What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4995628?

The tribunal order states: Huo You Zhou must pay Guang Deng and Mariana Gitty Deng $7,727.00

How much money was awarded in case 4995628?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $1,900.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain sh…: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide HHS…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4995628?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4995628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12021912-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4995628?

The tribunal order states: Huo You Zhou must pay Guang Deng and Mariana Gitty Deng $7,727.00

How much money was awarded in case 4995628?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $1,900.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain sh…: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide HHS…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4995628?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4995628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12021912-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Farmer Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4995628 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4995628 — net $7,727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to provide HHS statement	$500.00	Failure to provide HHS statement
Compensation: Failure to comply with draught stopping standard	$2,400.00	Failure to comply with draught stopping standard
Compensation: Failure to comply with ventilation standard	$1,900.00	Failure to comply with ventilation standard
Compensation: Failure to maintain shower and vanity	$2,400.00	Failure to maintain shower and vanity
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry	$500.00	unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,727.00
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,727.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4995628 — net $7,727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to provide HHS statement	$500.00	Failure to provide HHS statement
Compensation: Failure to comply with draught stopping standard	$2,400.00	Failure to comply with draught stopping standard
Compensation: Failure to comply with ventilation standard	$1,900.00	Failure to comply with ventilation standard
Compensation: Failure to maintain shower and vanity	$2,400.00	Failure to maintain shower and vanity
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry	$500.00	unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,727.00
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,727.00

Order

Huo You Zhou must pay Guang Deng and Mariana Gitty Deng $7,727.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (3464272-011) to Guang Deng and Mariana Gitty Deng immediately.
The landlord’s claims set out in their application dated 21 October 2024 are withdrawn at the landlord’s request.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings which took place over three days on 19 December 2024, 23 April 2025, and 13 May 2025. Three interpreters were also present for the hearings. The landlord required a Cantonese interpreter. The tenant, Mr Deng required a Cantonese interpreter and the tenant, Mrs Deng, required a Samoan interpreter.
This order should be read in conjunction with the interim order dated 19 December 2024 in which the landlord was granted possession of the premises on 15 February 2025 following termination of the tenancy by notice.
The tenants filed an application on 5 September 2024 alleging several breaches by the landlord of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). They seek refund of the bond and claim compensation and/or exemplary damages as appropriate in relation to the following claims: a. Failing to include an HHS compliance statement in the tenancy agreement and the renewal agreement; b. Failing to comply with HHS standards in relation to draught-stopping, ventilation and moisture ingress and drainage; c. Failure to provide smoke alarms; d. Failure to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair with regard to the front gate; curtains; laundry cupboard shelf and cracks/leaks in shower and vanity; e. Unlawful entry.
The landlord filed a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to holes in walls and doors at the end of the tenancy; installing a power box without permission; and operating a commercial business from the premises. However, he withdrew these claims at the hearing.
At the end of the second hearing day, the landlord sought to raise a new claim for rent arrears against the tenants. However, I did not allow him to raise this claim at such a late stage. In the interim order issued on 19 December 2024, both parties were given an opportunity to amend their claims by notice in writing to the Tribunal and the other party by 4pm on Friday 17 January 2025. The landlord did not amend his claims and I did not allow him to do so at the second hearing. Background
This was a fixed term tenancy which began on 3 September 2022 and ended on 3 September 2023. It was then renewed for a second term starting on 12 September 2023 and ending on 10 September 2024. After that, the tenancy became periodic.
The landlord served a 90-day notice dated 12 August 2024 terminating the tenancy with effect on 19 November 2024. The reason for the notice was because the landlord intended to put the premises on the market for sale within 90 days after the termination date.
Subsequently, the tenants filed this claim with the Tribunal. The original application raised HHS claims and recorded that the landlord had advised that he wished to sell the property. The application did not specify that the landlord had served a termination notice and nor did the tenants seek an order from the Tribunal to declare the termination notice retaliatory and of no effect under section 54 RTA. The landlord later filed a cross application on 21 October 2024 seeking possession of the premises on expiry of the termination notice and other damages claims.
Given the nature of the claims filed by both parties, it was assessed that a 2-day hearing was required. However, to deal with matters more effectively, the proceedings were first set down for a 2-hour hearing to enable the Tribunal to deal with the landlord’s claim for possession and conduct a case conference to make any necessary directions with regard to the remaining claims. A hearing proceeded on 19 December 2024 for that purpose.
Prior to the 19 December hearing, the tenants filed a Summary of Facts document dated 13 December 2024 in which the tenants allege that the landlord told them he would sell the premises to force them to move out if they kept asking the landlord to provide an HHS compliance statement. However, they had not lodged a claim under s54 RTA and the tone of their submission at the hearing was that they did not believe that the landlord genuinely intended to sell the premises. The landlord supplied a copy of the agency agreement they had signed with Ray White Real Estate on 21 August 2024 as evidence of their intention. Therefore, at the hearing, a possession order was granted. However, the landlord agreed to give the tenants some time to vacate the premises and consented to a possession order taking effect on 15 February 2025 with the tenants able to end the tenancy sooner, on 28 days’ written notice to the landlord, if they wished to do so.
As already mentioned, orders were also made allowing the parties to amend their claims by notice in writing to the Tribunal and the other party by 17 January 2024. The tenants filed a document setting out their additional claims dated 30 January 2024, which they prepared after consulting with a lawyer from Community Law. In that document, they asked the Tribunal to set aside the possession order made on 19 December 2024 and declare the termination notice retaliatory under s54. However, the next hearing was not held until 23 April 2025, well after the possession date and the date they vacated the premises. Could the Tribunal re-open the claim for retaliatory notice and set aside the possession order?
It was not open to the Tribunal to set aside the possession order made on 19 December 2024. First and foremost, that is because the tenants did not file a rehearing application with the Tribunal nor an appeal to the District Court in respect of that order.
However, even had the tenants done so, I consider that I would not have granted a rehearing. I explain my reasons as follows.
Under s54 RTA, the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory and of no effect on the grounds that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by the RTA or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
The Tribunal did not consider a claim for retaliatory notice because it had not been raised by the tenants in their application dated 5 September 2024.
The tenants argued that they made best efforts to let the Tribunal know that they were concerned about the termination notice. They say that due to the language barrier and the format of the application form, they found it difficult to convey the substance of the claim and they believe the claim should have been picked up by Tenancy Services, especially when they filed their Summary of Facts document on 13 December 2024. Therefore they ask the Tribunal to consider a retaliatory notice claim in the interests of justice.
While I empathise with the tenants, I am not persuaded that Tenancy Services, or the Tribunal should have “picked up” on the claims. The Tribunal cannot provide more then general information about the law, otherwise there may be a perception of advocacy which is not our role. Tenancy Services are perhaps not so constrained when giving advice but again they are not an advocacy service and must be distinguished from Citizens Advice Bureau or Community Law. The role of Tenancy Services is to provide information on the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords.
I note that the tenants sought advice from Community Law after they lodged their application, but they could have taken this step sooner.
In terms of the tenants saying that an additional s54 claim was raised in the document they filed on 13 December 2024, the claim was by then out of time. That is because section 54 (the version which applied before it was amended from 30 January 2025) required a tenant to apply to the Tribunal for an order under s54 within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy. The tenants were out of time for lodging such a claim. The termination notice was served by placing it in the letter box on 12 August 2024. Allowing 2 extra days for service by this method, the period of 28 working days expired on 23 September 2024. The District Court has ruled that the time limit is mandatory and any power to extend the time limit should not be used with the possible exception of a very short overrun of a day or two caused by circumstances beyond a tenant’s control such as documents being lost. 1
In summary, the Tribunal could not consider a s54 claim.
I am also satisfied that the landlord has since provided evidence that the premises were sold with settlement on 9 May 2025. Therefore, this negates the suggestion that the reason for the termination notice was not genuine.

Did the landlord provide an HHS compliance statement?

A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls, and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed; See section 13A(1A) RTA.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In addition, a landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that on or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) RTA and include the information, if any, prescribed in the HHS regulations. The landlord must also provide the same statement and information in any written variation or renewal of the tenancy agreement. See section 13A(1CA) and (1CB) RTA.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA. 1 Realty House Whakatane Ltd v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081
There is no dispute that the landlord failed to provide insulation information and failed to provide the HHS compliance statement in either the original tenancy agreement or the renewal agreement. Therefore, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA
However, section 109(2) RTA provides that a party cannot apply for exemplary damages in respect of the above breaches later than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The tenants lodged their application with the Tribunal on 5 September 2024. However, while the application stated that they wished to make claims regarding Healthy Homes standards they did not specify an exemplary damages remedy. However, in the Summary of Facts document filed on 13 December 2024 and in the Additional Claims document dated 30 January 2025, they requested that “the Tribunal fix appropriate penalties where the landlord has acted unlawfully” I accept that this is a reference to exemplary damages.
The first tenancy agreement which failed to comply with s13A RTA started on 3 September 2022. Therefore, the tenants cannot seek exemplary damages for failure to comply with s13A RTA in relation to that agreement.
The renewal of the tenancy agreement started on 12 September 2023. This agreement also failed to comply with s13A RTA. The claim for exemplary damages was not made until 13 December 2024. Therefore, I cannot consider a claim for exemplary damages. However, I can consider compensation.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
The tenants complained that the property was cold, and damp and they were concerned about a healthy home because they have a young daughter and one of the tenants is receiving cancer treatment. Had the landlord provided the required HHS information they would have been better informed about the property. It is difficult to establish exactly the loss suffered resulting from the failure to provide an HHS statement. However, it is a breach that caused the tenants considerable concern and I consider that they are entitled to some compensation on that basis. I award compensation of $500 for the breaches, acknowledging that the landlord failed to provide the information in the original tenancy agreement and again in the renewal agreement.

Did the landlord comply with HHS?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with the HHS-Healthy Homes Standards. The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation, draught-stopping and moisture ingress and drainage standards.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 and 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. This means that in respect of the original tenancy agreement starting on 3 September 2022, compliance was required by 1 January 2023. Draught-stopping
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
After the tenants raised the issue of compliance with HHS, the landlord instructed a company to complete an HHS assessment of the premises in July 2024 and they received a report outlining the outstanding issues (“the HHS report”). The landlords did not produce the HHS report in evidence. However, they sent it to a building company who prepared an estimate dated 19 September 2024 to carry out the required healthy homes compliance work. The estimate included a description of “Work to be carried out based on Healthy Homes Report.”
The estimate records that work was required to remedy window draughts in bedrooms 1, 2, and 3, the bathroom, the kitchen, the dining room, and the lounge. It also referred to installing a ground moisture barrier.
The landlord says that he then arranged for the builders to contact the tenants to arrange a time to do the work, but the tenants refused them entry. This must have been some time after the estimate dated 19 September. The tenants deny this and say that a contractor telephoned them about doing work. The tenants told the contractor that the landlord needed to give a written notice specifying a time for the work. They heard nothing further from the landlord or the contractor about this before the tenancy ended.
The landlord says that the tenants didn’t request a written notice; and he gave them notice orally. Once he heard access had been denied, he took no further steps. He noted that he had served the 90-day termination notice by then any way, and he was in the process of listing the premises for sale.
Based on the evidence, I find that the landlords did not take any steps to have the premises assessed for HHS compliance between the date the tenancy started on 3 September 2022 and the date they arranged an assessment in late July 2024. The landlord was required to comply with HHS by 1 January 2023. The HHS report in July 2024 led to the landlord obtaining a quote for draught stopping and moisture barrier installation work. There is a strong inference that this work had been outstanding since the tenancy began. I also find that the landlord did not take reasonable steps after obtaining the HHS report to arrange for contractors to complete the work required before the tenancy ended. I am not persuaded that the landlord gave proper notice to the tenants for HHS maintenance work.
In summary, the landlord failed to comply with the draught stopping standard by the compliance date, 1 January 2023, which is a breach of their obligations and an unlawful act. Furthermore, the breach was not remedied before the tenancy ended on 15 February 2025, which just over 2 years after the compliance date. The tenants have asked the Tribunal to award exemplary damages. However. as detailed in paragraph 28 above, the tenants application for exemplary damages was lodged on 13 December 2024 which is more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act (1 January 2023). Therefore, the Tribunal cannot consider exemplary damages, but can consider compensation.
The tenants complain that the home was cold and draughty. Furthermore, they were paying for a home that was required to meet HHS standards and where it did not, that is a loss of amenity which entitles them to compensation. For the approximate two-year period that draught stopping work was outstanding I award the tenants compensation of $2,400. Ventilation
The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
There is no dispute that there was no extractor fan in the kitchen when the tenancy started nor by the 1 January 2023 compliance date which is a breach of the landlord’s obligations. A rangehood was installed in July 2024 shortly after the landlord received the HHS report. For the approximate 19-month period that the premises were without a rangehood, I award the tenants compensation of $1,900. I cannot consider the out of time claim for exemplary damages.
The Tenants also allege that the rangehood did not function properly. The landlord says that he checked the rangehood and thought it was fine. The electrician who installed it also assured him it was in working order. After this, the same electrician attended the property for another issue. The tenants asked him about the rangehood. He inspected it and discovered the vent was blocked with run-off from a blocked gutter. The landlord says that the tenants did not report this to him. I accept that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the tenants reported this to the landlord. The landlord cannot be held liable for a maintenance issue he did not know about. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Moisture ingress and drainage
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The builder estimate referred to installation of a ground moisture barrier, but the tenants did not raise a claim about this. The tenants say that a downpipe was disconnected and needed to be fixed during the tenancy. The landlord recalls that the tenants told them about the downpipe but fixed it themselves. So, it is not an outstanding issue. I find there is insufficient evidence to prove the claim and it is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to install smoke alarms?

Under section 45(1)(ba) RTA the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
There was no dispute that the premises did not have smoke alarms at the start of the tenancy and the landlord only installed them later, possibly 3-4 months after the tenancy started, but the date is not clear. While this is a breach of the RTA and an unlawful act, the tenants are out of time for claiming exemplary damages. I do not make an order for compensation because the landlord remedied the issue themselves early on and the date they installed the alarms is not clear. I consider an award is not justified in those circumstances.

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in reasonable condition?

Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA. Pre-tenancy damage
The tenants claim that before they moved into the premises the landlord promised to remedy the broken front gate and replace several of the net curtain’s in the house that were ripped and worn. However, he did not do so, and the tenants ended up fixing the gate and out up with the net curtains. However, the landlord denies the claims and notes the tenants signed the pre- tenancy inspection report (the PI report) at the start of the tenancy and another PI report before the renewal period which record that the premises were in acceptable condition with no damage recorded. There was considerable dispute over signing of the PI reports with the tenants claiming that the landlord filled them out and ticked the tenants’ column on the report. However, the tenants did sign and date each PI report. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the front gate and the net curtains were damaged at the start of the tenancy and that the landlord agreed to remedy the issues. Therefore, the claims must be dismissed. Shower and vanity
The tenants claim that during the tenancy the shower box developed cracks around the base and the silicon in the joins had deteriorated and required replacement. This caused water to leak onto the floor and mould to develop. The silicon between the vanity and the wall had also deteriorated. The landlord denied that the tenants informed him of this problem, but I am satisfied on the evidence that it was raised in WeChat messages between the parties on or about 27 January 2023 and the tenants also shared a video of the shower damage with the landlord via WeChat. Nothing was done to repair the shower and vanity before the tenancy ended which is a breach by the landlord of his obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant is entitled to compensation for the landlord’s breach. For the approximate two-year period that the shower and vanity were not fixed, I award $2,400 compensation. Again, the tenants are out of time to claim exemplary damages, but I consider the compensation awarded is the appropriate remedy. Laundry shelf
The tenants complain that during the tenancy a shelf in the laundry tub cupboard broke. They believe they reported it to the landlord verbally in January 2023 but there is no written record of the report. The landlord denies the claim. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenants reported the issue to the landlord. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

The tenants claim the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA. Tenants’ case
The tenants say the unlawful entry occurred on 11 November 2024. The tenants received a text message from the landlord asking to inspect the property the same day. They advised that the date and time was not suitable because Mrs Deng had worked a nightshift and would be sleeping. However, the tenants were unable to supply copies of any messages between the parties. The landlord and his wife ignored this and arrived to inspect the premises on 11 November. Mrs Deng says her children were home and answered the door. They told the landlord that it was not a good time for a visit because Mrs Deng had worked a nightshift and was asleep in her room. Mr Deng was out. However, the landlord and his wife insisted on entering the home. They inspected the rooms and then entered Mrs Deng’s bedroom, even though her children advised them not to because Mrs Deng was asleep in the room. Mrs Deng was terribly upset when the landlord entered her bedroom while she was in there asleep and confronted Mr Zhou about why he entered the room. She told him that even if it was the day of an inspection he should not have entered a bedroom when someone is asleep. She believed it was unlawful and she was disgusted.
Mr Deng gave evidence in which he indicated he agreed to the inspection in a phone call. However, I accept Mrs Deng’s evidence, that Mr Deng has been unwell, is confused about the timeline of events, and he was not present at the inspection. Landlord’s case
The landlord, Mr Zhou, says that he called Mr Deng on 11 November, the day of the intended inspection and obtained his agreement to the inspection. He also said that he sent a written notice by text or email but was unable to provide a copy. Notably, the landlords were able to provide notices for other inspection dates. When Mr Zhou and his wife arrived at the premises, the tenants’ children let them in. When the children told the landlord that Mrs Deng was asleep in her bedroom, he says that he told them he needed to inspect. Mr Zhou asked them to let Mrs Deng know that he was there and ask her to come out of the bedroom. He says the children went into Mrs Deng’s bedroom first and then came out telling him he could go in, and he did so. Findings
There is a conflict of evidence concerning what happened at the premises and whether or not the landlord obtained the tenants’ consent to an inspection on 11 November. However, the landlord was unable to provide a copy of any notice to inspect on 11 November. To conduct a regular inspection, a landlord is required to give not less than 48 hours’ notice under s48(2)(b) RTA and this was not done. Regardless of whether the tenants agreed to the inspection in advance or not, I am satisfied that when the landlord arrived at the premises he was likely told by the tenants’ children that their Mum was asleep. I am not satisfied that the children gave consent to entry by the landlord. While I have not heard evidence directly from the children, Mrs Deng was clear in her recollection of events and discussions with her children that day. This is understandable given the impact on her of the landlord entering her bedroom while she was asleep. Therefore, I prefer her evidence and accept that the landlord entered the premises including Mrs Deng’s bedroom without the consent of the tenants, which is a breach of s48 RTA and an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I am satisfied that the matter of intention has been proved. The impact of the unlawful entry on Mrs Deng was distressing and there is considerable public interest that landlords follow their obligations regarding lawful entry. However, I am not aware that the landlord has committed a similar breach previously. In those circumstances, I consider an award of $500 exemplary damages, being one-third of the maximum available is appropriate.
As the tenants have succeeded with their application, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4995628 — State of repair at 15 Farmer Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4995628 — State of repair at 15 Farmer Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide an HHS compliance statement?

Did the landlord comply with HHS?

Did the landlord fail to install smoke alarms?

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in reasonable condition?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide an HHS compliance statement?

Did the landlord comply with HHS?

Did the landlord fail to install smoke alarms?

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in reasonable condition?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions