What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5452839?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5452839?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452839?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13481351-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5452839?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5452839?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452839?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13481351-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 295 Armagh Street, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452839 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 295 Armagh Street, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452839 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452839. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced in 2022 and ended shortly before this hearing by way of the landlord serving the tenant with a 90-day termination notice.
The tenant has filed a claim raising a concern about inspections and communication from the landlord during the tenancy. The tenant claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment to a level that amounts to harassment.
The landlord filed a cross application seeking that I dismiss the tenant’s claims. No further orders were sought by the landlord.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises and/or harass the tenant. b. If any breaches are proven, should exemplary damages and/or compensation be ordered?

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach when deciding to award compensation. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 3 the Court of Appeal said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.” 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 3 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P)
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest, and whether it is just to make the award. 4 Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately under the same provision of the RTA. 5

THE CLAIMS

The Law – Breach of quiet enjoyment

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 6 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 agent. 7 Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 8
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". 9 The Law – Right of entry
Section 48 of the RTA sets out the landlord’s right of entry.
Section 48 (1) RTA says the landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry; or in any of the circumstances described in subsections 48(2) to (3) of the RTA.
Section 48 (2)(b) RTA says the landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of inspecting the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on a day specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry, and not more frequently than once in any period of 4 weeks.

DISCUSSION

4 Section 109 of the RTA. 5 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583 6 See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 7 Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at [6]. 8 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA. 9 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

The tenant says the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises by conducting inflexible inspections, being nit-picky with inspections and in inspection reports and that the inspection reports had inappropriate comments. The tenant says the landlord’s communication was unprofessional and stressful. The tenant seeks $1,200 compensation and/or exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenant says the landlord’s conduct amounts to harassment. The tenant provided documentary evidence of the text messages and emails between her and the landlord over the years.
The tenant says in November 2023 the landlord opened a window following an inspection which allowed her cat to get outside, (the cat was promptly found when the tenant arrived home) and left open the toilet seat and turned off a light and used a paper napkin of hers. She says these acts caused her stress.
The landlord denied all claims of harassment, breach of quiet enjoyment, unprofessional conduct, inflexibility, or causing the tenant stress.
The landlord says they conducted lawful routine inspections of the property in accordance with the RTA. The landlord says they were professional at all times. The landlord says the tenant presence is not required at inspections, but multiple inspections were rescheduled to suit the tenant’s requests, and one time they refused to change the time after repeated changes. The landlord says the tenant failed several inspections during the tenancy as the tenant lived in an untidy condition. The landlord provided a schedule of inspection dates, including when inspections were scheduled and rescheduled and the outcome of the inspections.
The landlord has complied with the RTA in respect of the frequency of the inspections and there is no evidence that the notices were incorrect. Lawful inspections cannot be said to be a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
A tenant does not have to be present when a landlord is inspecting a tenancy premises, and I consider the landlord has been very reasonable and flexible in adjusting dates when required to suit the tenant.
I do not consider the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment at the November 2023 inspection. The minor acts (with respect to the toilet seat, window, light and tissue) could not be considered significant interferences in the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises and the fact that the tenant has not filed this application until over 2 years since the events took place illustrate the minor nature of them. If I am wrong in that finding, I am not satisfied that these acts caused emotional damage as claimed by the tenant to support of claim for compensation.
The landlord provided in inspection report from 16 September 2025 and 10 December 2025. The premises is not reasonably clean and tidy and is cluttered. It is reasonable for the landlord to undertake routine inspections of this premises frequency, as there is a real risk that the issue could have exacerbated during the tenancy.
In light of this and issues with rent arrears during the tenancy I consider the landlord’s communication in respect of potential breaches by the tenant were professional, respectful and necessary.
I find the landlord has acted fairly and appropriately in their dealings with the tenant and I am not satisfied the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached the RTA with respect to their rights of entry or her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Because I consider the landlord has not breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, the claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

FILING FEE

Because the tenant has not been successful with the claim, I have not reimbursed the tenant the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

On my enquiry, neither party applied for name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452839. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced in 2022 and ended shortly before this hearing by way of the landlord serving the tenant with a 90-day termination notice.
The tenant has filed a claim raising a concern about inspections and communication from the landlord during the tenancy. The tenant claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment to a level that amounts to harassment.
The landlord filed a cross application seeking that I dismiss the tenant’s claims. No further orders were sought by the landlord.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises and/or harass the tenant. b. If any breaches are proven, should exemplary damages and/or compensation be ordered?

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach when deciding to award compensation. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 3 the Court of Appeal said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.” 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 3 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P)
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest, and whether it is just to make the award. 4 Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately under the same provision of the RTA. 5

THE CLAIMS

The Law – Breach of quiet enjoyment

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 6 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 agent. 7 Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 8
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". 9 The Law – Right of entry
Section 48 of the RTA sets out the landlord’s right of entry.
Section 48 (1) RTA says the landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry; or in any of the circumstances described in subsections 48(2) to (3) of the RTA.
Section 48 (2)(b) RTA says the landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of inspecting the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on a day specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry, and not more frequently than once in any period of 4 weeks.

DISCUSSION

The tenant says the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises by conducting inflexible inspections, being nit-picky with inspections and in inspection reports and that the inspection reports had inappropriate comments. The tenant says the landlord’s communication was unprofessional and stressful. The tenant seeks $1,200 compensation and/or exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenant says the landlord’s conduct amounts to harassment. The tenant provided documentary evidence of the text messages and emails between her and the landlord over the years.
The tenant says in November 2023 the landlord opened a window following an inspection which allowed her cat to get outside, (the cat was promptly found when the tenant arrived home) and left open the toilet seat and turned off a light and used a paper napkin of hers. She says these acts caused her stress.
The landlord denied all claims of harassment, breach of quiet enjoyment, unprofessional conduct, inflexibility, or causing the tenant stress.
The landlord says they conducted lawful routine inspections of the property in accordance with the RTA. The landlord says they were professional at all times. The landlord says the tenant presence is not required at inspections, but multiple inspections were rescheduled to suit the tenant’s requests, and one time they refused to change the time after repeated changes. The landlord says the tenant failed several inspections during the tenancy as the tenant lived in an untidy condition. The landlord provided a schedule of inspection dates, including when inspections were scheduled and rescheduled and the outcome of the inspections.
The landlord has complied with the RTA in respect of the frequency of the inspections and there is no evidence that the notices were incorrect. Lawful inspections cannot be said to be a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
A tenant does not have to be present when a landlord is inspecting a tenancy premises, and I consider the landlord has been very reasonable and flexible in adjusting dates when required to suit the tenant.
I do not consider the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment at the November 2023 inspection. The minor acts (with respect to the toilet seat, window, light and tissue) could not be considered significant interferences in the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises and the fact that the tenant has not filed this application until over 2 years since the events took place illustrate the minor nature of them. If I am wrong in that finding, I am not satisfied that these acts caused emotional damage as claimed by the tenant to support of claim for compensation.
The landlord provided in inspection report from 16 September 2025 and 10 December 2025. The premises is not reasonably clean and tidy and is cluttered. It is reasonable for the landlord to undertake routine inspections of this premises frequency, as there is a real risk that the issue could have exacerbated during the tenancy.
In light of this and issues with rent arrears during the tenancy I consider the landlord’s communication in respect of potential breaches by the tenant were professional, respectful and necessary.
I find the landlord has acted fairly and appropriately in their dealings with the tenant and I am not satisfied the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached the RTA with respect to their rights of entry or her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Because I consider the landlord has not breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, the claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

FILING FEE

Because the tenant has not been successful with the claim, I have not reimbursed the tenant the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

On my enquiry, neither party applied for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452839 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 295 Armagh Street, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452839 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 295 Armagh Street, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

THE CLAIMS

DISCUSSION

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

THE CLAIMS

DISCUSSION

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions