What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356691 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed in accordance with

How much money was awarded in case 5356691?

Compensation: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $718.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $222.45 awarded to landlord; Replace Door: $845.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356691?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13625737-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356691 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed in accordance with

How much money was awarded in case 5356691?

Compensation: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $718.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $222.45 awarded to landlord; Replace Door: $845.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356691?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13625737-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356691 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356691 — net $534.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace door	$845.72		Replace door
Nominal damages for garage door	$750.00		Nominal damages for garage door
Window repairs	$718.30		Window repairs
Repair to oven	$222.45		Repair to oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation for the landlord’s breach of section		$150.00	Compensation for the landlord’s breach of section
Total award	$2,564.47	$150.00
Net award	$534.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$534.47

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356691 — net $534.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace door	$845.72		Replace door
Nominal damages for garage door	$750.00		Nominal damages for garage door
Window repairs	$718.30		Window repairs
Repair to oven	$222.45		Repair to oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation for the landlord’s breach of section		$150.00	Compensation for the landlord’s breach of section
Total award	$2,564.47	$150.00
Net award	$534.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$534.47

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed in accordance with section 95A(1A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant must pay the landlord $534.47 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The landlord’s application for rent arrears and damage to the power point are dismissed.
The tenant’s applications that the landlord breached section 48(1) and section 48(3B) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are dismissed.
The landlord breached section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in respect of the visit to the premises on 04 April 2025.
The tenant’s applications that the landlord breached section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 on occasions other than as set out in Order 7 above are dismissed.
The tenant’s application that the landlord unreasonably withheld the bond from the tenant is dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. A case management hearing took place on 20 January 2026 via telephone conference. The substantive hearing took place on 26 March 2026 via telephone conference. A further hearing was held via telephone conference on 04 May 2026. Both parties attended the hearings.
This is a counterclaim. The landlord claims that: a. The tenancy ended on 04 July 2025; b. During the tenancy the following items were damaged, and the tenant is liable for that damage under section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA); i. Damage to 3 internal doors; ii. Damage to the garage roller door; iii. Damage to 3 windows; and iv. Damage to electrical fittings.
The landlord is seeking: a. Rent arrears to 04 July 2025; b. Compensation for damages to the premises; and c. Payment of the bond.
The tenant claims that: a. The landlord breached section 48 of the RTA by carrying out inspections without giving valid notice on 04 April 2025 and 23 April 2025; b. The landlord breached section 48(1) and/or section 38(2) of the RTA by requiring monthly inspections of the premises; c. The landlord breached section 38(2) of the RTA and that the breach of section 38(2) amounted to harassment of the tenant within the meaning of section 38(3) of the RTA; d. The landlord breached section 48(3b) of the RTA by failing to notify the tenant of and to provide to the tenant the results of the testing for methamphetamine.
The tenant is seeking: a. A declaration that the tenancy was terminated in accordance with section 56B of the RTA on 25 June 2025; b. $2,000 in compensatory damages; c. $3,000 in exemplary damages; and d. Suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. A. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular 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. B. THE LANDLORD’S CLAIMS: The landlord’s claims for rent arrears:
The landlord says that the termination date for the tenancy was 04 July 2025 and is claiming rent arrears from 26 June 2025 to 04 July 2025. The tenant says she gave notice to the landlord to terminate the tenancy in accordance with section 56B of the RTA and that the tenancy terminated on 25 June 2025. The law:
Section 56B of the RTA states: (1) A tenant under a fixed-term or periodic tenancy may withdraw from the tenancy by giving at least 2 days’ notice to the landlord if— (a) the notice is accompanied by qualifying evidence that either or both of the following apply: (i) the tenant has been a victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises: (ii) the tenant’s dependant has been a victim of family violence while residing at the premises with the tenant; and (b) the notice is in the approved form and includes the prescribed information.
The Tribunal’s role under section 56B of the RTA is primarily to verify that the tenant’s notice and supporting evidence meet the formal requirements outlined in the RTA and prescribed forms.
The supporting evidence criteria provide a structured legal framework for tenants to substantiate their claims of family violence. These criteria ensure that the claims are credible and based on substantial evidence, striking a fair balance between tenant safety and, in this case, the landlord’s certainty of tenure. The prescribed drafting of section 56B is intended to ensure that only specific, unequivocal forms of evidence are accepted to avoid any ambiguity or the need for further inquiry into the legitimacy of the claims.
Given this, the tenant’s notice must strictly comply with the prescribed forms of evidence. If the evidence provided is not one of the specified forms, then it does not meet the requirements of section 56B, regardless of the underlying circumstances or intentions. Relevant background information:
The tenancy started in December 2024.
On 21 May 2025, following an application by the tenant, the Family Court issued a Temporary Protection Order against the tenant’s former partner (“Person X”).
On 04 April 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy with an end date of 04 July 2025.
On 23 June 2025, the tenant says she sent an email to the landlord giving notice to withdraw from the tenancy on 25 June 2025 in accordance with section 56(B) of the RTA.

Was the notice properly served?

Section 136 of the RTA (Service of documents) applies to notices issued under section 56B of the RTA. Acceptable service of documents under this section includes an “... electronic address given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service”.
Section 136(10) of the RTA provides: In proving service of a document transmitted to an electronic address, it is sufficient to prove that the document was properly transmitted to that address.
The landlord says she did not receive the tenant’s email of 23 June 2025. The Tenancy Agreement provides that the landlord’s email address for service was xxxxxxx@free.net.nz (the “First Email Address”). The email of 23 June 2025 was sent to xxxxxxx@freenet.co.nz (the “Second Email Address”).
The landlord advised during the hearing that where an email is sent to the Second Email Address it is automatically forwarded to the Frist Email Address. The landlord said that if the email had been sent to the Second Email Address, she would have received it.
The landlord said she no longer has access to the Frist Email Address so could not check to see if it had ended up in her junk email.
The tenant has provided a copy of the email of 23 June 2025. I am satisfied that the email was sent to the Second Email Address and that this would have been automatically forwarded to the First Email Address as explained to the landlord.
I find that the Notice of Withdrawal was served on the landlord in accordance with the RTA.

Was the Withdrawal Notice valid?

The tenant has provided an email to the landlord of 23 June 2025 attaching the Withdrawal Notice and the first page of a Temporary Protection Order.
The landlord says that the withdrawal notice was not valid because only the first page of the Temporary Protection Order was provided, and this does not show the date of the order.
Regulation 7 of the Residential Tenancies (Termination for Physical Assault by Tenant and Withdrawal Following Family Violence) Regulations 2022 (the “2022 Regulations”) sets out the information that must be included in a withdrawal notice. The required information is: a. The name of the withdrawing tenant; and b. The address of the premises to which the notice relates; and c. The date when the withdrawal will take effect (not early than 2 days after the notice was given).
The Withdrawal Notice complies with regulation 7 of the 2022 Regulations.
Regulation 9(1) of the 2022 Regulations provides that the prescribed information to be given with the withdrawal notice if the violence occurred during the tenancy includes: the first page of a protection order within the meaning of section 8 of the Family Violence Act 2018 if the withdrawing tenant is the protected person and either— i) the protection order was issued while they were a tenant of the premises and is still in force; or
Section 8 of the Family Violence Act 2018 provides that a protection order includes a temporary protection order made under section 79 of that Act.
While the tenant only provided the first page of the Temporary Protection Order with the Withdrawal Notice, the full Order was provided during the hearing. Having reviewed that Order, I am satisfied that the order was issued during the tenancy, that the order was still in effect when the Withdrawal Notice was given.
The fact that the first page of the Temporary Protection Order did not sate the date does not mean the tenant has not complied with section 56(b)(1)(b) of the RTA.
I find that the Withdrawal Notice was valid.

What is the effect of the Withdrawal Notice?

Where there is only one tenant, the effect of a valid withdrawal notice is that the tenant is only liable for rent and any debts relating to the period up to and including the withdrawal date, 25 June 2025.
I find that the tenant is only liable for rent up to 25 June 2025.
The rent summary provided by the landlord shows that the tenant had paid rent up to and including 25 June 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed. The landlord’s claim for damage to the premises:
Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: i. Damage to 3 internal doors; ii. Damage to the garage door; iii. Damage to 3 windows; and iv. Damage to electrical fittings.
The landlord did not have insurance to cover the damage. This was recorded in the Tenancy Agreement as required by section 13A(2)(b) of the RTA. Damage to the doors:
The landlord was initially claiming for the cost to repair / replace three damaged doors. However, during the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claim for damage to the laundry door.
The tenant said that Person X punched a hole in the door. The tenant cannot recall the exact date that this happened but believes it was around April 2025. The tenant said after Person X punched the hole in the door, she asked him to leave the premises. Person X did not do so. The tenant said she then called the police.
The tenant said that after she called the police, Person X was trying to calm himself down and went into the bathroom to splash water on his face. The tenant said he accidentally walked into the bathroom door and put his knee through it.
I find that the damage to the first door was an intentional act. As set out above, tenants are liable for the actions of those people who are in the premises with the tenant’s permission. At the time the first door was damaged, Person X was at the premises with her permission.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that shortly after Person X damaged the first door, the tenant asked him to leave and, when he did not do so, she called the police. I find that by calling the police the tenant did all she could reasonably do to get Person X to leave the premises. At the time, the bathroom door was damaged, the tenant’s partner was not at the premises with her permission, and she is not liable for that damage.
This is consistent with the finding of this Tribunal in Housing New Zealand v McKelvey TT Palmerston North TT268/96, 11 April 1996. In that case, the Adjudicator found that: In a situation where someone is violent and is damaging the premises, calling the Police is making a reasonable attempt to protect both the occupants and the premises.
The Adjudicator also found that: “ ... the liability for the repair and redecoration ... lies with the person who did the damage.”
The landlord has provided an invoice to replace the two doors for $1,691.45. I accept that these costs have been incurred and are reasonable. As I have only found the tenant liable for one door, I award $845.72 (including GST) for damage to the door. Damage to the garage door:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the garage roller door during the tenancy and that the door needs to be replaced.
The landlord said that the motorised garage roller door was working at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said that she noticed the damage on 04 April 2025 and that the garage has not closed from that point on. The landlord has provided photographs taken on 05 July 2026 showing that the garage door had a break in the support and a bend in the actual door.
The Tenancy Agreement includes a pre tenancy inspection report which has been signed by both parties. Both parties have ticked “condition acceptable” next to the garage. This is evidence that there were no significant issues with the garage door at the start of the tenancy.
The correspondence between the party is consistent with the landlord’s assertion that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant has provided a photograph from before the tenancy commenced which shows a small dent in the garage door. The tenant says that the damage was not caused by her. The tenant also states that the door does not need to be replaced but could be repaired.
The tenant had a [garage door specialist] attended the premises and provided the following report on the garage door: Upon inspection, the existing tilt garage door has sustained damage consistent with forced entry. The door has been forced open while the locking mechanism was still engaged, which has resulted in the bottom left panel being bent and deformed. The lock remains attached, confirming that the door was not unlocked at the time the force was applied. In addition, the counterbalance spring has snapped. This failure is assessed as general wear and tear due to age and use, and is not related to or caused by the forced entry of the panel damage.
The landlord then contacted the same [garage door specialist] who provided the following response to her questions on 05 March 2025. The [garage door specialist’s] response to the landlord’s questions are in bold:
The damage was consistent with forced entry while the locking mechanism was still engaged. NA no locking system - door forced open whilst motor engaged causing damage bent bottom / rhs
It was your staff members' assumption only that the counter-balance spring had snapped as the spring itself was not available for viewing at the inspection: - correct no spring on site - presumption was spring had snapped and thrown or possibly removed by tenant 4, The u-bolt attaching the counter balance spring had been removed which is unusual as it remains intact when the spring snaps - yes correct there should at least be the u- bolt that holds the spring in place – on original visit - not there
You received numerous calls during your summer holiday from a male requesting that you change your statement to show the garage door damage was a result of the broken spring only - Yes calls received male unsure what was the issue but was saying damage is normal wear and tear, these calls were over the holidays so nothing was agreed to or said just notes took
Any temporary repairs are exactly that, temporary, with no guarantee of how long it may last - repairs will see the door out but we cant ignore the fact that the door has been bent at some stage now causing the door to be out of alignment and hitting the bottom concrete rebate quite bad
The landlord said she has not had the door fixed as she does not have the money to do so. The landlord has provided a quotation of $2,242.50 to replace the roller door.
The landlord purchased the premises with the garage door in 2024. The landlord says that she has received advise from the person who provided the quotation to replace the door that the door is around 15 years old and had about “eight or nine years life still in it.”
On the evidence presented to me, it is impossible to know for sure how or who damaged the garage door. However, I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Therefore, it is the tenant who has the burden to prove that the damage was not caused by the tenant (or someone at the premises with her permission) carelessly or intentionally. This burden has not been satisfied. I find that it is more likely than not that the tenant (or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission) damaged the door during the tenancy.
I also find that it is reasonable to replace and not repair the garage door.
There are two issues with awarding compensation. The first issue is that the landlord has not had the door replaced at the time of the hearing. The premises was on the market at that time and may well sell without the door having been repaired. I take judicial notice that a roller garage door that is not working is a significant issue and is likely to be reflected in any sales price.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord is to be in a position that is no better or worse off than she would have been had the damage not occurred. I accept that a roller garage door could be expected to have a lifespan of up to 25 years, and that the door was approximately 15 years of age.
I award $750 as nominal damages for the damage to the garage door. This reflects a reduction for depreciation and that the repair work has not been done by the landlord. Damage to the bathroom window:
The landlord claims that the bathroom window was broken during the tenancy.
The tenant says that there was a crack in the window at the start of the tenancy where the latch was, and she believes damage to the window was caused over time by the window pushing against the latch during heavy winds. The landlord does not accept that the window was damaged this way or that there was a crack in the window at the start of the tenancy.
As set out above, the parties completed a property inspection report at the start of the tenancy. It is contained in the Tenancy Agreement. For the bathroom, under windows, both parties have ticked “condition acceptable”.
I find that the damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not caused intentionally or carelessly.
This claim is proved. Damage to the bedroom windows:
The landlord has provided photographs showing the windows in the bedroom were broken.
The tenant says that the windows in the bedroom were not broken when she left the premises on 25 June 2025.
Unfortunately, the tenant did not attend the final inspection or take detailed photographs of the premises when she vacated the premises.
The inspection report in the Tenancy Agreement records that the windows in the bedroom in an acceptable condition.
I find that the damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not caused intentionally or carelessly.
I award $718.31 (including GST) for damage to the bedroom and bathroom windows. Damage to the oven:
The landlord says that the knob on the oven was damaged during the tenancy resulting in the Sima stat being damaged.
The landlord is claiming $302.45 to repair the oven and the power point (see below).
The tenant admits damaging the knob on the oven. She said it was damaged accidentally when she was cleaning the oven.
I award $222.45 being the sum charged less the cost of the power point and estimated labour charge for the power point. Damage to the power point.
The landlord claims that a power point was damaged during the tenancy. She says it looks like it had been “kicked in”.
The landlord has not provided a photograph of this damage.
The tenant denied damaging the power point during the tenancy.
The landlord has not satisfied me that this damage was caused during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. C. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS: The tenant’s claims that the landlord breached section 48(1) and/or section 38(2) of the RTA: The law:
Section 38(2) of the RTA provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
Section 38(3) and schedule 1A of the RTA provide that 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.
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". (See MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.)
While the right under section 38(2) of the RTA is frequently referred to as the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises, the right under section 38(2) is wider than the common law concept of quiet enjoyment.
In the District Court decision of Lucas v Patterson [2005] DCR 76, the Judge notes that “reasonable peace, comfort and privacy” is wider than the common law covenant of quiet enjoyment, and phrased the test of “reasonableness” as one of proportionality between rights.
The tenant’s right to reasonable peace, comfort and privacy is not unfettered. There are several valid reasons for a landlord to enter the premises during the tenancy. Section 48(1) of the RTA provides that: The landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except— (a) with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry; or (b) in any of the circumstances described in subsections (2) to (3).
Section 48(1) of the RTA goes on to provide the circumstances where a landlord may enter, when the landlord may enter and what notice is required.
The tenant says that on two specific occasions, 04 April 2025 and 23 April 2025, the landlord breached section 48(1) of the RTA by entering the premises without having given the correct notice. The tenant further claims that these visits amounted to a breach of the tenant’s rights under section 38(2) of the RTA and amounted to harassment within the meaning of section 38(3) of the RTA.
The tenant says the landlord also breached section 48(1) and/or 38(2) of the RTA by carrying out monthly inspections and attending the premises on 9 separate occasions during the period 23 March 2025 and 23 April 2025. The landlord’s visit to the premises on 03 April 2025:

Did the landlord give correct notice to enter the premises on 04 April 2026?

On 03 April 2025, the tenant sent a text message to the landlord saying that Person X 1 had: ... made a hole in the door of the bathroom and garage. I have had him arrested this morning. I just wanted to reach out and let you know in regards to the damage and how you would like me to remedy the damages as the doors are not standard wood doors.
The landlord responded by checking to see if the tenant and her child were ok. At 8.17pm on 03 April 2025, she sent a further text message saying: This text is just to give you 24hrs(+) notice that I will be inspecting the property at 5pm tomorrow (Friday) 4 April regarding the above mentioned damage.
During the hearing, the tenant explained that landlord sent the message as IMessage’s and because her phone was not an iphone she did not receive them. The landlord disputed this saying her daughter’s phone was also not an iPhone but she received her messages.
Subsection 48(1)(d) of the RTA provides that the landlord must give 24 hours’ notice to enter the premises “... for the purpose of carry out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises”. While the landlord was not carrying out the repairs, the purpose of the visit was to ascertain what repairs were required. I am satisfied that the landlord had a genuine reason to give notice to access the premises under section 48(1)(d) of the RTA.
The correct period of notice for this visit was 24 hours. The notice should have been given in accordance with section 136 of the RTA. This section provides the method that may be used for giving notice under the RTA. This includes electronic messages where the address has been given as an address for service. 1 See paragraph 15 above.
The Tenancy Agreement provides an email address as an address for service for the tenant. The Tenancy Agreement does not provide, and I have not been provided with any evidence, that the tenant’s mobile telephone number had been given as an address for service. Therefore, the notice given by the landlord on 03 April 2025 was not notice in accordance with section 136 of the RTA.
I find that the landlord did not give notice to enter the premises on 04 April 2025.

What happened on 04 April 2025?

The tenant says: a. The landlord arrived at the premises at approximately 5.45pm; b. She was not expecting the visit because she had not received the text messages giving the notice of the visit; c. When the landlord arrived, she was very busy with her newborn baby and she visitors over for dinner; d. She asked the landlord if they could reschedule and the landlord said that she was entering the premises whether the tenant liked it or not as she had given notice; e. The landlord then tried to push past her by pushing her arm down from the side of the door frame and trying to walk past her; f. She told the landlord that if she did not leave the premises, she would call the police because it was a forced entry; g. As the landlord was leaving, she heard her calling her a fxxx xxx. The tenant said this was recorded on the security footage. The tenant said she no longer has the footage.
The landlord says: a. She and her teenage daughter went to the premises after picking up her daughter from the bus; b. The tenant opened the door which opens inwards; c. Behind the tenant on sitting on an armchair in the lounge was Person X; d. The tenant said they needed to reschedule and they left immediately.
The landlord denies swearing at or about the tenant as alleged or trying to force entry. The landlord referred to a text message the tenant sent to her after the visit that evening. The text message does not refer to the landlord trying to force entry. It does refer to notice requirements to enter the premises and that she cannot receive iMessage’s.
The landlord says that if the tenant’s recollection of her visit on 03 April 2025 was correct, why did not she not refer to it in the email.
The tenant says she was in a panicked state after the landlord’s visit and had artificial intelligence draft the email for her.
The tenant said that Person X was at the house on 03 April 2025, because the police had bailed him to her house without her permission. Did the landlord breach section 48(1) on 04 April 2025?
I have been presented with two different versions of events. Neither party put forward witnesses. This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof.
I am not satisfied that the landlord acted in the manner alleged by the tenant. Given that her teenage daughter was present, I consider it is unlikely that she would have tried to push past the tenant to enter the premises.
I find that the landlord did not enter the house. Section 48(7) of the RTA provides that in section 48 “...premises does not include land or facilities”. That means that knocking on the door without entering the house is not a breach of section 48(1) of the RTA. Did the landlord’s visit to the premises on 04 April 2025 amount to a breach of the tenant’s rights under section 38 of the RTA?
The tenant alleges that the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment to the premises. I do not accept that the landlord acted in the manner alleged. I do not accept that she tried to push past the tenant to enter the premises, that she said she was going to enter the premises despite the tenant’s objections or that she swore at or about the tenant.
Having said that, I accept that the tenant had not received the text message and was not expecting the landlord. I also accept that the landlord having believed that the tenant would be expecting the visit and being concerned that Person X had damaged the premises, was likely to have been annoyed to have been told that she could not enter the premises. I consider that the interaction on 04 April 2025 was likely to have been tense and uncomfortable for both parties.
As set out above, the landlord should have given the notice in accordance with section 136 of the RTA. I find that the landlord’s actions of serving notice by text message and then attending the premises expecting to enter and asserting that she had given correct notice did breach section 38(2) of the RTA.
I also find that the visit was upsetting for the tenant. I do not consider this to be a significant breach, nor do I find that it amounts to harassment within the meaning of section 38(3) of the RTA.
I award $150 to the tenant as compensation for this breach. The landlord’s inspection of the premises on 23 April 2025:
On 20 April 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice that there would be a property inspection at 9am on Wednesday, 23 April 2025 and that she would be testing for methamphetamine during this visit.
The tenant said that she contacted the landlord to ask for the inspection to be postponed because her son was unwell, and the landlord did not agree to change the date or the time. The tenant says that on 23 April 2025, the police attended with the landlord and that the landlord “had [Person X] arrested at this inspection”.
The landlord does not dispute that the police attended the inspection with her. She said they attended because prior to 23 April 2025, Person X had telephoned her and said she could not do the inspection. The landlord said that Person X also threatened her by saying he would “... throw her over the fxxkxxx fence”. The landlord said she then visited the police who told her that Person X had charges for violence against him, was currently on bail and was in breach of his bail conditions.
The landlord said it was arranged for the police to accompany her to the premises because of Person X’s threats during the telephone call.
The tenant said that she was sitting with Person X during the telephone call referred to above and that he did not act in the manner alleged.
There is no obligation on a landlord to reach an agreement with a tenant regarding the time for a property inspection. The landlord was not obliged to agree to the tenant’s request to change the inspection time.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that that she felt threatened by Person X during the telephone call. The tenant admits that Person X intentionally damaged a door in the premises and refused to leave. I consider it is more likely than not that he would have become angry with the landlord when she refused his request to postpone the inspection.
I consider in these circumstances it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the police or accept the offer from the police to attend the premises with her.
I do not accept that the landlord was responsible for Person X being arrested. It is my understanding that the police decide who and when to arrest someone.
I do not consider that the landlord’s actions during this inspection or in relation to this inspection amounted to a breach of section 48(1) or 38(2) of the RTA. The landlord’s alleged nine attendances at the premises between 23 March 2025 and 23 April 2025:
The tenant states that: Between 23 March and 23 April 2025 (4 weeks), the landlord attended or attempted to attend the premises approximately nine times, including inspections, contractor attendance, repeated hand delivered letters, police presence, and meth testing. The tenant submits this frequency and manner of attendance breached section 38(2) and amounted to harassment under section 38(3).
In the Case Management Directions contained in my Order of 20 January 2026, I directed the tenant to provide: ... no later than 4pm on 04 February 2026: a. A summary of her claims for unlawful entry to the premises and/or breach of her quiet enjoyment of the premises to include: i. The dates and times (or if the exact dates and times are not known, the approximate dates and times) of the incidents that the tenant says occurred on 04 April 2025 and 23 April 2025; and on 9 separate occasions; ii. Details of what the tenant alleged happened on each of the incidents complained of; iii. If anyone else was present during the incident, the name of that person(s); ...
The tenant did not comply with this direction. During the hearing, the tenant was unable to specify the “9 separate occasions” referred to in her claim. I find that the tenant has not satisfactorily particularised this claim.
The tenant said the visits included when the landlord attended the premises to deliver notices / letters to the letterbox and/or in person. A landlord does not need to issue notice to attend the grounds of the premises. I do not consider that the landlord’s attendance at the premises to deliver the correspondence either by hand or to the letterbox amounted to a breach of section 48(1) of the RTA.
The tenant’s claims that the landlord breached section 48(1) and or section 38(2) of the RTA on “9 separate occasions” is dismissed. Monthly inspections:
The tenant says that the “landlord imposed monthly inspections without [a] lawful basis ... “ to do so. The tenant says that this amounts to a breach of section 48(1) of the RTA and / or section 38(2).
Section 48(2)(b) of the RTA provides that provided the landlord gives at least 48 hours’ notice, the landlord may inspect the premises “no more frequently than once in any period of 4 weeks”.
The tenant has not asserted that the landlord carried out inspections more than once every 4 weeks or that correct notice was not given.
The landlord does not need to have a reason to carry out monthly inspections.
The tenant’s claim that by requiring monthly inspections the landlord breached section 48(1) or section 38(2) of the RTA is dismissed. Did the landlord breach section 48(3B) of the RTA by failing to notify the tenant of the results of the methamphetamine test?
Section 48(2)(ba) of the RTA provides that a landlord may enter the premises: ... for the purpose of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking samples for such testing (except where the testing or sample taking is part of a prescribed decontamination process) at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it (including stating the contaminants to be tested for) at least 48 hours but not more than 14 days before the intended entry;
Section 48(3B) of the RTA provides: If premises are entered for the purpose of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking samples for such testing (including as part of any decontamination process), the landlord must, within 7 days of receiving the results of the testing, notify the tenant, in writing, of the results of the testing and provide the tenant with a copy (if any) of the results.
The landlord has provided a letter dated 20 April 2025 that states an inspection would be carried out on 23 April 2025 and would including testing for methamphetamine. The landlord said she delivered this letter to the tenant’s letterbox.
The tenant said she was not provided with the results of the testing. The landlord said she did give the results of the testing to the tenant and that this was provided with a letter of 24 April 2025. The landlord has provided the letter and the results and states that these documents were hand delivered to the tenant’s letterbox.
The tenant says she did not receive the letter or the results. The tenant did say during the hearing that the landlord frequently delivered handwritten letters / notice to the letterbox.
I find it is more likely than not that the letter and results were provided to the tenant by being hand delivered to the tenant’s letterbox.
This claim is dismissed. Withholding the bond:
The tenant says the landlord withheld her bond and, in doing so, subjected her to financial hardship. The landlord says the tenant did not ask for her bond to be returned to her.
There is not a specific claim in the RTA for a landlord failing to return the bond. The process for return of the bond is set out in the RTA. If the parties cannot agree that the bond or the portion of the bond that is to be returned, then they can lodge a claim with the Tribunal to determine if or how much of the bond should be returned. (See section 22B of the RTA.)
That is what both parties have done. The tenant is claiming return of the bond and the landlord is claiming payment from the bond.
As set out above, I have found that the bond is to be paid to the landlord.
This claim is dismissed. D. SUPPRESSION:
Section 95A (1A) of the RTA provides that: The Tribunal must, in any proceedings that relate to withdrawal from a tenancy under section 56B, order that the name and any identifying particulars of the parties not be published.
This Order relates to the withdrawal from a tenancy under section 56B. For this reason, the names of the parties, Person X and any identifying particulars shall not be published. E. FILING FEE:
Neither party has been wholly successful with their claims.
On balance, I consider that the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356691 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356691 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the notice properly served?

Was the Withdrawal Notice valid?

What is the effect of the Withdrawal Notice?

Did the landlord give correct notice to enter the premises on 04 April 2026?

What happened on 04 April 2025?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the notice properly served?

Was the Withdrawal Notice valid?

What is the effect of the Withdrawal Notice?

Did the landlord give correct notice to enter the premises on 04 April 2026?

What happened on 04 April 2025?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions