What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5467041 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5467041?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5467041?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5467041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13564823-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5467041 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5467041?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5467041?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5467041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13564823-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5467041 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed compensation, declarations and reimbursement of the filing fee. Claim for compensation
The Tenant claimed reimbursement of $285.46, alleging overpayments towards a debt incurred in 2021. She submitted that she commenced repayments in 2022 and had been paying $8.00 per week since that time. She believed she was now in credit. In support, the Tenant provided an Excel spreadsheet listing certain payments of $8.00 made by her between 2019 and 2025. She also stated that while some bank statements were provided, she did not have complete statements to demonstrate the full amount she paid towards the debt or how the alleged overpayment was calculated.
The Landlord denied that any overpayment had been made and submitted that the Tenant was in arrears in the sum of $1,815.14. In support, the Landlord provided a damages statement recording all charges and payments applied to the account since the tenancy commenced on 30 July 2019. The statement recorded charges applied on 15 October 2021, 17 November 2022, and 16 August 2023, as well as further charges on 9 April 2026 and 17 April 2026. Additionally, on 7 July 2025, the Landlord sent a letter to the Tenant summarising the charges.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the Tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that overpayments were made. In the absence of complete bank statements evidencing the weekly payments, a clear summary of the total amount paid, and any demonstrable discrepancy in the Landlord’s damages statement, I am not satisfied that an overpayment has occurred.
The claim is dismissed.
The Tenant sought a declaration that the Landlord’s notice advising of a change to her Tenancy Support Manager was ineffective on the basis that it lacked certainty as to authority and did not specify an effective date. The Tenant submitted that her concerns and complaints regarding the Landlord’s conduct had not been addressed appropriately and that the change in management constituted an abuse of her rights. In support of her position, the Tenant produced correspondence from the Landlord introducing a newly assigned Tenancy Support Manager.
The Landlord submitted that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine who the Landlord appoints to manage its tenancy portfolios. The Landlord stated that the correspondence relied upon by the Tenant was a standard courtesy letter issued to advise tenants of an internal reassignment of tenancy management responsibilities. The Landlord explained that this formed part of a broader administrative process to ensure tenants were informed of their allocated Tenancy Support Manager.
Having considered the evidence, I accept the Landlord’s submission that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct or review the Landlord’s internal staffing or portfolio allocation decisions, including the appointment of a particular Tenancy Support Manager. I do not consider the introductory correspondence to be ineffective or otherwise invalid. The substance of the Tenant’s complaint appears to relate more generally to dissatisfaction with the Landlord’s complaint and management practices. However, the Landlord remains entitled to determine how it allocates management responsibilities across its tenancy portfolio.
For these reasons, the Tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The Tenant also sought orders that the Landlord refrain from attending the property without notice except where lawful entry or a genuine emergency existed, and that all non-emergency tenancy communications occur in writing rather than by unannounced door knocking. The Tenant further sought an order requiring the Landlord to comply with previous Tenancy Tribunal findings.
In support of her application, the Tenant referred to an earlier Tribunal order dated 14 June 2024 (“earlier Tribunal Order”) in which the adjudicator observed at paragraph 20 that the Landlord should remain mindful of complying with legal requirements when contacting the Tenant. The Tenant submitted that, notwithstanding that direction, the Landlord continued to breach her right to quiet enjoyment by attending the property repeatedly without notice.
The Tenant identified three occasions in particular. First, on 16 September 2025, the Landlord attended unannounced to discuss dog registration matters. The Tenant stated she became distressed by the unexpected attendance and closed the door shortly after a brief conversation. Secondly, on 31 October 2025, the Landlord allegedly attended the property shortly after the Tenant had been discharged from hospital. Thirdly, on 4 December 2025, the Landlord again attended the property, although the Tenant could not recall the precise purpose of the visit. The Tenant relied on an email dated 31 October 2025 in which she expressed concern about “further males” attending at her door without arrangement and described the 16 September 2025 visit as distressing and destabilising.
The Tenant further alleged that the Landlord harassed her through repeated telephone contact on 11 March 2025 and by sending what she considered to be an offensive text message. When asked to identify the nature of the alleged offensive communication, the Tenant stated that the message was objectionable because it came from a person who was not her assigned Tenancy Support Manager. She did not recognise the phone number.
The Landlord disputed attending the property on the occasions alleged by the Tenant, except for one acknowledged visit on 16 September 2025. The Landlord submitted that its primary method of communication with the Tenant was by email, consistent with the Tenant’s stated preference communicated in 2024. Where no response was received, the Landlord stated it would follow up by text message or voicemail. The Landlord acknowledged attending the property unannounced on 16 September 2025 as part of a pilot programme involving routine visits to tenant properties. The Landlord stated that at no stage did staff enter the dwelling. The Landlord further submitted that the only subsequent attendance at the property occurred on 11 November 2025 for a scheduled maintenance visit. The Landlord also submitted that previously they did call her on her mobile regarding rent arrears but they also corresponded via email and through the issuance of formal notices, including a 14-day notice where required. The Landlord maintained that it had been mindful in its communications with the Tenant.
Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Landlord’s conduct amounted to a breach of the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment or constituted harassment. For an entry to be unlawful, there must generally be entry into the premises. The Tenant would have been aware of this from the earlier Order. A landlord is not prohibited however from attending at a property without notice provided they do not enter the dwelling and the conduct does not become oppressive or amount to harassment.
The Tenant’s evidence was that there were three unannounced attendances at the property; however, it was accepted that the Landlord did not enter the property on any of those occasions. The evidence before the Tribunal referred specifically only to the attendance on 16 September 2025, which the Landlord acknowledged. While I consider the Landlord ought to have considered the necessity of applying its “door knocking” pilot programme to this Tenant, particularly given the observations made in the earlier Tribunal order, the evidence does not establish conduct sufficient to justify the orders sought. The earlier order recognised that unexpected visits could cause the Tenant significant distress due to ongoing mental health concerns. However, no current medical or other supporting evidence was produced regarding the Tenant’s present circumstances or the extent to which those concerns continued at the relevant time.
The earlier Tribunal order recorded that the Adjudicator was aware of the Tenant’s significant and ongoing mental health issues and the adverse impact that unannounced visits had upon her, particularly where important tenancy matters were discussed unexpectedly. The adjudicator suggested that the Landlord remain mindful of those issues and provide advance notice of visits wherever practicable, except in emergency situations.
Notwithstanding those observations, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that there is a sufficient basis to make the orders sought by the Tenant prohibiting unannounced attendance at the property. The evidence regarding the alleged visits was limited and lacked sufficient specificity and corroboration.
For these reasons, the Tenant’s claim is also dismissed.
Although the Tenant has not been successful in her application, I consider it appropriate to grant name suppression. In light of the references to the Tenants previous mental health issues, I am satisfied that the Tenant’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in publication of her name. The Tenant shall also bear the costs of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant claimed compensation, declarations and reimbursement of the filing fee. Claim for compensation

The Tenant claimed reimbursement of $285.46, alleging overpayments towards a debt incurred in 2021. She submitted that she commenced repayments in 2022 and had been paying $8.00 per week since that time. She believed she was now in credit. In support, the Tenant provided an Excel spreadsheet listing certain payments of $8.00 made by her between 2019 and 2025. She also stated that while some bank statements were provided, she did not have complete statements to demonstrate the full amount she paid towards the debt or how the alleged overpayment was calculated.

The Landlord denied that any overpayment had been made and submitted that the Tenant was in arrears in the sum of $1,815.14. In support, the Landlord provided a damages statement recording all charges and payments applied to the account since the tenancy commenced on 30 July 2019. The statement recorded charges applied on 15 October 2021, 17 November 2022, and 16 August 2023, as well as further charges on 9 April 2026 and 17 April 2026. Additionally, on 7 July 2025, the Landlord sent a letter to the Tenant summarising the charges.

Having considered the evidence, I find that the Tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that overpayments were made. In the absence of complete bank statements evidencing the weekly payments, a clear summary of the total amount paid, and any demonstrable discrepancy in the Landlord’s damages statement, I am not satisfied that an overpayment has occurred.

The claim is dismissed.

The Tenant sought a declaration that the Landlord’s notice advising of a change to her Tenancy Support Manager was ineffective on the basis that it lacked certainty as to authority and did not specify an effective date. The Tenant submitted that her concerns and complaints regarding the Landlord’s conduct had not been addressed appropriately and that the change in management constituted an abuse of her rights. In support of her position, the Tenant produced correspondence from the Landlord introducing a newly assigned Tenancy Support Manager.

The Landlord submitted that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine who the Landlord appoints to manage its tenancy portfolios. The Landlord stated that the correspondence relied upon by the Tenant was a standard courtesy letter issued to advise tenants of an internal reassignment of tenancy management responsibilities. The Landlord explained that this formed part of a broader administrative process to ensure tenants were informed of their allocated Tenancy Support Manager.

Having considered the evidence, I accept the Landlord’s submission that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct or review the Landlord’s internal staffing or portfolio allocation decisions, including the appointment of a particular Tenancy Support Manager. I do not consider the introductory correspondence to be ineffective or otherwise invalid. The substance of the Tenant’s complaint appears to relate more generally to dissatisfaction with the Landlord’s complaint and management practices. However, the Landlord remains entitled to determine how it allocates management responsibilities across its tenancy portfolio.

For these reasons, the Tenant’s claim is dismissed.

The Tenant also sought orders that the Landlord refrain from attending the property without notice except where lawful entry or a genuine emergency existed, and that all non-emergency tenancy communications occur in writing rather than by unannounced door knocking. The Tenant further sought an order requiring the Landlord to comply with previous Tenancy Tribunal findings.

In support of her application, the Tenant referred to an earlier Tribunal order dated 14 June 2024 (“earlier Tribunal Order”) in which the adjudicator observed at paragraph 20 that the Landlord should remain mindful of complying with legal requirements when contacting the Tenant. The Tenant submitted that, notwithstanding that direction, the Landlord continued to breach her right to quiet enjoyment by attending the property repeatedly without notice.

The Tenant identified three occasions in particular. First, on 16 September 2025, the Landlord attended unannounced to discuss dog registration matters. The Tenant stated she became distressed by the unexpected attendance and closed the door shortly after a brief conversation. Secondly, on 31 October 2025, the Landlord allegedly attended the property shortly after the Tenant had been discharged from hospital. Thirdly, on 4 December 2025, the Landlord again attended the property, although the Tenant could not recall the precise purpose of the visit. The Tenant relied on an email dated 31 October 2025 in which she expressed concern about “further males” attending at her door without arrangement and described the 16 September 2025 visit as distressing and destabilising.

The Tenant further alleged that the Landlord harassed her through repeated telephone contact on 11 March 2025 and by sending what she considered to be an offensive text message. When asked to identify the nature of the alleged offensive communication, the Tenant stated that the message was objectionable because it came from a person who was not her assigned Tenancy Support Manager. She did not recognise the phone number.

The Landlord disputed attending the property on the occasions alleged by the Tenant, except for one acknowledged visit on 16 September 2025. The Landlord submitted that its primary method of communication with the Tenant was by email, consistent with the Tenant’s stated preference communicated in 2024. Where no response was received, the Landlord stated it would follow up by text message or voicemail. The Landlord acknowledged attending the property unannounced on 16 September 2025 as part of a pilot programme involving routine visits to tenant properties. The Landlord stated that at no stage did staff enter the dwelling. The Landlord further submitted that the only subsequent attendance at the property occurred on 11 November 2025 for a scheduled maintenance visit. The Landlord also submitted that previously they did call her on her mobile regarding rent arrears but they also corresponded via email and through the issuance of formal notices, including a 14-day notice where required. The Landlord maintained that it had been mindful in its communications with the Tenant.

Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Landlord’s conduct amounted to a breach of the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment or constituted harassment. For an entry to be unlawful, there must generally be entry into the premises. The Tenant would have been aware of this from the earlier Order. A landlord is not prohibited however from attending at a property without notice provided they do not enter the dwelling and the conduct does not become oppressive or amount to harassment.

The Tenant’s evidence was that there were three unannounced attendances at the property; however, it was accepted that the Landlord did not enter the property on any of those occasions. The evidence before the Tribunal referred specifically only to the attendance on 16 September 2025, which the Landlord acknowledged. While I consider the Landlord ought to have considered the necessity of applying its “door knocking” pilot programme to this Tenant, particularly given the observations made in the earlier Tribunal order, the evidence does not establish conduct sufficient to justify the orders sought. The earlier order recognised that unexpected visits could cause the Tenant significant distress due to ongoing mental health concerns. However, no current medical or other supporting evidence was produced regarding the Tenant’s present circumstances or the extent to which those concerns continued at the relevant time.

The earlier Tribunal order recorded that the Adjudicator was aware of the Tenant’s significant and ongoing mental health issues and the adverse impact that unannounced visits had upon her, particularly where important tenancy matters were discussed unexpectedly. The adjudicator suggested that the Landlord remain mindful of those issues and provide advance notice of visits wherever practicable, except in emergency situations.

Notwithstanding those observations, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that there is a sufficient basis to make the orders sought by the Tenant prohibiting unannounced attendance at the property. The evidence regarding the alleged visits was limited and lacked sufficient specificity and corroboration.

For these reasons, the Tenant’s claim is also dismissed.

Although the Tenant has not been successful in her application, I consider it appropriate to grant name suppression. In light of the references to the Tenants previous mental health issues, I am satisfied that the Tenant’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in publication of her name. The Tenant shall also bear the costs of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5467041 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5467041 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions