What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5464673 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 5464673?

Compensation: failure to maintain ga…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain ve…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5464673?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5464673?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13670915-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5464673 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 5464673?

Compensation: failure to maintain ga…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain ve…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5464673?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5464673?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13670915-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5464673 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5464673 — net $778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain garage	$500.00	failure to maintain garage
Compensation: failure to maintain ventilation system	$250.00	failure to maintain ventilation system
Reimbursement of filing fee	$28.00	Reimbursement of filing fee
Net award	$778.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$778.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5464673 — net $778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain garage	$500.00	failure to maintain garage
Compensation: failure to maintain ventilation system	$250.00	failure to maintain ventilation system
Reimbursement of filing fee	$28.00	Reimbursement of filing fee
Net award	$778.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$778.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $778.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Property Managers [ suppressed] appeared with the landlord [ suppressed] The tenants appeared.
On 13 February 2026, the landlord issued the tenant with a 14 day notice to remove dogs kept at the property without the landlord’s consent. The tenant did not comply with the notice, and on 09 March 2026, the landlord filed an application seeking an order that the tenant remove the dogs from the property.
On 24 March 2026, the tenant made the following counterclaim that the landlord: i. Failed to maintain the
Garage
Dishwasher
Ventilation system
Gate
Gutters
Trees / shrubs / hedges
Exterior of the house ii. Interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace comfort and privacy. iii. Unreasonably declined a request to keep dogs at the property.
The tenant seeks a rent reduction and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the property, as well as exemplary damages for interference. In relation to the landlord declining the tenant’s request to keep a dog, no monetary compensation or exemplary damages are sought. The application regarding the dogs was made in response to the landlord seeking an order. At the beginning of the hearing, the tenant advised that after filing their application, they had given notice that they did not wish to enter into a periodic tenancy at the end of the fixed term on 16 May 2026. Failure to maintain.
The property was built in the 1960s and is located in a rural area surrounded by farmland. One boundary of the property is a secondary road, while the other boundaries are paddocks farmed by the landlord. Garage
One of the buildings on the property is a three-car garage and storage area, which is the same age as the main house. The tenant states that in July 2025, they discovered flooding in the garage that had damaged some of their stored items. The tenant had contents insurance and made a claim, with an excess of $250.00. The tenant says they raised the issue with the property manager during an inspection on 6 August 2025.
The tenant has provided photographs showing damage to the exterior cladding of the garage and a vertical gap in the siding, through which daylight is visible. The tenant states that water entered through both points. The photographs show water pooling on the floor in one corner of the garage.
The tenant says that nothing was done after the August inspection, and they raised the issue again during an inspection on 7 November 2025. It was not raised between August and November 2025. The tenant states that around the beginning of March 2026, the landlord sent a contractor to quote for repairs to the garage.
The tenant states that they have had no feedback from the landlord, and as at the date of the hearing, the matter remains unresolved. The tenant is claiming reimbursement for their insurance excess. The tenant also explained that, due to ongoing uncertainty about the garage’s weather tightness, they have continued to store items in the garage but have only stored items of low value and have had to take extra precautions.
The tenant claims that this lack of confidence in the garage has resulted in a loss of amenity, which they estimate as 6% of the rent. They are seeking compensation of $2,164.80 for this loss.
The landlord accepted that the matter had been raised for the first time during the inspection on 07 August 2025. Having viewed the tenant’s photograph, they described there being “one small leak.” They noted that the tenant had continued to use the shed to store items.
Initially the landlord stated that the garage may not have been provide as an area suitable for storage, but then later accepted that this had not been explained to the tenant citing that the property manager had been unaware of any weather tightness issues at the time.
[Landlord] explained that the property had been recently purchased by the landlord and that this was the second tenancy. He explained that prior to the commencement of the tenancy in May 2025 the landlord had asked an associate, who is a carpenter to have a look at the garage, and was aware that there were some issues, which were not going to be a quick fix if properly addressed.
The landlord did not view the delay as unreasonable and stated that they had planned to address the matter in November 2025, but that the weather had been wetter than usual, which was followed by the Christmas / New year’s break. The landlord stated that the contractor engaged to provide a quote, which has been produced, and that the work had been scheduled for April 2026.
The landlord stated that around June 2025 they had issued a 14-day notice requiring the tenant to remove a caravan that had been moved onto the property and resided in by a third party without their consent. The landlord stated that this had resulted in a situation where they were hesitant about sending contractors to the property.
The tenant denied this and noted numerous occasions where the landlord had sent contractors to the property with no issues. Dishwasher
The tenancy includes a dishwasher (a chattel). The tenant stated that shortly after the commencement of the tenancy they advised the landlord that the dishwasher was leaking. Soon afterward a contractor attended. The tenant stated that they continued to raise issues with the dishwasher.
On 21 August 2025, the landlord advised that the dishwasher would be replaced with a new machine, which it was shortly afterward. The tenant stated that the replacement machine malfunctioned.
On 02 September 2025, they advised the landlord who on 02 December 2025 sent another contractor to inspect the dishwasher. During the visit they state the contractor found the filter system completely blocked by what appeared to be a year’s worth of build-up.
The tenant stated they had suspected the machine had not been new, as it had been delivered by a farm worker on the back of a Ute.
In early January 2026, the landlord sent the tenant the invoice for the December 2026 contractors visit stating that as no fault had been detected the tenant was liable for the charge. The tenant refused to pay the invoice.
The tenant stating that the machine continued to malfunction and that they raised the issue again in January 2026.
The dishwasher was replaced with another one in March 2026. The tenant described the fault as intermittent.
The tenant claims that this has resulted in a loss of amenity, which they estimate as 2% of the rent. They are seeking compensation of $721.60.
The landlord stated that the first callout had not been due to a fault with the dishwasher but a hose pipe which had broken. They stated that the plumber had repaired the hose and then run the dishwasher through a short cycle with no issue.
The landlord stated that on 04 August 2026 the tenant had advised of a broken tap, that the plumber who attended to fix the tap had also been asked by the tenant to look at the dishwasher and had reported in their invoice that the dishwasher was old and was leaking from the seals when there was a big load and was “due for replacement”. The landlord stated that this was the first advice of any issue with the dishwasher.
The landlord accepted that the replacement machine was not new but was about two years old and had been in another rental property. The landlord stated that they had been advised by the tenant that the replacement unit was “noisy”, but had not been advised of any ongoing fault affecting its functionality until during another inspection on 07 November 2025.
The landlord provided the invoice from the contractor who attended on 02 December 2025 who had been unable to determine a fault. The landlord stated that although there was no fault with the machine, they had nevertheless replaced it with a new one. They state the one that had been in the tenant’s property had been moved into another property and that the tenants of that property had not raised any issues. Ventilation system
The property has a ventilation system which circulates air through the ceiling void throughout the property. The tenant stated at the commencement of the tenancy the system appeared to be operating.
Toward the end of May 2025, the tenant noted despite having three heat pumps running that the house was unusually cold. The tenant produced photograph showing what they believed to be excessive condensation forming on the inside of windows.
On 22 June 2025, they sent the photographs to the landlord and queried whether the ventilation system may be a factor.
The tenant stated that no instruction had been given at the commencement of the tenancy on how to use the system.
The following day the landlord replied asking if there was any indication on the control panel that the filter required changing. The tenant did not reply.
On 02 July 2025, the landlord followed up and advised that they had been trying to find a user manual. The tenant advised there was no indication that the filter required changing but included more photographs of condensation forming on the inside of windows.
The tenant raised the matter during an inspection on 04 August 2025, and on 20 August 2025, the landlord sent an email containing part of a user manual showing there was a summer and winter setting. The tenant was unable to resolve the issue using the manual.
The tenant stated they raised the matter with the landlord again at an inspection on 07 November 2025.
The tenant claims excessive electricity usage over the winter period. The tenant claims that this has resulted in a loss of amenity, which they estimate as 4% of the rent. They are seeking compensation of $1,443.20.
The landlord accepted that the matter had been raised on 22 June 2025 and they had responded the next day.
They stated they had explained to the tenant condensation forming on the inside of windows was not unusual for rural properties in the area, despite the property meeting or exceeding healthy homes standards.
They stated that after the tenant’s inquiry asking them to check whether the filter required changing, they had attempted to source a manual.
The landlord stated, having not had a reply, that on 02 July 2025 they followed up with the tenant, and were advised that there was no indication that the filter required changing.
The landlord stated that as the system appeared to be working, they did not consider it urgent but continued to source a manual.
The landlord accepted that the matter was raised during the August 2025 inspection and that on 20 August 2025 the tenant had been provided with instructions on how to change the settings.
The landlord stated the matter was not raised again and believed it had been resolved. The landlord denied that the issue had been raised during the November 2025 inspection. Gate
There is a metal gate on the driveway. The tenant states that the gate dragged and had to be lifted to close, which for one of the tenants was physically difficult. The tenant stated that they reported the issue to the landlord using a maintenance app called “Tapi.”
The tenant stated that soon afterward they noticed that the gate was slightly easier to operate and that fresh nails had been inserted at the hinges. However, in their view this was a temporary fix as the gate remained difficult to operate.
The tenant stated they raised the issue again on 03 March 2026. On 09 March 2026 contractors visited and inspected the gate.
The tenant stated the matter remained unresolved. The tenant states the fact that someone attempted a temporary repair is evidence that the issue had been acknowledged by the landlord before 03 March 2026.
The tenant claims that this has resulted in a loss of amenity, which they estimate as 1.5% of the rent. They are seeking compensation of $541.20.
The landlord stated that the issue had not been reported by the tenant using Tapi, but it was raised during an inspection on 13 February 2026.
The landlord arranged for contractors to provide a quote on 09 March 2026, the quote was accepted, and the work, along with garage repairs, was scheduled for April 2026.
The landlord denied that any temporary repair had been completed and asked the tenant if there was any photographic evidence, apart from the photos showing where the gate was dragging on the gravel driveway. The landlord also stated that farm gates are designed not to swing easily, and preferably should drag on the ground. Gutters / trees / exterior
The tenant produced photographs showing vegetation growing in the gutters. They state the contractor who visited the property also took photographs as they been sent by the landlord to provide a quote for repairs and maintenance which included the gutters.
They stated although they had not raised the condition of the gutters, they would have been notable during inspections.
The tenant stated they received a message from one of the landlord’s farm employees about moving items off the deck so that the house could be washed on a Thursday. The tenant moved items off the deck, but the house was not washed.
The tenant stated that they had been advised by one of the landlord’s farm workers that the hedge at the front of the property would be trimmed but that no date was given, and it was not done.
The landlord stated that the house is soft washed once a year. They deny that there had been a confirmed date suggesting that there had instead been an inquiry as to a suitable date. The landlord stated that the hedges on the farm are trimmed yearly but denied there had been any notice to the tenant as to when this may occur. The landlord stated that they had noted the gutters required cleaning at an inspection and had arranged for routine cleaning. Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. This obligation includes maintaining any chattels provided with the tenancy for the use of the tenant.
Section 45(1)(c) of the Act requires landlords to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety that apply to the premises. This means landlords must ensure the property meets all relevant building codes, health regulations, and safety standards throughout the tenancy.
The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”), set out minimum standards for residential properties.
Regulation 15 of the HIR states every house shall be free from dampness.
Regulation 18 of the HIR states that every house and all appurtenances and appliances of every house shall at all ties be kept in a date of good repair.
Appurtenances refer to items or rights that are attached to and go with the main property, even if they are not physically part of it. In the context of a tenancy, appurtenances could include things like garages, car parks, storage spaces, or other facilities that are provided for the use of the tenant along with the main premises.
Unless otherwise specified in an agreement a tenant will be generally responsible for the lawns and gardens but not any shrubs, bushes, or trees.
To establish a breach under section 45(1)(b) or (c), the tenant must establish that more likely than not there is a defect, or failure to comply with the relevant provision.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence.
Breaching 45(1)(b) of the Act is also an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109(3) of the Act.
In awarding exemplary damages, the Tribunal must consider: i. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. ii. The effect of the unlawful act. iii. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. iv. The public interest; and v. Whether it is just to make the award
If there are multiple breaches of an obligation (multiple instances of unlawful acts) that could otherwise individually be the subject of an exemplary damages order, only one order of exemplary damages may be made for a breach of a particular section. Analysis and decision Garage
The garage is an appurtenance to the property used for vehicles and storage. As such it must be properly maintained.
The landlord knew that the garage had issues at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs of the garage clearly showing a gap in the siding through which rain may enter. However, the area of flooding shown in the tenant’s photographs appears to have originated from another area.
I am not satisfied that at the commencement of the tenancy possible weathertightness issues or that the garage may not be suitable for storage were raised by the property manager.
I am satisfied that the weather tightness of the garage is compromised by the defect shown in the photograph.
The matter was raised with the landlord in August 2025, planned work scheduled for November 2025 was delayed for weather and rescheduled for repair April 2026.
In my view the delay in addressing the issue is unreasonable. I am not satisfied that the tenant’s conduct is a legitimate factor in the delay. While there has been a loss of amenity, that is an ability to receive what had been bargained for under the agreement, suitable storage, I am not satisfied that the amount of compensation claimed by the tenant is justified. Despite the tenant stating flooding was an ongoing issue there is just the one documented incident showing a minor flood, and apart from the tenant’s oral evidence there is none other of damage to the tenant’s property. I award the tenant $500.00 for loss of amenity. Dishwasher
The dishwasher falls under the category of a chattel. The landlord was obliged to maintain it in a reasonable state of repair. The issue in this case is whether the Tribunal can be satisfied that more likely than not there was a fault with the dishwasher and if so, was any delay in addressed the matter was unreasonable.
The tenant states that it had an intermittent fault, the landlord, and the technician, suggest that it did not, or at least not one that could be detected.
Based on the evidence, it cannot be determined if the dishwasher in fact had a fault. There is no determinative evidence either way. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. The claim is dismissed. Ventilation system
The ventilation system is a chattel and must therefore be maintained. The issue, having been raised, is whether it was resolved within a reasonable period.
The matter was first raised by the tenant on 22 June 2025. The landlord responded the next day and sought further detail. The tenant did not respond, and the landlord followed up on 02 July 2025. The tenant advised that there was no indication that the filter required changing.
It is unclear what occurred between 02 August 2025 and 20 August 2025, when the landlord provided information concerning a winter and summer setting.
It does not appear that either party raised the matter again until it was included in the application as a claim.
In this case, I am satisfied that there has been a breach. The starting point is that the tenant should have been provided adequate instructions, whether written or oral, on how to operate the system at the commencement of the tenancy.
I do not accept the landlord’s argument that they responded appropriately. The delay between 02 July 2025 to 20 August 2025 was unreasonable.
Although I accept the landlord’s submissions that condensation forming on the inside of windows over winter is not uncommon, even where the property is fully healthy homes compliant, as this property was, the ventilation system was obviously installed to mitigate this issue during winter.
The tenant’s compensation claim is based on excessive electricity usage over the winter period, which they have estimated resulted in a loss of amenity equivalent to 4% of the rent. I am not satisfied that this is justified. As stated, the ventilation system is intended to operate alongside the heating system to mitigate the build- up of condensation. The efficiency of the ventilation system will likely depend in part on how the heating system is used. In this case, I accept more likely than not there has been a loss of amenity. However, without a greater understanding of how the two systems operate in tandem, it is difficult to determine the extent of the loss. I award the tenant $250.00. Gate
There is no documentary evidence of the matter being raised prior to the inspection on 13 February 2026. There are no photographs of the temporary repair on which to make an objective assessment. Although I question the landlord’s evidence that a farm gate should not swing freely, I am not satisfied that they have failed to respond appropriately, and the claim is dismissed. Gutters / trees / exterior
The issue is whether the guttering, the exterior of the property, and the trees and shrubs have been maintained in a reasonable condition. While there are some sections of guttering that require cleaning there is insufficient evidence to determine that overall, the guttering has not been maintained in a reasonable condition. The tenant advised the landlord who has arranged cleaning.
While there appears to have been a possible miscommunication about the soft wash of the exterior and the trimming of the hedge at the front of the property there is no evidence that the landlord has in fact failed to maintain these areas. The claim relating to guttering, the exterior of the property, and the hedge is dismissed. Order seeking removal of dogs / refusal of consent.
On 03 March 2026, the landlord advised the tenant that their request to keep the dogs at the property had been declined. The landlord stated that the presence of the dogs impacted on their ability to use the paddocks to graze sheep. They also stated that there were insurance and downstream liability issues concerning stock that had been worried by dogs and had escaped causing damage or injury.
In an email to the landlord dated 08 March 2026, concerning the matter the tenant referred to the end of the tenancy. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties advised that the fixed term would end on 16 May 2026 and not continue as a periodic tenancy.
The landlord’s application, for an order for removal of the dogs, was filed on 09 March 2026. The tenant’s counterclaim was filed on 24 March 2026. On 16 April 2026, both sets of claims were set down for hearing on 28 April 2026, 17 days before the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s application seeks an order only and not for termination of the tenancy for failure to remedy the notice. While the tenant challenges the notice, they do not seek exemplary damages for withholding consent without reasonable grounds. Instead, they seek exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord’s conduct in dealing with the matter amounted to an interference with their reasonable peace comfort and privacy amounting to harassment.
During the hearing, the issue arose as to whether, in light of the imminent ending of the tenancy, the landlord’s claim, and tenant’s counter claim relating to the dogs had become moot, that is whether any determination by the Tribunal would have any practical effect. Law
A moot application is one where the issue in dispute is no longer relevant or there is no longer a live dispute between the parties, and the Tribunal’s decision would therefore have no practical effect.
In the case of Trustees of Link Trust No1 v BC 68782 [ 2022] NZHC151, the applicant sought a declaration appointing them as the chairman of a body corporate. The Tribunal declined to deal with the matter on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to make such a declaration, nor would it serve any purpose, as the body corporate no longer functioned.
The applicant appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal. The applicant then appealed to the High Court. The High Court also dismissed the appeal, referring to section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Referring to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the High Court stated: [18] The jurisdiction exists to ensure practical justice to those involved in such disputes. The manner in which it undertakes that role should be directed to that end. This is confirmed by s 85 of the Act which provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
At paragraph [20] the Court went onto state: [20] First, the Tribunal proceeded in the manner required of it in dismissing a claim on this basis because it no longer had any practical significance for the participants. It is not the role of the Tribunal to make declarations on matters that have no such significance. Rather it must address disputes between them, and it must do so in light of both the principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case. If upholding a claim is not consistent with the substantial merits and justice of a case, and it does not resolve a real and practical dispute between the parties, then it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to grant the relief sought. To do so would be unfair and unjust to the other parties to the suggested dispute. Analysis and decision
At the date of hearing, the tenancy had 17 days left to run. The tenancy has now ended. The tenant’s application was made in response to the landlord’s claim seeking removal of the dogs. The tenant’s primary purpose in pursuing their claim relating to the dogs was to allow the dogs to remain at the property until they vacated.
The practical resolution of the dispute lay in the ending of the tenancy, which would result in the dogs leaving the property with the tenant. Given the deterioration in the relationship between the parties, and the tenancy not continuing as a periodic tenancy, any declaration either for or against the tenant would have no practical effect.
Further, an order for removal of the dogs before the end of the tenancy would ultimately require the landlord to return to the Tribunal to seek enforcement. Realistically, any subsequent application by the landlord would likely have not been determined before the tenancy ended.
In my view, applying Trustees of Link Trust No1 v BC 68782, the applications as far as they relate to the dogs is moot and are accordingly dismissed. Interference with reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
The tenant’s states that the landlord conduct concerning the dogs, the promises to attend to maintenance issues but then failing to do so has amounted to an interference with their reasonable peace comfort and privacy.
Under section 38(2) of the Act, a landlord must not cause or permit and interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
The common law covenant for quiet enjoyment was set out in the case of Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499 (CA) in which Pearson LJ stated at 511: “The implied covenant for quiet enjoyment is not an absolute covenant protecting a tenant against eviction or interference by anybody but is a qualified covenant protecting the tenant against interference with the tenant’s quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or persons claiming through or under the landlord. The basis of it is that the landlord, by letting the premises, confers on the tenant the right of possession during the term and impliedly promises not to interfere with the tenant’s exercise and use of the right of possession during the term. I think the word ‘enjoy’ used in this connection is a translation from the Latin word ‘fruor’ and refers to the exercise and use of the right and having the full benefit of it, rather than to derive pleasure from it. “
In the case of Smith v Floris, Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated:
“Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents....”
Under section 39(3) an interference that also amounts to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be awarded.
Harassment is not defined in the Act. In the case of MacDonald v Dodds, CIV- 2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010, the Court considered harassment to mean "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person”.
Whether interference has occurred will depend on the proven facts and an objective assessment of whether the act in question exceeds what a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure under the circumstances. Analysis and decision
A landlord is entitled to exercise their rights under the agreement and provisions of the Act. A tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment is not interfered by a landlord exercising these rights in a reasonable manner.
My assessment is that the landlord’s response to the tenant’s request regarding the dogs has been reasonable and did not constitute an unreasonable interference or harassment.
A landlord who repeatedly schedules property inspections or visits which they then cancel causing tenants inconvenience might be deemed to have conducted themselves in a manner which interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace comfort or privacy. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the landlord has repeatedly arranged inspection or visits and then failed to attend. Costs
As the tenant has been partly successful with their claim, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Globally assessed I find that both parties have been sufficiently successful and are entitled suppression of their names and the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5464673 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5464673 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions