What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5458333 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 5458333?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5458333?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5458333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13709693-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5458333 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 5458333?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5458333?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5458333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13709693-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5458333 — Exemplary damages

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applications relate to the end of a fixed term tenancy. The landlord has applied for an order that clarifies his rights to enter the premises to show prospective tenants. The tenants have applied for orders relating to breaches of the tenancy agreement, breaches because change of tenant forms were not forwarded to the Bond Centre, breach of the right to enter, and breach of quiet enjoyment. Both parties withdrew their claims for exemplary damages at the hearing. The remaining issues for me to decide are: • Did the tenants refuse access unreasonably? • Was there a breach with the change of tenant forms? • Should I allow suppression?

Did the tenants refuse access unreasonably?

The landlord claims the tenants did not allow him entry to the premises when he was entitled to enter. Section 48(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows a landlord, with the prior consent of the tenants, to enter the tenancy premises at any reasonable time for the purposes of showing the premises to prospective tenants. Section 48(3A) RTA sets out that tenants may not withhold consent unreasonably and may make the consent subject to reasonable conditions.
On 24 January 2026 the landlord emailed the tenants and said he was having viewings on 26 and 27 January. There was no prior consent. One of the tenants did not agree to the viewings because he had confidential work information in a room being used as a home office, and he was working in another city. On 25 January he emailed the landlord, explained his position and said the viewings could be held after 2 February, when he had returned and cleared the room of any confidential information.
I find the landlord did not have the prior consent of the tenants when he told them about the two viewings. I find the tenants’ refusal was reasonable. This is because the email was sent on a Saturday, it was short notice, and one of the tenants was not able to remove confidential documents from his room in time. The suggested date of 2 February 2026, one week later, was a reasonable alternative. I do not find the tenants have breached any provisions in the RTA. All claims relating to this are dismissed.

Was there a breach with change of tenant forms?

The tenants have claimed compensation because the landlord did not complete the change of tenant forms required by the Bond Centre when there is a change relating to the bond. The tenants referred me to section 19 RTA but that only relates to a breach of the duty to lodge the bond, which is not relevant here because the tenants did an informal bond refund between themselves.
At the hearing I said that it was the landlord’s responsibility to forward the signed form to the Bond Centre. This was not correct. Section 21A RTA is relevant and states: 21A Notification of changes of address to chief executive
Where a bond is being held in the Residential Tenancies Trust Account in respect of a tenancy agreement and the landlord or tenant changes his or her name or contact address or address for service, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, shall, within 10 working days thereafter, cause notice of the new particulars to be sent to the chief executive.
Where a bond is being held in the Residential Tenancies Trust Account in respect of a tenancy agreement and the landlord’s or the tenant’s interest under the tenancy agreement passes to some other person, that other person shall, within 10 working days thereafter, cause notice of the new particulars to be sent to the chief executive.
I find subsection (2) means that the responsibility for notifying the Bond Centre was with the new tenant. I do not find there was any breach by the landlord and this claim is dismissed.

Should I allow suppression?

There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applications relate to the end of a fixed term tenancy. The landlord has applied for an order that clarifies his rights to enter the premises to show prospective tenants. The tenants have applied for orders relating to breaches of the tenancy agreement, breaches because change of tenant forms were not forwarded to the Bond Centre, breach of the right to enter, and breach of quiet enjoyment. Both parties withdrew their claims for exemplary damages at the hearing. The remaining issues for me to decide are: • Did the tenants refuse access unreasonably? • Was there a breach with the change of tenant forms? • Should I allow suppression?

Did the tenants refuse access unreasonably?

The landlord claims the tenants did not allow him entry to the premises when he was entitled to enter. Section 48(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows a landlord, with the prior consent of the tenants, to enter the tenancy premises at any reasonable time for the purposes of showing the premises to prospective tenants. Section 48(3A) RTA sets out that tenants may not withhold consent unreasonably and may make the consent subject to reasonable conditions.
On 24 January 2026 the landlord emailed the tenants and said he was having viewings on 26 and 27 January. There was no prior consent. One of the tenants did not agree to the viewings because he had confidential work information in a room being used as a home office, and he was working in another city. On 25 January he emailed the landlord, explained his position and said the viewings could be held after 2 February, when he had returned and cleared the room of any confidential information.
I find the landlord did not have the prior consent of the tenants when he told them about the two viewings. I find the tenants’ refusal was reasonable. This is because the email was sent on a Saturday, it was short notice, and one of the tenants was not able to remove confidential documents from his room in time. The suggested date of 2 February 2026, one week later, was a reasonable alternative. I do not find the tenants have breached any provisions in the RTA. All claims relating to this are dismissed.

Was there a breach with change of tenant forms?

The tenants have claimed compensation because the landlord did not complete the change of tenant forms required by the Bond Centre when there is a change relating to the bond. The tenants referred me to section 19 RTA but that only relates to a breach of the duty to lodge the bond, which is not relevant here because the tenants did an informal bond refund between themselves.
At the hearing I said that it was the landlord’s responsibility to forward the signed form to the Bond Centre. This was not correct. Section 21A RTA is relevant and states: 21A Notification of changes of address to chief executive
Where a bond is being held in the Residential Tenancies Trust Account in respect of a tenancy agreement and the landlord or tenant changes his or her name or contact address or address for service, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, shall, within 10 working days thereafter, cause notice of the new particulars to be sent to the chief executive.
Where a bond is being held in the Residential Tenancies Trust Account in respect of a tenancy agreement and the landlord’s or the tenant’s interest under the tenancy agreement passes to some other person, that other person shall, within 10 working days thereafter, cause notice of the new particulars to be sent to the chief executive.
I find subsection (2) means that the responsibility for notifying the Bond Centre was with the new tenant. I do not find there was any breach by the landlord and this claim is dismissed.

Should I allow suppression?

There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5458333 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5458333 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants refuse access unreasonably?

Was there a breach with change of tenant forms?

Should I allow suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants refuse access unreasonably?

Was there a breach with change of tenant forms?

Should I allow suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions