What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5503855?

The tribunal order states: Edward Pratt and Brigit Pratt must pay Leon Robert Wharemate $328.00

How much money was awarded in case 5503855?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5503855?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5503855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13716806-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5503855?

The tribunal order states: Edward Pratt and Brigit Pratt must pay Leon Robert Wharemate $328.00

How much money was awarded in case 5503855?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5503855?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5503855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13716806-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61B Masefield Avenue, Maraenui, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5503855 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5503855 — net $328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$300.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$328.00

All parties attended the hearing which was conducted remotely.

The tenant claims compensation for the landlords’ entry to the premises without consent or notice.

The landlords’ application is a rebuttal of the tenant’s claim. 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.

A landlord, like any principal, will usually be responsible for the acts of their agent acting within the scope of their authority. Background

The property was in the process of being sold and the tenant had received a termination notice.

On a Thursday the landlord’s agent messaged the tenant and asked if a building inspection could be done on the following Monday. The tenant agreed.

On the Monday, the agent arrived with another person who entered the premises and began filming them with his mobile telephone. He spent approximately 15 minutes doing so and then left.

It turns out that the other person was not conducting a building inspection. He was filming the premises for the prospective purchaser. A building inspection was undertaken later in the week.

The tenant says that he was misled and that his consent for entry to the premises was not informed consent and was not therefore real consent.

The tenant said that he felt upset by what occurred and that there was a breach of his privacy.

The landlords were not aware of any of this. It had been left to the agent to make any necessary arrangements. The landlords have gone out of their way to make the transition for the tenant (and other tenants of the adjoining premises) as easy as possible.

The tenant said that if he had known the true nature of the visit, he would still have consented to it. He also confirmed that he was aware at the time that the other person was filming the premises. Discussion and Decision

The agent did not give notice of the entry. She asked the tenant if would permit the entry. Section 48(3) provides for this by allowing 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.

In this case the entry was for a prospective purchaser to view the premises, albeit remotely. The tenant would have given consent in either case, but he was not told the true reason for the entry. That is what he is upset about.

In my view the Act requires the true reason to be given. It is not enough to say that the tenant would have given consent to the entry if he had been told the true reason. The tenant is entitled to know the true reason. The landlord is not to know whether giving the true reason would make a difference. I agree with the tenant that consent given to entry when the reason given is not the true reason is not informed or true consent.

It follows that I find that there has been a breach of the Act in relation to the entry.

The landlords played no direct part in this but the actions of the agent, whether they were intentional or not, sheet home to the landlords.

There is no question of awarding exemplary damages because the breach was not the result of the landlords’ intentional act. But I can consider awarding compensation.

The tenant’s very honest avowal that he would have given his consent if he had been aware of the true reason for the entry is relevant to the issue of compensation. As is the tenant’s knowledge that the other person was filming the premises.

But I accept that the tenant has been upset by the misrepresentation of the purpose of the visit on top of the stress of having to move homes, and some modest compensation is justified. I have awarded $300. I have also awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5503855 — net $328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$300.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$328.00

Order

Edward Pratt and Brigit Pratt must pay Leon Robert Wharemate $328.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was conducted remotely.
The tenant claims compensation for the landlords’ entry to the premises without consent or notice.
The landlords’ application is a rebuttal of the tenant’s claim. 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.
A landlord, like any principal, will usually be responsible for the acts of their agent acting within the scope of their authority. Background
The property was in the process of being sold and the tenant had received a termination notice.
On a Thursday the landlord’s agent messaged the tenant and asked if a building inspection could be done on the following Monday. The tenant agreed.
On the Monday, the agent arrived with another person who entered the premises and began filming them with his mobile telephone. He spent approximately 15 minutes doing so and then left.
It turns out that the other person was not conducting a building inspection. He was filming the premises for the prospective purchaser. A building inspection was undertaken later in the week.
The tenant says that he was misled and that his consent for entry to the premises was not informed consent and was not therefore real consent.
The tenant said that he felt upset by what occurred and that there was a breach of his privacy.
The landlords were not aware of any of this. It had been left to the agent to make any necessary arrangements. The landlords have gone out of their way to make the transition for the tenant (and other tenants of the adjoining premises) as easy as possible.
The tenant said that if he had known the true nature of the visit, he would still have consented to it. He also confirmed that he was aware at the time that the other person was filming the premises. Discussion and Decision
The agent did not give notice of the entry. She asked the tenant if would permit the entry. Section 48(3) provides for this by allowing 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.
In this case the entry was for a prospective purchaser to view the premises, albeit remotely. The tenant would have given consent in either case, but he was not told the true reason for the entry. That is what he is upset about.
In my view the Act requires the true reason to be given. It is not enough to say that the tenant would have given consent to the entry if he had been told the true reason. The tenant is entitled to know the true reason. The landlord is not to know whether giving the true reason would make a difference. I agree with the tenant that consent given to entry when the reason given is not the true reason is not informed or true consent.
It follows that I find that there has been a breach of the Act in relation to the entry.
The landlords played no direct part in this but the actions of the agent, whether they were intentional or not, sheet home to the landlords.
There is no question of awarding exemplary damages because the breach was not the result of the landlords’ intentional act. But I can consider awarding compensation.
The tenant’s very honest avowal that he would have given his consent if he had been aware of the true reason for the entry is relevant to the issue of compensation. As is the tenant’s knowledge that the other person was filming the premises.
But I accept that the tenant has been upset by the misrepresentation of the purpose of the visit on top of the stress of having to move homes, and some modest compensation is justified. I have awarded $300. I have also awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5503855 — Tenancy dispute at 61B Masefield Avenue, Maraenui, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5503855 — Tenancy dispute at 61B 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