What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4906316 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 4906316?

Compensation: Quiet enjoyment/harass…: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; LandlordTenant: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906316?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906316?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12663669-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4906316 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 4906316?

Compensation: Quiet enjoyment/harass…: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; LandlordTenant: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906316?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906316?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12663669-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4906316 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4906316 — net $1,460.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
LandlordTenant	$750.00		LandlordTenant
Repair bedroom 1 door	$250.00		Repair bedroom 1 door
Repair bedroom 2 wall	$150.00		Repair bedroom 2 wall
Repair bathroom wall	$150.00		Repair bathroom wall
Compensation: Quiet enjoyment/harassment		$850.00	Quiet enjoyment/harassment
Exemplary damages: Harassment		$400.00	Harassment
Remaining bond received by landlord		$1,510.81	Remaining bond received by landlord
Total award	$1,300.00	$2,760.81
Net award		$1,460.81
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,460.81

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4906316 — net $1,460.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
LandlordTenant	$750.00		LandlordTenant
Repair bedroom 1 door	$250.00		Repair bedroom 1 door
Repair bedroom 2 wall	$150.00		Repair bedroom 2 wall
Repair bathroom wall	$150.00		Repair bathroom wall
Compensation: Quiet enjoyment/harassment		$850.00	Quiet enjoyment/harassment
Exemplary damages: Harassment		$400.00	Harassment
Remaining bond received by landlord		$1,510.81	Remaining bond received by landlord
Total award	$1,300.00	$2,760.81
Net award		$1,460.81
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,460.81

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,287.81 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.
The landlord’s application to strike out the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings held on 7 May and 8 July 2025. The tenant attended the final hearing on 21 October 2025. The landlord did not attend.
The applications have had a lengthy history in the Tribunal. On 4 June 2024, the landlord filed his application for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and the Tribunal application fee. The application came before the Tribunal on 30 August 2024. The tenant did not attend that hearing and, in an order dated 30 August, the Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord the sum of $4,255.23 after deducting the bond of $2,120.00.
The tenant successfully applied for a rehearing in respect of four issues: • Insurance excesses for interior damage; • Cleaning costs; • Rubbish removal cost; and • Costs to repair the hot water cylinder pipe
The application came back before the Tribunal on 4 December 2024, and in an order dated 5 December, the Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord the sum of $645.07 after deducting the disputed amount of the bond ($1,510.81).
The landlord then successfully applied for a rehearing, and on 21 January 2025, the tenant filed a cross application claiming compensation and exemplary damages.
The applications first came before me (after a telephone directions hearing on 19 February 2025) on 7 May where I heard the tenant’s claims. The landlord’s claims were adjourned to enable the landlord to better organise his evidence.
The hearing of the landlord’s claims came back before me on 8 July at 9.30am. Unfortunately, an incident occurred during the lunch break which meant that the tenant was unable to attend the hearing after the break. The applications were therefore adjourned to conclude on 21 October. As mentioned, the landlord did not attend that hearing, but the tenant did not provide any further evidence to the evidence she had already provided. The tenant’s claims
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for: • Unlawful termination of the tenancy by the landlord on 12 June 2024 • Unlawful entry by the landlord on 12 June 2024 • Breach of her right to quiet enjoyment and harassment.
The tenant gave the landlord notice to end the tenancy on 18 June 2024. In text messages on 8 June, an arrangement was made for the landlord to meet at the premises with the tenant on 12 June at 10.45am to “take some pics and start our process of repairs and maintenance”. The tenant was residing in Timaru at the time, and the landlord and his wife arrived at the premises before the tenant did. The landlord completed an inspection of the premises before the tenant arrived.
The tenant arrived approximately one hour later than the scheduled time (she said she got caught up in traffic) with her sister and niece, and they began loading the tenant’s belongings into a van. The landlord and his wife were still at the premises and an altercation arose outside the house between the tenant, her sister and the landlord’s wife. The landlord and his wife were asked to leave the premises but did not do so. The tenant’s sister had videoed some of the altercation and the video was shown at the hearing. The landlord’s wife was heard yelling and arguing with the tenant’s sister/niece and the landlord’s wife grabbed the phone from the tenant’s sister/neice. The landlord’s wife also threatened to dispose of the tenant’s belongings if she was not out of the premises in 24 hours. The Police were called and attended.
The tenant claims that the Police negotiated an agreement with the landlord whereby the tenant would vacate the premises by 7pm that night and leave the keys in the letter box. She said that the landlord accepted this, and he accepted that this would mean that the tenant would not be able to complete final cleaning and the like. The landlord denies that there was any such agreement or negotiations regarding the tenant ending the tenancy early. He said he did not know that the tenant had vacated until approximately two days later when he said the neighbours contacted him.
Then, in the afternoon of 12 June, the landlord texted the tenant threatening to report her to “Oranga Tamariki, due to the health and safety of your toddler” and to NZ Police, “as the premises may have been used to cause grievous harm to a baby” and Ministry of Social Development & WINZ, due to “non-payment of rent despite receiving accommodation and other benefits, constituting benefit fraud.”
The tenant claims that the landlord, by his and his wife’s actions at the premises on 12 June, constituted an unlawful notice to end the tenancy and these actions and the later text message constitute a breach of her right to quiet enjoyment and harassment. She said that she felt she had to leave the premises on 12 June despite there still being one week left on her tenancy because the Police said that they would not leave until they got an agreement between her and the landlord. She also claims that the landlord’s entry into the premises on the morning of 12 June constituted an unlawful entry.

Did the landlord give an unlawful notice to terminate the tenancy?

Section 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that it is an unlawful act if a landlord gives or purports to give a notice to terminate the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled to do so.
I am satisfied that, while the tenant may have felt pressured to do so, she and the landlord did agree to end the tenancy at 7pm on 12 June, and therefore the landlord did not give her notice to end the tenancy. I find particular support from the following statement made in the Police report of the incident: “Police negotiated a resolution that [the tenant] would continue emptying the flat and be out by 7pm. This meant that carpets etc were left uncleaned. [The landlord] was happy with this and asked that the keys be left in the letterbox.”
The claim that the landlord gave an unlawful notice to end the tenancy is therefore dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment?
The right to quiet enjoyment is provided for in section 38 of the Act. Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2).
Where the breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment is sufficiently severe that it amounts to harassment it is deemed to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00 can be awarded.
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. Generally, harassment requires evidence of some ongoing actions directed at a specific person or persons which causes distress to the victim. However, a single serious act of interference with a tenant’s quiet enjoyment can also amount to harassment.
I consider that not leaving the premises when asked to do so, the landlord’s wife’s actions on 12 June, in particular her threats to dispose of the tenant’s possessions if she did not move out in 24 hours despite the tenancy not ending for another week, and her grabbing the phone from the tenant’s sister/niece is an interference with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment found in section 38(2) of the Act. I also find that the landlord permitted the interference by standing by and doing nothing to stop it. The landlord claims that he was on the street outside the property when the incident occurred, but it is clear from the video that he was in fact standing close by, on the deck of the property, watching the altercation and staying quiet.
In addition, I consider the text message from the landlord on 12 June threatening to report the tenant to various authorities was a breach of section 38 and had no purpose other than to cause the tenant worry or distress.
I accept that the incident on 12 June and the text message later that day would have been particularly distressing for the tenant, and the incident with the landlord’s wife led to her agreeing to leave a tenancy that she was entitled to have for another week. I also accept that the tenant’s sister/niece likely contributed to the situation by also yelling but the incident would not have occurred had the landlord and his wife left the premises when asked to do so. The premises were still lawfully the tenant’s home and the landlord and his wife should have left before the incident rose to the level it did. Taking into account all the circumstances I consider the sum of $700.00 reasonable to compensate the tenant for the breach of her right to quiet enjoyment as a result of the events on 12 June.
I also consider that the breach of section 38(2) as a result of the 12 June events constitutes harassment as that term is defined above, particularly the sending of the text message which as mentioned can only be viewed as intending to cause the tenant worry and distress. I therefore need to consider whether exemplary damages ought to be payable.
Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proved, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act. The threshold requirement is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
The failure by the landlord to leave when asked, to take any action to prevent the actions of his wife (and therefore permitting the interference), and the sending of the text message can only be viewed as intentional. As mentioned, I accept that the effect these actions had on the tenant were distressing and caused her to agree to surrender the tenancy that day. Taking into account these circumstances, and that it is in the public interest that landlord’s comply with all their obligations in the Act, I order the landlord to pay the tenant exemplary damages of $400.00.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Section 48 of the Act sets out the landlord’s right to enter the premises. That section provides that the landlord may enter the premises to complete inspections either with the consent of the tenants or after providing the appropriate notice of the intended entry.
If the landlord gives the appropriate notice, then the landlord is entitled to enter for the purpose stated in the notice whether or not the tenant is at the premises, provided the landlord does not interfere with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
I am satisfied that the landlord did give the tenant the required notice of the intended entry on or about 10.30am on 12 June for the purpose of taking photographs to assess the repair and maintenance requirements. However, I find that the landlord went beyond simply taking photographs and assessing the need for repairs or maintenance and interfered with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment when he went through the tenant’s personal belongings, including looking through the fridge. I consider the sum of $150.00 reasonable to compensate the tenant for this breach.
However, I do not consider that the single breach of the tenant’s privacy (in section 38(2) of the Act) with respect to the inspection is of sufficient seriousness to amount to harassment as that term is defined (above). I therefore do not consider an award of exemplary damages is appropriate here. The tenant’s other claims
The tenant also claims that the landlord interfered with her right to quiet enjoyment at a meeting on 20 January 2025 at Eastgate to discuss complaints from a neighbour. However, she was unable to point to any actions or response by the landlord to the neighbour’s complaints that could constitute a breach of section 38 of the Act. This claim is therefore dismissed.
The claim that the landlord disconnected the power supply to the premises on 12 June is also dismissed because there was insufficient evidence to support her claim that the lack of power was due to the actions of the landlord. The landlord’s claims Cleaning and rubbish removal
I have found, on the evidence before me, that it is more likely than not that the tenant agreed to vacate the tenancy by 7pm on 12 June and the landlord agreed that this would mean that not all cleaning and the like would be completed.
In addition, the photographs the landlord provided in support were taken on the morning of 12 June and before the tenant had completed as much work as she could before the 7pm deadline. The landlord said that he did not go back to the premises or have any photographs taken after those taken on the morning of 12 June. I note too that the cleaning work was done by the landlord some two months after the tenancy ended and the landlord did not explain the reason for this delay.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning and rubbish removal costs is therefore dismissed. Plumbing invoice
The landlord claims that the tenant caused damage to a hot water cylinder pipe by placing heavy objects on top of the cylinder. The pipe had begun to leak and it was repaired on 28 April 2024 by Total Plumbing Ltd at a cost of $210.16. The landlord claims this sum from the tenant. The tenant denies that she caused the damage to the cylinder pipe.
The landlord supports his claim that the tenant is responsible for the damage pipe with a statement that he said is from the plumber who repaired the pipe and from a statement dated 11 December 2024 from Whittle Knight Property Management who managed the tenancy up until 7 June 2024.
I put no weight on both statements. The statement that is said to be from the plumber is undated, is not on letterhead, the writer of the statement is not named, and it is unsigned. The statement said to be from Whittle Knight, while on their letter head does not record the name of the writer. Moreover, there is evidence from the property manager at Whittle Knight (Anna Derkach) and the manager of Whittle Knight (Tania Ellis) that the December 2024 letter (and the comments on the 29 May 2024 inspection report) were not written by either Ms Derkach or Ms Ellis and did not come Whittle Knight.
I am therefore not satisfied that the landlord has established that the need to repair the hot water cylinder pipe was due to any actions or inactions of the tenant and this claim is dismissed. Damage
To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
The landlord claims the sum of $4,500.00 being six insurance excesses for repairs done at the end of the tenancy. The repairs were separated into six “zones”. The work that was required to be completed in each zone is set out in a quote for the work from Bates Build Canterbury dated 2 July 2024.
Included in the repairs to zones 1, 3 and 4 is replacement of the carpets and underlay which the landlord claims was required because of stains. The tenant accepts that there were some stains that occurred during the tenancy, but she said did not have the opportunity to have them professionally cleaned because of the 12 June incident. The landlord also confirmed that he did not attempt to have the stains removed by professional cleaning. He said that he had someone come and look at the carpets and that person told him that they could not be cleaned but he could not recall who the person was and there is no objective evidence in support (such as a statement or report from the person who viewed the carpets). I am therefore not satisfied that the landlord has established that the stains could not be removed by cleaning and I dismiss the claim to replace them.
The repairs to zones 3, 4, 5 and 6 include painting of doors and jambs. The landlord claims that the tenants slammed all doors causing damage to them. The tenant denies that she or anyone else slammed doors and there was no damage to any of the doors claimed due to slamming at the end of the tenancy. I accept her evidence. The landlord did not provide any objective evidence (such as photographs of the claimed damage) to support his claim that these doors or jambs were damaged by the tenants due to slamming. The claim for painting doors in zones 4, 5 and 6 and the jambs in zones 3, 4, 5 and 6 is therefore dismissed (I have found the tenant liable to repair the door in zone 3 (bedroom 1) due to a dent, see further below).
The other repairs in zone 1 (living room, kitchen, stairway and upstairs hall) are as follows: • Front door hinge and frame • Kitchen windowsill • Walls • Carpet and underlay
The tenant accepts that the damage to the kitchen windowsill was caused when a container holding liquid incense spilled when it was blown over when the window was open. I consider that the damage is caused carelessly (by not removing the incense when opening the window) and I therefore find her liable for the cost to repair the windowsill.
She also accepts that some of the scrapes and chips to the stairway and hallway walls were caused by her taking furniture up the stairs. I consider that this damage is caused carelessly and she is therefore liable for its repair.
I also find, on the evidence before me (in particular a photo of the damage), that the damage to the front door hinge and frame occurred during the tenancy, is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for it.
The quote to repair the door and frame, the kitchen windowsill, and to repair walls exceeds the amount of the excess ($750.00) payable for the damage. I find the tenant liable for the excess payable ($750.00) for this damage.
Zone 2 repairs are to the hot water cupboard. The landlord claims that the doors to the cupboard would not close properly and the hinges were broken. The tenant denies that there was any damage to the cupboard doors and the photographs taken by her on the evening of 12 June support her evidence. The photographs show the door was closed properly with no damage to the hinges. This claim is therefore dismissed.
The quote for the repairs to the walls inside the cupboard state that they required “plastering” and “gap filling”. However, the landlord said the damage was that the paint had “worn off”. He did not claim that there was any other damage. I am therefore not satisfied that the landlord has established that there was any damage to the walls inside the cupboard that can be considered to be beyond fair wear and tear. This claim is therefore also dismissed.
The zone 3 repairs are to bedroom 1: • Dent in the door • Damage to walls
The tenant accepts that she caused the damage to the door when moving her daughter’s cot into that room. I consider this careless damage and she is therefore liable for the cost to repair.
However, there is insufficient evidence to support damage to the walls in that room. The landlord provided extensive photographs of the premises said to have been taken on the morning of 12 June but are no photographs showing any damage to walls in bedroom 1. This claim is therefore also dismissed.
In the circumstances I consider $250.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage to the bedroom door caused by the cot being moved.
The remaining zone 4, zone 5 and zone 6 repairs is to walls in bedroom 2, the toilet, and bathroom.
The landlord provided a photograph of a gouge/hole in one wall by the door in bedroom 2 but there is no evidence of any other damage to walls in that room. I am satisfied that the gouge in the wall by the door was more likely than not caused carelessly by the tenant (or someone else at the premises with her permission). I consider the sum of $150.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for that damage.
The tenant denies that there was any damage to the toilet walls and the landlord did not provide evidence to support what the damage is said to have been caused to these walls. This claim is therefore dismissed.
The landlord claims that the repairs to the bathroom walls were required because the towel rail was loose. The tenant denies this, and the photographs provided do not support the landlord’s claim. This claim is therefore also dismissed. However, I accept that there is some evidence to support minor damage to the wall above the sink. I consider this damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for it. In the circumstances I consider $150.00 reasonable compensation for this damage. Tribunal application fee
Both parties have had some success in their respective claims. I therefore consider that each party should bear the cost of the application fee paid by each. I therefore make no award for payment of the application fee. The bond
The landlord has received the bond of $2,120.00 of which $609.19 has been applied to awards that were not in dispute and were not the subject of the rehearing. This leaves a bond balance of $1,510.81 to be applied to the award I have made as shown in order 2 above. Application to strike out tenant’s claims
While the landlord did not attend the 21 October hearing, he did provide a submission requesting that the tenant’s claim be struck out on the basis that it is “frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process”.
The Tribunal may strike out a proceeding on these grounds pursuant to section 92A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). However, the tenant has been successful in some of her claims. Her claims are therefore not frivolous or an abuse of process and there is no evidence to support that the pursuit of her claims was vexatious. The application to strike out is therefore denied. Suppression
Both parties applied, in their respective applications, for a suppression order.
In its order dated 5 December 2024, the Tribunal ordered suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. The landlord’s name and identifying details are suppressed under this order so as not to undermine the suppression order made on 5 December.
I also order that the tenant’s name and identifying details be suppressed. She has been substantially successful in her claim and in her defence to the landlord’s claim. She is therefore entitled to an order pursuant to section 95A of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906316 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906316 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord give an unlawful notice to terminate the tenancy?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord give an unlawful notice to terminate the tenancy?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions