What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5461101 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Seddon Street Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5461101?

Break Costs-Administration: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Break Costs-Advertising: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Break Costs-Credit Check: $29.57 awarded to landlord; Break Costs-Meth Testing: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461101?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13908428-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5461101 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Seddon Street Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5461101?

Break Costs-Administration: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Break Costs-Advertising: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Break Costs-Credit Check: $29.57 awarded to landlord; Break Costs-Meth Testing: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461101?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13908428-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

47B Kirk Street, Otaki, Otaki 5512 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5461101 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5461101 — net $569.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Break costs-credit check	$29.57		Break costs-credit check
Break costs-advertising	$360.00		Break costs-advertising
Break costs-administration	$460.00		Break costs-administration
Break costs-meth testing	$220.00		Break costs-meth testing
Compensation: Unlawful entry		$500.00	Unlawful entry
Total award	$1,069.57	$500.00
Net award	$569.57
Bond	$2,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$569.57

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Adam Dewe $569.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 (BN-00087058) immediately apportioned as follows: Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Adam Dewe: $569.57 [The tenant/s]: $1,530.43
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Duffy representing the landlord. Each party has filed an application. Claims and issues
This was a fixed term tenancy that started on 3 May 2025 and was not due to expire until 2 May 2026.
The parties agreed that the tenant, Mr Mattila, could break the fixed term. The dispute between the parties is about whether the cost of meth testing completed after the tenant vacated (and which was negative) may be passed onto the tenant as part of the break costs. The tenant agrees to pay all the break costs except this item. The tenant also seeks compensation from the landlord because the landlord entered the premises after the tenant moved out, and while the tenancy was on foot, to complete maintenance/renovation work at the property. The tenant says he was not given notice of the entries, and it interfered with his quiet enjoyment of the property.
Accordingly, the issues I must determine are: a. The landlord’s claim for meth testing costs; b. The tenant’s compensation claims for unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment while the premises were being renovated. Background facts
On or about 13 October 2025, the tenant gave the landlord a notice advising that he wished to break the fixed term and end the tenancy sooner as he had purchased a house. The landlord agreed to break the tenancy early subject to their break lease terms and conditions set out in an email from the landlord to the tenant dated 14 October which advised: a. The tenant would be liable for rent until a new tenant moved in; b. The tenant would pay various costs which would include “but not be limited to:” i. the Trade Me advertising costs of approximately $308.20; ii. Credit check costs of approximately $30 iii. Administration fee to cover viewings, conducting reference and credit checks, completing tenancy and bond documents of approximately $460.
The tenant agreed to the break lease terms by email dated 20 October 2025. He advised that his last day in occupation of the premises would be 23 November and that he was happy for the landlord to arrange suitable times to show potential tenants through. He also confirmed his understanding that he would be eligible to apply to have his bond refunded “after the deduction of reasonable and justifiable fees that I may incur for you to re-tenant the property. Please itemize these in writing prior to final settlement date.”
The tenant vacated on 23 November. A bond inspection was held that day and no issues arise from that. The tenant also handed over all the keys to the landlord so that they could arrange viewings with prospective tenants.
New tenants were found from 20 February 2026, and the tenant paid rent up to that date.
The issues that arose of concern to the tenant may be summarised as follows: a. Meth testing was conducted at the property on 3 December 2025 which returned a negative result. b. Contractors entered the property on 3 December 2025 to install new carpet. c. Another contractor entered the property on 15 December 2025 to plane and refit 8 doors post the carpet installation. d. The only reason the tenant was alerted to the above work in b and c is because the carpenter planing the doors called the tenant when he could not gain entry. The landlord uses a system for managing work orders that automatically provides tenant contact details to contractors so that they can liaise with them if necessary.
The tenant says that the landlord did not notify him 24 hours in advance that the above work and meth testing was taking place.
Prior to this, the owner had also entered the property to paint the roof sometime after the tenant moved out.

Is the landlord entitled to the meth testing costs?

Under section 44A(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) a landlord who consents to early termination of a lease is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination. A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
The tenant agrees to pay all the break lease expenses except the meth testing.
The question to determine is whether the meth testing expense is reasonably incurred.
The landlord’s argument is that the landlord has a prudent practice of conducting a methamphetamine test before every new tenancy to ensure that the premises are not comminated. Ms Duffy confirmed that a meth test was conducted before Mr Mattila moved in. They arranged a meth test after Mr Mattila moved out and before contractors worked in the property on 3 December 2025. Because the tenant has broken the lease several months before the expiry date, they have incurred this cost earlier than anticipated which is an extra cost.
The tenant says it is not fair that he covers this cost because the test was negative, and it was not mentioned in the original email sent by the landlord on 14 October outlining the likely break costs.
I note that the landlord’s email recorded that the costs might not be limited to just the costs set out in the email. While it is preferable that tenants are forewarned of the costs, section 44A does not strictly require a landlord to itemise the costs in advance. Recovery is allowed provided the costs are reasonable and they are itemised.
After careful consideration, I find that the meth testing cost is reasonable and should be allowed. It has been incurred due to the termination of the tenancy sooner than anticipated. The landlord agreed to a one year fixed term and advised that the new tenancy is also for a one year term. Therefore, they anticipated that a meth test would be obtained every 12 months and in this case the cost has been incurred sooner. The meth testing cost is no different to the landlord charging for advertising costs. Advertising is a cost that a landlord would usually wear between tenancies but when a fixed term tenancy ends early, the advertising cost is incurred earlier than anticipated. It is an extra cost which is reasonably passed onto the departing tenant.
The meth testing costs are approved and ordered.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

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) RTA. The definition of premises in this section excludes land.
When the tenant vacated the premises on 23 November and handed the keys to the property manager, it was to enable the landlord to show prospective tenants through the premises as this is what Mr Mattila said in his email of 20 October. It was not so that the landlord would have unfettered access to the premises to do as they wished including meth tests, renovations or redecorating. The tenants were still paying full rent, and the tenancy was still in place. Therefore, the landlord had a duty to follow all their obligations under the RTA, which includes giving notice for access to the premises under s48.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord did not give the tenant the required 24 hours’ notice to access the premises for painting the roof, re- carpeting and work on the doors; and did not give the required 48 hours’ notice for conducting meth testing. While s48 allows a landlord to enter the land, this would not cover work on the roof. The landlord is in breach of their obligations in s48.
I consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation for the unlawful entry which occurred on those occasions.
It is well accepted when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Appellate courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering awards. The assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact science, and a commonsense approach is required. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
The tenant was frustrated and annoyed by the lack of communication from the landlord. He was also concerned that they did not provide notice and seek his consent to enter the premises which is understandable. The failure to do so caused a level of mistrust that could have been entirely prevented had they been transparent and given the required notice. Taking all factors into account I award $500 in compensation which I consider reasonable and justified for the breaches. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
A landlord must also not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA. While the landlord must not cause any interference, the duty is modified by the degree of interference being to the “reasonable peace, comfort or privacy” of the tenant. Temporary discomfort or inconvenience does not constitute a basis for breach of the covenant. There are several circumstances, as with this case, where the landlord’s rights to carry out maintenance or renovations are inconsistent with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. In those cases, it is a balancing act to determine the level of intrusion or nuisance that a tenant can reasonably expect to endure. The landlord is entitled to carry out maintenance, but those actions can quickly breach reasonable peace, comfort and privacy if they are not well managed.
The District Court has held in Lucas v Paterson [2005]DCR 76 that where landlords are renovating property, tenants are required to put up with a degree of noise and general nuisance without compensation, with the judge commenting “Were every landlord who embarked on renovations to be in immediate jeopardy of a quiet enjoyment breach, we would have an unworkable state of affairs. Proportionality must not be forgotten.” However, there are cases in contrast to Lucas v Paterson in which construction activity on or adjacent to premises has given rise to a breach. In Marino & Ors v Wellington City Council DC, Wellington, CIV-2013-085-660,23 September 2013 , it was considered relevant in determining what was reasonable that the tenants had prior knowledge of the work that was going to take place.
In summary, whether the interference complained of breaches the quiet enjoyment covenant is a question of reasonableness having regard to all the circumstances, including prior knowledge of the work being carried out, and the length and degree of intrusion.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the work carried out by the landlord was of a limited nature and reasonably short in duration with the meth testing, carpet installation and planing of the doors completed over the course of 2 days. Painting the roof may have taken longer but would have less impact on a tenant then interior work.
It is relevant that the tenant had vacated the premises and, therefore, the work did not strictly interfere with his use of the premises. It was to the landlord’s advantage that this work could be done during the tenancy. However, it may also have benefited the tenant by making the premises more appealing to prospective tenants so that the premises could be relet sooner, thereby reducing the tenant’s liability for rent.
Weighing up all the factors, I am not persuaded that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. I consider that the compensation awarded for unlawful entry addresses the tenant’s main concern about the landlord’s behaviour.
Both parties have partly succeeded in the proceedings. Therefore, neither is awarded reimbursement of the filing fee. K Stirling, 16 July 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5461101 — net $569.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Break costs-credit check	$29.57		Break costs-credit check
Break costs-advertising	$360.00		Break costs-advertising
Break costs-administration	$460.00		Break costs-administration
Break costs-meth testing	$220.00		Break costs-meth testing
Compensation: Unlawful entry		$500.00	Unlawful entry
Total award	$1,069.57	$500.00
Net award	$569.57
Bond	$2,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$569.57

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Adam Dewe $569.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 (BN-00087058) immediately apportioned as follows: Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Adam Dewe: $569.57 [The tenant/s]: $1,530.43
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Duffy representing the landlord. Each party has filed an application. Claims and issues
This was a fixed term tenancy that started on 3 May 2025 and was not due to expire until 2 May 2026.
The parties agreed that the tenant, Mr Mattila, could break the fixed term. The dispute between the parties is about whether the cost of meth testing completed after the tenant vacated (and which was negative) may be passed onto the tenant as part of the break costs. The tenant agrees to pay all the break costs except this item. The tenant also seeks compensation from the landlord because the landlord entered the premises after the tenant moved out, and while the tenancy was on foot, to complete maintenance/renovation work at the property. The tenant says he was not given notice of the entries, and it interfered with his quiet enjoyment of the property.
Accordingly, the issues I must determine are: a. The landlord’s claim for meth testing costs; b. The tenant’s compensation claims for unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment while the premises were being renovated. Background facts
On or about 13 October 2025, the tenant gave the landlord a notice advising that he wished to break the fixed term and end the tenancy sooner as he had purchased a house. The landlord agreed to break the tenancy early subject to their break lease terms and conditions set out in an email from the landlord to the tenant dated 14 October which advised: a. The tenant would be liable for rent until a new tenant moved in; b. The tenant would pay various costs which would include “but not be limited to:” i. the Trade Me advertising costs of approximately $308.20; ii. Credit check costs of approximately $30 iii. Administration fee to cover viewings, conducting reference and credit checks, completing tenancy and bond documents of approximately $460.
The tenant agreed to the break lease terms by email dated 20 October 2025. He advised that his last day in occupation of the premises would be 23 November and that he was happy for the landlord to arrange suitable times to show potential tenants through. He also confirmed his understanding that he would be eligible to apply to have his bond refunded “after the deduction of reasonable and justifiable fees that I may incur for you to re-tenant the property. Please itemize these in writing prior to final settlement date.”
The tenant vacated on 23 November. A bond inspection was held that day and no issues arise from that. The tenant also handed over all the keys to the landlord so that they could arrange viewings with prospective tenants.
New tenants were found from 20 February 2026, and the tenant paid rent up to that date.
The issues that arose of concern to the tenant may be summarised as follows: a. Meth testing was conducted at the property on 3 December 2025 which returned a negative result. b. Contractors entered the property on 3 December 2025 to install new carpet. c. Another contractor entered the property on 15 December 2025 to plane and refit 8 doors post the carpet installation. d. The only reason the tenant was alerted to the above work in b and c is because the carpenter planing the doors called the tenant when he could not gain entry. The landlord uses a system for managing work orders that automatically provides tenant contact details to contractors so that they can liaise with them if necessary.
The tenant says that the landlord did not notify him 24 hours in advance that the above work and meth testing was taking place.
Prior to this, the owner had also entered the property to paint the roof sometime after the tenant moved out.

Is the landlord entitled to the meth testing costs?

Under section 44A(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) a landlord who consents to early termination of a lease is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination. A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
The tenant agrees to pay all the break lease expenses except the meth testing.
The question to determine is whether the meth testing expense is reasonably incurred.
The landlord’s argument is that the landlord has a prudent practice of conducting a methamphetamine test before every new tenancy to ensure that the premises are not comminated. Ms Duffy confirmed that a meth test was conducted before Mr Mattila moved in. They arranged a meth test after Mr Mattila moved out and before contractors worked in the property on 3 December 2025. Because the tenant has broken the lease several months before the expiry date, they have incurred this cost earlier than anticipated which is an extra cost.
The tenant says it is not fair that he covers this cost because the test was negative, and it was not mentioned in the original email sent by the landlord on 14 October outlining the likely break costs.
I note that the landlord’s email recorded that the costs might not be limited to just the costs set out in the email. While it is preferable that tenants are forewarned of the costs, section 44A does not strictly require a landlord to itemise the costs in advance. Recovery is allowed provided the costs are reasonable and they are itemised.
After careful consideration, I find that the meth testing cost is reasonable and should be allowed. It has been incurred due to the termination of the tenancy sooner than anticipated. The landlord agreed to a one year fixed term and advised that the new tenancy is also for a one year term. Therefore, they anticipated that a meth test would be obtained every 12 months and in this case the cost has been incurred sooner. The meth testing cost is no different to the landlord charging for advertising costs. Advertising is a cost that a landlord would usually wear between tenancies but when a fixed term tenancy ends early, the advertising cost is incurred earlier than anticipated. It is an extra cost which is reasonably passed onto the departing tenant.
The meth testing costs are approved and ordered.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

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) RTA. The definition of premises in this section excludes land.
When the tenant vacated the premises on 23 November and handed the keys to the property manager, it was to enable the landlord to show prospective tenants through the premises as this is what Mr Mattila said in his email of 20 October. It was not so that the landlord would have unfettered access to the premises to do as they wished including meth tests, renovations or redecorating. The tenants were still paying full rent, and the tenancy was still in place. Therefore, the landlord had a duty to follow all their obligations under the RTA, which includes giving notice for access to the premises under s48.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord did not give the tenant the required 24 hours’ notice to access the premises for painting the roof, re- carpeting and work on the doors; and did not give the required 48 hours’ notice for conducting meth testing. While s48 allows a landlord to enter the land, this would not cover work on the roof. The landlord is in breach of their obligations in s48.
I consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation for the unlawful entry which occurred on those occasions.
It is well accepted when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Appellate courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering awards. The assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact science, and a commonsense approach is required. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
The tenant was frustrated and annoyed by the lack of communication from the landlord. He was also concerned that they did not provide notice and seek his consent to enter the premises which is understandable. The failure to do so caused a level of mistrust that could have been entirely prevented had they been transparent and given the required notice. Taking all factors into account I award $500 in compensation which I consider reasonable and justified for the breaches. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
A landlord must also not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA. While the landlord must not cause any interference, the duty is modified by the degree of interference being to the “reasonable peace, comfort or privacy” of the tenant. Temporary discomfort or inconvenience does not constitute a basis for breach of the covenant. There are several circumstances, as with this case, where the landlord’s rights to carry out maintenance or renovations are inconsistent with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. In those cases, it is a balancing act to determine the level of intrusion or nuisance that a tenant can reasonably expect to endure. The landlord is entitled to carry out maintenance, but those actions can quickly breach reasonable peace, comfort and privacy if they are not well managed.
The District Court has held in Lucas v Paterson [2005]DCR 76 that where landlords are renovating property, tenants are required to put up with a degree of noise and general nuisance without compensation, with the judge commenting “Were every landlord who embarked on renovations to be in immediate jeopardy of a quiet enjoyment breach, we would have an unworkable state of affairs. Proportionality must not be forgotten.” However, there are cases in contrast to Lucas v Paterson in which construction activity on or adjacent to premises has given rise to a breach. In Marino & Ors v Wellington City Council DC, Wellington, CIV-2013-085-660,23 September 2013 , it was considered relevant in determining what was reasonable that the tenants had prior knowledge of the work that was going to take place.
In summary, whether the interference complained of breaches the quiet enjoyment covenant is a question of reasonableness having regard to all the circumstances, including prior knowledge of the work being carried out, and the length and degree of intrusion.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the work carried out by the landlord was of a limited nature and reasonably short in duration with the meth testing, carpet installation and planing of the doors completed over the course of 2 days. Painting the roof may have taken longer but would have less impact on a tenant then interior work.
It is relevant that the tenant had vacated the premises and, therefore, the work did not strictly interfere with his use of the premises. It was to the landlord’s advantage that this work could be done during the tenancy. However, it may also have benefited the tenant by making the premises more appealing to prospective tenants so that the premises could be relet sooner, thereby reducing the tenant’s liability for rent.
Weighing up all the factors, I am not persuaded that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. I consider that the compensation awarded for unlawful entry addresses the tenant’s main concern about the landlord’s behaviour.
Both parties have partly succeeded in the proceedings. Therefore, neither is awarded reimbursement of the filing fee. K Stirling, 16 July 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461101 — Tenancy dispute at 47B Kirk Street, Otaki, Otaki 5512

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461101 — Tenancy dispute at 47B Kirk Street, Otaki, Otaki 5512

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to the meth testing costs?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to the meth testing costs?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions