What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4738812 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4738812?

Cleaning: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Outgoings: $96.01 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,820.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4738812?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4738812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10514142-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4738812 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4738812?

Cleaning: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Outgoings: $96.01 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,820.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4738812?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4738812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10514142-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Apartment 107, 10 Ronayne Street, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4738812 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4738812 — net $6,958.99 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 23 October 2023	$1,820.00		Rent arrears to the end of 23 October 2023
Outgoings	$96.01		Outgoings
Cleaning costs	$325.00		Cleaning costs
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry		$1,000.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: harassment		$2,500.00	77. I order the landlord to pay $2,500.00 for exemplary damages for the breach.
Exemplary damages: disposing of belongings		$1,500.00	disposing of belongings
Compensation for lost belongings		$200.00	Compensation for lost belongings
Compensation for emotional harm		$4,000.00	Compensation for emotional harm
Total award	$2,241.01	$9,200.00
Net award		$6,958.99
Bond		$1,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$6,958.99

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4738812 — net $6,958.99 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 23 October 2023	$1,820.00		Rent arrears to the end of 23 October 2023
Outgoings	$96.01		Outgoings
Cleaning costs	$325.00		Cleaning costs
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry		$1,000.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: harassment		$2,500.00	77. I order the landlord to pay $2,500.00 for exemplary damages for the breach.
Exemplary damages: disposing of belongings		$1,500.00	disposing of belongings
Compensation for lost belongings		$200.00	Compensation for lost belongings
Compensation for emotional harm		$4,000.00	Compensation for emotional harm
Total award	$2,241.01	$9,200.00
Net award		$6,958.99
Bond		$1,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$6,958.99

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
Brass Properties Nz No 1 Limited as agent for 107/10 Owners must pay [the tenant] $6,958.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [the tenant] immediately.

Reasons

Dale McIsaac attended the hearing for the landlord. Mr McIsaac is the company’s recently appointed property manager. These events predate Mr McIsaac’s appointment.
The tenant attended for herself.
The landlord claims for rent and water arrears, compensation for costs incurred, and payment over of the bond.
The tenant claims the landlord unlawfully entered the premises, terminated the tenancy without proper grounds, interfered with her reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy to the aggravated level of harassment, terminated the tenancy without grounds, changed the locks without her consent, and unlawfully disposed of her belongings. She seeks exemplary damages, compensation, and payment over of the bond. Background
The tenant is a 20-year-old woman. She was 19 at the time of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 26 January 2023 and was initially for a fixed term of about six months. The tenancy continued as a periodic tenancy after the expiry of the fixed term on 25 July 2023.
In early September 2023, the tenant had kept a dog in the apartment in breach of the tenancy agreement. The property manager previous to Mr McIsaac - Mr Newson - required the tenant to remove the dog and clean the apartment and the ground floor patio area, which the dog had despoiled.
The tenant removed the dog but stopped paying her weekly rent from 28 September 2023.
On about 15 October 2023, the tenant had a telephone discussion with Mr Newman discussing the overdue rent and the tenant’s intention to move out. The tenant says she did not tell Mr Newman she intended to move out immediately, but at the hearing the landlord claims that the tenant told Mr Newman she would be moving out immediately.
About a week later, during Labour Day weekend between 22 and 23 October 2023 (Monday 23 October 2023 was a public holiday), the tenant and her partner stayed at a nearby BnB in Downtown Auckland.
On the morning of Tuesday 24 October 2023, the tenant returned to the apartment building, to find her swipe card had been deactivated.
She spoke to Mr Newman on the intercom, who told her that her tenancy had ended. Mr Newman had removed all of her belongings for the apartment, treating many of them as rubbish. She recovered many of her belongings but not all of them.
The tenant accepts she failed to pay rent but denies abandoning the apartment. She maintains that she and her partner lived continuously in the apartment save for their Labour Weekend “staycation” in Downtown Auckland. Even during that weekend, the tenants say she had popped into the apartment to pick up some items she needed.
In her application the tenant states: [M]y landlord evicted me and entered my apartment without written notice, and discarded of my belongings. since i was not able to retrieve majority of my damaged and thrown away items I'm claiming compensation for the items lost as I feel the eviction and discarding of my belongings were unfair.
The issues for determination are: a. What does the tenant owe for rent and water? b. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean? c. Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises? d. Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy? e. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace to the level of harassment? f.Did the landlord unlawfully deal with the tenant’s belongings? g. Should the Tribunal order general damages?

What does the tenant owe for rent and water?

The tenancy ended on 23 October 2023, when the landlord took possession of the premises.
Mr McIsaac provided rent and water records that prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant does not dispute the amounts claimed.
The Tribunal orders accordingly.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must vacate the premises, leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims $650.00 for the cost of cleaning.
As will be discussed, the tenant did not have the opportunity to vacate the premises or attend to any of her other move-out duties because the landlord took possession of the premises without proper notice.
Notwithstanding, the unlawful repossession, the landlord did have to carry out cleaning. I consider it appropriate to order the tenant contribute 50 per cent to the cost.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
Mr McIsaac relies on Mr Newman’s version of events, which is that he entered the premises because he believed the tenant had abandoned the apartment and gave the tenant a notice to that effect on 18 October 2023, five days prior to the entry. Legal principles
The landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of confirming whether the tenant has abandoned the premises at any time specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 24 hours before the intended entry. 1
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 2
A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 48(2B). 2 RTA, s 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A. Discussion
Mr McIsaac submits Mr Newman believed the tenant told him on 15 October 2023 that she was moving out of the premises immediately.
The tenant strongly disputes the suggestion she ever said she was moving out immediately. Rather, she maintains on 15 October, she told Mr Newman she had moved her dog from the premises, she would be move out after giving 28 days’ notice, and she would pay her rent arrears.
The tenant attended the Tribunal gave direct evidence of what she said during the 15 October telephone discussion. I found the tenant’s evidence plausible and consistent with the other evidence in the case.
On the other hand, Mr Newman did not attend the Tribunal. Mr McIsaac submitted a document purporting to be from Mr Newman to the tenant dated 15 October 2023, stated to be “Delivered by Hand” stating: Further to our conversation and your advice that you are now moving out of the apartment and ending the tenancy immediately, we advise that as per the tenancy agreement, a minimum of 28 days notice should be provided.
The next notice relied on is dated 18 October 2023 and is a Notice to Enter Property Due to Abandonment, stating: We note that we have not heard you [sic], rent remains more than 2 weeks overdue and there is a substantial smell coming from your apartment. On this basis, we believe that you have abandoned the property and are providing you with a minimum of 48 hours notice that we are entering the property.
The tenant says she never received the notices though she was living at the apartment at the time. The inference is that the notices were created ex post facto (after the event). The notices were not emailed to the tenant despite her email address being given as an address for service in the tenancy agreement. Consequently, there is no objective evidence of the time the notices were created. They may have been created at the time or ex post facto.
I note that Mr Newman emailed the tenant on 28 October 2023, “It was obvious from the security swipe evidence that you were not residing at the property from 18 th Oct”. That the tenant allegedly did not reside in the premises from 18 October is inconsistent with the entry notice supposedly given on that very date claiming that “we believe you have abandoned the property”.
The tenant was adamant that the swipe card records would prove she was living in the premises and has repeatedly asked for them. However, the records were never forthcoming.
Mr McIsaac says the records cannot easily be extracted. Consequently, the landlord did not provide the Tribunal with the electronic records of the tenant’s comings and goings which would have established whether the tenant was habituating the tenancy address or not.
On 25 October 2023, Mr Newson emailed the tenant claiming, “However, a phone call to the tenant for confirmation [of whether the tenant had abandoned the premises] went unanswered”. However, the tenant produced her cell phone log which did not record any phone call from Mr Newson having been received. The email goes on to claim: [T]he property was not being resided in for at least 2 weeks and was in an uninhabitable condition, the decision was made to enter.
That comment contradicts Mr Newson’s earlier justification that the tenant had not been residing at the premises for about five days (from the 18 th ). Nor do I find it likely that there was a smell coming from the apartment that would have led Mr Newson to conclude the property was in an in uninhabitable condition.
Mr Newman did not attend the hearing to give direct evidence about the notices. I attribute less weight to the documentary evidence than I do to the tenant’s in-person evidence. I prefer the tenant’s version of what was said.
It is implausible on the facts that I have found proven that Mr Newson genuinely believed that the tenant may have left the premises not intending to return. Mr Newman could have emailed or telephoned the tenant to discuss that if he genuinely thought it a possibility, but he did not.
It follows, I find at the time of entry, Mr Newman did not genuinely believe that the tenant may have abandoned the premises. The stated ground was spurious. Therefore, the entry for premises for the purpose of confirming whether the tenant has abandoned the premises was unlawful.
On a more technical note, s 48(2B) of the RTA authorises: [F]or the purpose of confirming whether the tenant has abandoned the premises at any time specified in a notice...
The notice is bad for not specifying a time for the entry. Conclusion
I am satisfied that the entry was unlawful for substantive and procedural reasons.
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. 3
I am satisfied the breach was intentional.
I consider it is just to award exemplary damages for the breach. The landlord’s overall intent (as will be discussed further below) was not just to check if the tenant had abandoned the premises but to immediately evict her. The effect of the unlawful act was the landlord gained entry to the apartment on false pretences. It is in the tenant’s interests that the breach is recognised and denounced. It is in the public interest that this landlord and others are deterred from similar breaches.
I consider an order of $1,000.00 for exemplary damages should be made.

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

The tenant’s claims include a claim that the landlord gave her an unlawful notice terminating tenancy.
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 that duty without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. 4
In this case however, the landlord terminated the tenancy and took possession without giving the tenant any termination notice. It was a summary eviction without any notice being given.
Therefore, the landlord’s conduct is best considered under the next head. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s peace to the level of harassment? Legal principles
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 5 3 RTA, s 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 4 RTA, s60AA and Schedule 1A. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 38(2).
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. 6
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 7 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“ 8 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation
In this case, the issue of harassment is focussed on the landlord’s entry and taking possession of the premises on 24 October 2024.
The Tribunal has the power to terminate the tenancy and order possession where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date. 9
A landlord does not have the power to terminate the tenancy and take possession even if premises were abandoned and rent is in arrears. Discussion
The landlord’s photographs of the premises taken during Mr Newman’s repossession process show the premises was very unclean and untidy. The balcony sliding door tracks have scores of discarded and the tiles are grubby cigarette butts. The shower cubicle’s edges have months’-worth of grime. The bathroom tiles are grubby. There tiny bits of paper detritus scattered on the floor in various places. There is clothing strewn around the bedroom, and clothing left lying on the bathroom floor. There is a pair of socks on the kitchen floor. The carpet appears not to have been vacuumed for weeks. The toilet needs cleaning. Toilet roles are sitting on the bathroom floor. There are several empty beer cans, glasses, and empty takeaway food containers left on a side table. Several mugs and cutlery have been left on the bench. 6 RTA, s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 7 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 8 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998). 9 RTA, s 61.
However, the photographs do not indicate the tenant had abandoned the premises. When tenants abandon premises, they typically take possessions of value and important documents and medication with them. In this case, the landlord’s photographs include images of a laptop, a lot of clothing, a television, a shampoo-type bottle in the shower cubicle, 10 toilet rolls and soaps in the bathroom, a soft toy, a phone charger, an extension cord, prescribed medication, kitchen cleaners, and a desk lamp.
The tenant says the belongings removed included many other personal items that were not photographed, including papers including her expired passport, her partner’s precious medical trial medication, a family bible, an old but still working cell phone, and a family cat’s ashes.
As discussed, Mr Newman sent any notice of the intended entry for abandonment despite the fact her email address was an address for service. One would have thought that if Mr Newman seriously wanted to warn an “AWOL” tenant of the entry, he would have emailed the tenant.
Similarly, the tenant gave evidence Mr Newman did not call or text her about the supposed abandonment despite the fact she had spoken to Mr Newman on her cell phone as recently as eight days before he entered the premises without her consent.
The tenant’s evidence that she had not abandoned the premises was plausible and was not contradicted by any cogent evidence. Mr Newman was not present to rebut the tenant’s evidence
Once Mr Newman entered the premises, it should have been obvious to him (if he did not know already) that the tenant had not abandoned the premises.
I reject Mr McIsaac’s submission that Mr Newman telephoned the tenant prior to entering the premises. The tenant has always asserted that Mr Newman did not phone her. She produced her cell phone call log to show that Mr Newman had not telephoned her. The landlord did not produce Mr Newman’s cell phone call log to rebut the tenant’s evidence. Conclusion
Without a Tribunal order, the landlord does not have the power to terminate a tenancy or take possession of the premises even if the tenant has abandoned the premises and rent is in arrears (which was not the case here).
In this case, the landlord summarily terminated the tenancy and took possession of the premises on the purported basis of abandonment, which it could not lawfully do, and in circumstances where in any event the premises were not abandoned. The Tribunal would not have granted termination if it had heard a claim for it based on abandonment.
I am satisfied the landlord’s conduct amounted to aggressive pressure or intimidation and was conduct directed at the tenant that caused her substantial emotional distress in that person and served no legitimate purpose. Exemplary damages
I am satisfied that the landlord through its agent harassed the tenant intentionally.
Mr McIsaac submits that Mr Newson was a kind and supportive building manager. That submission finds support from the tenant’s evidence that she frequently telephoned Mr Newson to get his help to jump-start her car. Mr McIsaac maintains that Mr Newman genuinely thought he was doing the right thing but was out of his depth and possibly confused. I accept that Mr Newson probably lacked insight into the seriousness of the interferences, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. The effect of the unlawful act was a denial of the tenant’s basic tenant right not to ejected from her home without proper process, it is in the tenant’s interests that an order of exemplary damages is made to vindicate the serious breach of her rights. It is in the public interest to make it clear that breaches of this kind cannot be tolerated.
I bear in mind the Tribunal has ordered exemplary damages for unlawful entry. The unlawful entry is excluded from consideration for this matter.
It is just to order exemplary damages for the interference amounting to harassment. It includes the unlawful entry, the complete lack of notice of termination, and the taking of possession without any lawful process being followed.
I order the landlord to pay $2,500.00 for exemplary damages for the breach. Did the landlord unlawfully deal with the tenant’s belongings?
The tenant claims the landlord unlawfully removed her belongings from the apartment and threw out or misplaced valuable items such as her partner’s medication, good quality clothing, her expired passport, and a Nintendo control.
Landlords must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the RTA. 10
Under s 62(2) of the RTA: 10 RTA, s 33(1), and (4). If the tenant leaves on the premises goods that are neither foodstuffs nor other perishable goods, the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 11
Mr Newson did not telephone, text, or email the tenant about her possessions before unceremoniously disposing of them. He did not make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant about disposal of her belongings.
The tenant retrieved many of her clothes and belongings from the building’s rubbish room but lost some items of economic and sentimental value. The indiscriminate manner in which Mr Newson disposed of the tenant’s belongings is demonstrated by the fact that he threw out the tenant’s partner’s precious medical trial medication that had been stored in the fridge.
I find the landlord intentionally committed the unlawful act alleged.
This breach is to be separated from the unlawful entry and the harassment for which the Tribunal has ordered exemplary damages. The cumulative order for exemplary damages should not exceed the totality of the landlord’s conduct which occurred at the same time.
It is just to award exemplary damages having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
I was minded to ordering $2,000.00 in exemplary damages for this breach. However, I reduce that to $1,500.00, so that the awards do not exceed the totality of the related offending in this case.
The tenant had little documentary evidence to support her claim for the cost of her possessions which she said included new clothes, shoes, sandals, a family photograph album, purses, and an old phone.
I accept the tenant’s evidence she lost items of value, but there is a lack of evidence of their value. An order for nominal damages is made, being for $200.00.

Should the Tribunal order general damages?

General damages are compensatory damages. The Tribunal has the power to award compensation under s 77(2)(n) to order: 11 RTA, s 33(2) and Schedule 1A. such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act
Thus the Tribunal’s power to award general damages arises either from breach of contract or from breach of a statutory duty. Under the common law pertaining to contract general damages is “like compensation, but it is money ordered to ‘compensate’ for failure to get mental satisfaction when mental satisfaction of an agreement is required”. 12
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) 13 , the Tribunal 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.
The Tribunal’s general damages awards have historically been low. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing, Neave DCJ described the Tribunal’s awards for emotional harm damages as “not particularly generous” and “fairly conservative”. 14 In that case, the tenant had returned to her unit to discover contractors had entered her apartment without her permission to do asbestos removal work. The landlord who was carrying out asbestos removal in many apartments in the building had mistakenly failed to give the tenant notice of the entry.
Judge Neave 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”.
In a recent case in the District Court, Judge David J Clark found in the assessment of general damages: 15 [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. 12 Tenant v Kāinga Ora [2024] NZTT 4821977 at 35. 13 Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993. 14 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing [2020] NZDC 17667. 15 Sun v Kang [2023] NZDC 24786.
In this case, the landlord says Mr Newson believed there was a lawful purpose that sat behind the conduct. The breach was based on a mistake of the law and Mr Newson’s apparent haste in stressful circumstances. The tenant was in rent arrears and was not keeping the apartment as clean as she should have but had been a good tenant otherwise.
The tenant stated in her application: Mr. Newman's actions have caused myself significant distress, ptsd, inconvenience and has stunted my recovery with my already existing symptoms including anxiety, ptsd and depression. I have lost all of my belongings, including essential items such as clothing, medication and family photo albums /ashes making it very difficult to get through this without any keepsakes. My passport being thrown out has made it difficult to even stay at short stay accommodation like motels etc and due to the rarity of my partner's medication it has taken 4 months to get it replaced at great cost to his health
The tenant says she and her partner lived in the car and hotels for about three weeks until she was permitted to sleep on a couch at her Nan’s.
The tenant did not provide any medical evidence. However, I accept that she did suffer significant emotional harm. It would be hurtful to be peremptorily dismissed from your home. It must have been humiliating to be evicted. She was personally treated disrespectfully, and her belongings treated with disdain. I accept the tenant had no home to go to for several weeks.
In Sun v Kang the District Court upheld a general damages award of $3,000.00 for a landlord unlawfully entering the premises on two occasions. The circumstances in that case were far less serious than this case, although the tenant in that case submitted medical evidence.
I consider that an award of $4,000.00 to compensate the tenant is appropriate in this case. Filing fee
No order is made for the filing fee because both parties have succeeded in their claims. Non-publication
The tenant seems an order for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
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. 16
The tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal grants an order for non-publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4738812 — Exemplary damages at Apartment 107, 10 Ronayne Street, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4738812 — Exemplary damages at Apartment 107, 10 Ronayne Street, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does the tenant owe for rent and water?

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

Should the Tribunal order general damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does the tenant owe for rent and water?

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

Should the Tribunal order general damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions