What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4407720 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord] must pay [The tenant] $4,886.28 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4407720?

Compensation: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $188.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $187.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,164.50 awarded to tenant; Fuse For HWC: $18.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $21.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $369.08 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,032.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4407720?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4407720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9591504-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4407720 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord] must pay [The tenant] $4,886.28 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4407720?

Compensation: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $188.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $187.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,164.50 awarded to tenant; Fuse For HWC: $18.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $21.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $369.08 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,032.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4407720?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4407720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9591504-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4407720 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4407720 — net $2,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to the end of 1 October 2022	$2,032.14		Rent arrears to the end of 1 October 2022
Repair damaged door	$250.00		Repair damaged door
Replace damaged vanity	$369.08		Replace damaged vanity
Replace light bulbs	$21.07		Replace light bulbs
Exemplary damages for TA not in writing		$187.50	Exemplary damages for TA not in writing
Exemplary damages for unlawful entry		$100.00	Exemplary damages for unlawful entry
Exemplary damages for interfering with utilities		$900.00	Exemplary damages for interfering with utilities
Exemplary damages for unlawful notice and harassment		$2,164.50	Exemplary damages for unlawful notice and harassment
Compensation for emotional harm		$4,000.00	Compensation for emotional harm
Compensation for two days without utilities		$188.57	Compensation for two days without utilities
Fuse for HWC		$18.00	Fuse for HWC
Total award	$2,672.29	$7,558.57
Net award		$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,000.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4407720 — net $2,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to the end of 1 October 2022	$2,032.14		Rent arrears to the end of 1 October 2022
Repair damaged door	$250.00		Repair damaged door
Replace damaged vanity	$369.08		Replace damaged vanity
Replace light bulbs	$21.07		Replace light bulbs
Exemplary damages for TA not in writing		$187.50	Exemplary damages for TA not in writing
Exemplary damages for unlawful entry		$100.00	Exemplary damages for unlawful entry
Exemplary damages for interfering with utilities		$900.00	Exemplary damages for interfering with utilities
Exemplary damages for unlawful notice and harassment		$2,164.50	Exemplary damages for unlawful notice and harassment
Compensation for emotional harm		$4,000.00	Compensation for emotional harm
Compensation for two days without utilities		$188.57	Compensation for two days without utilities
Fuse for HWC		$18.00	Fuse for HWC
Total award	$2,672.29	$7,558.57
Net award		$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,000.00

Order

[The landlord] must pay [The tenant] $4,886.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The claims are allowed as set out in the order and

Reasons

given. All other claims are dismissed.

REASONS:

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims the landlord breached her duties as a landlord in 16 respects. She seeks orders for exemplary damages and compensation.
The landlord claims the tenant rent arrears and seeks compensation for damage and missing chattels. Background
The tenancy began on 3 November 2021 and ended on 1 October 2022.
The premises’ house is a well-constructed, four-bedroom home that was built in about 2001.
The property used to belong to the landlord’s mother. The landlord’s mother lived in the house until about 2018 when she had a fall and was hospitalised. The landlord herself owned and lived in the house next door, down the driveway with her husband and her son.
When the landlord’s mother passed away in 2022, the landlord had her brother inherited the premises.
The tenant and the landlord knew each other prior the other tenancy through the landlord’s son’s social group. They were on good friendly terms. In about September of 2021, the tenant spoke to the landlord about the possibility of a friend of the tenant’s moving into the premises, which were not tenanted at the time. However, later the tenant then found she needed somewhere for her and her young son to live and she moved into the premises.
The arrangement was informal. There was no written agreement. As will be discussed the landlord thought of the arrangement as being a “boarding” type situation. The tenant did not much think of what terminology applied to the arrangement but says she did not share the premises with the landlord and paid rent of $660.00 per week. She lived there for the most part with her son, her auntie stayed for a while, and her partner was also there for a shorter period of time.
All was well with the tenancy and the parties’ friendly relations until the tenant’s partner destroyed a bedroom door and its frame during a domestic violence incident. The tenant, mortified, decided to get the damage repaired before the landlord returned from a month-long overseas holiday. That plan went terribly wrong.
Soon after returning from her holiday, as the landlord and her husband past the premises, they heard construction noises coming from the house. On investigation, they found a builder repairing the unreported damage. The landlord was extremely upset. Outraged, she sent the builder packing. Subsequently, the landlord and the tenant argued and completely fell out over the matter. The tenant was initially contrite, but subsequent events overshadowed that initial reaction.
On 13 September 2022, the tenant gave two weeks’ notice to end the tenancy. However, on 21 September, before the tenant had moved out, Police contacted the tenant to tell her that her domestic violence alert alarm had been activated. She went home to discover the premises had no power or water. The loss of power would have triggered the domestic violence alarm.
The tenant and her son spent a couple of nights at the tenant’s mother’s house due to the lack of power and water. The tenant’s partner got the power and water going again after discovering that someone had turned the power and water off.
The tenant complained to Police and issued a trespass notice against the landlord. Then on 24 September 2023, the tenant lost hot water for the premises. She discovered that someone had removed the hot water cylinder fuse, preventing the hot water cylinder from working.
The tenant confronted the landlord and there was a heated argument.
Soon after, the landlord texted the tenant that “your board arrangement has been terminated and you are requested to vacate the premises with your belongings immediately. This is due to your verbal physical threats and your verbal threats to do further damage to the property.”
The tenant responded by text, “I don’t accept that notice sorry, as there were no threats made...”. Issues for determination
The landlord claimed that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) did not apply to the tenancy because she was living at the premises and the arrangement was a boarding one that the RTA did not apply to. I have found the RTA does apply to the arrangement which is a residential tenancy arrangement.
The tenant claims under 15 different heads.
The landlord’s claims can be summarised as a claim for rent arrears compensation following the tenancy.
The issues for determination are: a. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the matter? b. Did the landlord fail to ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing? c. Did the landlord fail to appoint an agent when overseas? d. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond? e. Did the landlord fail to provide a receipt for rent? f.Did the landlord seize the tenants goods? g. Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? h. Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information and insurance information? i.Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises? j.Did the landlord interfere with services to the premises? k. Did the landlord issue a retaliatory or unlawful notice? l.Did the landlord harass the tenant? m. Does the tenant owe rent arrears? n. Did the tenant take chattels or damage the premises? Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the parties’ claims?
The landlord claims the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims. Legal principles
The long title of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states, among other things, it is a establish a Tribunal to determine disputes between landlords and tenants of residential properties. It is: An Act to reform and restate the law relating to residential tenancies, to define the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants of residential properties, to establish a tribunal to determine expeditiously disputes arising between such landlords and tenants, to establish a fund in which bonds payable by such tenants are to be held...
The RTA sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the heading “Jurisdiction” at ss 77-85. Section 77(1) is the foundational subsection: 77 Jurisdiction of Tribunal (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
The meaning of the words “landlord”, “tenant”, and “tenancy” are core to assessing jurisdiction. In s 2 of RTA “unless the context otherwise requires” the RTA applies the following meanings to those words: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement... tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under agreement... tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent ...
There is no getting out of the Act if there is a residential tenancy. Section 4 of the RTA provides that: This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Consonant to s 4, s 11 of the RTA provides that an agreement to exclude the Act is “of no effect”. 1
However, s 5 of the RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Under s 5(1)(n), the RTA “shall not apply”: where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family...
Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, the landlord has the burden of proving the facts upon which they submit RTA does not apply. 1 There are limited exceptions set out in s 11 that do not apply here. Discussion
The landlord says that she and her husband were living in the premises.
The landlord and her husband reserved a workshop-type space that was part of the house to themselves. However, while that space was within the envelope of the house, it separate from the premises, which comprised four bedrooms, a lounge, kitchen, and so on. There was no internal access between the premises and the landlord’s area.
The landlord claimed she shared the premises kitchen, bathroom and living areas with the tenant and could go into the premises at will. I reject the claim that the tenancy included a sharing arrangement of the premises themselves.
It was simply not part of the agreement that the landlord shared the premises. Nor would it be acceptable for the landlord to just wander into the premises. The tenant was paying rent of $660.00. That sum is not consistent with a boarding arrangement in which the landlord shared the premises. The landlord owned the house next door, which was occupied by her son. It does not make sense the landlord would reside in the premises with the tenant. The landlord and her husband also had a property in Torbay they were renovating and spent much of their time there.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence to the landlord’s on this point. The tenant’s evidence was consistent with the rental amount and the layout of the premises. I note the tenant’s evidence was also supported by written statements that she submitted from her mother, auntie, and a former tenant at the premises. I found the landlord’s evidence about sharing access to the common areas unpersuasive and contrary to usual living arrangements. This determination was borne out during the hearing when it became yet more apparent that the landlord was not principally living at the premises. Conclusion
The RTA applies to the parties claims. The Tribunal has jurisdiction.

Did the landlord fail to ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing?

The tenant claims the landlord did not ensure that the tenancy agreement was in writing.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. 2
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 3
The landlord did not provide a written tenancy agreement. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. 4
It appears to me that the landlord preferred to keep her tenancies at the premises informal so that she could avoid the complications of complying with the RTA. Ironically, having a written tenancy agreement would have crystallised the reality that the landlord could not ignore her obligations under the RTA. The upshot of not having a tenancy agreement lies at the root of the problems that followed. The lack of the agreement blurred the lines of the relationship between the parties. The relationship was founded on trust and good will, but because there was a residential tenancy, each party also had legal duties which needed to be spelled out in a written agreement.
I am satisfied it is just to award exemplary damages having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant and the public interest.
I set exemplary damages at one quarter of the maximum.

Did the landlord fail to appoint an agent when overseas?

The tenant claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent. 2 RTA, s 13. 3 RTA, s 13(4) and Schedule 1A. 4 RTA, s 109(3).
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. 5
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The landlord was overseas for more than 21 days without formally appointing an agent. However, the landlord and the tenant were friends. The landlord’s son was living next door and the tenant knew she could talk to him in relation to tenancy issues if she needed to or email the landlord.
As the landlord has not appointed an agent, they have committed an unlawful act.
However, I decline to award exemplary damages because I am not satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
This was a technical breach that caused the tenant no harm.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

The tenant claimed the landlord failed to lodge the bond. However, I am not satisfied the landlord ever took a bond.
It follows, the landlord could not have breached any obligation in respect to a bond. This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide a receipt for rent?

The tenant alleges the landlord has not issued a receipt for rent.
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. 6
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00.
The tenant did not show she paid any rent by cash.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord seize the tenant’s goods? 5 RTA, s 16A(1). 6 RTA, s 29(1) and (2)(a).
The tenant claims the landlords disposed of her family’s trampoline before she had the chance of taking it away. She says the day after the tenancy ended, she drove past the premises and saw the landlord and her husband dismantling the trampoline. The next day, it was gone. A table base and cushions also went missing.
I accept the tenant’s belongings went missing between the end of the tenancy and their being picked up. However, I do not find it proven that the landlord disposed of them.
The allegation is in the nature of theft. A reasonably rigorous standard of proof (still proof on the balance of probabilities) must be applied. The evidence is too speculative. The standard has not been achieved.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
All private rentals must comply with the standards within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024.
The tenant provided a statement from a former tenant who worked as an insulation contractor. He stated the premises were not fully insulated, lacked heating, proper ventilation, and had dampness issues. The tenant said there were no decent heater and no smoke alarms.
The landlord says that a fixed heater in the living room was a qualifying heater and insists there was a smoke alarm situated within the legal distance of bedrooms.
While there is cause for suspicion about whether the premises complied with all of the HHS, I am not persuaded of that on the balance of probabilities.
I did not hear from a qualified independent expert on the topic and the photographs did not provide conclusive proof. The former tenant’s statement is hearsay and could not be tested in cross-examination.
This claim is not proven. It is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information and insurance information?

Under s 45(1AC) of the RTA, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00
A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises under s 45(2D) of the RTA. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00.
It was not proven that the tenant made request for the information.
These claims are dismissed.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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. 7
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 8
The tenant says that she spoke to the landlord in about June of 2022 and she agreed to help the landlord with advice about a criminal matter relating to the landlord’s husband’s home in Torbay. However, she was shocked to come home at about 4:30PM that day to find the landlord and her husband waiting for her inside the house. From then on the tenant says she kept the house locked.
Then on about 5 September 2022, there was the incident when the landlord was horrified to find someone doing building work inside the house without prior warning.
I find it proven that the landlord unlawfully entered the premises in June. I do not find the landlord’s entry in September was unlawful. A landlord may enter 7 RTA, s 48(1) and (2). 8 RTA, s 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A. the premises in the case of emergency. 9 Some unknown person taking to the premises with builder’s tools would strike panic into any landlord’s heart.
In respect to the June 2022 entry, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
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.
The landlord was stressed by the matter she wanted the tenant’s advice on. There was no malice in her going into the premises to wait for the tenant. They were on good terms at the time. It did have a harmful effect on the tenant, and it is in the public interest to award exemplary damages to deter such conduct.
I consider a modest award of exemplary damages is apt in these circumstances.
The Tribunal orders $100.00 for exemplary damages.

Did the landlord interfere with services to the premises?

The tenant claims the landlord interfered with the services to the premises on two occasions.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. 10
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 11
I find the landlord committed the unlawful acts alleged. The landlord and the tenant had fallen into acrimonious dispute. The landlord had a motive to disrupt the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises and had the opportunity and knowledge of the premises’ workings to carry out the interferences.
The landlord did not offer any alternative theory on how the services came to be disrupted other than to deny responsibility. I find it very unlikely that if she were not the perpetrator, she would not at least have some knowledge that would suggest who else it might be. 9 RTA, s 48(2)(a). 10 RTA, s 45(2). 11 RTA, s 45(2A) and Schedule 1A.
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.
The landlord’s intention was to upset the tenant and make her leave. The tenant had to retreat to her mother’s. Her position was made even more abject. The public interest favours condign orders to punish and to deter this landlord and others from committing such flagrant breaches of their duties.
Having regard to these factors, I set exemplary damages at 50 percent of the maximum.
I order $18.00 for a replacement fuse for the hot water cylinder. I also order the refund of two days’ rent because the tenant and her son had to spend two nights at her mother’s home.

Did the landlord issue a retaliatory or unlawful notice?

On about 24 September 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy immediately. The tenant claims the notice is bad for being unlawful and retaliatory. Legal principles
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 12 Similarly, it is an unlawful act for a landlord to give a termination notice to a tenant knowing they are not entitled to give the notice. 13 Exemplary damages may also be awarded for this up to a maximum of $6,500.00.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord: s 54(1) of the RTA.
To be “motivated by” something, means the “thing” was a factor in the landlord’s decision to terminate.
The thing relied on does not have to be the only thing; it only needs to be a contributing factor. 12 RTA, s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A. 13 RTA, s 60AA.
The tenant in this case submits a relevant “thing” was the tenant’s complaint against the landlord.
A notice infected with a desire to “get back” at the tenant for their exercising their rights or making a complaint against the landlord will be bad for being retaliatory. A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 14
The landlord and her husband gave evidence that just before the notice was given, the tenant approached them and threatened to smash them. They say she raised her voice and yelled and threatened them. She was “almost drug- infused". Her behaviour had become erratic and almost uncontrollable. They say they felt very unsafe as a result.
The tenant accepts that during the altercation about the landlord turning off he power and water she said, “turn my fucken power on” and “fuck you” as she stormed off, but denies she said anything else more threatening or aggressive than that.
I prefer the tenant’s version of events. I have found the landlord’s evidence on other matters such as the jurisdiction issue and the interference with services matters to be inaccurate. I find that is likely the case here also. The altercation occurred, but the landlord has given an exaggerated account of it.
I find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the notice was retaliatory. Moreover, I find the landlord gave the notice knowing that they were not entitled to give it.
I find the landlord intentionally committed unlawful acts in respect to the notice. It is appropriate to make one order for exemplary damages that incorporates the culpability for the breaches because although there were two distinct breaches they were in fact one act.
Having regard to the factors I must consider under s 109 of the RTA, I am satisfied that it is just to award exemplary damages. Attempting to end a tenancy immediately is a fundamental breach. It is a repudiation of the contract. It is an attempt to deprive the tenant of their right to occupation of their home forthwith. I set exemplary damages at $2,164.50 in this case, which is one-third of the maximum. 14 For example, in Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988, Judge Ongley upheld the Tribunal’s decision that a termination notice was not retaliatory. Judge Ongley was “quite satisfied that Mrs Woodman acted reasonably on the basis of the information known to her...I am not called upon to decide whether the complaints were justified, only to decide whether Mrs Woodman gave notice in retaliation or for genuine and fair reasons.”

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 15
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. 16
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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Black’s Law Dictionary 17 defines “harassment” as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English“ 18 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation”.
I consider the landlord’s actions in this case of issuing an unlawful notice and interfering with services do amount to harassment. I must however ensure that there is no double-counting. I have already ordered $900.00 in exemplary damages for the interference with services and $2,164.50 for the unlawful notice.
I am not satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages under the harassment head because I consider the purposes for which exemplary damages should be awarded have already been vindicated by the other orders. General damages
It is appropriate to consider emotional harm damages at this juncture. The tenant says that she suffered significant emotional harm as a result of the landlord’s treatment of her. She says she was hospitalised due to high blood 15 RTA, s 38(2) RTA. 16 RTA, s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 17 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 18 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998). pressure which was affected by the impact of the events on her stress levels. Her mental health was fragile already and she was dealing with the mental affects the domestic violence situation at the time also. The added strain caused by the landlord’s breaches and the loss of the previously supportive friendship caused her considerable additional mental pain.
Some of the tenant’s anguish came from sources other than the landlord’s actions, which makes quantifying the emotional harm due to the landlord’s actions a more difficult task, but it is a task that can and must be undertaken, with care and judgment.
The Tribunal in Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) 19 held that when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must consider the following factors: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Recently, the Tribunal’s power to award compensation was increased from $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 by s 50 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020, which means the Tribunal’s orders for general damages can range as high as $100,000.00 if such harm is proven.
The Tribunal’s general damages awards have historically been low. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing R E Neave DCJ described the Tribunal’s awards for emotional harm damages as “not particularly generous” and “fairly conservative”. 20 In the case before His Honour, the tenant had returned to her unit and found had entered without her permission. It transpired contractors had done asbestos repair work in the tenant’s unit and the landlord had mistakenly failed to give the tenant appropriate notice of the entry.
His Honour found the Tribunal’s award of $200.00 of emotional harm damages for the unlawful entry was “close to being derisory”. He substituted an award of in the sum of $2,000.00 finding “it was a significant intrusion on [the tenant’s] rights”.
The Tribunal in Ogbourne described the range of emotional harm damages awarded in the Tribunal as falling within three bands. 21 I consider it is useful to 19 Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993. 20 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing [2020] NZDC 17667. 21 Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens [2017] NZTT 4046775;4052092 at [29]-[31]. Compare, for example, the Human Rights Review Tribunal where damages for emotional harm have been summarised as: Band 1 - up to $10,000; Band 2 - up to $50,000.00; and Band 3 - over refer to bands when quantifying the appropriate level of compensation to be awarded for emotional harm.
By reference to Otautahi and Ogbourne, the bands that assist in this case are: 22 A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.
The breaches went to the heart of the tenancy arrangement. The landlord considered she had carte blanche to turn off power and water to the premises and to issue an immediate notice to vacate. The breaches were over several weeks. The effect on the tenant was significant.
I accept the tenant’s evidence of having suffered emotional harm. She suffered worry, stress, frustration, anxiety, humiliation, and insecurity. Her experience of emotional harm falls within C, so an award of over $3,000.00 is appropriate.
In all the circumstances, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $4,000.00 for emotional harm.
Standing back and comparing this case to Otautahi I consider this outcome accords with the District Court’s guidance on quantification of damages for emotional harm.

How much is owed for rent?

$50,000.00. See Hammond v Credit Union Baywide [2015] HRRT 6 at [176]. $98,000.00 for emotional harm was ordered in that case. 22 See for example, [Tenants] v Singh [2023] NZTT [Event location suppressed] 4315225 at [125]. The bands in that case need to be attuned to Otautahi.

The tenancy ended on 1 October 2022. The landlord provided carefully prepared rent records which prove the amount of rent the tenant owes.

Did the tenant take chattels or damage the premises?

The landlord claimed the tenant damaged the premises and removed chattels.
While the landlord provided meticulous rent records, she did not have the usual evidence a landlord would have to support a claim for damage or loss of chattels. Usually, for example for a damage claim, the landlord would submit photographs showing the condition of the premises immediately before the tenancy began and then photographs of the premises immediately after the tenancy ended. For a loss of chattels claim, there would typically for example be photographs of the chattels and a chattels list.

Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 23
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 24
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 25
There is not dispute that the tenant’s partner damaged the door and its frame during the tenancy. I award $250.00 for the cost of finishing the repair to the door. 23 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 24 RTA, s 49B(1). 25 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Similarly, it is not disputed that the tenant’s hair dye damaged the vanity, which required replacing. I am not satisfied that the damage was not caused carelessly. Taking account of betterment and depreciation I award 50 per cent of the cost of the new vanity. The fittings also required replacing at a cost of $134.08.
Some lightbulbs were missing at the end of the tenancy. It is the tenant’s responsibility to replace lightbulbs at the end of the tenancy. $21.07 is ordered for them.
I am not satisfied that the disrepair of the heated towel rail was not due to fair wear and tear. Nor am I satisfied on the balance of probabilities of damage occurring during the tenancy beyond fair wear and tear in respect to a mattress, the fridge door, or alleged holes in the walls.
The landlord claimed the tenant had taken baskets, a stainless-steel pot, a barbeque, a coffee table, an air fryer, a toaster, and crockery. The tenant denied taking those items. There is a lack of evidence of the items having been at the premises at the beginning of the tenancy, but not at the end. I do not find the landlord’s claims proven.
The tenant accepted that she took a television bracket, but says the landlord said she could. I accept her evidence on that, and the landlord did not provide proof of purchase of the bracket.
The landlord claimed the tenant did not return the keys. However, the tenant said she left the keys behind. The landlord did not have evidence to contradict that. I do not find this claim proven on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenant compensate the landlord for emotional harm?

The landlord sought general damages due to the tenant’s alleged “duress and threats”.
While I accept that the last weeks of the tenancy were unpleasant and stressful for the landlord, I do not find that the tenant’s failure to pay all her rent or any other of the breaches I have found proved caused the landlord significant harm that it would be appropriate to consider general damages for. Non-publication
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
At the root of the fallout in this case, was the landlord’s failure to engage with the RTA. It is in the public interest that landlords fully accept their landlord responsibilities. The landlord is an intelligent and decent person. It is unlikely this situation will recur given the Tribunal’s deterrent orders. If the landlord were to come before the Tribunal again, the Tribunal itself still has the landlord’s name and the tenancy address and non-publication is unlikely to be granted again.
Both parties have had substantial success in their claims. I do not consider that publication is otherwise in the public interest on this occasion or is justified by either of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing?

Did the landlord fail to appoint an agent when overseas?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to provide a receipt for rent?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information and insurance information?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord interfere with services to the premises?

Did the landlord issue a retaliatory or unlawful notice?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant take chattels or damage the premises?

Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?

Should the tenant compensate the landlord for emotional harm?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing?

Did the landlord fail to appoint an agent when overseas?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to provide a receipt for rent?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information and insurance information?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord interfere with services to the premises?

Did the landlord issue a retaliatory or unlawful notice?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant take chattels or damage the premises?

Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?

Should the tenant compensate the landlord for emotional harm?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions