What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034888 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must pay the tenant $6,030.00 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 5034888?

Compensation: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $2,503.15 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034888?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12762176-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034888 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must pay the tenant $6,030.00 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 5034888?

Compensation: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $2,503.15 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034888?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12762176-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room KC02, 14 Mills Lane, Albany, Auckland 0632, Kawai Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034888 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034888 — net $6,030.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$3,000.00	Compensation
Compensation for loss of amenity	$2,503.15	Compensation for loss of amenity
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,030.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,030.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034888 — net $6,030.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$3,000.00	Compensation
Compensation for loss of amenity	$2,503.15	Compensation for loss of amenity
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,030.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,030.00

Order

The landlord must pay the tenant $6,030.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The tenant’s claims: that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards – Draught stopping and Heating; that the landlord is liable for the burglary to the premises; for exemplary damages in respect of the breach of section 66G of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; and for lost wages are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision, the hearing for the substantive issues was held on 09 October 2025 via telephone. A further telephone hearing was held on 13 November 2025. Mr Galvin, a manager of another of the landlord’s premises, attended both hearings for the landlord. The tenant also attended both hearings.
At the hearing on 09 October 2025, the following three witnesses attended for the tenant: two former residents of the premises: Flynn Rutherford and Rob Lily; and Elaine Subritzky, a visitor to the premises.
The tenant claims that the landlord has: a. Breached section 66G of the RTA by permitting a fellow tenant to interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. The tenant further claims that this interference amounts to harassment. b. Breached section 66I(1)(h) of the RTA by failing to enforce the House Rules; c. Breached subsection 66I(1) of the RTA by failing to ensure that the deck was in a reasonable state of repair and complied with all safety requirements; d. Breached subsection 66I(bb) of the RTA by failing to comply with the: i. Healthy homes standards – Heating; and ii. Healthy homes standards – Draught stopping.
The tenant further claims that the landlord is liable for a burglary of her premises in October 2023 because the landlord misrepresented the premises as ‘safe’; allowed people with criminal records to reside at the premises; and/or that the landlord was subject to a higher duty of care to its residents because it is a ‘retreat’.
The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages. The tenant was seeking $130,797.49 in addition to reimbursement of rent of $3,851.00. However, the tenant agreed to reduce this sum to up to $100,000.00 to fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The tenant has not specified how this sum is calculated other than to say she is seeking $65,000 for lost wages. A. BACKGROUND
Mr Galvin is a manager of another premises of the landlord. During the hearing, Mr Galvin advised that he had very little, if any knowledge of the events that occurred during the tenant’s tenancy. The landlord did not call any witnesses so most of the tenant’s evidence was uncontested.
Fortunately, there is a substantial amount of written evidence including text and email messages. I found the tenant to be a credible witness and accept her evidence regarding telephone conversations and meetings she says she had with the landlord’s managers. While the tenant could not recall the exact dates of these meetings and phone calls, her recollections of these meetings were consistent with the correspondence provided.
A summary of the background is as follows: a. The tenancy started on 09 September 2023. The tenancy was a boarding house tenancy. The tenant had exclusive use of a cabin on the premises. The tenant shared living, kitchen and bathroom facilities with the other residents. b. It is not clear how many residents there were at the premises during the tenancy. However, Mr Galvin said that he believed the maximum number of residents was 100. c. One of the residents was Mr Keller. During the tenancy, Mr Keller occupied a cabin close to the tenant’s cabin. The burglary and the WhatsApp message: d. On or about 05 October 2024, the tenant suffered a serious health emergency and was urgently admitted to hospital. The tenant says that due to the urgency, she was unable to lock the cabin and secure her belongings. The tenant said she asked Mr Keller to lock her cabin and take her keys with him. e. At approximately 7pm on or about 07 October 2024, 1 while the tenant was still in hospital, Mr Keller telephoned her and said that she had been burgled, the police had been called and that only her car and laptop had been stolen. The tenant said that Mr Keller said he had not locked the cabin as he had been asked to. The tenant said Mr Keller said the door to her cabin was open and the keys were on the bed. f. On or about 9 October 2024, a few days after the tenant had returned from hospital, Mr Keller sent the tenant a message saying: “fxxking thieving cxxt and that next time hed leave [her] on her deck to die”. The tenant said that this message was sent via WhatsApp and that she was unable to provide it to the Tribunal as Mr Keller had deleted it shortly after. The tenant did provide snapshots of the WhatsApp message chat showing that a message had been deleted. g. The tenant’s witness, Mr Lily, said that he recalls seeing the message. He thought he may have been sent it as a screen shot but could not find it on his phone. Mr Lily said that shortly after he discussed the message with the 1 The police report records that the burglary happened on 8 October 2023. However, the tenant said during the hearing that she believed the burglary happened on 07 October 2023. tenant, he had a conversation with Mr Keller. Mr Lily said that during this conversation Mr Keller did something with his phone and told him he was deleting the message. h. At that time, the main manager for the premises was John (surname unknown). He was assisted by Jeanne Waldron, Liaison Manager for the landlord. The tenant said that immediately after receiving this message she telephoned Ms Waldron and told her about the message. The tenant said she told Ms Waldron that she was scared and that she wanted her to do something about it. The tenant said that Ms Waldron told her she would address it with Mr Keller. i. On 27 October 2023 at 12.27pm, John sent an email to Mr Keller saying that a complaint had been made that he had disrupted another tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. John said that the situation was being reviewed, he did not have the “full context around the situation” and that the parties had been asked to provide details including copies of text messages. j. At 12.07pm on 27 October 2024, the tenant sent an email to John referring him to information about a landlord’s responsibility to tenants from Tenancy Services website. k. At 12.20pm, John sent an email to the tenant saying that “management was still in discussion” about the matter. In this message, John also said that he would like more information about what had happened and that did not seem possible as the tenant’s phone had been stolen so she could not send him the text messages. l. The tenant said that her phone had not been stolen but that she had told Ms Waldron that she could not provide the message from Mr Keller because he had deleted it from the chat. m. At 1.31pm, Ms Waldron sent an email to John and Mr Keller saying that she had communicated with Mr Keller and that Mr Keller had said he was going to keep away from the tenant and that he had deleted the messages. n. The tenant said that she had a telephone call with Ms Waldron that afternoon in which Ms Waldron said she had told Mr Keller that if he did anything untoward towards the tenant again, he would be evicted. o. At 2.18pm, John sent an email to the tenant saying he wasn’t sure why she had not sent him screenshots of the messages and... ... that was [the tenant’s] choice all be it would have given corroborated versions of events (yes there is two). With the information at hand Karl has been spoken with and cautioned thus far. My understanding is that you will both be keeping away from each other. ... sorry if this does not meet with your expectations and you are not happy living at KP. p. At 3.16pm, after the telephone call referred to above, Ms Waldron sent a message to the tenant saying that she had warned Mr Keller that he was not to contact the tenant. In this message, Ms Waldron said that Mr Keller had told her that he would stay away from her and that he was no threat to her. Ms Waldron also told the tenant to contact her immediately if Mr Keller contacted her again. q. At 8.13pm the following day, 28 October 2025, Mr Keller responded to Ms Waldron’s email from that afternoon at 1.31pm. He seemed surprised by the email and said: What the hell I never even threatened her in the first place ... she was never in any danger. I thought this matter had been done and dusted. Also would be nice if she stop telling people I was a part of her being robbed I had nothing to do with that guy. 2 r. At 8.47pm Mr Keller sent a further email to Ms Waldron saying that he would “...would never hurt a resident or woofer on the property. At 10.23pm Ms Waldron replied saying “... I have already picked that you wouldn’t hurt anyone here and I feel no threat from you ...”. November to 19 December 2023: s. On 02 November 2023, Mr Keller sent an email to Ms Waldron. He appeared to accuse the tenant of “spinning things” to the other residents and concluded the email by saying “[p]lease sort her out as I will not stand for this stuff if you don’t”. t. On 03 November 2023, Ms Waldron replied saying that if he was referring to the tenant she had not heard anything from her for her a while. She wrote “[i]t is done and dusted. I am sorting things and all should settle”. u. The tenant said that one of the things Mr Keller would do to intimidate her was to turn on the tap that was attached to her cabin and leave it running. On 12 November 2023, the tenant sent a text message to Mr Keller asking him not to use the tap that was attached to her cabin. v. The tenant said that later that day she telephoned the police. The tenant said she told them what had been going on and that she was feeling afraid. The tenant said the police suggested she trespass Mr Keller from her area and that she did so while the police were on the telephone. 2 During the hearing, the tenant said that Mr Keller seemed to believe that she was telling other residents that he was involved in the burglary. The tenant denied doing so. w. That evening at 9.09pm, Mr Keller sent an email to Ms Waldron saying that the tenant had just trespassed him from her property. Ms Waldron responded saying “Ohmg gosh Karl, so sorry about this. She will be moving soon and all will go back to normal.” During the hearing, the tenant pointed out that she had not told Ms Waldron that she would be leaving at that point. x. The tenant said on or about 12 November 2023, she had a telephone call with Ms Waldron where she told her that she had trespassed Mr Keller from her property because of his behaviour. The tenant said that this was one of many phone calls during that time in which she said she would remind Ms Waldron that she had told her that if Mr Keller’s behaviour continued, he would be evicted, and Ms Waldron would say they were dealing with it. y. At 10.21pm, Mr Keller sent an email to Ms Waldron saying that the tenant was not to contact him, that he would continue to use the tap because it was for everyone. He went on to say that at 10pm that evening he had said sorry to the tenant and said “... don’t push me and we will be ok”. Mr Keller concluded the message by saying that he wasn’t going to let anyone walk over him again. z. On 14 November 2023, John issued a notice of anti-social behaviour to the tenant. This notice said that the tenant had approached Mr Keller about the use of the tap outside her cabin, that she had been told to distance herself from Mr Keller and that by contacting him she had “... created a situation that is further aggravating tensions within the community”. The notice went on to say that the tap outside the tenant was not hers and was available for other tenants to use. aa. That day, the tenant sent a text message to Ms Waldron saying that she was very unhappy with how John was dealing with the matter. bb.The tenant said that in late November early December 2023, she met with Ms Waldron. The tenant said that they discussed the message she had sent. The tenant said she told Ms Waldron that Mr Keller was throwing things on her area, stopping around her cabin, constantly running the tap, and revving the car close to her cabin. The tenant said she also told Ms Waldron that she was scared and was sleeping with her light on. The tenant said that Ms Waldron commented that she knew about Mr Keller’s criminal history and had chosen to give him an opportunity. The tenant said she told Ms Waldron that Mr Keller’s behaviour had gone on for over a month and she wanted it addressed. cc.On 22 November 2023, the tenant sent an email to Ms Waldron saying that she would be moving out of the premises soon and that she was unhappy about how she had been treated. The tenant also said that John should have warned her about the safety risks before she signed the tenancy agreement. The tenant said she would be moving soon and that she was “... heart broken by what has happened to me. My life basically destroyed over night.” dd.The tenant said that during this time Mr Keller continued to harass her by staring at her, playing music very loud, running around in front of her cabin when he did not have a reason to be there, welding outside of her cabin. The tenant said that by this stage she had stopped complaining to Ms Waldron or John as it was clear to her, they would not help. The events on 20 December 2023: ee. On 28 May 2025, Mr Keller was convicted in the District Court of intimidation of the tenant within the meaning of section 21(1)(d) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 3 of the tenant on 20 December 2023. ff. Judge Fitzgibbon said in the sentencing notes that Mr Keller had gone to the tenant’s cabin because the tenant’s outside light was on and it was bothering him. Judge Fitzgibbon found that Mr Keller asked the tenant to turn it off and she did so. However, Mr Keller was annoyed by that stage and carried out a series of acts to intimidate the tenant. Judge Fitzgibbon recorded that when the police arrived the tap outside the tenant’s cabin had been left on at full force, the ground was wet, a light was smashed and lying near to the tenant’s cabin. Judge Fitzgibbon went on to state: I am satisfied that Mr Keller went to Ms Cameron’s cabin because he was annoyed about her outside light being on and he could not sleep. He asked her to turn the light off and I accept she did turn the light off. Mr Keller was annoyed by then and deliberately acted in a way that he knew was likely to cause Ms Cameron reasonably to be frightened or intimidated. gg. The findings of the District Court were subject to ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ which is a significantly higher standard of proof than the basis of probabilities which is the standard the Tribunal applies. hh. The tenant said that after 20 December 2023, the police advised her that Mr Keller had been given bail and one of his bail conditions was that he stayed away from the wider premises. ii. Ms Subritzky gave evidence regarding 20 December 2023. She said she was visiting the premises early in the evening and witnessed Mr Keller acting 3 This section provides that: (1)Every person commits an offence who, with intent to frighten or intimidate any other person, or knowing that his or her conduct is likely to cause that other person reasonably to be frightened or intimidated,— ... (d) watches or loiters near the house or other place, or the approach to the house or other place, where that other person lives, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be; or ... aggressively towards the tenant. Ms Subritzky said she was so disturbed by this behaviour that she urged the tenant to contact the police. The events on 23 December 2023: jj. At some point Kelly (surname unknown) started working in management at the premises. kk. The tenant said that on 23 December 2023, other residents told her that they had seen Mr Keller at the premises and that Kelly was ‘hiding’ him. The tenant said she believed this to be true because she had seen Mr Keller speaking with Kelly and believed them to be friends. ll. On 23 December 2023 the tenant sent a message to Kelly saying that Mr Keller had been seen at the premises this morning and it was likely he had stayed the night. The tenant said in that message that it was a “condition of bail that he stayed at another address until I leave ...”. mm.Kelly responded to this text message by saying that she would message him and get back to the tenant. The tenant said she spoke with Kelly that day and she admitted that Mr Keller had been at the premises. nn. The tenant said that later that day, Mr Keller was arrested again, and the tenant was told that for safety reasons, she should leave as soon as possible. B. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. C. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS THAT THE LANDLORD BREACHED SECTIONS 66(G) and 66I(1)(h) OF THE RTA. The law:
Section 66G(1) of the RTA provides that a tenant of a boarding house is entitled to “... quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or another tenant of the boarding house”. Section 66G(2) goes on to provide that: the landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
Subsection 66G(4) of the RTA provides that a contravention of subsection (2) ... in circumstances that amount to harassment of a tenant ... “ is an unlawful act. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages having regard to the factors in section 109(3) of the RTA. The maximum amount of exemplary damages for a breach of section 66 (4) is $3,000.00
Section 66I(1) of the RTA sets out a boarding house landlord’s ongoing obligations. One of these is that the landlord must “... (h) take all reasonable steps to ensure that the house rules are observed” and that the landlord must enforce the house rules “in a fair and consistent manner”.
A breach of section 66I(1) is not deemed to be an unlawful act and exemplary damages are therefore not available.
Mr Galvin provided a copy of the house rules at the hearing. The tenant said she had not seen these rules before and that she was not given a copy of these rules at the start of or during the tenancy.
At page 4 of the rules reference is made to the Code of Conduct and it states that ... every type of bullying is prohibited. I find the Code of Conduct was incorporated into the House Rules. The Code of Conduct provides under the heading harassment that the landlord strove to create “an atmosphere where people can be confident that they will not suffer harassment of any sort ...”. It went on to define harassment as: ... behaviour that creates an intimidating hostile, humiliating or offensive environment for another person. ... The essence of harassment is that the conduct is unwanted, unreasonable, demeaning or offensive to the recipient Such conduct becomes harassment if it persists once it has been made clear that it is regarded by the recipient as offensive, although a single incident may constitute harassment if it is sufficiently serious.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in section 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.” Did Mr Keller interfere with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises and, if so, did it amount to harassment?
It is clear to me that Mr Keller did interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises. I find that this interference continued from shortly after the burglary on or about 7 October 2023 until the tenant’s tenancy ended on 23 December 2023.
I find that Mr Keller’s conduct towards the tenant amounted to harassment within the dictionary definition and within the definition in the House Rules; it was a calculated campaign of conduct that’s only purpose could possibly be to intimidate and frighten the tenant. Did the landlord ‘permit’ Mr Keller’s interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?
The phrase ‘permit” is also used in section 40(2) of the RTA where a tenant has an obligation not to permit certain actions of others including that a tenant must not permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
In cases decided under section 40(2) of the RTA, the word permit has been interpreted as “to turn a blind eye to the obvious” or “not taking reasonable steps to prevent”. 4 I find that the word permit in section 66(G)(2) of the RTA has the same meaning. This means that a landlord in a boarding house is duty bound to take action to prevent other tenants from breaching another tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
Mr Galvin pointed out that this can be a difficult task as the living arrangements offered by the landlord can attract some eccentric tenants. I acknowledge that this duty can be challenging. There may be times where a landlord in a boarding house situation will have to terminate the tenancy of one tenant to avoid being in breach of another tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. There may also be times where a landlord of a boarding house will have to inquire into the facts to determine what has occurred. In some circumstances this may not be possible, perhaps because there are no witnesses or corroborating documents and the complainant, and the alleged harasser have both provided plausible yet different versions of events. In those cases, the landlord should advise the complainant of the steps taken to inquire into the facts and that a finding was not possible.
The landlord further says that it did take reasonable steps to prevent Mr Keller’s harassment of the tenant. The landlord says that it offered the tenant accommodation away from Mr Keller. The tenant says this accommodation was not suitable. The landlord says that the email and text correspondence summarised above showed that the landlord did take steps and that the steps taken were reasonable.
The landlord referred to having offered the tenant alternative accommodation as evidence of having taken reasonable steps. The tenant said the accommodation was not suitable and did not wish to move.
Section 66U(1) of the RTA provides that a boarding house landlord may terminate a boarding house tenancy immediately in certain circumstances including where the tenant immediately endangers, or “threatened to endanger, 4 Hughes v Housing New Zealand (DC, Porirua, 4 December 2006); Housing New Zealand v Salt (DC, Auckland, 12 September 2008.) people or property”, or “causes, or threatens to cause, serious disruption to other tenants”.
I consider that if the landlord had carried out a reasonable inquiry into the tenant’s complaints it would have concluded in October 2023 that Mr Keller was acting in breach of the House Rules and was causing a serious disruption to the tenant. It was at that point open to the landlord to terminate Mr Keller’s tenancy immediately. At the very least, Mr Keller should have been issued with a formal warning in October 2023 stating that if the harassment continued his tenancy could be terminated immediately.
For the reasons set out below, I find that the landlord: a) permitted Mr Keller’s harassment of the tenant and that in doing so it breached section 66(G)(2) of the RTA; and b) failed to enforce its own House Rules in breach of section 66I(1)(h) of the RTA: a. The email correspondence between the landlord’s managers and Mr Keller indicate that Mr Keller was not told of the seriousness of the tenant’s complaint regarding the text message. While the tenant said that Ms Waldron told her that she had told Mr Keller if his behaviour continued, he would be evicted, I do not consider that Mr Keller was told this. This is because the written correspondence between Mr Keller and Ms Waldron does not reflect this conversation; Mr Keller response to Ms Waldron’s email indicated that he was surprised. b. John appeared to have an issue with the tenant not being able to provide the message from Mr Keller. However, there is no evidence that Mr Keller denied sending the message. Ms Waldron refers in her correspondence to Mr Keller and John to Mr Keller having deleted the message, as does one of the tenant’s witnesses. c. Ms Waldron appears to have sided with Mr Keller. For example, when Mr Keller told her that he had been trespassed by the tenant, instead of investigating what had led to the tenant taking this step, Ms Waldron apologised to Mr Keller. d. The landlord failed to take steps to address the ongoing complaints made by the tenant.
To add insult to injury, the landlord victimised the tenant for making a complaint. I consider the anti-social behaviour notice that was issued on 14 November 2023 to be entirely without merit. No attempt had been made to ascertain the tenant’s version of events.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord breached sections 66G(2) and 66I(1)(h) of the RTA are upheld. D. IS THE LANDLORD LIABLE FOR THE BURGLARLY:
The tenant also claims that the landlord should be liable for losses she has suffered from the burglary because: prior to entering into the Tenancy Agreement, she was told the premises were safe; the residents were not screened for criminal records; and a higher standard should be applied to the landlord because the premises was a retreat centre.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to apply the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 so far as it relates to residential tenancies. Section 35 of that Act provides that damages may be awarded where a party to a contract is induced to enter into the contract by a misrepresentation made by the other party.
The tenant says she was told that the premises were ‘safe’ and that she relied on this assertion when deciding to enter into the Tenancy Agreement. The tenant has not provided any written evidence to support her assertion that she was told by the landlord that the premises were safe. Even if she had, I do not consider that this would amount to a misrepresentation. In order to succeed with such a claim, the Tribunal would need to be satisfied that the landlord did not hold this opinion at the time the statement was made or that there was not a reasonable basis to hold this opinion. This is because a representation of opinion is not actionable as a misrepresentation simply because the opinion turns out to be erroneous. 5
The fact that a burglary has occurred at the premises in the past does not mean a premises is unsafe. I take judicial notice that there are very few areas in New Zealand that have not been subjected to burglaries or other criminal activity.
I do not accept that because the premises was a ‘retreat’ it was subject to a higher standard of care towards its tenants than other boarding houses. I also do not consider the landlord was under an obligation to screen tenants for a criminal record.
During the hearing the tenant and one of the witnesses raised the issue of lack of security at the premises. One of the witnesses, Mr Rutherford, said that there were people using drugs at the premises and he had suggested to the landlord that they engage a full-time security person. However, the fact that a security person was not engaged by the landlord does not mean, in my view, that the premises were not safe. Furthermore, I am not satisfied that the landlord was aware that people were using drugs at the premises.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord misrepresented the premises, and that the landlord is responsible for the burglary that occurred in October 2023 is 5 Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 (PC) at 182 per Lord Merrivale. Narayan v Arranmore Developments Ltd [2011] NZCA 681, (2011) 13 NZCPR 123. dismissed. E. REMEDIES FOR THE LANDLORD’S BREACHES OF SECTION 66G(2) AND 66I(1)(h) OF THE RTA.
Having found that the landlord failed in its obligations to the tenant, it is necessary to consider what remedies the tenant should be awarded. The tenant is seeking exemplary damages, compensatory damages for the stress suffered, damages for loss of amenity and lost wages.
Should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages? a. The tenant is seeking exemplary damages. It is only open to the Tribunal to award exemplary damages where the landlord or the tenant commits a defined unlawful act under the RTA. b. I have found that the landlord has permitted the harassment of the tenant in the use of the premises. Therefore, it is necessary for me to determine if a landlord permitting the harassment amounts to harassment under section 66(4) of the RTA. c. In Maria Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities [2022] NZDC 7003, the District Court considered section 38 of the RTA which is a similar provision to section 66G that applies to residential tenancies other than boarding houses. The District Court held at paragraph [62] that ... any failings of the landlord in dealing with the problems occasioned by the other tenancy can not and do not amount to harassment to Ms Cavanagh. Thus the claim for exemplary damages was rightfully refused. d. Given this finding by the District Court, it is not open to me to award exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of section 66G of the RTA. The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of section 66(G) of the RTA is dismissed.
Should compensation or general damages be awarded? a. In Maria Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities, the District Court went on to find that even though Ms Cavanagh had applied for exemplary damages and not compensatory damages, it was open to the Tribunal to make an award of compensation for the landlord’s failure to deal with the tenant breach of her quiet enjoyment of the premises. b. In that case, Ms Cavanagh’s had been subjected to distressing events from the unit above. This was domestic violence and carried for a period of 10 months despite Ms Cavanagh reporting her concerns to the landlord. The District Court awarded $1,000.00 in compensation. c. This case is more serious; the harassment was directed at the tenant. In [the applicant/s] v Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities [2024] NZTT 4821977, the tenant claimed to have suffered significant harassment by other tenants of the landlord. This included death threats, contamination of bodily fluid over the premises, tenants banging on her door, car tyres being slashed, a tenant defecating outside her door and being called a ‘pig lover’ because she knew police officers. The tenant said that due to the harassment she had to pause her studies. The Tribunal, having found that the landlord had not taken reasonable steps to prevent the harassment, awarded compensation of $3,000.00. d. Nonpecuniary damages are subjective and for that reason are relevantly modest. In these circumstances, I find that the landlord’s breaches of section 66G(2) and 66I(1)(h) of the RTA had a significant impact on the tenant. I consider a similar award is appropriate and award $3,000.00.
Should the tenant be awarded damages for loss of amenity? a. The tenant has also sought reduced rent on the basis that she did not get what she contracted for. b. Tenants should be able to expect that they will be able reside in their premises without harassment by fellow tenants. The practical affect of the landlord’s breach of section 66G(2) and 66I(1)(h) of the RTA was that Mr Keller’s harassment of the tenant was allowed to continue having a significant impact on the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. c. The tenant paid $3,851.00 in rent during the term of the tenancy. The tenant seeks a full refund of that rent. I do not consider that to be appropriate. However, I award a reduction of 65% of rent as loss of amenity being $2,503.15. In making this award I have taken into account the length of time the harassment continued, the extent of the harassment and the aggravating factor, being the unwarranted issuing of the anti-social behaviour notice.
Should the tenant be awarded compensation for lost wages? a. The tenant has claimed that she was not able to work for over a year due to the landlord’s failure to prevent the harassment and the burglary. The tenant is claiming $65,000 being one year’s lost wages. b. The tenant has provided certificates provided to Work and Income saying she is unfit for work due to post traumatic stress disorder and another medical condition. These records refer to the burglary in October 2023 and other significant past traumas unrelated to the tenancy. They do not refer to Mr Keller’s harassment of the tenant. c. The tenant also provided a letter from her GP which states that the tenant “... has been subjected to a series of highly stressful events, including a burglary at her home, subsequent police and court investigations, and proceedings at a tenancy tribunal”. the GP goes on to state that these events “... have been a significant source of psychological distress” and had “... exacerbated her underlying anxiety and PTSD condition”. d. The claim for lost wages is dismissed for the following reasons: i. It is a key legal principle that only foreseeable losses are recoverable. I accept from the letters provided by the tenant’s GP that Mr Keller’s actions had a severe impact on her. However, in order for the landlord to be liable for the tenant’s lost wages, the landlord would need to have foreseen (or ought reasonably to have foreseen) that its actions or failure to act would result in the behaviour having such a severe impact on the tenant. ii. It is not necessary for me to traverse the tenant’s medical evidence other than to say that the evidence records that the tenant suffered from mental health issues and traumas in the past. I believe it is more likely than not that the tenant was particularly vulnerable to react in this way. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware of the tenant’s vulnerability. Therefore, I do not consider the landlord can be liable for the extent of the harm the tenant says was caused by its failure to act. iii. A further principle is that the party claiming the loss must prove that the breach caused the loss. The medical evidence provided indicates that the tenant had been suffering from poor mental health and had suffered from previous traumas in the past. The GP refers to the events that have caused the tenant stress being the burglary, the police and court investigations into the burglary and these proceedings. The GP does not refer to the stress caused by the actual harassment. iv. In the absence of expert evidence showing that the damage was caused by the landlord’s failure to act to prevent Mr K’s harassment of her and not another reason such as the trauma following the burglary or past traumas, I cannot conclude that the tenant’s lost wages was caused by the landlord’s breach of section 66G(2) and 66I(1)(h) of the RTA. e. The tenant’s claim for lost wages is dismissed. F. DID THE LANLDORD BREACH SECTION 66I(1) OF THE RTA BY FAILING TO

MAINTAIN THE PREMISES?

Chea Joss Cameron claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 66I(1) of the RTA. The landlord’s obligations under this section include that the landlord must: a. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair b. comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
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 of the RTA.)
The tenant says that the landlord failed to maintain the premises by failing to ensure the deck had adequate railing. The tenant said she was told the deck had been altered or added by the previous tenant and the railing had not been finished. She said the distance from the deck to the ground was taller than her at some points and there was no railing at all.
The tenant said she raised the issue with Ms Waldron and John at the start of the tenancy, and they said they would get to it. The tenant said she did not raise it again due to issues with Mr Keller.
At the hearing on 09 October 2025, the landlord provided an email from Ms Waldron sent to the landlord in or around June this year. In this email Ms Waldron said that the deck that a previous tenant had added to the deck without obtaining consent from the landlord. Ms Waldron said that the tenant said it was fine and never sent any emails asking for repairs.
I consider it is more likely than not that deck was as described by the tenant. I also find that the deck was unsafe and did not comply with the Safety from Falling provisions in the Building Code.
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 was aware of the deck. A tenant cannot waive their rights under the RTA (see section 11(3) of the RTA). Therefore, if, as Ms Waldron says in her email, the tenant did not complain about the deck or request repairs is irrelevant.
The effect of the unlawful act was that the tenant’s deck was unsafe, not just for her but for others visiting the premises. There is a strong public interest in landlord’s complying with the Building Code. I consider an award of $500 in exemplary damages is appropriate. G. DID THE LANLDORD BREACH SECTION 66I(1)(bb) OF THE RTA BY FAILING

TO COMPLY WITH THE HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS?

Chea Joss Cameron claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Chea Joss Cameron considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard by failing to install a heater in her cabin.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. All private rentals that are boarding houses must comply by 01 July 2021. Did the landlord breach the HHS – Heating Standard?
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the main living room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 66I of the RTA.
The tenant says that the cabin breached the Heating Standard because it did not have fixed heating.
The tenancy was a boarding house tenancy. The Heating Standard places a requirement on landlords to provide a qualifying heating in the main living room. In addition to the tenant’s cabin, there were communal living areas. In the absence of photographs or other evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant’s cabin constituted the main living area. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the failure to provide a compliant heating in the cabin amounted to a breach of the Healthy Homes Standard – Heating.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standard – Heating is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the HHS – Draught Stopping?
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 66I of the RTA.
The tenant said there was an issue with the door that it was misaligned and allowed a draught to enter. The tenant said this issue was also a problem with locks on the door but the landlord fixed the lock issue.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. In the absence of photographs showing the issue or email corresponding asking for the matter to be fixed, I am not satisfied that the tenant’s claim is proven.
This claim is dismissed. H. FILING FEE:
Section 103(4) of the RTA provides that where the application has been wholly successful with their claim the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the filing fee for the application. If the tenant has been partly successful, the Tribunal may order the respondent to pay the filing fee for the application.
The tenant has not been wholly successful in her claims. However, she has been substantially successful. For this reason, I order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034888 — Exemplary damages at Room KC02, 14 Mills Lane, Albany, Auckland 0632, Kawai

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034888 — Exemplary damages at Room KC02, 14 Mills Lane, Albany, Auckland 0632, Kawai

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

MAINTAIN THE PREMISES?

TO COMPLY WITH THE HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

MAINTAIN THE PREMISES?

TO COMPLY WITH THE HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions