What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5068371 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5068371?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $71.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5068371?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5068371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12071445-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5068371 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5068371?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $71.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5068371?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5068371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12071445-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5068371 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5068371 — net $1,678.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent	$71.42		Rent
Carpet cleaning	$250.00		Carpet cleaning
Exemplary damages: Disposal of goods/belongings		$1,000.00	Disposal of goods/belongings
Exemplary damages: Harassment		$1,000.00	Harassment
Total award	$321.42	$2,000.00
Net award		$1,678.58
Bond		$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,678.58

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5068371 — net $1,678.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent	$71.42		Rent
Carpet cleaning	$250.00		Carpet cleaning
Exemplary damages: Disposal of goods/belongings		$1,000.00	Disposal of goods/belongings
Exemplary damages: Harassment		$1,000.00	Harassment
Total award	$321.42	$2,000.00
Net award		$1,678.58
Bond		$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,678.58

Order

By consent, suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,678.58 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing assisted by her sister, [The tenant’s representative], who is also her representative.
The landlord attended the hearing represented by [The landlord’s representatives].
[Trustee 1] is a trustee but appeared in support of the tenant.
[Trust Secretary] was named as a trustee, but it became apparent during the hearing that this was a mistake as she is the secretary to the Trust, and not a trustee.
[Trust Secretary] has therefore been removed as a party to this application.
The tenant has applied for a refund of her bond, and exemplary damages for disposal of her goods and harassment. The tenant also seeks to strike out the cross application on various grounds. Both parties filed written submissions on this issue which have been duly considered.
The landlord filed a cross application and seek rent arrears, $5,726.16 for cleaning and repairs, and $2,714.34 for lost rent.
These matters come before the Tribunal by way of rehearing. A full background to the tenancy is set out in previous Tribunal order dated 4 April 2025.
As I indicated to the parties at the hearing, it is a fundamental principle of New Zealand law that every party has a right to be heard. The only bar to hearing the cross application is jurisdiction if this is an excluded tenancy, or if the claim is time barred by virtue of the Limitation Act 2010.
Although this is primarily a family arrangement and thus usually excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), I am satisfied that the parties have contracted back into the RTA by virtue of section 8 RTA. The parties have agreed in writing that the RTA applies by using the standard form of tenancy agreement.
Parties have 6 years after the claim arises to file their application before being time barred in accordance with the Limitation Act. As the tenancy commenced on 1 July 2021 and ended on 10 September 2023, the cross application has been filed within time.
The tenant application to strike out the cross application is dismissed. Did the landlord unlawfully dispose of the tenant’s goods?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord disposed of some of her goods/personal belongings being stored in sheds at the premises.
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.
[The landlord’s representative/s] says that he met with the tenant (and a former tenant) and the contractor, and a date was set for the removal of any personal goods/belongings and demolition of the sheds. [The landlord’s representative/s] says he contacted the tenant a few days before the agreed date, and she told him she was unable to remove all of her stuff due to the death of her granddaughter and subsequent tangi. [The landlord’s representative/s] says that the date was already booked with the contractor, the tangi was only 30 minutes away, and the stuff was insignificant in any event. [The landlord’s representative/s] says he left some stuff at the side of the house and the tenant’s son had already removed some tools.
I find that the landlord unlawfully removed the tenant’s belongings. I find they have committed an unlawful act. The landlord went ahead with their plans in the knowledge that the tenant was unable to remove her belongings due to a family bereavement. It was not fair nor reasonable for him to continue with his plans in these circumstances, and there is no documented evidence of goods left at the side of the house for the tenant to collect.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having regard to the factors above and in particular the detrimental effect the landlord’s intentional actions had on the tenant, I award $1,000.00 exemplary damages for the unlawful act.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

[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 tenant says the landlord harassed her by emails and text messages, and the cumulative effect of an inspection, 14-day notices, rent increase, and a termination notice, all within a short period. The tenant says the rent increase was invalid and she was given only 4 days’ notice of termination (this was 3 days’ notice not including the date the notice was received). The tenant says she ended up in hospital and the landlord agreed she could leave on 24 September or before that if she found somewhere else. The tenant left on 10 September.
The landlord says the tenancy was terminated due to anti-social behaviour. The landlord says they were getting advice from tenancy services, and they had no reason to harass or get rid of the tenant otherwise.
Firstly, I make no finding on alleged harassment by the landlord through emails and text messages as the tenant was unable to provide any copies.
However, I find that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in circumstances that amount to harassment due to the rent increase and notice of termination.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
On 24 August 2023, the tenant’s sister gave notice to terminate her tenancy at the premises. The landlord agreed to waive notice requirements, so her tenancy ended immediately. It is important to note that this was not a joint tenancy. Both tenants had separate tenancy agreements, and both paid $250.00 per week in rent. As a result, the notice by the first tenant did not end the tenancy for the other tenant. Even if this were correct, it would not be reasonable to expect the tenant to leave at such short notice.
On 25 August, the landlord increased the tenant’s rent from $250.00 per week to $500.00 per week from 28 August. A landlord may only increase rent in accordance with section 24 RTA, therefore this rent increase was invalid.
On 28 August, the landlord purported to end the tenancy on 1 September. The landlord stated that the notice received by the first tenant impacted on the tenancy which is clearly incorrect. I am also concerned that the landlord gave evidence that the real reason to terminate the tenancy was due to alleged anti- social behaviour. In accordance with section 55A RTA, the landlord may apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour. The landlord is not permitted to end the tenancy on 3 days’ notice on these grounds. They should note that it is unlawful under section 60AA RTA for a landlord to give a notice to terminate the tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so.
I am satisfied that the landlord acted intentionally when they gave the notice of rent increase, and to end the tenancy. This particular pattern of behaviour caused the tenant considerable worry and distress, and I accept her evidence that she contacted police, her local iwi and Elder Abuse to try and get some help. There is a high public interest to ensure that landlords do not issue invalid rent increases, nor purport to end tenancies without the appropriate notice, or applying to the Tribunal.
Accordingly, I award $1,000.00 exemplary damages.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord seeks $142.86 for the last two days if the tenancy.
However, this is based on the invalid rent increase of $500.00 per week.
I award $71.42 which is two days rent based on the agreed rent of $250.00 per week.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
I find that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy; except for carpet cleaning.
I find that the carpet did have some staining and I award $250.00 for carpet cleaning as claimed.
The claim for general cleaning is not proven and is therefore dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord seeks compensation for a door stopper, 7 LED light bulbs, new locks, paintwork, a window latch, a floor patch, repairing holes, and painting throughout the premises.
The landlord agreed that the floor patch was already sorted out and should not form part of this claim.
The keys were returned at the end of the tenancy so the landlord’s claim for a lock change is dismissed.
I am not persuaded that this tenant is responsible for a missing door stop, window latch, nor any LED lights. Three is no evidence that a door stop was missing, I find that the window latch is wear and tear, and the tenant is not responsible for specialist LED lights.
While I acknowledge there were some pin holes on a wall and some minor scuffs and marks, the pin holes do not justify a complete re-paint, and the other marks do not amount to damage as this is fair wear and tear.
I find that the landlord’s claim is generally more in the nature of ongoing maintenance and upgrades rather than repairs for damage.
I decline to make any award of compensation.

Is the landlord entitled to lost rent?

The landlord also claimed $2,714.34 for lost rent while they were carrying out cleaning and repairs. This has been claimed at the weekly rate of $500.00 which I have already indicated is incorrect.
As I explained at the hearing, A tenant is not required to leave premises in such a condition that a new tenant can move in straight away. A realistic landlord’s business plan should therefore include an allowance for some loss of rent between tenancies, particularly where a tenancy has lasted for some time. it is not usual for the Tribunal to award loss of rent when only minor damage and cleaning costs have been proved.
In this case, the landlord has only proved their claim for carpet cleaning. The claim for lost rent cannot therefore succeed and must be dismissed. Filing fee
As both parties have been partly successful, I decline to make any award for the respective filing fees. Name suppression
Both parties have agreed to name suppression for each other.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5068371 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5068371 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the landlord entitled to lost rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the landlord entitled to lost rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions