What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375664 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5375664?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375664?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13142661-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375664 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5375664?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375664?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13142661-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5375664 — Smoke alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for a rent refund due to an increase in rent is dismissed.

Reasons

All the parties attended the hearing.
At the hearing (shortly after it had started) I was told by the landlord attending in person that the other landlord was overseas and wanted to attend by telephone. This was not possible for the Tribunal to facilitate because notice of this was not given in advance. However, the Tribunal accommodated this by allowing the landlord who was physically present to telephone the absent landlord on his own telephone so that she could listen, and she did at limited times take part.
The tenancy began on 21 February 2025 and ended in October 2025 after the tenants gave notice. The tenants seek exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenants also sought a rent refund for the landlord not giving them 60 days’ notice of a rent increase.
As 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.” That means that in this case the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered. Rent increase
It was discussed how the rent increase that was given appeared to be linked to an agreed variation of the tenancy, namely to permit an additional adult (a flatmate) to reside at the premises beyond the occupancy allowed under the tenancy agreement.
After a review of section 28 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) (Increase of rent by agreement or order in case of substantial improvements, improved facilities, or variation of terms) the tenants subsequently elected not to pursue this aspect of their application.
Accordingly, this part of the application is dismissed. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment – The law
A tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or by any person claiming through the landlord. See section 38(1) RTA. A landlord must also not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2)RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00 (see s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
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 s 109(3) RTA).
It is important to note here that for an award of exemplary damages to be awarded under this section harassment needs to be established.
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.
Section 38(1) RTA is a broad statement and codifies the common law standard of a right to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption. However, while s 38(2) RTA states that the landlord must not cause any interference, the duty is modified by the degree of interference to the “reasonable peace, comfort or privacy” of the tenant.
It is clear from these sections that temporary discomfort or inconvenience does not constitute a basis for breach of the covenant.
There are circumstances where the landlord’s rights (such as to carry out maintenance or renovations) are inconsistent with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. In those cases, it is a balancing act to determine the level of intrusion or nuisance that a tenant can reasonably expect to endure. The landlord is entitled to carry out maintenance, but those actions can breach reasonable peace, comfort and privacy if they are not well managed.
Whether the interference complained of breaches the quiet enjoyment covenant is a question of reasonableness having regard to all the circumstances, including prior knowledge of the work being carried out, and the length and degree of intrusion.
The Tribunal has also taken the view in the past that a personality clash or a difference of opinion does not of itself amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. Whilst it can impact on reasonable peace and comfort in a significant way, more is needed to prove the landlord is liable for the breach.
Finally, section 48 RTA sets out the specific notice a landlord is required to give a tenant in order to enter the premises in different situations unless the tenant consents. Importantly, the reference to “premises” in section 48 RTA does not include land. This is important because this means that the notice provisions in section 48 do not apply when the landlord is simply entering the land. However, even when entering the premises including the land legitimately, a landlord must still be careful not to breach the covenants for quiet enjoyment contained in sections 38(1) and (2) RTA.
I turn now to the events that are claimed by the tenants to amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment – Facts and analysis: Touch ups at the start of the tenancy
The tenants say that when the tenancy began the tenant says the landlord was at the premises doing touch ups for about an hour or two. He was doing caulking work in the kitchen.
The landlord says he was there and was doing this to leave the property in the best state possible. It was not a problem at this stage he thought. The tenants did not express any annoyance. I heard how at this stage everyone was getting on at this point and there was a co-operative atmosphere.
I accept that the landlord being present as the tenant was moving in for a few hours amounted to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Once the tenancy begins, the tenant has the right to exclusive possession and control of the premises, subject only to the landlord’s lawful rights of entry.
However, I do not consider this to be an act of harassment. There is no evidence that the interference was anything more than minimal. The landlord was undertaking a minor maintenance job. The tenants did not express annoyance or disagreement at the time. At this stage the parties were assisting each other and co-operating to start the tenancy off well. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment – Facts and analysis: Carpet, shower dome, painter
The tenants say that in the first few months they had the landlord, a carpet layer, a shower dome installer and painter at the property. They feel these issues could have been sorted before the tenancy started.
I heard how the painting was under the bathroom vanity and was the painting of skirting and how this and the fitting of the shower dome was part of the end of an existing contract to put in a new shower. The landlord says he tried but the contractor did not do it sooner. I heard the carpet work related to cutting away a carpet which had been installed up to a floor to ceiling window – it had been installed over the drainage channel and the landlord had recently discovered this. He had to get people to come back in to remedy this. There was also wardrobe door that needed reattaching.
I am not satisfied that any of this work amounts to breach of quiet enjoyment. I am not satisfied that it is proven that this maintenance work was unreasonable or intrusive. I accept the landlord’s position that he was waiting for contractors. I have no reason to doubt this.
Further, the tenant and landlord communicated about the work (as shown by the multiple text messages filed) and messages show the agreement of the tenant to the work. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment – Facts and analysis: doors
The tenants say that it was also a breach of quiet enjoyment that builders attended the property to price up doors.
On 30 April a message was sent to a tenant that the landlord wanted a builder to come to the property connection with doors the landlord wanted to put in the lounge for better heat and privacy. The parties mutually agreed the builder would come that day. This time was at the tenant’s suggestion as this suited her. This is shown in text messages.
Further on 11 May 2025 the landlord sent another message in connection with this job asking if another builder could come as progress with the first builder was slow. When the tenant indicated she did not have a lot of free time the landlord said: “no rush, at your convenience”. The tenant then suggested a day and time. That time and day was then accommodated by the landlord.
The tenant also takes issue with the fact that there was no notice of the landlord coming with the builder. The tenant says that on this day the landlord also made a comment about her lawns needing mowing. I heard how he offered the tenant a lawn mower but how the tenant had already made arrangements.
I do not accept that this amounts to breach of quiet enjoyment. The text messages show the tenant’s agreement to the visits. The landlord did not proceed with the work after the tenant telling him they did not want it.
I do not accept that the tenant did not know the landlord was coming with the builder on 16 May as the as the text message says “I’d like to bring another builder through this week...”. In any event, it would not be unusual (for a landlord to accompany a tradesperson particularly when wanting to explain work that was being proposed.
Finally, while the landlord mentioned the lawns, I do not find the tenant has established that this brief discussion, particularly when the landlord was making an offer to provide a mower, amounts to a breach of quiet enjoyment. Low level frustration or annoyance does not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment – Facts and analysis: Outside light
On 1 June 2025 the tenant discovered a light was broken outside. The tenant sent the landlord an email with a photograph. The landlord sent an email back by return saying he would swing by and take a look. I heard how he arrived before the tenant had checked her emails, about 30 minutes later.
I heard how one of the tenants then let him in and chose to take part in the fixing of the light. The landlord says that he did not need to enter the house and could have walked around the house if the tenants did not want him to come in, but they let him through.
Having seen the light that was hanging I consider that the landlord was justified in taking swift emergency action. The light was large and hanging down off a beam. I accept the landlord’s position that it was a safety issue. There is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord was intrusive or unreasonable beyond fixing the light.
Taking into account all of the evidence before me, I do not accept that this visit to attend to this urgent maintenance issue breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment – Facts and analysis: Builder for flood damage
The tenants gave notice to end the tenancy. The tenancy ended on 23 October.
After the tenants gave notice a builder contacted the tenants directly on 1 October 2025 asking if they could do work starting the next day it had the caveat “no drama if not we can sort something else out”. The tenant entered into direct communication with the builder and asked if the work could start on 21 October as they would have moved out by then.
The landlord contacted the tenant on 1 October saying that the builder had told him the tenant would not allow access to allow the repairs. The tenant replied clarifying that she had asked the builder to come on 21 October and wondering why the builder had said this. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a misunderstanding and what the tenant was telling him was different to that which he had been told by the builders. The tenant sent the landlord the screenshot of the messages with the builder. The landlord agreed the builders would not start until 21 October. The tenant advised the Tribunal that they had already moved out by this date.
I am not satisfied that this chain of communication or the works undertaken by the builders amounts to a breach of quiet enjoyment in the tenant’s use of the premises. The communication is professional and straightforward, and the misunderstanding resolved quickly and with an accommodation of the tenants’ request. The landlord agreed to delay the works and the tenant had already left the premises by the 21 st . Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment – Facts and analysis: Smoke alarm
On 5 October 2025 the landlord told the tenant he wanted to install a smoke alarm to replace one that had been taken down by the tenants. The tenants say that one was malfunctioning. The landlord asked for a convenient time. The tenant expressed she was happy to do it. The landlord said it was a 5 minute job and then the tenant said if he must do the alarm later in the week would be appreciated. The landlord did agree to put it in the letterbox and I heard this was how the issue was resolved.
The tenant expressed that the back-and-forth communications on this was a breach of quiet enjoyment.
I am not satisfied that this amounts to a breach of quiet enjoyment. I am satisfied that the landlord was trying to arrange for a replacement smoke alarm, which is a very important safety aspect of a property, to be installed. That is justified. The emails exchanged are professional and polite. The landlord asked for a convenient time but ultimately agreed to leave it in the letterbox when he might have insisted on providing sufficient formal notice and installing it himself. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment – Facts and analysis: Flood damage
It is not disputed between the parties that on 3 July 2025 a significant flood occurred in the garage due to the poor weather and a pump in a sump outside the garage breaking. I heard how water was ankle deep in the garage. The garage is an undercroft basement garage (built below ground level situated directly underneath the house).
I heard how the tenant told the landlord about the issue on 3 July and the landlord came promptly with a friend. An electrician was arranged and carried out work that evening to make sure it was safe. The landlord obtained a temporary pump to send the water away from the garage and driveway. I heard how a temporary pump was fitted by the landlord that day.
The tenant has no issue with the work on 3 July. It was urgent but that the allegation that there has been a breach of quiet enjoyment stems from the fact that for the next week and a half the landlord was at the property daily or every other day in connection with the pump.
I heard evidence from a witness who assisted the landlord and his evidence mainly related to the weather, the flooding and the nature of the repairs. The witness also filed an affidavit setting out the nature of the repair work done and why visits were needed.
I have no reason to doubt the evidence of the landlord and the witness that a series of pumps needed fitting. After the urgent temporary pump was fitted it was followed by a better interim solution followed by a permanent fix. Evidence was presented that the interim solutions required monitoring due to the ongoing weather, the fact the first pump was manual and the fact that the grate closed on top of the pump’s electrical wire and because debris in the sump (which could not be cleaned due to the excessive rain) might clog the pump (causing further flooding and damage).
I heard that: a. The landlord says that from the start it was discussed with and understood by the tenants that he would need to be at the property regularly checking on the pump from time to time until it was fixed and this could take sometime. The tenants do not dispute that there was an overall understanding about that, but the tenants thought that this did not mean something as frequent as every day or every other day. It was thought it might mean every three days. b. On 4 July the landlord sent the tenant on messenger (a communication channel that had not been provided by the tenant) and by text at 6.35am on 4 July 2025 saying he would come in an hour. The text explained that he needed to monitor the manual pump until an automatic one could be installed. It says that he is confirming it is ok to enter and asked if the house combination he had was correct. He messaged again at 6.59am essentially asking if it was ok. At 9.11am the tenant replied saying she was at home sleeping but “yup any way you put those numbers in it’ll work”. It is not clear at precisely which point the landlord went to the property. The tenant was sleeping so does not know. However, I accept the evidence of the landlord that he would not have entered until the tenant confirmed the code which also confirmed he could access. c. On 6 July the tenant says the landlord came around to look outside with little notice. A text message shows that at 3.26pm he told the tenant he was just going to pop up and look at the outside of the house for insurance purposes. I heard how this was an outside visit. d. The tenant says the landlord also turned up briefly on 9 July without notice, but this was outside. No further details are available about this visit. e. On 9 July a text message shows the landlord telling the tenant that insurance will be assessing the property the following week and provided a date and time. The tenant confirmed this by saying “no worries” and confirming she would be home. f. On 10 July the landlord updated the tenant by text advising that a new pump would be put in the next day or two. He says hopefully it will be tomorrow. He refers to the need for the power to go off at that time. g. On 11 July I heard the landlord attended the property with no notice and that the tenant arrived home from work and the landlord was parked in the driveway so one of the tenants had to park down the road. The landlord has no record of this visit. The tenant has a message from her flatmate reporting that the landlord was there at 14.26 and reports that the landlord has left at 15.20. The landlord has had a medical issue and so he says if he was not there with his friend, he would only have been checking the pump was fine outside and would have only been there for a few minutes. He was physically unable to do any pump work himself. h. I heard how on 13 July the landlord arrived with 30 minutes warning given by text message. I heard that he blocked the tenant’s car in the drive but that he moved it when asked to do so. He knocked on the door asking for the power to be turned off so that work could be done in the garage with the pump. The tenant says she made it clear she was not happy about the power as she was trying to go to work but did do this. The landlord says that notice of this visit was given in the text message of 10 July. His message that he would be there in 30 minutes was a follow up to the earlier message to give additional notice. i. The tenant on this day sends a text message requiring “legal notice” because the landlord has been at the property a lot although she understands about the drain. j. An exchange then follows the next day about a visit by an insurance assessor’s visit. A number of text messages were then sent trying to confirm the tenant’s position. The landlord confirms the assessor can make it back the next day if the tenant would be willing to accommodate this. The tenant confirms that she is not complaining in her previous message regarding notice but she needs the required notice moving forward and says she will be home but sleeping the assessor can access via remote in the letter box. The following day on 15 July the landlord updates the tenant saying he is still waiting to hear from the assessor. The tenant tells the landlord the remote is in the letterbox. k. On 27 July 2025 the landlord advises the tenant that he will be checking the pump from the driveway the next day but that if it is not working he will need access to the garage. The landlord also sent a text about this on 28 July and the tenant replies “no worries...”. The landlord also says by text on 28 July he has to monitor the pump on Wednesday and Thursday due to the weather. He advises that he does not expect to have to switch on the reserve pump but if needed he would need to enter the garage. The tenant’s reply simply relates to a flat mate moving out. On 8 August 2025 the landlord says that due to the rain forecast they may see him checking the pump from the outside. There was no evidence that the checks were anything other than outside.
I have considered the position very carefully. I have no doubt that the landlord’s visits to the property were in relation to the monitoring of the pumps and the overall fixing of the issue combined with making sure such an event did not happen again.
With the exception of the visit on 13 July which I have referred to below, I find there has been no breach of quiet enjoyment in relation to the pump issue.
While landlord took a more informal approach to the giving of notice, on many occasions he did not actually need to give formal notice (under section 48 RTA) to the tenant because he was checking on the pump which was outside. There were other occasions where the tenant took an active part in allowing access (such as leaving a remote or confirming the code) thereby giving consent. Further, to begin with there was also an informal understanding between the parties had about the need for the pump to be monitored and fixed. The work being done was an important maintenance issue and was mostly outside. I have no reason to consider that the work and attendance was anything other than that necessary to monitor and repair the pump or that it was unreasonable or in the circumstances.
That said, I do not accept that the text message on 10 July telling the tenant that the landlord hopes work would be done on the pump in the next day or two was sufficient notice for the visit on 13 July which involved the tenant being given 30 minutes notice requiring the tenants to turn off their power. Cutting power affects a tenant’s ability to use the premises normally.
I am therefore satisfied that this visit, given the need to cut the power without a proper notice of the time or day on which this would take place, amounts to a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment. The tenant permitted the landlord to do the work but the tenant’s annoyance displayed in the text message about needing proper notice indicates that the entry did disturb their peace, comfort, or privacy at this time.
That said, despite the breach, this was done with the intention of making progress on fixing the pump and was done with a misplaced understanding about what the tenants were happy with given the discussions that had taken place about ongoing work.
I find that this does not amount to harassment of the tenants and therefore is not an unlawful act. I therefore decline to award exemplary damages. Summary and overall position
Although the tenant identified numerous incidents as alleged breaches, I have found that only two amounted to a breach of the landlord’s obligation to allow quiet enjoyment. Those two isolated breaches, while established, did not involve harassment.
Even if the events above were considered cumulatively, I do not consider that they amount to anything more than the two isolated occasions I have already identified as breaches of quiet enjoyment. The alleged breaches relate to maintenance issues or communication concerning maintenance. Taken as a whole, considering the knowledge (and often agreement) of the work being carried out, the circumstances of the work, the type of work being done, the proven length and proven degree of intrusion, I find that the remaining incidents taken together do not reach the threshold for a further breach, nor do they collectively amount to harassment. I note that the communication between the parties was often informal but polite. That also does not reach the threshold for a further breach, nor does it collectively amount to harassment.
The tenants claim for exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Suppression
The parties both want me to consider suppression of their identifying details.
Under s 95A(1) RTA a suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings. In the present case, the landlord has been wholly successful. The landlord is therefore granted suppression.
I have considered if the tenants ought to be granted suppression having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the parties’ names and identifying details outweighs the interest of the open justice reporting principle. In my view, the application for name suppression ought to be granted to the tenant as they were successful in establishing that their quiet enjoyment was breached on occasion albeit that they were not successful in obtaining the remedy they sought. Accordingly, the tenants’ application for suppression is also granted

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375664 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375664 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions