What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5383361 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 5383361?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5383361?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5383361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13025728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5383361 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 5383361?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5383361?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5383361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13025728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5383361 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by the trustee Mr L, who attended by phone.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages because the landlord did not agree to postpone a routine inspection and took a photo of her in bed.
Because this is the tenant’s application, the onus is on her to establish her claim. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
By email sent at 4.59pm pm on Monday 13 October 2025, the landlord gave the tenant notice that he would be attending for a routine inspection on Thursday 16 October 2025 between 4pm and 7pm. It was noted that she did not need to be present and that they had keys.
At 6.59pm on Tuesday 14 October 2025, the tenant emailed asking if it could be pushed out for a week or two because she was not long out of hospital and had sick children at home.
At 8am on Wednesday 15 October 2025, the landlord responded saying that the inspection could not be postponed because it was required for insurance purposes. They said. “We will make this particular inspection very prompt and as unobtrusive as possible due to what you’ve outlined. The inspection will therefore proceed as notified on Thursday 16 October 2025 between 4.00pm and 7.00pm.”
Mr L said that he arrived at the premises at approximatley 6pm on Thursday 16 October. He said that he knocked loudly. There was no response and so he let himself in and took photos. As he was taking a photo of a bedroom, he was alerted by a loud snore. He then realised that someone was in the bed and he left.
On 20 October 2025, the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy a breach. The tenant was told that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy, and specific issues were itemised.
On 29 October 2025, the tenant asked for a copy of the inspection report and photos. These were provided on 30 October 2025.
On 3 November 2025, the tenant issued a 14-day notice to remedy. 1
On 5 November 2025, the tenant wrote to the landlord raising her concern t hat she was very uncomfortable to discover that a photograph was taken of her while she was asleep during the visit, and she considered this was a significant breach of her privacy.
On 6 November the landlord replied, noting that the inspection had been conducted in accordance with the notice given, that the photograph was taken solely to record the room’s condition and does not reveal the identity of the person.
The same day, the tenant filed an application before the Tribunal. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s rights by proceeding with the inspection on 16

October?

Section 48 provides that a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance.
Section 48(2)(b) specifies that a landlord may enter the premises: for the purpose of inspecting the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on a day specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry, and not more frequently than once in any period of 4 weeks. 1 In fact, the breach alleged was not capable of remedy and so this notice was not appropriate, but there is no criticism for sending it.
This position is also summarised in the standard Tenancy Agreement, which was in used in this case, in paragraph 7 of the “outline of the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act”.
The tenant’s consent is not required where the landlord has given notice.
The inspection on 16 October was the first inspection conducted since the tenancy began on 25 April 2025. It was conducted during the hours specified in the Act. The landlord gave 72 hours’ notice. The landlord complied with the Act. It is unfortunate that the tenant was sick in bed, but that does not mean that the landlord has breached any obligation. The tenant’s rights were not breached by the inspection. Has the landlord interfered with the tenant’s privacy?
Section 38 provides that tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises and the landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant 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 $3,000.00. See section 38(3) 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.
As found above, the landlord lawfully conducted an inspection of the premises.
The tenant was unaware that the inspection had taken place and was understandably distressed to find that someone had been in her home while she was asleep and that a photograph had been taken of her in bed.
Because the tenant was asleep during the inspection, she cannot provide evidence which contradicts the landlord’s account as set out above. Mr L was specifically asked whether he took the offending photo before or after he heard the loud snore. He said that he could not remember, simply that he had not entered the room, he had taken the photograph from the hallway and it was at about the same time as he heard the snore and then he had exited the property.
The Tribunal has found breaches of a tenant’s rights were photographs that were used in advertising showed personal items or information.
In 4319072, the tenant had agreed to photographs being used provided her personal belongings were blurred. The landlord proceeded to publish the photographs without the agreed blurring.
And in the case of T v Todd [2022] NZTT 4319171, the Tribunal found that when advertising the premises, the landlord had breached the tenant’s privacy by publishing photographs which included the tenant’s personal possessions, including underwear.
In the present case, the photograph has not been published. The tenant has not established that her privacy has been breached or that the landlord acted inappropriately in anyway.
The tenant is reminded that she has an obligation under section 40 of the Act to keep the premises clean and tidy and the landlord is entitled to conduct inspections further in accordance with section 48. Provided he has complied with the notice requirements set out in that section, he may enter the premises without her consent.
This decision should not be seen as minimising the very real distress that the tenant has suffered. It has triggered past trauma and for that reason I have decided not to publish the parties’ names.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by the trustee Mr L, who attended by phone.

The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages because the landlord did not agree to postpone a routine inspection and took a photo of her in bed.

Because this is the tenant’s application, the onus is on her to establish her claim. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

By email sent at 4.59pm pm on Monday 13 October 2025, the landlord gave the tenant notice that he would be attending for a routine inspection on Thursday 16 October 2025 between 4pm and 7pm. It was noted that she did not need to be present and that they had keys.

At 6.59pm on Tuesday 14 October 2025, the tenant emailed asking if it could be pushed out for a week or two because she was not long out of hospital and had sick children at home.

At 8am on Wednesday 15 October 2025, the landlord responded saying that the inspection could not be postponed because it was required for insurance purposes. They said. “We will make this particular inspection very prompt and as unobtrusive as possible due to what you’ve outlined. The inspection will therefore proceed as notified on Thursday 16 October 2025 between 4.00pm and 7.00pm.”

Mr L said that he arrived at the premises at approximatley 6pm on Thursday 16 October. He said that he knocked loudly. There was no response and so he let himself in and took photos. As he was taking a photo of a bedroom, he was alerted by a loud snore. He then realised that someone was in the bed and he left.

On 20 October 2025, the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy a breach. The tenant was told that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy, and specific issues were itemised.

On 29 October 2025, the tenant asked for a copy of the inspection report and photos. These were provided on 30 October 2025.

On 3 November 2025, the tenant issued a 14-day notice to remedy. 1

On 5 November 2025, the tenant wrote to the landlord raising her concern t hat she was very uncomfortable to discover that a photograph was taken of her while she was asleep during the visit, and she considered this was a significant breach of her privacy.

On 6 November the landlord replied, noting that the inspection had been conducted in accordance with the notice given, that the photograph was taken solely to record the room’s condition and does not reveal the identity of the person.

The same day, the tenant filed an application before the Tribunal. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s rights by proceeding with the inspection on 16

October?

Section 48 provides that a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance.

Section 48(2)(b) specifies that a landlord may enter the premises: for the purpose of inspecting the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on a day specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry, and not more frequently than once in any period of 4 weeks. 1 In fact, the breach alleged was not capable of remedy and so this notice was not appropriate, but there is no criticism for sending it.

This position is also summarised in the standard Tenancy Agreement, which was in used in this case, in paragraph 7 of the “outline of the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act”.

The tenant’s consent is not required where the landlord has given notice.

The inspection on 16 October was the first inspection conducted since the tenancy began on 25 April 2025. It was conducted during the hours specified in the Act. The landlord gave 72 hours’ notice. The landlord complied with the Act. It is unfortunate that the tenant was sick in bed, but that does not mean that the landlord has breached any obligation. The tenant’s rights were not breached by the inspection. Has the landlord interfered with the tenant’s privacy?

Section 38 provides that tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises and the landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant 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 $3,000.00. See section 38(3) 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.

As found above, the landlord lawfully conducted an inspection of the premises.

The tenant was unaware that the inspection had taken place and was understandably distressed to find that someone had been in her home while she was asleep and that a photograph had been taken of her in bed.

Because the tenant was asleep during the inspection, she cannot provide evidence which contradicts the landlord’s account as set out above. Mr L was specifically asked whether he took the offending photo before or after he heard the loud snore. He said that he could not remember, simply that he had not entered the room, he had taken the photograph from the hallway and it was at about the same time as he heard the snore and then he had exited the property.

The Tribunal has found breaches of a tenant’s rights were photographs that were used in advertising showed personal items or information.

In 4319072, the tenant had agreed to photographs being used provided her personal belongings were blurred. The landlord proceeded to publish the photographs without the agreed blurring.

And in the case of T v Todd [2022] NZTT 4319171, the Tribunal found that when advertising the premises, the landlord had breached the tenant’s privacy by publishing photographs which included the tenant’s personal possessions, including underwear.

In the present case, the photograph has not been published. The tenant has not established that her privacy has been breached or that the landlord acted inappropriately in anyway.

The tenant is reminded that she has an obligation under section 40 of the Act to keep the premises clean and tidy and the landlord is entitled to conduct inspections further in accordance with section 48. Provided he has complied with the notice requirements set out in that section, he may enter the premises without her consent.

This decision should not be seen as minimising the very real distress that the tenant has suffered. It has triggered past trauma and for that reason I have decided not to publish the parties’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5383361 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5383361 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

October?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

October?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions