What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5458832 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5458832?

Compensation: Breach Of Privacy: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5458832?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5458832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13526189-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5458832 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5458832?

Compensation: Breach Of Privacy: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5458832?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5458832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13526189-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

70 Pencaitland Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5458832 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5458832 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: breach of privacy	$500.00	breach of privacy
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

[The tenant/s] (‘the tenant’) claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.

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 landlord sent its notice of the inspection that took place on 19 February 2026 to a wrong email. There are two different emails for the tenant as per the tenancy agreement but the landlord did not send the notice of inspection to tenant’s email specified as the address for service. The tenant never received the notice of inspection and was surprised to view on their CCTV recording that the property manager attended to the inspection.

Having heard from the parties, I find the landlord made an inadvertent error thinking that the letter “q” on the tenant’s email is a number “2”. The landlord did not intentionally send the notice of inspection to an incorrect email.

It appears that the tenant himself was equally mistaken and overlooked the first misdescription of his email as a capital “Q” over the number “2” when being handed back a copy of the tenancy agreement!

I accept that the mistake by both parties were unintentional.

The landlord even sent a reminder about the 19 February inspection which yielded no response from the tenant. The reminder email was also sent to the same incorrect email which explains the tenant’s silence.

For those reasons, I do not consider that the landlord has intentionally entered the premises to conduct an inspection without having given prior notice. It would be unfair to penalise the landlord for making an unintentional mistake in misreading the tenant’s email in the circumstances.

The tenant was not at home at the time and no harm was ultimately done.

Now that the parties have clarified the error, subsequent emails from the landlord have been sent to the tenant’s correct email address, including the inspection that took place on 28 April 2026.

Addressing the 28 April inspection, the tenant claims the landlord has intruded on the tenant’s privacy during inspections, especially on 28 April where the landlord had pried on the tenant’s belongings by opening the wardrobe and rummaging through their clothes and belongings.

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 have considered the landlord’s evidence and response to the claim.

The landlord admits to having opened the wardrobe doors and filming or taking photographs of the tenant’s belongings. The landlord says that it was for two purposes, namely to check on the condition of the drawers and wardrobes, and to see if the tenant has housed occupants in excess of the permitted number of occupants set out under the tenancy agreement.

The tenancy agreement has a term restricting the number of occupants to 2 adults and 3 children. The landlord is adamant from the number of clothing in the rooms and the bedding placements that there are 1-2 additional adults staying at the premises.

I find that the landlord’s primary reason for doing so in this instance is on gathering evidence and information on whether or not the tenant has other occupants apart from the permitted 2 adults and 3 children. While the landlord may also be checking on the state of the wardrobe, that was clearly not her main intention on this occasion.

I do not consider it appropriate for the landlord to open wardrobes for the purpose of gathering evidence of occupancy, even if it can be conjectured from what she found that the tenant may be in breach of the tenancy agreement.

The number of clothing and placements of bedding are not indicative of the number of occupants living at the premises. Children, especially young children in this case could be particularly close to their parents so that they share a small ad-hoc bed beside the adult parent’s bed. But the same child may also have his/her own bed in the separate bedroom at the same time and that child may be sleeping in the parent’s bedroom and their own bedroom from time to time.

Similarly, some people may own more clothes than other people, so the number of clothing found in various wardrobes is not indicative of the number of occupants living at the premises.

The landlord’s claim that the tenant has exceeded the number of permitted occupants therefore fails.

I hasten to add that even if the tenant has breached that aspect of the tenancy agreement, the landlord cannot interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises by gathering evidence in the manner that she has.

I consider that the landlord has breached the tenant’s right to privacy and comfort in contravention of section 38(2) RTA.

I award the tenant $500.00 to recognise the level of distress that they must have suffered in later observing (on CCTV) the landlord’s property manager walking through the premises opening their wardrobes and filming their belongings.

That said, I do not consider that the landlord has breached their obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment. I do not consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the circumstances.

Only the amounts awarded for general damages are proved.

Finally, I recognise the tenant’s distress and insecurity from the landlord’s actions and breach of their privacy to such an extent that they no longer feel safe to stay until the end of the fixed term in December 2026.

After foreshadowing my decision to accede to the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term, the parties came to a mutual agreement for the fixed term tenancy to end on 1 July 2026.

The tenants were largely successful in the application; I order the suppression of the tenant’s name.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5458832 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: breach of privacy	$500.00	breach of privacy
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00