What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5488529 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5488529?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5488529?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5488529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14016466-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5488529 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5488529?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5488529?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5488529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14016466-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 8, 37 Edenvale Crescent, Mount Eden, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5488529 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

On 14 April 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking on order from the Tribunal, permitting the landlord’s Agent to enter the premises for the purposes of conducting weekly open homes viewings every Saturday between 11:00 – 11:30am.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Cherie Buissink, Property Manager and Ms Nellie Williams, Operations Manager, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant failed to appear. The tenant had earlier applied for an adjournment of the hearing on the basis they were unable to attend as they were in a work meeting. No evidence was provided in support of the application and the adjournment request was declined.
The Tribunal attempted to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone on two occasions. The calls went unanswered. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Amendment to the claims
At the hearing the landlord sought to amend their claim to include compensation for damage to a floorboard. The Tribunal declined to amend the claim.
Section 91(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) and the principles of fairness and natural justice apply. Parties must be fairly informed of the matters to be determined by the Tribunal. The notice of hearing identified the landlord’s claims as being remedy of a breach, failure to allow entry and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant has not been fairly informed of the landlord’s intention to seek compensation. The application to amend the claim to include compensation was declined.
The landlord is not prevented from filing a fresh application for compensation. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 26 September 2025 with the fixed term due to end on 24 September 2026.
On 6 August 2026, by mutual consent, the tenancy transferred from a fixed term tenancy to a periodic tenancy.
On 6 August 2026 the tenant gave 21 days’ notice terminating the tenancy effective 27 August 2026. History of the claim
On 15 March 2026 the landlord notified the tenant of their intention to market the property for sale. The tenant was offered the opportunity to purchase the property and, after a 10-day negotiation period, the offer was declined.
On 7 April 2026 the landlord emailed the tenant requesting access to the property at 11:00am on 9 April 2026. The purpose of the visit was to give their marketing agent an opportunity to view the property. The email also sought permission to release the tenant’s contact details to the marketing agent, to facilitate open home viewings. The tenant was also informed the marketing agent would be holding a key to the property for the duration of the marketing campaign.
On 8 April 2026 the tenant gave permission of the marketing agent to view the property with the following conditions: a. Shoes must be removed inside the premises; and b. No photographs of the tenant’s personal items or furniture where to be taken or used for any reason. The tenant also asked for a rent reduction to compensate her for the inconvenience arising out open home viewings until the property was sold.
At 9:22am on 9 April 2026 the landlord email the tenant declining her request for a rent reduction. The tenant was advised that open homes viewings were intended to be held once per week with private viewings where necessary and in accordance with the landlord’s obligations under the Act.
At 11:15am the tenant replied to the landlord declining their request for open home viewings. The tenant also declined consent for her contact details to be passed to the marketing agent.
At 3.43pm the landlord responded to the tenants email stating that while the tenant has control over viewings at the property, access cannot be unreasonably withheld. The landlord asked the tenant to consider allowing open home viewings every Saturday mornings between 11:00 – 11:30am.
On 10 April 2026, the landlord sent a follow-up email asking for the tenant to comment on the proposed viewing scheduled by midday on Monday 13 April 2026.
On 14 April 2026, the landlord emailed the tenant saying that as no response had been received about the proposed viewing schedule, they would be filing an application with the Tribunal seeking an order to allow access for open home viewings. Did the tenant fail to allow the landlord’s agent to entre the premises when they were entitled to enter?
The landlord claims the tenant did not allow their marketing agent to enter the premises when they were entitled to enter. Specifically, the tenant declined to allow access to the property for the purpose of open homes viewings. The landlord said that these viewings were to be limited to 30-minutes every Saturday for a four-week period as part of an auction campaign to sell the property.
Section 48(3) of the Act 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 purchasers. Section 48(3A) of the sets out that tenants may not withhold consent unreasonably and may make the consent subject to reasonable conditions.
In Gollop v Prakash TT12/01306/MK the Tribunal held that: “[12] Open homes are generally an interference with a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, and a landlord will often voluntarily compensate a tenant for the inconvenience and interference caused.”
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that: a. The tenant declined consent for the landlord’s marketing agent to hold open home viewings at the property. Consent was declined after the landlord failed to agree to a rent reduction which the tenant sought as compensation for the inconvenience these viewings would cause. b. When the tenant declined consent for open home viewings they did not decline consent for the landlord to hold private viewings at the property. c. The tenant was within their right to decline consent for open home viewing. There was no evidence before me to prove the tenant was aware these viewings were to be limited to a four-week auction campaign. The correspondence shows the landlord requested access to the property every Saturday for 30-minutes. The tenant was entitled to conclude, that by agreeing to the landlord’s request, they would be required to allow access to the property every Saturday from 11:00-11.30am until it was sold. The potentially extended nature of these viewings would have inconvenienced the tenant and interfered with their right to quiet enjoyment. d. The tenants actions in declining consent for open home viewings did not prevent the landlord from marketing the property for sale or arranging private viewings for prospective purchasers. The tenants language in their email was clear and unequivocal. Consent was declined for open home viewings only. The landlord was not prevented from arranging access to the property for private viewings. On that basis the Tribunal is satisfied that when the tenant declined consent for open home viewings they were not doing so unreasonably. e. The landlord now seeks an order allowing access to the property for one hour every Saturday commencing 8 August 2026. The purpose of this access is to allow their building contractors an opportunity to measure and quote in preparation for the properties sale. The landlord confirms that, to date, the tenant has not been asked to provide their building contractors with access to the property for the above purpose. As the tenant has not been asked to provide access, the Tribunal cannot find that it has been unreasonably withheld. The Tribunal notes the tenant has continued to allow the landlord’s property manager and contractors access to the property as and when requested.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. On the evidence before me I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant has unreasonably withheld consent to access the property and the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

On 14 April 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking on order from the Tribunal, permitting the landlord’s Agent to enter the premises for the purposes of conducting weekly open homes viewings every Saturday between 11:00 – 11:30am.

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Cherie Buissink, Property Manager and Ms Nellie Williams, Operations Manager, appeared for the landlord.

The tenant failed to appear. The tenant had earlier applied for an adjournment of the hearing on the basis they were unable to attend as they were in a work meeting. No evidence was provided in support of the application and the adjournment request was declined.

The Tribunal attempted to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone on two occasions. The calls went unanswered. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Amendment to the claims

At the hearing the landlord sought to amend their claim to include compensation for damage to a floorboard. The Tribunal declined to amend the claim.

Section 91(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) and the principles of fairness and natural justice apply. Parties must be fairly informed of the matters to be determined by the Tribunal. The notice of hearing identified the landlord’s claims as being remedy of a breach, failure to allow entry and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant has not been fairly informed of the landlord’s intention to seek compensation. The application to amend the claim to include compensation was declined.

The landlord is not prevented from filing a fresh application for compensation. History of the tenancy

The tenancy commenced on 26 September 2025 with the fixed term due to end on 24 September 2026.

On 6 August 2026, by mutual consent, the tenancy transferred from a fixed term tenancy to a periodic tenancy.

On 6 August 2026 the tenant gave 21 days’ notice terminating the tenancy effective 27 August 2026. History of the claim

On 15 March 2026 the landlord notified the tenant of their intention to market the property for sale. The tenant was offered the opportunity to purchase the property and, after a 10-day negotiation period, the offer was declined.

On 7 April 2026 the landlord emailed the tenant requesting access to the property at 11:00am on 9 April 2026. The purpose of the visit was to give their marketing agent an opportunity to view the property. The email also sought permission to release the tenant’s contact details to the marketing agent, to facilitate open home viewings. The tenant was also informed the marketing agent would be holding a key to the property for the duration of the marketing campaign.

On 8 April 2026 the tenant gave permission of the marketing agent to view the property with the following conditions: a. Shoes must be removed inside the premises; and b. No photographs of the tenant’s personal items or furniture where to be taken or used for any reason. The tenant also asked for a rent reduction to compensate her for the inconvenience arising out open home viewings until the property was sold.

At 9:22am on 9 April 2026 the landlord email the tenant declining her request for a rent reduction. The tenant was advised that open homes viewings were intended to be held once per week with private viewings where necessary and in accordance with the landlord’s obligations under the Act.

At 11:15am the tenant replied to the landlord declining their request for open home viewings. The tenant also declined consent for her contact details to be passed to the marketing agent.

At 3.43pm the landlord responded to the tenants email stating that while the tenant has control over viewings at the property, access cannot be unreasonably withheld. The landlord asked the tenant to consider allowing open home viewings every Saturday mornings between 11:00 – 11:30am.

On 10 April 2026, the landlord sent a follow-up email asking for the tenant to comment on the proposed viewing scheduled by midday on Monday 13 April 2026.

On 14 April 2026, the landlord emailed the tenant saying that as no response had been received about the proposed viewing schedule, they would be filing an application with the Tribunal seeking an order to allow access for open home viewings. Did the tenant fail to allow the landlord’s agent to entre the premises when they were entitled to enter?

The landlord claims the tenant did not allow their marketing agent to enter the premises when they were entitled to enter. Specifically, the tenant declined to allow access to the property for the purpose of open homes viewings. The landlord said that these viewings were to be limited to 30-minutes every Saturday for a four-week period as part of an auction campaign to sell the property.

Section 48(3) of the Act 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 purchasers. Section 48(3A) of the sets out that tenants may not withhold consent unreasonably and may make the consent subject to reasonable conditions.

In Gollop v Prakash TT12/01306/MK the Tribunal held that: “[12] Open homes are generally an interference with a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, and a landlord will often voluntarily compensate a tenant for the inconvenience and interference caused.”

Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that: a. The tenant declined consent for the landlord’s marketing agent to hold open home viewings at the property. Consent was declined after the landlord failed to agree to a rent reduction which the tenant sought as compensation for the inconvenience these viewings would cause. b. When the tenant declined consent for open home viewings they did not decline consent for the landlord to hold private viewings at the property. c. The tenant was within their right to decline consent for open home viewing. There was no evidence before me to prove the tenant was aware these viewings were to be limited to a four-week auction campaign. The correspondence shows the landlord requested access to the property every Saturday for 30-minutes. The tenant was entitled to conclude, that by agreeing to the landlord’s request, they would be required to allow access to the property every Saturday from 11:00-11.30am until it was sold. The potentially extended nature of these viewings would have inconvenienced the tenant and interfered with their right to quiet enjoyment. d. The tenants actions in declining consent for open home viewings did not prevent the landlord from marketing the property for sale or arranging private viewings for prospective purchasers. The tenants language in their email was clear and unequivocal. Consent was declined for open home viewings only. The landlord was not prevented from arranging access to the property for private viewings. On that basis the Tribunal is satisfied that when the tenant declined consent for open home viewings they were not doing so unreasonably. e. The landlord now seeks an order allowing access to the property for one hour every Saturday commencing 8 August 2026. The purpose of this access is to allow their building contractors an opportunity to measure and quote in preparation for the properties sale. The landlord confirms that, to date, the tenant has not been asked to provide their building contractors with access to the property for the above purpose. As the tenant has not been asked to provide access, the Tribunal cannot find that it has been unreasonably withheld. The Tribunal notes the tenant has continued to allow the landlord’s property manager and contractors access to the property as and when requested.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. On the evidence before me I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant has unreasonably withheld consent to access the property and the claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5488529 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 8, 37 Edenvale Crescent, Mount Eden,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5488529 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 8, 37 Edenvale Crescent, Mount Eden,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.