What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5004948 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5004948?

Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5004948?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5004948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11095117-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5004948 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5004948?

Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5004948?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5004948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11095117-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

356 Mangateparu Loop Road, Mangateparu, RD 5, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5004948 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5004948 — net $1,250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,200.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Fail to maintain		$700.00	Fail to maintain
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$750.00	Unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice		$1,000.00	Retaliatory Notice
Total award	$1,200.00	$2,450.00
Net award		$1,250.00
Bond		$560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,250.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5004948 — net $1,250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,200.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Fail to maintain		$700.00	Fail to maintain
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$750.00	Unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice		$1,000.00	Retaliatory Notice
Total award	$1,200.00	$2,450.00
Net award		$1,250.00
Bond		$560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,250.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlords names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,250.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant filed claims for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards and exemplary damages. The landlord sought an order for rent in lieu of notice.
The premises are a farm cottage located on part of the landlord’s farm that is used as a grazing run off.
The tenant had exclusive use of the section and the premises which are separated from the grazing unit.
The landlord is required to access the land around the premises, and the driveway beside it, to move stock. Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA.
The Healthy Homes Standards, HHS, have been introduced over time with all rental homes having to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards by 1 July 2025.
There are five different standards being heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture and drainage, and draught stopping. Applying the requirements of the different HHS, depends on the starting date of a tenancy and whether a tenancy agreement has been subsequently renewed or varied. Insulation
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
The tenant said that she had items that got mouldy. A photo from the manhole looking into the ceiling showed piled up insulation bats. The tenant said that she could not see any further and believed that there was no roof insulation.
The landlord provided an insulation certificate dated 12 October 2018 saying that ‘Pink Batt’ insulation was retrofitted on 5 October 2018.
A Healthy Homes inspection was completed on 18 October 2024, photographs of the insulated ceiling was provided, and it was recorded that it meets the requirements.
This claim is dismissed.
The tenant claimed that there were other breaches of the HHS. This tenancy began on 14 September 2018 and therefore the premises are not required to comply with the HHS until 2025.The claims of further breaches of HHS are dismissed.

Did the landlord failure to maintain the premises?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Leaks
The tenant said that the fireplace leaked, and she kept a can on it to collect water.
The landlord said that they knew about the leak and [The landlord/s], the other landlord, had siliconed the area. The landlord said he put silicone regularly on the roof when he checked it each year, if it was needed.
A copy of a text exchange was provided where after heavy rain the landlord asked the tenant if there were any leaks and the tenant replied that it was coming from the wrong direction for the one above the fire.
The landlord then asked does that still leak? and the tenant did not reply.
The tenant said that most of the conversations about this were verbal.
There was no evidence provided that the landlord knew that the leak had not been resolved and that it was ongoing.
This claim is dismissed. Draughts
A Healthy Homes inspection was completed on 18 October 2024 by Healthy Homes Service. This was after the tenancy ended on 13 October 2024.
A compliance statement that was issued and it highlighted a back door that had a gap and recommended that a draught guard be installed. Although the claim for HHS breach is not considered this was used as evidence of a failure to maintain the premises.
The tenant said her claim was about other draughts, being the slider door and windows in the lounge.
The landlord said that the property was old and probably had draughts. She confirmed that the tenant had told her about the issues with the windows but that there was no written request to attend to it.
The landlord said they knew that the rollers on the sliding door needed attention but did not know about the gap.
The tenant provided a copy of a video taken of the door and window. There were gaps when both were closed, and the video showed the tenant being able to move them back and forth when shut.
I find that the landlord failed to maintain the window and door. Mould
The tenant provided a photograph of a pair of boots that she said got mouldy while in the lounge, which is the sunniest part of the house.
The landlord said that when they went past the curtains were always closed and this would not help if there was a problem.
The was no evidence provided of other areas of mould at the premises.
Mould is fungal growth that requires moisture, oxygen, warmth and darkness to grow. Mould will grow where humidity is high.
To prevent mould, surfaces must be cleaned, and excess moisture and humidity reduced. Landlords ideally need to provide premises with heating, extractor fans, and safety stays on windows so premises can be safely aired while tenants are out.
This is balanced by the tenant’s responsibility to heat and air the premises and to use extractor fans and dehumidifiers, if provided.
The importance of these measures and their effect on creating a healthy drier home have been acknowledged and reflected in the Healthy Homes Standards which apply to all private rentals, within 90 days of a new or renewed tenancy, from 1 July 2025.
The tenant said that she attached her own window stays which she removed at the end of the tenancy. No evidence was provided.
I find that the tenant has not established this claim and it is dismissed. Dishwasher
The landlord provided a dishwasher for the premises which was installed part way during the tenancy in September 2019. It which never worked.
The tenant’s son installed it, with consent of the landlord, and the tenant said the connections were there it was just a matter of connecting them.
The dishwasher would only fill up with water in both drawers.
The tenant said that the asked for the landlord to fix this verbally and wrote a letter on 2 August and a 14-day notice on 30 August 2024.These were provided.
The landlord said that it was a second-hand dishwasher, and they were not prepared to pay for an electrician and plumber to come fix it because they said it could have been a ‘dud’.
I find that the landlord failed to maintain the dishwasher.
I find that the landlord failed to maintain the premises and they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord knew about the window, sliding door and dishwasher and chose not to repair them. The result was the tenant had a dishwasher that never worked and had draughts in the lounge making it colder in the winter. This directly affected the tenant’s quality of life. The landlord is required to comply with the RTA, and I find it just to award the amount of $700.00 for this breach. Unlawful entry
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant lived at the premises for six years and was good friends with the landlord until the relationship deteriorated.
The line between landlord and friend became very blurred and the tenant was not happy with the landlord coming to the premises without giving notice. No notice was given by the landlord for the entire tenancy and the tenant would discover that the landlords were at the premises, often by text, when she was at work.
Examples of the landlord being at the premises without notice included. •The chimney needed cleaning and she received a message at work ‘already done it’. •On 8 July 2024 she received a message ‘I am in your house waiting for a plumber’ to fix the fire box.’ •24 April 2024 there was no hot water, and she received a message saying this was sorted. •The landlord checked out the roof for leaks and never gave notice. A photo of the landlord on the roof was provided, dated 23 April 2024 •22July 2023, an oven was installed without the tenant knowing that it had arrived and not receiving notice.
The landlord said that they only entered the premises for genuine reasons to maintain and repair it. They did not know that the tenant preferred notice. For example, they had some fish for the tenant and asked if she wanted any and she replied ’you know where the freezer is’.
The tenant said that she could have picked it the fish up as she drove past the landlord’s house and she never told the landlord that they had to stop entering the premises as she was unable to stand up to the landlord, fearing that she would lose the premises if she did.
When a property is rented there are distinct roles for each party, either landlord or tenant. When there is a valid tenancy agreement, the tenancy comes under the regulation of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.This act defines the rights and obligations of those parties.
The RTA clearly prescribes how parties are to act when fulfilling their obligations. For example, a landlord must give notice before entering a premise. See section 48 RTA.
When parties are friends, these boundaries must still be respected, and the law complied with. I would find not a breach of the RTA by the offer and consented delivery of the fish, but for repair and maintenance of the premises notice must be given. It is not the tenant’s responsibility to request it, it is the landlord’s responsibility to give it and comply with the RTA.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Landlords are required to know and comply with the requirements of the RTA. A tenant cannot contract out of these obligations. It is important that landlords know their role and the tenant’s exclusive occupation of the premises is not interfered with.
No notice was given to the tenant, and I find it just to award $750.00 for this breach. Quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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.
The landlord and tenant were very good friends, and the landlord would visit the tenant most days for a morning coffee when she came to the runoff. Then due to issues with the tenancy the relationship deteriorated.
The tenant said she did not want to have coffee most morning as she needed to get ready in peace for work. She often she heard the motorbike go past was early as 6 am and did not believe that the landlord would need to be at the runoff at that hour.
The tenant said she changed her work hours to start earlier to avoid her she was unable to stand up to her an say she did not want her to come in.
The landlord said that she was self-employed and had to work at the runoff when she could. If the tenant said that she was not available or did not have time, she would not stop.
The tenant also used to go to the landlord’s house for Friday drinks.
Evidence was provided by way of text exchanges where the tenant agreed to coffee and one where the tenant was asking about drinks.
I do not find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The parties clearly had a friendship meeting regularly for coffee. The evidence provided was that the landlord checked most of the time if the tenant was available or interested by text. The tenant just had to reply ‘no’.
I have considered the blurring of the line between landlord and friend and in this instance, I find that the tenant could have replied to the landlord ‘no’ which would not have required any face to face standing up to the landlord if this was the issue.
I do not find that this section of the RTA relates to the transition and deterioration of a habit between friends and even if I found that there was a breach I do not find that there was any intent, and an award of exemplary damages would not be made.
This claim is dismissed. Flatmate
The tenant claimed that she was told by the landlord that she was unable to have a flatmate. Her son lived with her until mid-2019 and after this she claimed that she was told no every time she asked for a flatmate. The tenant believe that the landlord was not able to tell her who could live there. There was no written requests or copies of text or email exchanges about this as the tenant said it was all verbal conversations.
The tenant presented an invoice for $38,150.00 being the amount of rent she believe that she would have saved if she had a flatmate. She said that the landlord then suggested a person to board with her which she was not happy about but let them stay one night as temporary accommodation.
The landlord denied this claim and said that she had not contacted a person to board there. She stated that the tenancy agreement clearly allows for a maximum of 3 persons to live at the premises. The landlord was concerned as the tenant claimed that she could not afford the rent, but the landlord never knew this as rent was always paid on time.
The tenant did have people live at the premises for 8 weeks until they found a home and the landlord had raised no objection to this.
There was no evidence supporting the tenants claim that she was prevented from having flatmates and the claim is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
On 16 September 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 2 March 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
The tenant made an application to the Tribunal on 16 September 2024 and is within the 28-day working daytime limit.
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. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that they knew the tenant was looking for new accommodation before they issued the notice to terminate the tenancy. A reference was given for her to a prospective landlord on 3 September 2024.
On 5 September 2024 the tenant was asking about cottage availability on the Morrinsville community website.
The tenant filed an application with the Tribunal and a copy of an email exchange where the landlord asks. a. Can you please explain the reason why tenancy services have emailed me a dispute letter? b. The tenant replied ‘because of ur behaviour’ c. ‘Please explain.... d. ‘Think about it. Thats all I am saying.’ e. Like the letter say, try and resolve things.... how can I when I don’t know what the problem is? I wish you the best finding your next home. Check your email. I will deliver my notice to you in person as well.
The tenant said that 10 minutes later the notice ending the tenancy arrived in her inbox.
The landlord said that yes, she terminated the tenancy as she knew that the tenant did not want to be there anymore and was not happy with the premises. She gave her 5 months to find a new property as she knew they were hard to find. She also wrote ‘Please do not feel obligated to stay until March ‘on the notice so that the tenant could leave as soon as she found suitable accommodation.
The timing between the application to the Tribunal and the issuing of the notice was immediate. This is the tenant exercising a right to have the claims determined and she had said during the hearing that she feared standing up to the landlord because she would lose her tenancy. I find the notice terminating the tenancy is retaliatory and the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The tenancy has ended so application for a declaration that the notice is of no effect is not applicable, however a claim was made for exemplary damages under this heading, and this is now considered.
The notice terminating the tenancy was valid and the unlawful act is the giving of the retaliatory notice.
The timing of the notice straight after the tenancy Tribunal contacted the landlord about the tenant’s application is clear evidence that this notice was motivated by the tenant action exercising her rights to file claims under the RTA.
I have considered the other factors that the landlord raised that she considered before issuing the notice, and even if the filing of a claim it was the last straw, the notice was issued in response to this.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find it just to award exemplary damages of $1000.00 for retaliatory notice. The tenant raised that she was scared to file a claim as she would lose her property and that is what happened. A tenant must be able to make claims at the Tribunal without fears of retribution from a landlord, this is also in the public interest. The landlords claim.
The landlord has applied for rent owing because the tenant left the premises without giving any notice. The landlord only knew she was leaving when the tenant requested that she come and complete an exit inspection.
The tenant said that she was given notice ending her tenancy and the notice said that she was not obliged to stay the full period of the notice. A copy of the notice terminating the tenancy on 2 March 2025 was provided. The tenant believed that meant she could leave whenever she wanted. She said that she knew she had to take a suitable tenancy as soon as it was available, and they were hard to find.
The landlord said she knew tenancies are hard to find and wanted to give the tenant an opportunity to find accommodation but expected notice to be given.
A tenant must give at least 28 days’ notice to terminate a periodic tenancy. See section 51(2B)RTA. The statement from the landlord that she was “not obliged to stay the full period of the notice” does not absolve the tenant of this responsibility. It did not say that the tenant did not have to give any notice and I do not find that the tenant could contract out of the notice requirements of the RTA.
The landlord sought 28 days rent in lieu of notice being $1200.00 and this is awarded.
Both parties substantially succeeded with their claims and the respective filing fees are not reimbursed.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Both parties requested suppression and were substantially successful. Name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5004948 — Exemplary damages at 356 Mangateparu Loop Road, Mangateparu, RD 5,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5004948 — Exemplary damages at 356 Mangateparu Loop Road, Mangateparu, RD 5,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord failure to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord failure to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions