What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5424871 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $775.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

How much money was awarded in case 5424871?

Over Paid Rent As Agreed From 2021: $425.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Rent For Possession From 16/2…: $210.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Rent Paid For Two Days As Agr…: $140.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424871?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13012509-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5424871 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $775.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

How much money was awarded in case 5424871?

Over Paid Rent As Agreed From 2021: $425.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Rent For Possession From 16/2…: $210.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Rent Paid For Two Days As Agr…: $140.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424871?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13012509-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Exeter Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin 9018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5424871 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5424871 — net $775.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund rent paid for two days as agreed from 19/2/ to 21/2/2025	$140.00	Refund rent paid for two days as agreed from 19/2/ to 21/2/2025
Over paid rent as agreed from 2021	$425.00	Over paid rent as agreed from 2021
Refund rent for possession from 16/2/ to 18/2/2025	$210.00	Refund rent for possession from 16/2/ to 18/2/2025
Net award	$775.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$775.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $775.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The applications by both parties for exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 10/11/2025 the tenant filed an application for compensation of $845.00 and exemplary damages for breach of sections 38 and 48.
The parties had previously been to the Tribunal on 5/11/2025 under the landlord’s application 5325924.
In response on 13/1/2026 the landlord filed a cross application for exemplary damages for allowing a third tenant to live in the premises.
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 15/8/2021 and subsequently rolled over to a periodic tenancy at a weekly rent of $490.00.
The tenant vacated on 19/2/2025.
As the landlord agreed rent had been overpaid by one week at the beginning of the tenancy an award has been made for the overpayment of $425.00.
In addition, and award has also been made for the two days rent of $140.00 for the earlier end date of the tenancy, asked for and agreed to by the landlord. Tenant claim

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant submitted that the landlord breached their privacy by allowing a painter into the premises while they were still moving out their furniture and belongings.
The tenant suggested this made them very uncomfortable, especially as they believed the painter used their kitchen utensils.
The tenant wanted a refund of rent for the three days they believed the landlord had re-entered into possession of the premises.
In response the landlord submitted that she was unaware the painter had entered the premises until advised by the tenant, or that he had continued to return to do work.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenants’ concerns are understandable because of the presence of the painter working while they were moving out their possessions.
However, the evidence does not support that the presence of the painter interfered with their use of the premises.
The evidence of the tenant confirmed that they only encountered the painter once when one of them was at the premises.
Nor does the timeline evidence support that the tenant asked the landlord to only restrict the painter’s work to outside, which they had previously agreed to.
I find that the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and the claim for exemplary damages fails.
However, an award has been made for three days rent from the time the painter started work on the interior of the premises until the agreed termination date, because I consider the landlord effectively re-entered into possession of the property at that time.

The tenant claims the landlord entered the premises on several occasions between 16/2 and 19/2/2025 without consent or notice.
On the other hand, the landlord disputed she entered the premises without consent except on the day she removed the refrigerator, which the tenant had agreed she could do.
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. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence provided by the tenant is not enough to persuade me that the landlord as opposed to the painter, entered the premises without their knowledge or consent at any other time except for removal of the refrigerator.
Rather the timelines provided confirm that the discussions related to the issue of carpet damage which ultimately led to the breakdown in the relationship between the parties.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and the claim for exemplary damages fails.

Did the number of occupants exceed the maximum?

The landlord claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
However, the landlord confirmed while she was aware of the third person for at least a year she did not confront the tenant over the issue.
In response, the tenant agreed that the third person had been living at the premises for more than a year and that the landlord had never objected to the situation.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On perusal of a copy of the tenancy agreement I was unable to find a provision which specified the maximum number of people who may live in the premises during the tenancy.
In the absence of any such provision and the fact that the landlord did not issue a 14 day notice I do not consider any breach of section 40(3) has occurred.
I find the tenant has not committed an unlawful act and the claim for exemplary damages fails.
No filing fees are awarded because the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
Suppression under section 95A is not available to the landlord because she was largely unsuccessful with her claim.
The tenant did not ask for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5424871 — net $775.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund rent paid for two days as agreed from 19/2/ to 21/2/2025	$140.00	Refund rent paid for two days as agreed from 19/2/ to 21/2/2025
Over paid rent as agreed from 2021	$425.00	Over paid rent as agreed from 2021
Refund rent for possession from 16/2/ to 18/2/2025	$210.00	Refund rent for possession from 16/2/ to 18/2/2025
Net award	$775.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$775.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $775.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The applications by both parties for exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 10/11/2025 the tenant filed an application for compensation of $845.00 and exemplary damages for breach of sections 38 and 48.
The parties had previously been to the Tribunal on 5/11/2025 under the landlord’s application 5325924.
In response on 13/1/2026 the landlord filed a cross application for exemplary damages for allowing a third tenant to live in the premises.
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 15/8/2021 and subsequently rolled over to a periodic tenancy at a weekly rent of $490.00.
The tenant vacated on 19/2/2025.
As the landlord agreed rent had been overpaid by one week at the beginning of the tenancy an award has been made for the overpayment of $425.00.
In addition, and award has also been made for the two days rent of $140.00 for the earlier end date of the tenancy, asked for and agreed to by the landlord. Tenant claim

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant submitted that the landlord breached their privacy by allowing a painter into the premises while they were still moving out their furniture and belongings.
The tenant suggested this made them very uncomfortable, especially as they believed the painter used their kitchen utensils.
The tenant wanted a refund of rent for the three days they believed the landlord had re-entered into possession of the premises.
In response the landlord submitted that she was unaware the painter had entered the premises until advised by the tenant, or that he had continued to return to do work.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenants’ concerns are understandable because of the presence of the painter working while they were moving out their possessions.
However, the evidence does not support that the presence of the painter interfered with their use of the premises.
The evidence of the tenant confirmed that they only encountered the painter once when one of them was at the premises.
Nor does the timeline evidence support that the tenant asked the landlord to only restrict the painter’s work to outside, which they had previously agreed to.
I find that the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and the claim for exemplary damages fails.
However, an award has been made for three days rent from the time the painter started work on the interior of the premises until the agreed termination date, because I consider the landlord effectively re-entered into possession of the property at that time.

The tenant claims the landlord entered the premises on several occasions between 16/2 and 19/2/2025 without consent or notice.
On the other hand, the landlord disputed she entered the premises without consent except on the day she removed the refrigerator, which the tenant had agreed she could do.
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. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence provided by the tenant is not enough to persuade me that the landlord as opposed to the painter, entered the premises without their knowledge or consent at any other time except for removal of the refrigerator.
Rather the timelines provided confirm that the discussions related to the issue of carpet damage which ultimately led to the breakdown in the relationship between the parties.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and the claim for exemplary damages fails.

Did the number of occupants exceed the maximum?

The landlord claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
However, the landlord confirmed while she was aware of the third person for at least a year she did not confront the tenant over the issue.
In response, the tenant agreed that the third person had been living at the premises for more than a year and that the landlord had never objected to the situation.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On perusal of a copy of the tenancy agreement I was unable to find a provision which specified the maximum number of people who may live in the premises during the tenancy.
In the absence of any such provision and the fact that the landlord did not issue a 14 day notice I do not consider any breach of section 40(3) has occurred.
I find the tenant has not committed an unlawful act and the claim for exemplary damages fails.
No filing fees are awarded because the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
Suppression under section 95A is not available to the landlord because she was largely unsuccessful with her claim.
The tenant did not ask for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5424871 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Exeter Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin 9018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5424871 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Exeter Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin 9018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the number of occupants exceed the maximum?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the number of occupants exceed the maximum?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord enter the premises without consent?

Did the number of occupants exceed the maximum?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord enter the premises without consent?

Did the number of occupants exceed the maximum?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions