What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4556854 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published. The tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 4556854?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556854?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556854?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12911252-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4556854 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published. The tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 4556854?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556854?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556854?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12911252-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Street address redacted] Kaukapakapa, RD 4, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4556854 — Exemplary damages

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published. The tenancy address must not be published.
Mark Thode and Angela Thode must immediately pay [the tenants] $16,263.44 as calculated in the table below.
Angela Thode must in addition pay [the tenants] $1,350.00. DescriptionTenant Rent Credit Exemplary damages for unlawful notice $293.00 $3,250.00 Compensation for emotional harm – female tenant Compensation for emotional harm – male tenant $5,700.00 $5,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award Less $1,350.00 – attributed to Ms Thode only: joint liability $17,613.44 $16,263.44

Reasons

Introduction

[Tenant’s name], one of the tenants, attended the hearing for the tenants.
Louisa Keddell, a litigation support consultant attended the hearing for the landlords. Neither of the landlords attended.
[Other tenant’s name] and the Thodes’ non-appearance is explained by [tenant’s name] and Ms Keddell as being for health issues and stress related to the events and the proceedings. The hearing proceeded in their absence. Background
The tenancy began on 8 October 2022 and ended on 25 April 2023 when the Thodes personally evicted the tenants against their wishes.
The premises are in a semi-rural location. The premises’ living quarters were a converted garage. The conversion was done without the necessary Council consents, so the premises was an unlawful premises for the purposes of s 78A the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and breached other enactments for buildings, health and safety. 1
The Thodes lived on the same large block of land, beyond a fence about 10 metres away in in a 6m x 3m relocatable cabin.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the Thodes were supposed to provide the tenants with a written tenancy agreement that included details such as the parties’ names and how the tenancy may be terminated. However, the Thodes only provided the tenants with two poorly drafted tenancy agreements dated 10 and 27 October 2022. Among other deficiencies, the tenancy agreement did not contain an insulation statement, a Healthy Homes Standards information, or a statement about insurance. 2
The later agreement contained for termination upon “4 weeks notice from either party of termination of said agreement”. That term was unlawful because under the RTA at 1 In its 21 June 2023 decision, the Tribunal ordered the landlords to pay the tenants $2,400.00 in exemplary damages for breaches of their obligations under enactments for buildings, health, and safety. 2 In its decision dated 21 June 2023, the Tribunal ordered the landlords to pay $750.00 exemplary damages for landlords breaching their tenancy agreement duties. time landlords could only give notice to terminate for a specific reason and not with only four weeks’ notice. 3
During the tenancy, tensions surfaced about (among other things) rent arrears, the landlords and a friend of theirs parking vehicles within the premises, one of the landlords doing garden maintenance on the premises, the tenants not cleaning up their cigarette butts, the tenants allowing chickens into the house, the oven, and a leaking hot water cylinder.
Matters came to a head when Mr and Ms Thode issued a notice purporting to terminate the tenancy. The landlord’s notice is dated 27 March 2023 and states: This letter serves as notice to terminate the tenancy agreement...This dwelling is now needed for family. The last day of the tenancy being 22 April 2023.
The notice does not comply with the RTA’s notice requirements because a notice given for the landlord or their family member to live in the premises required 63 days’ notice. Nor did it comply with the “4 weeks” unlawfully stipulated in the tenancy agreement. 4
The tenants claim that about a week after the notice was issued, on 3 April 2023, they disputed the notice by giving the landlords a typed letter: This is written to confirm that we received your letter dates 27/03/2023. However we do not accept this as you have not served us with a legal termination of tenancy notice as it does not adhere to tenancy laws.
The landlords deny receiving the letter, although they acknowledge they received a text from the tenants on 21 April 2023 confirming that they would not be leaving the next day.
On 22 April 2023, the Thodes with other people in support went to the premises and spoke to the tenants to make it clear to the tenants that they must leave. The tenants called the Police. They then made the existing application in the Tribunal alleging the Thodes’ termination notice was retaliatory and unlawful, and that the landlords had harassed them, and unlawfully entered the premises. 3 Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), landlords were required to give notice for cause and typically with a much longer notice period. 4 RTA s 51(1)(a).
Three days later, on 25 April 2023, while the male tenant was not home, the Thodes backed up by supporters determined to evict the tenants. Mr Thode used his digger to destroy the bathroom’s roof and external wall.
The tenants telephoned Police again. Police arrested Mr Thode and charged him with intentional damage under s 269(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. A three-day trial was scheduled for 29 October 2024 for the hearing of the charge. However, a few days before the trial, Mr Thode pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of intimidation under s 21 of the Summary Offences Act 1981. The District Court subsequently sentenced Mr Thode to complete 40 hours community work and to pay the tenant $300.00 for emotional harm reparation. Procedural history
The tenants filed this claim on 22 April 2023, three days before they were evicted.
The Tribunal initially heard six of the tenants’ claims in 2023, reserving the tenants’ claims of harassment, unlawful entry, and seizure of goods (which related to the events at the end of the tenancy) for a hearing after criminal proceedings were finalised. 5 The Tribunal proceeded to hear the tenants’ other claims finding the landlords breached their tenancy agreement obligations, breached their obligations to comply with enactments in respect to building requirements, and that the landlords’ termination notice was retaliatory and without legal grounds.
The landlords appealed the Tribunal’s decision. On 13 February 2024, the District Court allowed the appeal in part. It ordered a rehearing on two unlawful termination claims for which the Tribunal had ordered $4,400.00 in exemplary damages against the landlords. 6 It upheld the Tribunal’s other findings against the landlords for breach of tenancy agreement obligations and unlawful premises and building-related obligations under other enactments and its exemplary damages orders totalling $3,150.00.
The landlords filed their cross-claim on 13 October 2025, nine days prior to the hearing. 7 5 The Tribunal declined to hear the tenants’ claims relating to events at the end of the tenancy because Police charged Mr Thode in relation to his eviction of the tenants. The Tribunal ordered the Thodes to pay the tenants exemplary damages totalling $3,150.00 for tenancy agreement breaches and breaches of enactments making the premises an unlawful premises. 6 Thode and Thode v [Tenants] [2024] NZDC 2350. The District Court allowed the landlords’ appeal against the Tribunal’s decision in part, finding that the Tribunal should also have adjourned the retaliatory/unlawful notice claims. This decision includes the rehearing of those claims. Claims for determination
Remaining for decision are the tenants’ claims that: a. The landlords’ termination notice was bad for being retaliatory and unlawful. 8 b. The landlords’ visits to the premises to promote the tenants’ departure amounted to harassment. 9 c.The landlords unlawfully entered the premises on the just-mentioned occasions and on earlier occasions. 10 d. The landlords’ digger demolition work interfered with premises’ services. 11 e. The landlords unlawfully disposed of the tenants’ belongings after the eviction. 12
For remedy, the tenants seek exemplary damages and compensatory damages.
The landlords claim: a. The tenants failed to keep and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 13 b. The tenants used the premises for the unlawful purpose of consuming restricted drugs. 14 c.The tenants interfered with the landlords’ reasonable peace and comfort. 15 d. The tenants installed an oven without the landlords’ consent. 16 e. The tenants refused the landlords access for repairs and inspection. 17 f.The tenants failed to meet their end of tenancy duties in respect to removing their belongings from the premises. 18 7 I note however, the landlords filed the substance of their claims under the tenants’ application on 17 August 2025, two months prior to the hearing. 8 In breach of RTA ss 54, and 60AA. 9 RTA s 38. 10 RTA s 48. 11 RTA ss 38, 48, and 45(2). 12 RTA ss 62 and 62A. 13 RTA s 40(1)(c), (e). 14 RTA s 40(2)(b). 15 RTA s 40(2)(c). 16 RTA ss 42 and 42A. 17 RTA s 48.
For remedy, the landlords seek orders for exemplary damages and compensation. Was the landlords’ termination notice retaliatory or unlawful?
On 27 March 2023, the landlords delivered to the tenants’ mailbox 19 a typewritten notice terminating the tenancy, hand-signed by both the landlords. The notice states: This letter serves as notice to terminate the tenancy agreement at 88a Kaukapakapa. This dwelling is now needed for family. The last day of tenancy being 22 April 2023. Yours sincerely Mark and Angela Thode
The tenants submitted the landlords were motivated by rent issues and the tenants’ complaints about the landlords and their friends using the tenants’ outdoor/driveway area to store their vehicles, a boat, and other property. They stated: 20 ff) From the commencement of our tenancy we have had ongoing issues with the landlord’s and their friends arriving without notice constantly...storing multiple vehicles, trailers, a mini gas tanker and even a boat on the property without discussing this with us. They even stated that they were also renting part of this property to their friend for storage to excuse their behavior. gg) We had questioned them on the above not long before receiving the eviction notice and believe that this contributed to their retaliatory action. 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. 21
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. 22 18 RTA s 40(1)(e). 19 Since the notice was delivered to the tenants’ mailbox, under RTA s 136, service was deemed to be “on the second working day after the date on which it was delivered”, namely 29 March 2023. 20 In their memorandum filed on 22 April 2023. 21 RTA, s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A. 22 RTA s 54(1).
To be “motivated by” something, means the “thing” was a factor in the landlord’s decision to terminate.
A notice affected with a desire to get back at the tenants for exercising their rights, or a notice given to remove the tenants to prevent them exercising their rights will be bad for being retaliatory. A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 23
The motive the tenant rely on as being retaliatory does not have to be the only motive; it only needs to be a contributing motivating factor.
Under s 60AA of the RTA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to.
Breaching this duty without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 24

Was the notice retaliatory?

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed the ongoing complaint the tenants had about the landlords’ and their friends’ vehicles being left on the property, and other matters. The tenant also referred to texts showing the parties had some terse exchanges about rent payments.
The landlords submit: 25 Although there were other difficulties prior to 27 March 2023, such as refusals of inspections and aggressive conduct when Angela attempted pre-arranged garden maintenance, these were not the basis for the 27 March notice. The decision matter was [the landlord’s daughter’s] urgent family need.
Ms Keddell submitted an affidavit from the landlords’ daughter sworn on 3 October 2025 confirming that she asked her parents in early-to-mid March 2023 if she could move into the premises.
The weight I can attribute to the landlord’s daughter’s affidavit is limited. She did not attend court to give evidence, so the facts alleged in the affidavit are hearsay. The affidavit was sworn only recently, two-and-a-half years after the events in question so 23 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.” 24 RTA, s60AA and Schedule 1A. 25 Landlord’s Response Tenants’ Claims p 4. it’s content is liable to be less reliable than if it had been sworn contemporaneously with the events. Over time memories fade and the risk of intervening contamination of memory is greater. The affiant is the landlords’ daughter, so there is a natural risk of bias.
At the hearing, the tenant made the pertinent submission that the landlords’ claim that they needed the premises for their daughter to live is inconsistent with Mr Thode’s deliberate destruction of the premises. How can it be true that the landlords wanted the premises for their daughter given they rendered the premises uninhabitable?
I am not persuaded by the landlords’ reliance on the notice being for their daughter’s sake. It does not ring true.
The tenants say they gave the landlords a detailed letter on 24 February 2023 about being unlawfully required to pay three weeks’ rent in advance, why due to Cyclone Gabrielle the tenants had missed a rent payment, ongoing power outages, the oven was an “extreme safety hazard and health risk”, and “the house has largely been uninhabitable”.
On 26 April 2023, the landlords texted: Thank u for ur formal letter. All we want is rent to b paid weekly on time with the 2 weeks in advance... As mention...we were not aware of safety issue w oven and [you] needed to...ask before attempting to wire an oven in...[you] stated ciggy butts would be cleaned up t same day. Chickens need an outside chookhouse, not be let to wander inside. If u r not happy with anything, feel free to move on.
The tenants complained to the landlords about various problems at the premises. There may have been some harsh words exchanged. The landlords had expressed their dissatisfaction with the tenants’ not keeping the premises reasonably clean and allowing chickens into the house. The tenants didn’t like the landlords coming onto the property unannounced. There were growing tensions between the parties, which would have been made more acute by the proximity of their homes.
Against this background, I return to what the tenants must prove: namely, that the landlords were motivated wholly or partly by the tenants exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. The section protects tenants against the mischief of landlords retaliating with termination against tenants who exercise or propose to exercise their legal rights. It does not protect tenants from landlords giving notice for other reasons, however unmeritorious.
It is probable the tenants’ complaints annoyed the landlords. The landlords’ texted comment in response to the tenants’ long letter, “[i]f u r not happy with anything, feel free to move on”, suggests resentment. However, the tenants’ complaints were not “complaints against the landlords”. Such a complaint would have to be made to a third party, and the fact of that complaint would have to be a motivating thing.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlords notice was motivated wholly or partly by the tenants exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.
Therefore, the tenants have not discharged the burden of proving that the landlords’ notice was given for retaliatory reasons.
This claim is dismissed. ‘

Did the landlords give the notice knowing it to be unlawful?

The notice’s notice period was 24 days (once the statutory period for service is accounted for), which is four less than the notice period of 28 days specified in the tenancy agreement and far less than the required period for a family member requiring the premises under s 51 of the RTA which was 63 days. 26
Ms Keddell says the landlords were first-time landlords and had limited knowledge of residential tenancy law.
The second tenancy agreement allowed for “4 weeks notice from either party of termination of said agreement”. However, landlords cannot contract out of the RTA. 27 Therefore, the notice was unlawful.
The next issue is whether the landlords knew that the notice was unlawful.
The tenants submitted: 28 u) We responded to their letter with one of our own on the 3rd April to advise that we didn’t accept their eviction notice as it hadn’t been legally issued and did not follow tenancy laws. v) We received no response to this so on the 21st April we txt’d the landlords to advise that as we hadn’t heard further from them we wouldn’t be vacating the property on the 22nd April as again their eviction notice was not issued legally. 26 RTA s 51(1)(a). 27 RTA s 11(1). 28 In their application to the Tribunal on 22 April 2023, submitted after the events of that day.
In their application filed on 22 April 2023, the tenant’s provided a copy of a letter dated 3 April 2024, challenging the legality of the notice. The landlords dispute ever receiving this letter, although they accept they received a text message from the tenants on 21 April 2023 confirming they would not be vacating.
This evidence is of limited use because the relevant time for determining whether the landlords knew “that they are not entitled...to give the notice” is the time that the notice was given, namely on 27 March 2023, not several weeks later when the tenants disabused the landlords about the lawfulness of the notice.
There are, however, indications that the landlords knew their notice was unlawful at that time. Firstly, the period of the notice was plainly less than the “4 weeks” (unlawfully) stipulated in the tenancy agreements. Applying the legal rules for calculation of notice periods, the notice period was only 24 days. But even calculating the notice period using the most liberal interpretation of the notice period by treating 27 March 2023 (the day on which notice was given as a full day’s notice) the landlords’ notice was still only 27 days, not 28.
Second, the landlords refer to “[t]his dwelling is now needed for family”. That the Thodes demolished the building’s bathroom rendering the premises uninhabitable gives the lie to that claim. That the landlords manufactured a reason for termination was suggests they were attempting to shore up a notice that they knew was lacking grounds.
Also, the landlords’ later actions, which will be discussed more fully below, betray a wilful disregard of the law in general and the law protecting tenant rights in particular. That later conduct (after the tenants had told the landlords’ notice was invalid) is consistent with the landlords presenting the tenants with a notice they knew they were not entitled to do.
Having considered all of the evidence, I am satisfied that the landlords knew their notice was unlawful when they issued it on 27 March 2023. Conclusion
The tenants’ claims that the notice was retaliatory and knowingly unlawful are proven. I am satisfied that the landlords committed these unlawful acts intentionally. Remedies
The Tribunal must consider exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. 29 They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, the Court of Appeal per Cooke P said: 30 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.
In considering exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take account of the factors set out in s 109 of the RTA which require the Tribunal to consider whether it is just to order exemplary damages having regard to: a. The intent of the persons committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful acts. c.The interests of the landlords or tenants against whom the unlawful acts were committed. d. The public interest.
The landlords’ had fallen out with the tenants who were lived next door. Subsequent events show they were desperate to get the tenants out and would do so by hook or crook. The effect of the unlawful act was to deprive the tenants of the security of tenure guaranteed to them under the Residential Tenancies Act. It is the tenants’ interests that the Tribunal orders exemplary damages to vindicate the landlords’ wrong against them. The public interest favours exemplary damages to punish these landlords for their actions and deter other would-be offenders.
The breach is serious and strikes at the basic tenant right of security of tenure. I set exemplary damages at fifty percent of the maximum, which is $3,250.00.

Did the landlords harass the tenants or unlawfully enter the premises in April 2023?

The parties agree that the landlords went to the premises on 22 April and 25 April 2023. The tenants claim that on both occasions the landlords’ harassed them and unlawfully entered the premises. The landlords deny the claims. Legal principles 29 See for example, Gao & Jeyasingham v Landlord [2022] NZTT 4329775, 4328263 para 61 ffg. 30 [1986] NZLR at 732.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 31
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. 32
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". 33
Black’s Law Dictionary 34 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“ 35 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation...
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, repairs, and maintenance. 36
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 37 Landlords’ visit on 22 April 2023
The tenants say that on 22 April 2023 (the landlord’s stipulated move-out date) the landlords and several supporters visited the tenants’ to reinforce to the tenants that the landlords wanted the tenants out. The tenants’ contemporaneous statement of their version of the events states: 38 w) On Saturday 22 nd April the landlord’s and about 4 other males then turned up at the front door to demand that we leave. They acted in a highly aggressive and threatening manner. ... y) One of the males was becoming extremely agitated and aggressive and [tenant’s name] felt that he was about to physically attack him. 31 RTA s 38(2). 32 RTA s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 33 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 34 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 35 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998). 36 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 48(1) and (2). 37 RTA s 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A. 38 From the tenant’s application to the Tribunal lodged the same day. z) Whilst they were arguing with [tenant’s name] at the front door, one of the landlords then ripped open the garage door (which is connected to the house) and she and one of the males that were with them then entered and attempted to start grabbing our belongings. aa) [The tenant] told them to get out and advised that he was phoning the police. bb) Only at this point did they all leave the property thought threatened to come back tomorrow...and rip the door off the hinges if we weren’t gone. ... hh) This latest act of invasion has very much taken this situation too far and we now feels we have no choice but to bring this to the attention of the tribunal. Discussion
The landlords dispute the tenants’ version of events. They say: 39
3 On 22 April 2023 the landlords attended the premises with their support person and witness, Brian James (BJ) White, to discuss the tenants’ refusal to vacate the property following the termination notice. During the visit Mr [tenant’s surname] acted in an aggressive and abusive manner, yelling profanities such as “fuck off” and “get the fuck off my property” and threatened to involve the Police. He made it impossible to have any calm or constructive discussion. A police report was later filed by the tenants in relation to this encounter which the landlords believe was disproportionate to the actual events.
The landlords did not give any evidence but relied on the affidavits of Ms Thode’s mother, Angela, and a friend, Brian Wright. 40
The tenant who attended court said that Mr Thode threatened to assault him and told him he had to be out in two days “one way or another”.
The parties’ version of events on 22 April 2023 are not wildly divergent. The tenants claim the landlords were aggressive and entered the house’s garage without permission. The landlords cast their actions in a more benign light attributing any aggression to the male tenant.
I consider the tenants’ account is more reliable and plausible. Importantly, the tenants’ version of events was reduced to writing the same day as the events occurred and they filed a complaint with Police. Recording the events soon while they were still fresh in the memory enhances the probable reliability of the participants’ recollection and reduces the possibilities for memory to be contaminated by external factors. 39 Tenancy Tribunal Statement of Facts document at 5.3. Affidavits of Karen David and Brian James Wright sworn 20 September 2025. 40 Ibid.
It is plausible that the male tenant became verbally aggressive in response to the landlords’ actions. That would not have helped. However, the tenant’s actions do not exonerate the landlords’ conduct which likely led the tenant to retaliate in kind.
The landlords’ conduct on 25 April 2023 is consistent with what the tenants claim occurred on 22 April 2023. The later conduct was self-evidently a serious interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace. Even the landlords’ own witnesses cannot explain away Mr Thode destroying part of the house with a digger. The latter conduct is similar. Its occurrence makes the earlier conduct more probable.
I find that Mr Thode was verbally aggressive and told the male tenant in no uncertain terms that he must be out in two days and that Ms Thode entered the premises without permission. The group together were hostile and threatening.
The conduct was an intentional interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy and amounted to harassment. The entry to the premises was clearly unauthorised. It was intrusive and in deliberate contravention of the tenants’ most basic rights. Remedies – 22 April breaches
The harassment was intentional. It involved the landlords attending the tenants’ premises with back-up, unlawfully entering the premises, and intimidation.
The landlords’ intention was to rid themselves of the tenants without delay. The effect of the unlawful acts was to deter the tenants from attempting to stand on their legal rights. The tenants’ interests favour an award of exemplary damages. The public interest favours an award of exemplary damages.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages at the level of 66 per cent is warranted. For the harassment, $2,000.00 is ordered. That order encompasses the unlawful entry.
It is convenient to deal with issue of compensation in the form of general damages at the end of consideration of the tenants’ claims. Landlords’ visit on 25 April 2023
Some of central facts of 25 April 2023 are not in dispute. Mr Thode pleaded guilty to a charge of intimidation for using his digger to demolish the bathroom roof and external wall rendering the home uninhabitable.
The tenants set out their version of events on 30 April 2025 as follows: 41 a)On the morning of Tuesday 25 th April 2023 (ANZAC day) the landlord’s and 2-3 of their male friends arrived on the property. b)[The male tenant] was at work so it was just myself ... and [the couple’s] son in the house. c)Angela, one of the landlords, broke into the adjoined garage and entered the house through the connecting door. d)One of their friends then forced his way into the house through the front door by removing the ranchslider from its tracks. e)I had called 111 at this point and was attempting to explain the situation to them and ask for assistance. f)Angela (landlord) was right up in my face, constantly yelling “Get out of the fucking house”. g)I had told [the child] to go to his room for his own safety. h)While I was on the phone to the police, the other landlord Mark put the arm of a digger through the front wall of the house, destroying the bathroom and our belongings in there. i)At this point I exited the house through the connecting door to the garage and went to find [the child] as he had also exited the house through the connecting door of his bedroom to the garage when he heard the digger smash through the house. j)... k)I located [the tenants’ child] and took him by the hand and we exited the property. l)... m)I walked with [the child] part way down the road while still on the phone with the police to wait for a unit to arrive. n)[The tenants’ son] was terrified and only in his pyjamas and didn’t even have shoes on. o)Once the police arrived, I spoke with them briefly and directed them towards the house. p)[The male tenant] arrived back from work shortly after this as [the tenants’ child] had messaged him to tell him the landlords had broken in whilst I was on the phone to the police. q)The police subsequently arrested Mark and evacuated the other landlord and their friends from the property. r)... s)The police escorted us back onto the property and we learned the landlords had blocked the gate with the digger to stop the police coming onto the property and making it virtually impossible for us to remove our possessions. t)They had also thrown the vast majority of our belongings out on the driveway where they were rained on and also trashed the house in the process. As we tried to sort through our things we found numerous items broken – including my wardrobe, computer desk and they had ripped apart my wooden bed frame and the wood is now split and damaged. u)We also lost all of our food as it had been dumped on the ground outside. ... x)We are now homeless and have lost much of our belongings due to their actions. We’ve also been unable to remove many of our belongings from the property as this happened. 41 Tenant’s updated information to Tribunal on about 30 April 2023.
The landlord’s associate Mr Wright confirms in his affidavit that he was present at the scene on 25 April 2023 as was Ms Thode’s mother, and Mr Thode’s brother. Mr Wright deposed:
Angela was still calmly asking the [female tenant] to leave. [The tenant], still on the phone, looked down and said things like, “They’re grabbing our stuff”, and “Angela’s yelling in my face” Neither was true... ...
I then moved behind [the tenant] to stop her from going into the bedrooms. I told her again to get out.
...Mark looked out through the garage window, saw them outside, and said, “Good they’re out.” A few seconds later, Mark used the digger to pull down part of the roof and the bathroom wall, rendering the building uninhabitable. ...
...we all went inside the house and saw the condition of how they had been living. ...
I left the property after this.
Ms Thode’s mother deposed:
After the incident, I saw large amounts of possessions and rubbish scattered around and throughout the whole property. Some of their possessions were abandoned and exposed to the elements outside. Discussion
Again, there is not an immense gulf in the parties’ versions about key events on 25 April 2025. Even on the landlords’ own version the landlords’ actions amounted to harassment and unlawful entry.
The landlords demanded the female tenant who was home leave. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mrs Thode yelled in the tenant’s face, telling her to leave.
Mr Thode used the digger’s mechanical arm and bucket to destroy the roof and the wall of the bathroom, rendering the house uninhabitable as the landlords intended.
The landlords claim they did not throw the tenants’ belongings outside. I find it more probable than not that the landlords did so. Given the extreme step of using the digger to destroy the bathroom, the lesser step of throwing many of the tenants’ belongings out of the house is entirely probable.
The landlords interfered with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy to the aggravated level of harassment. They unlawfully entered the premises.

Did the landlords interfere with gas, electricity, or other services to the premises?

A further breach is involved in the 25 April harassment and entry. Landlords must not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telephone services, or other services to the premises. 42
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 43
The tenants rely on an Auckland Council Compliance Officer, Erika Saunderson’s site notes from her scene visit on the afternoon of the tenants’ eviction on 25 April 2023. Her notes state: [T]hey told me that the property owner gave them a 21xday eviction notice. Apparently they were supposed to give them 63x days’ notice if they want to move family members back into the property. They are still within their notice period. Today, [the male tenant] went to work and [the female tenant] and her 10year old son were still in the property – when the property owner showed up with a digger and started demolishing the house, while they were still living inside it. The police have attended and have arrested the property owner. I could see a digger parked at the property gate – blocking any access to and from the property. I could also see that this property has been partially demolished. The bathroom is completely destroyed, and the tenants’’ belongings sere outside the house. The following services were destroyed as part of this partial demolishing:
Electricity destroyed...
Sewerage system destroyed
Water supply destroyed
Hot Water Cylinder destroyed – no hot water In my view this is a dangerous & unsanitary building. I told the tenants it was not safe for them to live in.
I am satisfied that the landlords interfered with the premises’ service. I find they have committed the unlawful act alleged.
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. 44 42 RTA s 45(2). 43 RTA s 45(2A) and Schedule 1A. 44 RTA s 109(3).
The landlords committed the unlawful act intentionally. Having regard to the statutory factors it is just to award exemplary damages. The interference here was serious. It involved effectively removing the services permanently to make the premises uninhabitable. Remedy for 25 April breaches
I have found the landlords actions on 25 April 2023 involved the unlawful acts of unlawful entry, harassment, and interference with services. In determining the level of exemplary damages I am conscious I must ensure that the cumulative effect of the exemplary damages does not exceed the totality of the offending. I must also ensure that I do not double punish Mr Thode who has been sentenced to 40 hours community work for his actions on this date.
I treat the harassment as the lead breach. The harassment involved unlawful entry, intimidation, the threat of harm, the destruction of the premises including services, and the removal of the tenants’ belongings.
The maximum level of exemplary damages is $3,000.00. That figure that might be regarded as modest in light of such serious harassment when contrasted with what the Legislature has provided for other unlawful acts, such as $7,200.00 for breach of maintenance obligations, for example. 45 However, that is the maximum against which the conduct is to be measured.
The landlords’ conduct was at the serious end of spectrum of harassment. To physically eject tenants who (correctly in this case) challenge the landlords’ purported notice by bringing a claim in the Tribunal is concerning. The use of the digger in the to destroy the bathroom was intimidating. The purpose of making the house uninhabitable could hardly be more incompatible with the RTA’s fundamental tenant protections.
The landlords’ intention as discussed above was to get rid of the tenants without delay by extreme measures if necessary. The effect of the unlawful act was to eject them from their home without due process. The tenants’ interests favour an award of exemplary damages. The public interest favours a condign level of exemplary damages.
I arrive at a starting point of 90 percent of the maximum. The reason it is not higher is that there could be even more serious incidents of harassment than this and some 45 RTA s 45(1) and Schedule 1A. forms of breach may involve an ongoing campaign of harassment rather than a single grave episode like this one. The starting point therefore is $2,700.00.
I have had regard to the landlords’ unlawful entry and interference with services when arriving at the just-mentioned starting point. I am not going to add cumulative exemplary damages to avoid double-counting and to ensure that the exemplary damages are set at a fair level that does not exceed the totality of the breaches.
The Tribunal must refrain from ordering exemplary damages against Mr Thode for the 25 April events for which he was charged and has now been sentenced. 46 Exemplary damages are quintessentially punitive, so to order them would breach the fundamental principle against double jeopardy. 47 Under s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 “[n]o one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again”.
On the other hand, Ms Thode is fully liable in exemplary damages for the 25 April 2023 events. What occurred was a joint enterprise involving both Ms Thode and her husband. She is liable for the events, including the digger incident. The exemplary damages to be awarded against her are to be less than what the Tribunal would have jointly ordered against her and Mr Thode if the District Court had not already punished Mr Thode by its sentence. I consider that Ms Thode’s is equally culpable under the RTA as Mr Thode. Given the Tribunal typically treats multiple landlords of a single tenancy as a single entity for the purposes of exemplary damages, I am going to calculate the exemplary damages by pro-rating what I would have ordered against both landlords if Mr Thode had not been dealt with in the criminal court by 50 per cent.
I order Ms Thode to pay exemplary damages of 50 percent of the starting point which encompassed what I would have ordered against both landlords. That amounts to $1,350.00. Mr Thode is not liable for these exemplary damages as he has been sentenced for the same conduct.
I note that Ms Thode is liable to exemplary damages totalling $3,350.00 for her actions on 22 and 25 April 2023. Stepping back and considering the cumulative amount as 46 I note in passing that the RTA includes a similar criminal offence at s 48(5) of the RTA that may have encompassed some of the Thodes’ actions: (5) Notwithstanding anything in subsections (2) to (4), the landlord shall not use force or the threat of force to enter or attempt to enter the premises while the tenant, or any other person with the permission of the tenant, is in the premises. (6) Every landlord who breaches subsection (5) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $3,000. 47 against the maxima I do not consider the level of exemplary damages to be excessive. The unlawful acts warrant exemplary damages at the amount ordered.
The issue of compensating the tenants for emotional harm by way of general damages will be dealt with below.

Did the landlords unlawfully enter the premises on other occasions?

The tenants claim the landlords entered their premises unlawfully on other occasions.
Section 48(1) of the RTA provides that, “[t]he landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement”. However, the other occasions the tenants complain of involve the landlords and their friends parking vehicles on adjacent land and the landlords carrying out maintenance on the exterior land of the premises including yards, driveways, roads, gardens, and paddocks and those areas are excluded from the “premises” by s 48(7) of the RTA which provides: (7) In this section premises does not include land or facilities.
Because the entries complained of were onto the land rather than the dwelling, the tenants’ other unlawful entry claims cannot succeed, and they are dismissed. Did the landlords unlawfully dispose of the tenants’ goods?
Landlords must not deal with any of the tenant’s goods, except in accordance with ss 62 to 62C of the RTA. 48
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 49
Section 62 of the RTA required the landlords to make contact with the tenants to agree on the with the tenant on a period to pick up the goods. In this case Mr Thode’s bail conditions prohibited from contacting with tenants. However, Ms Thode was not subject to bail terms so could have made contact with the tenants but did not do so. 48 RTA s 33(1) and (4). 49 See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Further, if the landlords could not arrange for the tenants to pick their goods up, under s 62A the landlords were required to assess the goods’ market value and secure and store any goods having a value above the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them for at least 35 days. After that period, the landlords were required to sell those goods that have the required market value at a reasonable market price.
The landlords maintain that the tenants had the opportunity to uplift their goods, but did not do so. However, the tenants were forced to leave most of their belongings behind on 25 April 2023 because the digger was in the way and the tenants did not have anywhere to store them. When they returned a few days later, they still had nowhere to put the belongings. The tenants say: The landlords have left us homeless and without much of our belongings due to the damage they have caused. They have completely destroyed our lives through their actions and have acted with obvious intent and malice.
Ms Keddell submits: In accordance with section 62 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlords lawfully retained the remaining goods on site for more than 35 days after the tenancy ended on 25 April 2023. On 14 June 2023, 50 days after the end of the tenancy , they engaged a and paid a contractor who assisted with the clearance of the tenants’ abandoned items and rubbish left behind.
There is no evidence the landlords assessed the goods’ market value or that they properly stored them. It is unlikely they did so. Rather than store the goods, the landlords left them out in the open.
The landlords committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with s 62A. However, it is probable that the tenants picked up their goods that had some market value. The tenants returned with a trailer a few days after their eviction and took away some of their goods. There was still room in the trailer for more, which suggests the remaining items were not saleable.
Having regard to the statutory factors, I do not find it just to order exemplary damages for this particular unlawful act.
I do not make an order for compensation for the lost goods because the tenants have not proven the value of the goods that they did not pick up. Compensation for emotional harm
I turn to the issue of compensation for the proven breaches: giving an unlawful notice, harassment, unlawful entry, interfering with services, and not dealing with the tenants’ goods in accordance with the RTA.
The landlords gave the tenants an unlawful notice, went onto the premises unlawfully on two occasions, harassed the tenants on those two occasions including evicting them by aggressive and destructive means on the second occasion, and dealt with their property with disdain. These actions unlawfully deprived the tenants of their home and caused them ongoing hardship and emotional harm.
At the hearing, the tenant said that his health was adversely affected by the stress of the incidents. His son was at home at the time of the 25 April events. He was not there to protect him from what was in his mind a “home invasion”. He felt and still has feelings of powerlessness, resentment, and anger. His son became closed off and needed to see a psychologist as a result. He and his family had to stay in a sleepout for several months after they were evicted because they had nowhere else to go. The circumstances caused him anguish. He lost many possessions. He has had to mentally figure out how to get back on track. He found the landlords’ throwing their belongings outside “very personal” and disrespectful. He said that his partner has been suffering depression and anxiety exacerbated by the events.
The tenants set out the consequences of the landlords’ actions in their earlier documents filed in the Tribunal. On 22 April 2023, the tenants stated about what had happened: The ongoing behavior, threats, intimidation and subsequent eviction notice and forced entry of the adjoined garage by the landlord’s has created an immense amount of stress and anxiety for us. The property we rent is adjoined to their own property and as they and their friends come onto our property frequently without notice it has also created an extremely hostile and uncomfortable environment for us, made all the more worse by their actions today, 22nd April. Due to their actions we are concerned about further retaliatory behavior and threats when we simply just want to enjoy a residence that we’re legally renting and have done nothing to receive the treatment that we’ve been subjected to.
On 30 April 2023, five days after their eviction, the tenants wrote: For the above reasons, and due to the severe emotional and physical impact the landlords actions have had on us, it is difficult for us to ascertain a figure we deem acceptable for their actions. We can only state that we are now homeless, have lost a great deal of personal property, our work has been affected greatly by this and we have a traumatized child on our hands – essentially these people have stripped us of our livelihoods and we are now needing to start over and rebuild from nothing.
I accept that the events were traumatic for the tenants and that they have suffered significant emotional harm from the aftermath of being made homeless in unlawful and hostile circumstances. Legal principles
The Tribunal in Palmer v Housing New Zealand No 2) 50 held that when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must take into account 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.
The Tribunal’s power to award compensation has been increased from $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 by s 50 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020, which emphasises the Tribunal’s orders can potentially range as high as $100,000.00. However, the Tribunal’s orders for general damages have traditionally been modest.
in 2020, Judge Neave described the Tribunal’s awards for emotional harm damages as “not particularly generous” and “fairly conservative” and described the Tribunal’s award in the case before him as “close to being derisory”. 51 In that case the tenant lived in an apartment building operated by a social housing provider. The landlord had been carrying out asbestos removal work which required it to arrange for its contractors to access the apartments according to a schedule of works. One day the tenant returned to her unit and found that the contractors had entered her apartment while she was out leaving their materials, without giving her any notice. The landlord thought it had given the tenant proper notice but had mis-recorded the apartment numbers that it had given notice to. His Honour found the Tribunal’s award of $200.00 for emotional harm “close to being derisory”. He substituted an award of in the sum of $2,000.00 for the “significant intrusion on [the tenant’s] rights”.
In Kang 52 the landlord had briefly entered the tenant’s unit on two occasions with a plumber to investigate and repair leaking pipes, believing the tenant had consented. Judge Clark upheld an order for $3,000.00 in general damages, observing: 53 50 Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993. 51 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing [2020] NZDC 17667. 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 $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. [69] Ultimately any assessment of damages will be based on all the circumstances of the case including (but not intending to make a prescriptive list) the intentions of the landlord; whether there was a lawful purpose which sat behind the conduct; the conduct of the tenant; the effect on the tenant; whether the conduct was ongoing, whether there were any aggravating or mitigating factors from both the landlord or tenant.
In Ihome Property Management v Riveros & others 54 Judge Paul upheld a Tribunal order for general damages of $3,600.00 involving an impromptu inspection conducted at short notice and without consent.
In Brass v [tenant] 55 the tribunal ordered $4,000.00 general damages in favour of the tenant where the building manager locked the tenant out from her apartment and removed her belongings without notice, claiming the tenant had abandoned the premises, a claim that the Tribunal rejected. Discussion
I consider the nature of the breaches was to deny the tenants of their right to tenure and to harm them in their personal and family lives. The breaches occurred principally on three occasions: the notice, the 22 April visit, and the 25 April visit. The effect of the breaches on the tenants has occasioned significant emotional harm. The events on 24 April were particularly frightening for the female tenant. Mr Thode used the digger to destroy the bathroom which also destroyed some of the tenants’ personal belongings. The landlords and their confederates dumped many of the tenants’ belongings onto the driveway. The tenants lost a lot of their basic furniture such as beds and couches, which although they may not have had market value were still of use to them. Although the tenants did not suffer physical injuries, the psychological impacts of the landlords actions were serious and are ongoing.
The landlords’ intention was to rid themselves of tenants who they considered were not looking after the premises and with whom they were increasingly falling out. The landlords say that the tenants refused inspections, that the male tenant subjected Ms Thode to unwarranted verbal abuse on three occasions and was hostile on other occasions, that the tenants allowed leak damage to occur from a hot water cylinder, installed an oven without consent, used drugs on the premises, allowed chickens to enter the house, and generally allowed it to become filthy. Ms Keddell submitted: 56 52 Sun v Kang [2023] NZDC 24786 53 Ibid at [69]. . 54 [2025] NZDC 20937. 55 [2025] NZTT 4738812, 4846363. 56 Landlords’ Cross-application submissions page 5. The landlords had also lent the tenants several items at the start of the tenancy, including a mattress to support the child’s needs, a couch, kitchenware, and a gas oven, which were all found at the end of the tenancy in a filthy or damaged state, or simply abandoned. After vacating, over the next few days the tenants returned twice with trailers, but on the second occasion they only partially filled the trailer and abandoned the remainder. The landlords lawfully stored these items for 50 days after the tenancy ended on 25 April 2023, before disposing of them on 14 June 2023 in full compliance with section 62 of the Act.
Further she says: 57 The tenants’ repeated breaches caused them significant financial loss and escalating emotional strain. For months, they endured intimidation, obstruction, frustration and persistent stress while doing their best to meet their obligations as landlords and to act in good faith.
The tenants deny the substance of the landlords’ claims. The landlords have not given evidence in person nor by hearsay statement. I cannot attach much weight to the affidavit evidence of the landlords’ family members and a close friend. The affidavits were prepared more than two years after the events deposed of and are hearsay. Evidence, which portrays the male tenant as hostile and aggressive is overblown. It is to be taken with a grain of salt.
I accept that the landlords had fallen into dispute with the tenants over various issues including the tenants installing their own oven, cigarette butt litter, and allowing chickens to enter the house. However, that does not mean they must be exonerated from compensating the tenants for the emotional harm they have caused them.
The landlords’ text messages at the time of the events show an imperious readiness to evict the tenants if they did not comply with what the landlords wanted. The tenants had every intention of using legal proper legal channels (and did so). They had every right to expect the landlords would also do so whatever the disagreements were between them. It was the landlords not the tenants who resorted to aggression and lawless conduct in breach of criminal and tenancy laws.
The effect on the tenants by way of emotional harm is serious. It is more severe than in any of the cases mentioned above. Conclusion
The female tenant was present during the 25 April unlawful entry and digger destruction episode. The impact of the landlords’ actions on her has caused her 57 Ibid page 10. considerable hardship, insecurity, humiliation, and fear. She continues to suffer psychological harm from the treatment she received from the landlords.
I quantify her harm at $6,000.00. I deduct $300.00 from that amount to account for the $300.00 that was awarded in favour at Mr Thode’s criminal sentencing to avoid double compensation.
The male tenant has suffered to a similar degree. I quantify the harm he has suffered at $5,000.00.
I now consider the landlords’ claims.

Did the tenants fail to keep or leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlords say the tenants let the premises become filthy. They allowed chickens to roam through the house resulting in bird droppings throughout the house. They did not pick up cigarette butts which littered the yard.
Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy during the tenancy and when they vacate the premises. 58
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 59
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, 58 RTA s 40(1)(c) and s 40(1)(e). 59 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. the landlord must prove that the tenants did not keep and/or leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlords submitted affidavits from Ms Davis and Mr Wright which refer to the unclean and unhygienic state of the premises. This evidence is hearsay. The tenant who appeared could not cross-examine these witnesses.
Nonetheless, I find it probable the tenants did fail to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy.
The landlords did not produce an entry inspection report, and they relied on photographs taken after the landlords had evicted the tenants destroying the bathroom wall and interfering with the tenants belongings. The photographs suggest the premises, its floor coverings, and fittings to be of a poor standard prior to the tenancy beginning. After the tenants were evicted, the premises were left open to the chickens due to the demolition of the wall.
It is not possible to accurately determine the state of the premises prior to the eviction by contrast to the state of the premises prior to the tenancy starting.
The landlords have not proven they suffered a quantifiable loss from the tenants failing to keep the premises reasonably clean during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed.
I move to the alleged failure of the tenants to leave the premises reasonably clean.
It does not make sense that the tenants should be liable for failing to clean and tidy after being summarily evicted in the belligerent manner they were. The landlords’ actions deprived the tenants of the ability to move out with dignity. The unlawful notice and eviction left them with nowhere appropriate to live. They could not even take basic possessions such as furniture because they did not have room for it.
The tenants were not given an opportunity to clean and tidy. That was a consequence of the landlords’ breaches. It would be unfair for the tenants to be found in breach when the landlords have denied them the opportunity to fulfil these duties.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the tenants use the premises for an unlawful purpose?

Tenants must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. 60
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 61 However, exemplary damages are not available because the landlords’ claim was lodged more than 12 months after the alleged unlawful act. 62
Ms Keddell submitted the male tenant had unlawfully consumed controlled drugs at the premises. She submitted there were instruments such as a metal pipe, syringes, and needles consistent with drug use present at the premise. She produced evidence that one of the tenants has historic convictions involving controlled drugs.
However, the photographs of what was found and the other evidence submitted do not persuade me on the balance of probabilities that the tenants did use drugs at the premises.
This claim is dismissed. Did the tenants interfere with the Thodes’ peace?
The landlords claim the tenants interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy when they went onto the premises to park vehicles in the yard or do garden maintenance.
The landlords rely on a provision of the RTA that deals with tenants actions in respect to neighbours, s 40(2)(c) which provides that tenants must not: 63 cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The section is intended to be applied to tenants activities that impose on neighbours in the use of those neighbours’ premises. Is not directed at interactions between tenants and their landlords in that capacity. All of the instances the landlords raise relate to events on the tenants’ premises.
Nor did the landlords attend the hearing to give evidence to substantiate this claim. 60 RTA s 40(2)(b). 61 RTA s 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A. 62 RTA s 109(2). 63 RTA s 40(2)(c).
This claim is dismissed. Did the tenants install an oven without the landlords’ consent?
The landlords claim the tenants replaced an oven at the premises without obtaining the landlords’ consent.
The landlords rely on RTA ss 42(1) and 40(2)(a) for a remedy of exemplary damages. However, the oven does not appear to have been built in. It was a chattel rather than a fixture. Section 42 deals with “fixtures”, so it does not have application to the oven. That being so, the tenants did not require the landlords’ consent to bring in their own oven.
The tenants replaced the oven. They say that the landlord’s oven was unsafe because it was a CNG oven, and the gas supply was LPG. The tenants merely replaced the landlord’s oven with an LPG oven.
Ms Keddell submitted that the tenants’ oven caused electrical overload, but the tenants reject that was feasible given their oven was also gas-fuelled and only used power for ignition.
I accept the tenants’ evidence that the existing oven was not safe to use.
Ms Keddell seeks the cost of a new oven. I decline to consider that in the circumstances. The existing oven was probably uncompliant and of no value. It would not be fair to order the tenants to put the landlord in a better position than at the beginning of the tenancy. Nor has it been shown that the premises, which were unlawful premises prior to the tenancy began, and have which have been further compromised by Mr Thode’s digger assault, can lawfully even contain an oven.

Did the tenants refuse the landlords access for repairs or inspection?

The landlords claim the tenants refused to allow entry when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance. 64
A notice is a document containing required statutory particulars that must be served on a party. A notice may be in the form of a hard copy document, email, or text. 64 RTA s 48(1) and (2).
The landlords have not provided proof of serving any notice in the proper form with the necessary particulars.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the tenants fail to remove their goods or rubbish?

At the end of a tenancy, a tenants’ duties include removing their goods and rubbish from the premises. 65
As discussed above, the landlords did not fulfil their duties under ss 62 and 62A to contact the tenants to arrange for a suitable period for the tenants to uplift their belongings, to assess market value and properly store goods of value.
The landlords personally evicted the tenants, removing many of the tenants’ possessions and dumping them outside.
The tenants returned to the premises on one occasion but had nowhere to put many of their goods at that time due to the unlawful eviction despite their having challenged the landlords’ plainly unlawful termination notice. That being so, the tenants have technically breached their end-of-tenancy duty to remove their goods. However, that is because of the landlords’ unlawful actions.
The Tribunal is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. It would be contrary to the substantial merits and justice of the case to find the tenants liable to reimburse the landlords for the cost of removing their goods in the circumstances. 66
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
The tenants have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. The landlords must reimburse them for the cost of the filing fee. 67 Non-publication
The tenants have asked for non-publication of their names and identifying details. 65 RTA s 40(1)(e). 66 RTA s 85(2). 67 RTA s 102(4)(b).
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. 68
The tenants have substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider that the tenants’ conduct, or any other circumstances justify publication.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Tribunal also orders non-publication of the tenancy address. The landlords live there. It is not desirable for the landlords nor necessary having regard to the public interest that the landlord’s address is made publicly available. 69

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556854 — Exemplary damages at [Street address redacted] Kaukapakapa, RD 4,

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556854 — Exemplary damages at [Street address redacted] Kaukapakapa, RD 4,

Order

Reasons

Was the notice retaliatory?

Did the landlords give the notice knowing it to be unlawful?

Did the landlords harass the tenants or unlawfully enter the premises in April 2023?

Did the landlords interfere with gas, electricity, or other services to the premises?

Did the landlords unlawfully enter the premises on other occasions?

Did the tenants fail to keep or leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenants use the premises for an unlawful purpose?

Did the tenants refuse the landlords access for repairs or inspection?

Did the tenants fail to remove their goods or rubbish?

Order

Reasons

Was the notice retaliatory?

Did the landlords give the notice knowing it to be unlawful?

Did the landlords harass the tenants or unlawfully enter the premises in April 2023?

Did the landlords interfere with gas, electricity, or other services to the premises?

Did the landlords unlawfully enter the premises on other occasions?

Did the tenants fail to keep or leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenants use the premises for an unlawful purpose?

Did the tenants refuse the landlords access for repairs or inspection?

Did the tenants fail to remove their goods or rubbish?