What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5503791 about?

The tribunal order states: Edward Pratt and Brigit Pratt must pay Antonio Joshua McClutchie, Michelle

How much money was awarded in case 5503791?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5503791?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5503791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13819661-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5503791 about?

The tribunal order states: Edward Pratt and Brigit Pratt must pay Antonio Joshua McClutchie, Michelle

How much money was awarded in case 5503791?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5503791?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5503791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13819661-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61A Masefield Avenue, Maraenui, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5503791 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5503791 — net $228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$200.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$228.00

Order

Edward Pratt and Brigit Pratt must pay Antonio Joshua McClutchie, Michelle Pihia McClutchie $228.00 immediately as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The tenant filed an application on 13 May 2026 for compensation relating to alleged misrepresentation by the landlord. Background
The property was in the process of being sold.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the tenancy ended on or about 3 June 2026. The landlord further confirmed that the house has now sold.
On Thursday 9 April 2026 the landlord’s agent sent the following text message to the tenant: Thank you for the viewing today. All finished. I would also like to book a building report for 1pm Monday [13 April]. Thank you and much appreciated.
The tenant responded That’s fine. I’ll be home so you won’t need to let him in.
On 13 April, the agent arrived with another person who entered the premises and started taking a series of short video recordings.
The tenant claims that the person was not conducting a building inspection but rather taking a series of short videos for a potential purchaser of the property. A building inspection was arranged several days later.
The tenant claims that the building inspection undertaken on 13 April 2026 was misleading. He says that the agent was present the whole time and that they must have known that the building inspection was not legitimate.
The tenant also says that the landlord disregarded the tenant’s viewing schedule. He says that he provided consent for photos but not for video recording. The tenant claims $20,000 for the associated stress of the events. The tenant says that he made a formal complaint against Harcourts.
The landlord responded by stating that they understood a building inspection would take place on 13 April 2026. They say that the agent advised that a builder for the purchaser would be taken through that day. They confirmed during the hearing that the person who turned up on 13 April 2026 was a registered builder.
The landlord says that the tenant was given notice of this visit, and the tenant consented. The landlord says they had no knowledge of these series of events. The landlord maintains that there were no misleading comments from them in respect of this.
The tenant does not accept the landlord’s comments.
During the hearing the tenant was clearly upset by what had occurred, emphasising that there had been a breach of his privacy. Relevant law
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 under s48(1) and (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
Section 48(3) RTA allows entry with the tenant’s consent for a prospective purchaser to view the premises or for an expert to evaluate the premises, among other reasons. The tenant must not unreasonably refuse permission. Analysis
The landlord is allowed entry under the provisions of section 48(3) of the RTA. As recorded above the landlord notified the tenant on 9 April 2026 that an attendance would be required on 13 April 2026 for the purposes of preparing a building report.
Having carefully considered the evidence filed by the parties I am satisfied that the landlord did not accurately inform the tenant of the purpose of the visit on 13 April 2026. Although not an intentional act which would amount to an unlawful one it is my view nevertheless that the tenant should have been properly informed of the true purpose of the visit.
The misleading statement has deprived the tenant of the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to consent to the entry and constitutes misleading conduct. I accept the tenant’s submission that the landlord’s explanation of the purpose of the entry was misleading.
That being said, I regard the breach as being at the low end of the scale. There is no evidence that the landlord acted deliberately, or intentionally sought to deceive the tenant which would justify an award of exemplary damages.
Rather, the evidence suggests that the landlord inadequately described the purpose of the visit rather than knowingly misrepresented it.
Exemplary damages are reserved for conduct that is intentional and unlawful.
In this case I am far from satisfied that the landlord’s conduct reaches that threshold. While the landlord should have been more candid in explaining the purpose of the entry, the breach does not warrant an award of exemplary damages.
The tenant seeks an award of $20,000.00. The compensation sought by the tenant is simply unrealistic in all the circumstances.
Accordingly, I award compensation of $200.00 to recognise the landlord’s breach.
Because Antonio Joshua McClutchie, Michelle Pihia McClutchie has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5503791 — net $228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$200.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$228.00

Order

Edward Pratt and Brigit Pratt must pay Antonio Joshua McClutchie, Michelle Pihia McClutchie $228.00 immediately as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The tenant filed an application on 13 May 2026 for compensation relating to alleged misrepresentation by the landlord. Background
The property was in the process of being sold.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the tenancy ended on or about 3 June 2026. The landlord further confirmed that the house has now sold.
On Thursday 9 April 2026 the landlord’s agent sent the following text message to the tenant: Thank you for the viewing today. All finished. I would also like to book a building report for 1pm Monday [13 April]. Thank you and much appreciated.
The tenant responded That’s fine. I’ll be home so you won’t need to let him in.
On 13 April, the agent arrived with another person who entered the premises and started taking a series of short video recordings.
The tenant claims that the person was not conducting a building inspection but rather taking a series of short videos for a potential purchaser of the property. A building inspection was arranged several days later.
The tenant claims that the building inspection undertaken on 13 April 2026 was misleading. He says that the agent was present the whole time and that they must have known that the building inspection was not legitimate.
The tenant also says that the landlord disregarded the tenant’s viewing schedule. He says that he provided consent for photos but not for video recording. The tenant claims $20,000 for the associated stress of the events. The tenant says that he made a formal complaint against Harcourts.
The landlord responded by stating that they understood a building inspection would take place on 13 April 2026. They say that the agent advised that a builder for the purchaser would be taken through that day. They confirmed during the hearing that the person who turned up on 13 April 2026 was a registered builder.
The landlord says that the tenant was given notice of this visit, and the tenant consented. The landlord says they had no knowledge of these series of events. The landlord maintains that there were no misleading comments from them in respect of this.
The tenant does not accept the landlord’s comments.
During the hearing the tenant was clearly upset by what had occurred, emphasising that there had been a breach of his privacy. Relevant law
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 under s48(1) and (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
Section 48(3) RTA allows entry with the tenant’s consent for a prospective purchaser to view the premises or for an expert to evaluate the premises, among other reasons. The tenant must not unreasonably refuse permission. Analysis
The landlord is allowed entry under the provisions of section 48(3) of the RTA. As recorded above the landlord notified the tenant on 9 April 2026 that an attendance would be required on 13 April 2026 for the purposes of preparing a building report.
Having carefully considered the evidence filed by the parties I am satisfied that the landlord did not accurately inform the tenant of the purpose of the visit on 13 April 2026. Although not an intentional act which would amount to an unlawful one it is my view nevertheless that the tenant should have been properly informed of the true purpose of the visit.
The misleading statement has deprived the tenant of the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to consent to the entry and constitutes misleading conduct. I accept the tenant’s submission that the landlord’s explanation of the purpose of the entry was misleading.
That being said, I regard the breach as being at the low end of the scale. There is no evidence that the landlord acted deliberately, or intentionally sought to deceive the tenant which would justify an award of exemplary damages.
Rather, the evidence suggests that the landlord inadequately described the purpose of the visit rather than knowingly misrepresented it.
Exemplary damages are reserved for conduct that is intentional and unlawful.
In this case I am far from satisfied that the landlord’s conduct reaches that threshold. While the landlord should have been more candid in explaining the purpose of the entry, the breach does not warrant an award of exemplary damages.
The tenant seeks an award of $20,000.00. The compensation sought by the tenant is simply unrealistic in all the circumstances.
Accordingly, I award compensation of $200.00 to recognise the landlord’s breach.
Because Antonio Joshua McClutchie, Michelle Pihia McClutchie has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5503791 — Tenancy dispute at 61A Masefield Avenue, Maraenui, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5503791 — Tenancy dispute at 61A Masefield Avenue, Maraenui, Napier 4110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions