What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438057 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 5438057?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438057?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438057?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13639717-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438057 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 5438057?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438057?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438057?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13639717-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Fife Court, Jacks Point, Queenstown 9371 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438057 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
All claims in the application are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. The landlord was represented by two people, both of whom attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenant has made a number of claims against the landlord. I will address each of those in turn. Misleading conduct and breach of quiet enjoyment
The background to this part of the claim is that the tenant signed a tenancy agreement at the end of November 2025 and moved into the premises on 14 December 2025. It was an existing tenancy with two former tenants remaining, with this tenant replacing two tenants that were leaving.
The tenant claims that the landlord engaged in misleading conduct by not telling her that the premises were going to be put up for sale. She says that had she known this she would not have entered the tenancy because she did not want to be disturbed by open homes, viewings, or photographs being taken.
The tenant also claims that her quiet enjoyment of the premises was disturbed because as a result of the landlord advising her that the house was going on the market, there was a considerable amount of communication between herself and the landlord which she found overwhelming.
The tenant seeks $600.00 in compensation for this part of her claim which she says reflects the time spent on engaging with the landlord.
She also seeks an award of exemplary damages against the landlord to reflect the stress and negative impact on her mental health as a result of the landlord’s conduct.
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.
I am dismissing the tenant’s claim for $600.00 compensation. I do so for reasons that include: (a) The emails that the tenant say constitute a breach of her quiet enjoyment are emails sent between the parties between 14 January and 2 February 2026. Six emails were sent to the tenant by the landlord during this period. The first was to advise the tenant that the house was going to be put on the market. The remaining emails merely respond to the tenant’s questions regarding this, and her concerns. Indeed, the tenant’s first emails to the landlord request a response. On 30 January 2026 the tenant seeks clear options from the landlord regarding the marketing process and by return email the landlord advises her that she will be provided with a schedule once they have one from the sales agent. A final email sent to the tenant on 2 February 2026 outlines the landlord’s position after learning that the tenant has contacted Tenancy Services. These emails constitute a discussion between landlord and tenant, and are a response to the landlord’s advising the tenant that the house will be put on the market. The emails are reasonable and are either a response to the tenant’s concerns and questions, or a clarification of the landlord’s position. They are not numerous, nor are they overbearing. I consider them to be normal discourse between a landlord and a tenant. (b) For the same reasons I am dismissing the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages. The 6 emails complained of do not amount to harassment given that they were merely responses to the tenant’s questions and concerns, and clarification of the landlord’s position.
I am also dismissing the tenant’s claim that the landlord engaged in misleading conduct because they did not advise her that the premises were going to be marketed during her tenancy, prior to her signing the tenancy agreement.
While I accept that external drone photographs were taken prior to the tenant signing the agreement, indicating that the landlord’s knew that the premises were to be marketed for sale, I also accept the landlord’s evidence that they were not aware of when the property was going to be marketed – it could have been marketed during the tenancy or after the tenancy had terminated.
They were therefore under no obligation to advise the tenant prior to signing and I accept that as soon as they were aware of the owner’s intention to market the property, they advised the tenant.
In any event the premises were not marketed during the tenant’s tenancy. Breach of privacy
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 tenant claims that the landlord breached her privacy by firstly taking photographs of the premises without her consent and secondly by taking photos of her personal belongings and sharing them.
I am dismissing the claim that photographs were taken without her consent. I say this because on 14 January 2026 the tenant was advised that photographs would be taken on 3 February 2026. At no stage did the tenant refuse to allow this to occur.
Further, I do not consider that the landlord was obliged to confirm this arrangement. Having heard nothing back from the tenant regarding this I accept that it was reasonable for them to consider that the tenant had consented to this arrangement.
I am also dismissing that part of this claim relating to photographs being taken of her belongings. I do so for reasons that include: (a) None of the 5 photographs taken by the real estate agent identify the tenant in any way; and (b) The photographs were shared with the owner of the property and the property manager. They were also uploaded for this Tribunal hearing; and (c) I accept that the photographs were taken for the purpose of showing the property manager and the owner the condition of the property. Owners and property managers are entitled to see photographs of the condition of the property; and (d) Parties are entitled to provide evidence to the Tribunal that supports their position on a claim being made. Overpaid rent
The tenant claims that she has overpaid rent by $251.00. She seeks reimbursement of this amount from the property manager company.
To support this part of her claim the tenant points to the rent record which erroneously names two tenants as paying rent for the period in which she was in fact a tenant, replacing these two tenants.
I am dismissing this claim because the rent record shows payments of rent made by the head tenant. Each of the tenants paid their share to this tenant who then paid the property management company.
It was not for the property management company to understand or even consider which tenant paid what, given that the tenancy agreement outlines what total rent is to be paid each week. It does not break down this amount between tenants.
The incorrect names in the rent record for a period of 2 weeks does not impact this obligation.
If the tenant considers that she has overpaid rent to the head tenant, then that is a matter that she could take up with the head tenant. Rent refund for 13/4/26
The tenant claims a rent refund for the 13 April 2026, that being the last day of the tenancy, because the landlord required the tenants to have removed their personal belongings by 11am on that day when the move out inspection was to take place.
I am dismissing this claim largely because the tenant complained about this on 9 April 2026, and in spite of the other two tenants having agreed to the inspection on 13 April 2026, the landlords immediately moved the inspection date to 14 April 2026.
I also note that the inspection time was set for 11 am on 13 April 2026 to give tenants the opportunity to rectify any issues arising from that inspection. Reimbursement of cleaning cost
The tenant claims reimbursement of her share of the cleaning cost - $180.00.
She says that prior to signing up for the tenancy she was advised that at the end of the tenancy she was required to leave the premises as she found them. She took photographs at this time which show a dirty microwave, oven, washing machine and drawer.
However, in an email dated 11 February 2026, the landlord outlined what the tenant considered to be much more stringent cleaning requirements for the tenants on vacating the tenancy.
I am dismissing this claim.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that they advised the tenant, prior to her signing the agreement, that she was to leave the premises in the same condition as at the beginning of the original tenancy, not in the same condition as when she started the tenancy. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for the landlord to have sent her a video of the condition of the premises the commencement of the original tenancy in 2023.
Further to this, I accept that the landlords did not request the tenants to have the premises professionally cleaned. This was an agreement between the tenants.
Although I accept that the other two tenants decided this and this tenant was just informed of this decision, this is a matter that is between the tenants, not between this tenant and the landlord. Filing fee
I am not ordering the landlords to reimburse the filing fee to the tenant because the tenant was not successful with her claim against them. Suppression of landlord’s name
The tenant does not seek suppression of her name.
I am allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of their name because they were wholly successful with their defence to the claims being made against them – see s95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. C ter Haar 22 May 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438057 — Cleanliness at 12 Fife Court, Jacks Point, Queenstown 9371

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438057 — Cleanliness at 12 Fife Court, Jacks Point, Queenstown 9371

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions