moved in. She said she did this because they were still finalising what furniture and appliances the tenants would use during the tenancy. I have read the emails and I accept this was a good reason for not providing the chattels list when the tenancy agreement was signed.
The spa pool is noted on the chattels list as a ”donated item” which is described as:
There are problems with this claim. The list of chattels is at odds with the tenancy agreement, where the spa is specifically excluded. Landlords cannot “donate” household items to tenants to avoid their responsibilities for maintenance. The inaccuracies in drafting and attempt to avoid maintenance fall on the landlord. I find the landlord cannot prove the tenants were responsible for the spa during the tenancy, or for cleaning the spa at the end of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

Can the legal costs be paid from the bond?

The landlord has claimed the previously awarded legal costs from the bond. This is an unusual claim because we do not have many orders for legal costs in the Tribunal. The section 2 definition of bond sets out that the bond means any sum of money paid under a tenancy agreement as security for the observance and performance of the tenant’s obligations under the agreement or the RTA. I find the legal costs were ordered because of the tenants’ breach of the RTA, which means I can make an order for payment of the costs from the bond.
The tenants have filed an appeal against the order for legal costs. The advice I have been given by the registry today is that the tenants have not applied for a stay, meaning there is no order from the District Court preventing the payment of legal costs to the landlord. See section 117(10) RTA.
I find the landlord has proved the legal costs should be paid from the bond. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5355045 — Tenancy dispute at 25 Hawkestone Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5355045 — Tenancy dispute at 25 Hawkestone Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment and should I allow exemplary damages?

Should the tenants pay for cleaning the spa?

Can the legal costs be paid from the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment and should I allow exemplary damages?

Should the tenants pay for cleaning the spa?

Can the legal costs be paid from the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.