How much money was awarded in case 5034571?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034571?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11860887-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5034571?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034571?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11860887-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

48 Ranfurly Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2104 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034571 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034571 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $6,877.00 immediately, calculated as shown

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034571 — net $6,877.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (2 weeks) from 23 September to 6 October 2024	$500.00		Rent arrears (2 weeks) from 23 September to 6 October 2024
Bond (not lodged		$750.00	Bond (not lodged
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment and privacy		$1,000.00	breach of quiet enjoyment and privacy
Exemplary damages: harassment		$2,000.00	harassment
Exemplary damages: failure to appoint or notify agent's appointment while out of the country		$1,200.00	failure to appoint or notify agent's appointment while out of the country
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry		$1,400.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: landlord attempting to seize the tenant's goods		$1,000.00	landlord attempting to seize the tenant's goods
Filing fee reimbursement (in favour of the tenant		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement (in favour of the tenant
Total award	$500.00	$7,377.00
Net award		$6,877.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$6,877.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $6,877.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 May 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears from 23 September 2024 until the property is relet in early May 2025.
While the parties were in a fixed term tenancy until July 2025, I find that the landlord had duly allowed the tenant to give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy and vacate prior to 28 July 2025 without penalty.
The landlord’s texts to the tenant assured her not to overthink the issue; the landlord gave the tenant the option to give 28 days’ notice to terminate the fixed term tenancy. I consider this concession and undertaking by the landlord to bind the landlord in his subsequent dealings with the tenant on this tenancy.
The tenant had expressed early concerns of having to vacate early at the start of the tenancy and requested for the ability to give 2 weeks’ notice ‘in case she has to leave’ to which the landlord requested for 28 days’ notice citing that ‘everyone had to give 1 month notice’ and 28 days’ notice gives him sufficient time to find a replacement.
The landlord accepts that the tenant gave 28 days’ notice before she vacated on 6 October 2024. I have therefore calculated the rent arrears owing from 23 September to 6 October 2024 only, rather than the total rent sought by the landlord which was calculated to May 2025.
The rent amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 6 October 2024 is $500.00.
The landlord still has the tenant’s bond of $750.00 which was paid at the commencement of the tenancy in July 2024. $500.00 from that bond can be used to offset the rent owing.
While the landlord failed to lodge the bond at the start of the tenancy, the landlord did attempt to lodge it upon the tenant raising her claim at the Tribunal. The landlord forwarded a bond lodgement form to the tenant to complete and sign but the tenant refused, thinking that the tenancy had already ended by that stage. I accept the landlord’s explanation that he did not think he could lodge the bond without the tenant’s particulars and signature on the bond lodgment form (which impression was actually erroneous). Having regard to the landlord’s state of mind however, I do not consider it appropriate to order exemplary damages against the landlord for breach of the bond lodgment requirements under section 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I now address the tenant’s other claims filed herein. Unlawful entry
The tenant claims the landlord has directed another tenant living at the premises to enter her room without her 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 landlord denies having asked anyone to enter the tenant’s room. The landlord says that he was told by another tenant (Pinky) that her child had accidentally wandered into the tenant’s room.
I do not accept the landlord’s evidence.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence that she returned home one day to discover the landlord’s other tenant Pinky’s vape pipe on the top of her bed. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she had locked her room at all times and it was not possible for a child to have wandered into her room as alleged by the landlord.
Pinky herself admitted that she had been asked by the landlord to go into the tenant’s room when she was not home to see what is inside her room.
Another tenant of the landlord, Nidhi, also texted Ms Sethi to say that the landlord had previously asked Nidhi to enter her room without her knowledge. Nidhi however refused to carry out the landlord’s instructions, knowing that it was unlawful. Nidhi’s text is consistent with Pinky and the tenant’s evidence.
The tenant’s evidence is clearly more credible than the landlord’s bare denial and excuse to do with a wandering child. The fact that both Nidhi and Pinky later had a falling out with the landlord does not affect my preference of the tenant’s and Nidhi and Pinky’s evidence that the landlord had instructed them to enter the tenant’s room without her knowledge.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act for directing Pinky to enter the tenant Ms Sethi’s room without her consent or notice.
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.
By attempting to deny that he has asked Pinky to enter the tenant’s room unlawfully, the landlord has tried to evade responsibility for his actions altogether. Having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest that landlords should not enter the tenant’s premises without notice, I am satisfied that exemplary damages on the higher end of the scale is appropriate.
I award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,400.00 against the landlord for unlawful entry committed by the landlord’s other tenant Pinky who was acting under his direct instructions. Harassment
The tenant claims the landlord has interfered with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy, and harassed her.
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 installed a CCTV in the lounge of the house. The CCTV records both videos and sounds. The landlord was effectively monitoring every move and conversation of his tenants while they are inside the premises!
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The landlord’s assertion that the tenant has not objected to the CCTV recording at the material times does not excuse the landlord’s commission of the unlawful act in question. Tenants are entitled to privacy while tenanting at the property.
The landlord says that he was merely protecting his property. However I do not accept this as a lawful excuse or ground for having the CCTV monitoring inside the tenanted premises. I consider the landlord’s CCTV video and sound surveillance amounts to harassment of the tenant which unlawful act had been committed intentionally.
Having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest in ensuring that tenants’ privacy are respected, I am satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages on the higher end of the scale of $2,000.00. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I also award the tenant general damages of $1,000.00 for stress and anxiety on being subject to the unlawful CCTV surveillance by the landlord. Failure to appoint an agent
The tenant claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand and they have formally notified the tenant of the agent’s particulars. See sections 16A(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was already out of the country at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord knows that he will be and in fact has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days at all material times.
Despite the landlord’s allegation, Pinky denies having been appointed by the landlord as his agent during the time she was tenanting another room at the premises. While Pinky may have assisted the landlord in casually managing the property or attending to the landlord’s instructions from time to time, I do not accept that the landlord has formally appointed Pinky or any other party as his agent within the meaning of section 16A RTA.
At the start of Ms Sethi’s tenancy in July 2024, Pinky had not yet moved into the premises; under those circumstances, Pinky could not have been appointed as the landlord’s agent at the start of Ms Sethi’s tenancy.
Further, even if Pinky had been the landlord’s agent, section 16A RTA requires the tenant to be formally notified that Pinky is such an agent for the absentee landlord under section 16A RTA.
I do not accept the landlord’s purported notification of agency by phone call to the tenant. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that at no time had the landlord advised her that Pinky was the landlord’s agent.
As the landlord has not appointed an agent or notified the tenant of the agent’s particulars, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I am satisfied that the landlord committed this unlawful act intentionally and that it would be just to award exemplary damages on the higher end of the scale of $1,200.00. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Attempted seizure of tenant’s goods
The tenant claims the landlord has attempted to seize her goods and belongings towards the end of her tenancy.
A landlord 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the landlord tried to seize her belongings when he instructed his other tenant Nidhi not to allow the tenant to retrieve them. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Having regard to the factors set out under section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I am satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages against the landlord of $1,000.00 for attempting to seize the tenant's goods.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034571 — net $6,877.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (2 weeks) from 23 September to 6 October 2024	$500.00		Rent arrears (2 weeks) from 23 September to 6 October 2024
Bond (not lodged		$750.00	Bond (not lodged
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment and privacy		$1,000.00	breach of quiet enjoyment and privacy
Exemplary damages: harassment		$2,000.00	harassment
Exemplary damages: failure to appoint or notify agent's appointment while out of the country		$1,200.00	failure to appoint or notify agent's appointment while out of the country
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry		$1,400.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: landlord attempting to seize the tenant's goods		$1,000.00	landlord attempting to seize the tenant's goods
Filing fee reimbursement (in favour of the tenant		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement (in favour of the tenant
Total award	$500.00	$7,377.00
Net award		$6,877.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$6,877.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $6,877.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 May 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears from 23 September 2024 until the property is relet in early May 2025.
While the parties were in a fixed term tenancy until July 2025, I find that the landlord had duly allowed the tenant to give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy and vacate prior to 28 July 2025 without penalty.
The landlord’s texts to the tenant assured her not to overthink the issue; the landlord gave the tenant the option to give 28 days’ notice to terminate the fixed term tenancy. I consider this concession and undertaking by the landlord to bind the landlord in his subsequent dealings with the tenant on this tenancy.
The tenant had expressed early concerns of having to vacate early at the start of the tenancy and requested for the ability to give 2 weeks’ notice ‘in case she has to leave’ to which the landlord requested for 28 days’ notice citing that ‘everyone had to give 1 month notice’ and 28 days’ notice gives him sufficient time to find a replacement.
The landlord accepts that the tenant gave 28 days’ notice before she vacated on 6 October 2024. I have therefore calculated the rent arrears owing from 23 September to 6 October 2024 only, rather than the total rent sought by the landlord which was calculated to May 2025.
The rent amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 6 October 2024 is $500.00.
The landlord still has the tenant’s bond of $750.00 which was paid at the commencement of the tenancy in July 2024. $500.00 from that bond can be used to offset the rent owing.
While the landlord failed to lodge the bond at the start of the tenancy, the landlord did attempt to lodge it upon the tenant raising her claim at the Tribunal. The landlord forwarded a bond lodgement form to the tenant to complete and sign but the tenant refused, thinking that the tenancy had already ended by that stage. I accept the landlord’s explanation that he did not think he could lodge the bond without the tenant’s particulars and signature on the bond lodgment form (which impression was actually erroneous). Having regard to the landlord’s state of mind however, I do not consider it appropriate to order exemplary damages against the landlord for breach of the bond lodgment requirements under section 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I now address the tenant’s other claims filed herein. Unlawful entry
The tenant claims the landlord has directed another tenant living at the premises to enter her room without her 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 landlord denies having asked anyone to enter the tenant’s room. The landlord says that he was told by another tenant (Pinky) that her child had accidentally wandered into the tenant’s room.
I do not accept the landlord’s evidence.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence that she returned home one day to discover the landlord’s other tenant Pinky’s vape pipe on the top of her bed. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she had locked her room at all times and it was not possible for a child to have wandered into her room as alleged by the landlord.
Pinky herself admitted that she had been asked by the landlord to go into the tenant’s room when she was not home to see what is inside her room.
Another tenant of the landlord, Nidhi, also texted Ms Sethi to say that the landlord had previously asked Nidhi to enter her room without her knowledge. Nidhi however refused to carry out the landlord’s instructions, knowing that it was unlawful. Nidhi’s text is consistent with Pinky and the tenant’s evidence.
The tenant’s evidence is clearly more credible than the landlord’s bare denial and excuse to do with a wandering child. The fact that both Nidhi and Pinky later had a falling out with the landlord does not affect my preference of the tenant’s and Nidhi and Pinky’s evidence that the landlord had instructed them to enter the tenant’s room without her knowledge.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act for directing Pinky to enter the tenant Ms Sethi’s room without her consent or notice.
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.
By attempting to deny that he has asked Pinky to enter the tenant’s room unlawfully, the landlord has tried to evade responsibility for his actions altogether. Having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest that landlords should not enter the tenant’s premises without notice, I am satisfied that exemplary damages on the higher end of the scale is appropriate.
I award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,400.00 against the landlord for unlawful entry committed by the landlord’s other tenant Pinky who was acting under his direct instructions. Harassment
The tenant claims the landlord has interfered with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy, and harassed her.
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 installed a CCTV in the lounge of the house. The CCTV records both videos and sounds. The landlord was effectively monitoring every move and conversation of his tenants while they are inside the premises!
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The landlord’s assertion that the tenant has not objected to the CCTV recording at the material times does not excuse the landlord’s commission of the unlawful act in question. Tenants are entitled to privacy while tenanting at the property.
The landlord says that he was merely protecting his property. However I do not accept this as a lawful excuse or ground for having the CCTV monitoring inside the tenanted premises. I consider the landlord’s CCTV video and sound surveillance amounts to harassment of the tenant which unlawful act had been committed intentionally.
Having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest in ensuring that tenants’ privacy are respected, I am satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages on the higher end of the scale of $2,000.00. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I also award the tenant general damages of $1,000.00 for stress and anxiety on being subject to the unlawful CCTV surveillance by the landlord. Failure to appoint an agent
The tenant claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand and they have formally notified the tenant of the agent’s particulars. See sections 16A(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was already out of the country at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord knows that he will be and in fact has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days at all material times.
Despite the landlord’s allegation, Pinky denies having been appointed by the landlord as his agent during the time she was tenanting another room at the premises. While Pinky may have assisted the landlord in casually managing the property or attending to the landlord’s instructions from time to time, I do not accept that the landlord has formally appointed Pinky or any other party as his agent within the meaning of section 16A RTA.
At the start of Ms Sethi’s tenancy in July 2024, Pinky had not yet moved into the premises; under those circumstances, Pinky could not have been appointed as the landlord’s agent at the start of Ms Sethi’s tenancy.
Further, even if Pinky had been the landlord’s agent, section 16A RTA requires the tenant to be formally notified that Pinky is such an agent for the absentee landlord under section 16A RTA.
I do not accept the landlord’s purported notification of agency by phone call to the tenant. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that at no time had the landlord advised her that Pinky was the landlord’s agent.
As the landlord has not appointed an agent or notified the tenant of the agent’s particulars, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I am satisfied that the landlord committed this unlawful act intentionally and that it would be just to award exemplary damages on the higher end of the scale of $1,200.00. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Attempted seizure of tenant’s goods
The tenant claims the landlord has attempted to seize her goods and belongings towards the end of her tenancy.
A landlord 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the landlord tried to seize her belongings when he instructed his other tenant Nidhi not to allow the tenant to retrieve them. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Having regard to the factors set out under section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I am satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages against the landlord of $1,000.00 for attempting to seize the tenant's goods.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034571 — Exemplary damages at 48 Ranfurly Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034571 — Exemplary damages at 48 Ranfurly Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions