How much money was awarded in case 5077229?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5077229?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5077229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12201327-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5077229?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5077229?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5077229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12201327-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Published tribunal order

Tenancy Tribunal case 5077229 — Exemplary damages at 41 St Georges Bay Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5077229 about?

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

Decided 1 Aug 2025 · Published 1 Aug 2025 · Application 5077229

Exemplary damages

Party names are redacted in the official published order.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
John Eichelbaum must pay [The tenant/s] $7,050.00 immediately as set out below:
The landlord’s cross-application for compensation for wall damage and cleaning, and exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

Tenancy background

On 16 March 2024, the tenant commenced living in the upstairs unit at 41 St Georges Bay Road.
The unit was a self-contained unit comprising of two bedrooms, a lounge with balcony, kitchen, bathroom and laundry. The unit had a separate external entrance to that used by the landlord who occupied the middle part of the dwelling.
There was also a third unit at the bottom of the dwelling, which was also self- contained. I note that all three units could be accessed internally, but they could all equally be closed off from one another.
On 23 November 2024, there was a confrontation between the parties at the premises. Following the confrontation, the tenant moved out of the premises on 28 November 2024. Rent was paid up to (and including) 3 December 2024. Procedural background
On 19 November 2024, the tenant filed an application seeking exemplary damages.
On 28 January 2025, the first hearing was held to determine jurisdiction.
On 29 January 2025, I issued an order declaring the tenancy was not a boarding house tenancy and that the parties entered into a residential tenancy which was not excluded under section 5 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
On 11 February 2025, the landlord filed a cross-application seeking compensation for damage and exemplary damages.
On 16 April 2025, the second hearing was held. Both parties attended the hearing remotely. Evidence was heard on all of the tenant’s claims. There was insufficient time available to hear evidence on the landlord’s cross-application.
On 22 July 2025, the third (and final) hearing was held at Auckland District Court. The landlord attended in-person, the tenant attended by phone. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the RTA. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing a claim establish their claim(s) “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant party 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. The tenant’s claims
The tenant made the following claims: a. Exemplary damages for: i. Failure to give written notice premises on the market in breach of s47 of the RTA; ii. Altering existing lock (by locking the tenant out) in breach of s46 of the RTA; iii. Unlawful entry in breached of s48 of the RTA; iv. Acting to terminate the tenancy in breach of s60AA of the RTA; v. Failing to ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing in breach of s13(1) of the RTA; vi. Failing to lodge the bond in breach of s19(1)(b) of the RTA; and vii. Failure to appoint agent when out of the country in breach of s16A(1) of the RTA. b. Compensation for: i. The landlord accessing and/or using the second bedroom of the tenant’s unit in breach of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord denies all claims. The landlord’s claims
The landlord made the following counterclaims: a. Compensation for damage: i. Carpet rip and mat glued to carpet ($2,000); ii. Wall damage caused by picture hooks ($165); and b. Compensation for cleaning: i. Carpet at base of the stairs ($100). c. Exemplary damages: i. Failure, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises after previously consenting to the showing of the premises to prospective purchasers (an open home) in breach of s48(4)(b) of the RTA.
The landlord also pursued claims for assault on the landlord’s wife and “attempting to mislead the Tribunal.” As the landlord was unable to identify the statutory (or other) basis for these claims (that was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction) I dismiss these claims. 1 Tenant claim: failure to give written notice premises on the market
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord failed to give the tenant written notice that the premises were on the market for sale.
Under section 47 of the RTA, a landlord must, as soon as practicable, give written notice to the tenant if the premises are placed on the market. A landlord must also advise any prospective tenant if the house is on the market.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 See section 47(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
It is not in dispute that the landlord did not give written notice that the premises were on the market. The parties both state that, on 4 November 2024, the landlord verbally told the tenant the premises were on, or would shortly be going on, the market. The landlord told the tenant the intended settlement date would be 20 January 2025 and that the tenant would need to vacate the premises by that date.
Given it is not in dispute that no written notice was given, I find the landlord 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 1 Pursuant to s78(1)(i) of the RTA. 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.
I am satisfied the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. The landlord could have followed up the verbal conversation with written notice of their intention to sell but chose not to. The landlord stated a “For Sale” sign went up on the property on 11 November 2024, and within days of that, [the tenant/s] gave notice that she intended to end the tenancy on 28 November 2024. The landlord submits that when the tenant gave notice on 28 November 2024 it “usurped” the landlord’s obligation to provide notice in writing that the property was on the market. That is not correct. The landlord’s obligation to give notice in writing that the property was on the market could have been fulfilled in the days after the conversation on 4 November 2024, but was not. The landlord’s obligation to give notice in writing is not “usurped” by any subsequent events.
The tenant says the failure to give written notice impacted her as, at that time of year, she felt it would be very difficult to find a new tenancy. The tenant was travelling for three weeks prior to Christmas and said the landlord’s notice that the property may be sold by 20 January 2025 (and that she would need to move out by that date) placed her under stress.
The tenant’s evidence as to impact was focussed on how the requirement that she move out by 20 January 2025 would impact her, not the impact of the failure to give written notice. I note the tenant did not make a claim under s60AA in relation to the notice given on 4 November 2024. 2
Nevertheless, it is a requirement under s47(3) to give written notice that the premises is on the market. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to do so, and did so intentionally. I am satisfied the technical failure by the landlord had minimal impact on the tenant and an award of nominal exemplary damages is appropriate. Taking into consideration that the maximum penalty for the unlawful act is $1,800, I consider a nominal award of $500 is appropriate. Tenant claim: landlord altering lock
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord altered the locks without her consent, that is, he locked the tenant out of the premises during the tenancy on 23 November 2024. 2 Under s51(2)(a)-(b) of the RTA (as it was at 4 November 2024) a landlord who wishes to terminate a periodic tenancy must give the tenant at least 90 days’ notice if the premises are to be put on the market within 90 days of the termination date, or, the owner is required under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises to give a purchaser vacant possession.
A landlord may not alter locks without the tenant’s consent. See section 46(2) of the RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The incident occurred on the day the landlord had planned to hold an open home. The tenant had left her home after a confrontation between the tenant and landlord at approximately 1:45pm that day. The tenant said that when she returned at approximately 2:30pm she found the chain had been placed across her entrance door, effectively locking her out of her unit.
The landlord confirmed that after the parties had a confrontation shortly before a planned open home, the tenant left the premises. The landlord confirmed they placed the chain across the tenant’s entrance door. At 2:54pm the landlord sent the tenant an email stating the landlord was issuing the tenant a trespass notice and stating she would have to collect her belongings on a specified day provided she gave 2 hours’ notice.
It is not in dispute that, after the tenant left the premises on 23 November 2024, the landlord altered the lock on the front door preventing the tenant from re- entering the premises. By doing so, the landlord 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) of the RTA.
The landlord says they issued the trespass notice after speaking to Police. They believed they were entitled to issue a trespass notice to the tenant and therefore believed they were entitled to lock the tenant out. However, trespass notices are typically for situations where a person has no right to be on the property, not for tenants who have a legal right to occupy the premises.
My focus is on whether the landlord intended to alter the locks on 23 November 2024, and I am satisfied they did. The intention was clearly to prevent the tenant from re-entering the premises. That is made clear by the email sent at 2:54pm in which the landlord tells the tenant she will have to make an appointment to collect her belongings.
The landlord’s unlawful act had a significant impact on the tenant. The tenant says she was “pretty stressed out” when she returned to the premises to find the door had been locked. She called a locksmith who advised her she may be able to force the chain by pushing with her shoulder. She did so, and managed to gain entry. The tenant said she grabbed what she could and immediately left the premises.
Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500. Taking into account the impact the unlawful act had on the tenant, I consider an award in the middle to upper range is appropriate and award the tenant $1,000 in exemplary damages. Tenant claim: unlawful entry
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord entered the premises without her consent or notice on at least four occasions: 2 April 2024, 4 November 2024, 11 November 2024 and 18 November 2024. The tenant says there were other occasions when the landlord sought her consent to enter the premises, and she granted it, but that she did not grant consent, nor did the landlord give notice, on these four occasions.
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, repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The landlord does not deny entering the premises on the four occasions identified but says all entries were with the tenant’s consent. (a) Entry on 2 April 2024
The tenant says she only became aware the landlord had entered the premises on this occasion because he emailed her at 1:06pm on 2 April 2024 to say, “I went upstairs to restart the modem this morning and I noticed the carpet looks a bit dirty on the stairs area.”
The landlord says he had the tenant’s consent, or implied consent, to enter the tenant’s premises twice a month to restart the modem. In support, the landlord refers to emails he sent to the tenant on 15 February 2024, 12 March 2024, 22 March 2024 and 2 April 2024. The landlord submits that because in each of those emails he referred to the parties’ agreement as a “boarding arrangement”, he did not require the tenant’s consent to enter her living room to reset the modem (which also provided Wi-Fi to the landlord in his neighbouring unit).
However, this was not a boarding house tenancy. The landlord was obligated to seek the tenant’s consent to enter the premises. I am satisfied the landlord did not seek the tenant’s consent before entering her premises on 2 April 2024 and the tenant had not given her express, or implied, consent.
Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act on 2 April 2024.
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) of the RTA.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally entered the tenant’s premises without seeking her consent. The landlord acted on the mistaken belief that it was a boarding house tenancy and therefore he was not required to obtain the tenant’s consent. It was not a boarding house tenancy, it was a residential tenancy. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The unlawful act impacted the tenant in that she felt violated discovering that the landlord had been in her private space. I note however, that no damage was caused and that the tenant was unaware of the invasion into her privacy until the landlord emailed her to say he had noticed the carpet was dirty. (b) Entry on 6 November 2024
The tenant says on 6 November 2024 she came home and noticed her belongings had been moved around inside her house. The tenant says someone had made her bed and also moved cushions around.
On Monday 4 November 2024 at 8:32am, the landlord sent the tenant a text message, “Hi [tenant/s] can I please have access the next couple days?” The tenant replied asking, “Hey John what days please and is it possible to have more notice as I do wfh at times.” The landlord responded, “Monday, Tuesday” and the tenant replied, “Great thanks that’s fine just more notice would be good please.”
The tenant says on Wednesday 6 November 2024 she arrived home and noticed someone had been in her home.
The landlord does not rely on the exchange of text messages as consent to enter on Wednesday 6 November 2024, but says the tenant gave consent verbally on Monday 4 November 2024. The landlord says during the conversation on 4 November 2024 (when the landlord told the tenant the property was going to be listed for sale) he also advised the tenant that in two days’ time an agent would come to take photos. The landlord says the tenant gave her consent for the agent to enter her unit to do so.
I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the tenant did not give verbal consent for the landlord (or their agent) to enter her premises on Wednesday 6 November 2024. I reject the landlord’s evidence that consent was verbally given on 4 November 2024. That is inconsistent with the landlord’s text message sent the same day requesting consent to enter over “the next couple days.” The tenant gave her consent for an agent to enter on Monday 4 November and/or Tuesday 5 November 2024, as recorded in the text message exchange. The tenant was not asked, and did not consent, to an agent entering the premises to take photographs on Wednesday 6 November 2024.
Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by entering, or permitting their agent to enter, the tenant’s unit on 6 November 2024.
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) of the RTA.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally entered the tenant’s premises without seeking her consent. The landlord sought the tenant’s consent (and was granted the tenant’s consent) to enter on Monday 4 November and Tuesday 5 November 2024. I am satisfied the landlord knew the tenant did not consent to him, or his agent, entering the premises on Wednesday 6 November 2024.
The unlawful act impacted the tenant in that she felt violated discovering that the landlord’s agent had been in her space. (c) Entry on 11 November 2024
The tenant says on 11 November 2024 the landlord was present inside her home when she arrived home in the afternoon. She says she had no prior notice he would be there, and she did not consent to the landlord entering. The tenant says the landlord told her he had entered because he needed to carry out urgent repairs on the roof from the balcony in her unit. The tenant says the landlord remained in the house for approximately 1 hour after she arrived home that day.
The tenant says while the landlord was in her home, his wife also entered the home, walking up the stairs to the open plan kitchen/lounge area. The tenant says Mrs Eichelbaum was only in the house briefly as the landlord told her he would come down to speak to her shortly.
The landlord says in the morning of 11 November 2024 he noticed the shingles on the roof were falling off or were “showing signs” of falling off. The landlord said the only safe way to access the roof to repair the shingles was via the balcony in the tenant’s unit. The landlord says he entered the tenant’s unit at 3:30pm or 4pm that day to undertake the urgent work. The landlord says he was concerned the loose shingles would cause a leak in the roof. The landlord said he didn’t text the tenant because he “didn’t have a moment” and was in a “state of panic”. The landlord said he didn’t text the tenant to request her consent to enter that day because it was an emergency. 3 3 Relying on s48(2)(a) of the RTA.
I am not satisfied the repairs to the roof were urgent. The landlord says he noticed the shingles were falling off or were “showing signs” of falling off in the morning of 11 November 2024 but did not enter the tenant’s premises to undertake repairs until 3:30pm or 4pm that day. On the landlord’s own evidence there was ample time – several hours – in which the landlord could have sought the tenant’s consent to enter her unit to undertake urgent repairs. There was insufficient evidence to suggest the repairs to the roof were an emergency, such that no notice would be required. If repairs were necessary (but not an emergency), the landlord could have issued the tenant notice under s48(2)(d) of the RTA and given the tenant 24 hours’ notice of the need to enter.
Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act on 11 November 2024.
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) of the RTA.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally entered the tenant’s premises without seeking her consent. The landlord had sought the tenant’s consent (and had been granted the tenant’s consent) on several prior occasions. I reject the landlord’s assertion that the maintenance or repairs were an “emergency.”
The unlawful act impacted the tenant in that she felt violated coming home to discover the landlord in her space. Furthermore, the landlord remained in her home for approximately an hour after she had returned home, meaning the tenant was unable to relax in her home. (d) Entry on 18 November 2024
The tenant says on 18 November 2024 the tenant came home and noticed clothes in her wardrobe had been moved and a mirror was sitting at a different angle. The tenant sent the landlord a text message and the landlord replied to say he had to get some carpet stored in the second bedroom of the tenant’s unit. The landlord said he entered on that occasion as a tradesperson (energy supplier) also required (and was given, by the landlord) access to her unit that day.
The tenant says she was not notified that the tradesperson (or the landlord) would enter her unit on 18 November 2024 and did not give her permission for them to enter.
The landlord says the energy supply company notified the landlord that they needed access to the tenant’s unit to replace something connected to the tenant’s stove. The landlord says on 18 November 2024 he, and the tradesperson supplier entered the tenant’s unit. The landlord says the tradesperson was present for two or three minutes. The landlord stated in a text message to the tenant that he “took the opportunity” to retrieve carpet from the “shared 2 nd room.” The landlord stated in the text that, “You’re (justifiably) frustration with the number of interruptions.”
I am satisfied the landlord did not seek the tenant’s permission to enter the premises on 18 November 2024, and the tenant had not previously given her consent for him to do so. Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act on 18 November 2024.
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) of the RTA.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally entered the tenant’s premises without seeking her consent. The landlord had sought the tenant’s consent (and had been granted the tenant’s consent) on several prior occasions.
The unlawful act impacted the tenant in that she felt violated when she came home to realise someone had moved her clothes and mirror without her consent. One global award for four unlawful entries
The District Court has confirmed that when awarding exemplary damages for multiple breaches of the same unlawful act provision, the Tribunal must order exemplary damages as a global order, not for each individual breach. 4 Taking into consideration the maximum penalty available is $1,500, and the individual circumstances of each of the four breaches, I consider an award of $1,500 in exemplary damages is appropriate and make an order accordingly. Tenant claim: acting to terminate without grounds
[The tenant/s] claims on 23 November 2024 the landlord gave the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy knowing that they were not entitled under the RTA to give the notice.
A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant knowing that they are not entitled, under the RTA, to give the notice. See section 60AA of the RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A of the RTA. 4 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583.
The tenant says on 23 November 2024 the landlord terminated the tenancy effective immediately. The tenant says the landlord’s wife first verbally told the tenant to leave the premises, during an altercation between the tenant and landlord at approximately 1:45pm that day. At that time, the landlord had entered the tenant’s unit and asked the tenant to vacate for a planned open home. The tenant says she had mistakenly thought the open home commenced at 2pm and so was not ready to leave. The tenant says the parties then had a verbal argument, during which the landlord’s wife told the tenant to leave the premises. The altercation was both verbal, and the landlord says, also physical.
Once the tenant had left, the landlord’s wife sent the tenant an email at 2:54pm on 23 November 2024, copied to the landlord, stating: Given your aggressive behaviour and violence today, and deliberate blocking of our open home despite a week’s notice, we are issuing you a trespass notice, so you cannot enter our house again. Your chattels will be available to you to collect on any specified time/day with two hours notice, no later than Thursday this week, but strictly under supervision and in the presence of the police. Ira and John
The landlord confirmed his wife sent the tenant the email on his behalf on 23 November 2024. He says he and his wife were advised by Police to issue a trespass notice. He says he asked his wife to send the email because he was in shock. The landlord stated he believed they terminated the tenancy on legal grounds because they were afraid for their lives.
There is no provision of the RTA that permits the landlord of a residential tenancy to immediately terminate a tenancy. In circumstances where an alleged assault has occurred (as the landlord alleges occurred here), the landlord must apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on that basis. 5
The notice to terminate issued by email at 2:54pm on 23 November 2024 was clearly without grounds under the RTA. The landlord did not provide any basis under the RTA for issuing the notice to terminate, rather the landlord referred to their belief they could issue a trespass notice to the tenant.
The landlord’s evidence that he issued (or authorised his wife to issue) the notice to terminate in reliance upon the advice of the Police is rejected. The Police do not commonly provide legal advice to landlords regarding the termination of residential tenancies. Even if a Police officer had, on this occasion, given such advice, the landlord, as a former barrister and solicitor, 6 had the ability to consider whether that advice was sound. The landlord was required to consider whether grounds existed under the RTA, not the Trespass Act 1980, to terminate the tenancy. 5 Pursuant to section 55(1)(c) of the RTA. 6 Judicial notice is taken of this fact pursuant to s97(5) of the RTA.
In all the circumstances, I am satisfied the landlord knew they were not entitled under the RTA to give notice to the tenant to immediately terminate the tenancy on 23 November 2024.
Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act on 23 November 2024.
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) of the RTA
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally issued the notice to terminate the tenancy knowing that they were not entitled under the RTA to give the notice. The notice was issued in writing, by email, approximately one hour after the parties had had an altercation over the start of the open home.
The effect of the unlawful act was to cause the tenant high levels of stress. The tenant returned to the premises later the same day to collect her belongings (after gaining access after the landlord locked her out) and had vacated the premises by 29 November 2024. The tenant paid rent up until 3 December 2024. The landlord did not refund the tenant any rent paid.
Taking all those factors into account, I consider an award of half of the maximum amount permissible ($6,500) is appropriate.
I award $3,250 in exemplary damages and make an order accordingly. Tenant claim: failure to ensure tenancy agreement in writing
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord failed to ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 of the RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The landlord accepts the tenancy agreement was not in writing. Therefore, 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 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.
The tenant says if the tenancy agreement had been in writing, the parties would have understood their obligations under the law better, and much of these issues may have been avoided. The landlord stated the tenant is seeking a windfall as she benefited from the “boarding arrangements,” which he says resulted in the tenant paying less in board than if the premises were rented on the basis it was a residential tenancy.
The landlord’s obligation to ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing applies to both residential tenancies and boarding house tenancies. 7 The landlord’s submission that the tenant benefitted from the agreement not being in writing is without basis.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally breached the obligation to ensure the agreement was in writing. It was to the landlord’s benefit, not the tenant’s, to present the tenancy as a “boarding arrangement” in an attempt to avoid their obligations under the RTA. Regardless of that attempt to reclassify the agreement as a boarding house tenancy, the landlord remained obligated to ensure an agreement was in writing and I find the landlord intentionally failed to do so.
I am satisfied it is just to award exemplary damages, but award only nominal damages, as the landlord’s failure had minimal impact on the tenant. A nominal award of $200 is justified in recognition that a landlord’s obligations under the RTA can not be ignored.
I award $200 in exemplary damages and make an order accordingly. Tenant claim: failure to lodge the bond
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepts the bond of $1048 was not lodged with the Bond Centre and was instead held by the landlord personally throughout the tenancy. Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. 7 See s13 of the RTA, which is not excluded under the rules specific to boarding house tenancies as listed at s66A(2) of the RTA.
The landlord says he did not lodge the bond as he believed the tenancy was a boarding house tenancy. I reject that evidence. Under a boarding house tenancy, it is only if a bond of one week’s rent or less is received that the bond does not need to be lodged. 8 The bond the landlord received was more than one week’s rent. There is no basis for the landlord to have formed the view he was not required to lodge the bond.
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.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond. The landlord’s evidence that he did not believe he was required to lodge the bond because it was a boarding house arrangement is without foundation. The tenant says the impact of the landlord’s failure was that she felt she had no way to challenge the landlord’s claims for damage at the end of the tenancy as the bond was held by him personally, and not secured by a third party.
I am satisfied it is just to award exemplary damages, but award only nominal damages, as the landlord’s failure had minimal impact on the tenant. A nominal award of $200 is justified in recognition that lodging of the bond with an independent third party provides security for both parties in the event of a dispute.
At the hearing, the parties confirmed a large portion of the bond had been refunded to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The parties confirmed the landlord still retained $400 of the tenant’s bond.
An order is made that the landlord pay the remaining $400 bond held by the landlord to the tenant. Tenant claim: failure to appoint agent when out of the country
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord failed to appoint an agent when they were out of the country between May and August 2024.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days mut ensure that the landlord has an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) of the 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 16(6) and Schedule 1A of the RTA. 8 See s66D of the RTA.
The landlord confirmed he and his wife were overseas from 8 May 2024 to 17 August 2024, a total of 101 days. The landlord says they did not appoint an agent. The landlord stated he remained contactable via email and that, if issues arose, he would arrange a tradesperson to deal with any repairs.
Accordingly, I find the landlord 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.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to appoint an agent. The landlord took the view that remaining contactable via email was sufficient and chose not to appoint an agent.
The tenant says the landlord told her they would be going away shortly before their departure in May 2024, but did not say where they were going or when they would be returning. The tenant did not experience any issues requiring maintenance, or otherwise, while the landlord was overseas.
I am satisfied it is just to award exemplary damages but award only nominal damages as the landlord’s failure to appoint an agent had little or no impact on the tenant. A nominal award of $200 is justified in recognition that the RTA requires a landlord to nominate an agent so that any issues which arise in their absence can be actioned in a reasonable timeframe. Tenant claim: compensation for rent charged for second bedroom
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord charged her rent on the basis she had exclusive use of the two-bedroom unit, however, she later discovered the landlord treated the second bedroom of her unit as being of “shared use”, entering it and using it for storage. The tenant says this is contrary to the agreement made between the parties and seeks reimbursement of $25 per week for the 38 weeks of the tenancy, being $950.00.
The tenant says before she moved in, the landlord offered her the option of renting the unit and having private use of the second bedroom, at a rate of $50 per week, or alternatively agreeing to share the second bedroom with the landlord (to use it for storage) at a rate of $25 per week. The tenant says she chose to have exclusive use and did not agree to the landlord having access to the second bedroom.
The landlord says the tenant was never granted exclusive use of the second bedroom. The landlord referred to an email exchange on 15 February 2024 in which the parties discussed the options of “separate use” or “shared use” of the second bedroom. In that exchange the landlord said the “separate use” arrangement would be on the basis the tenant used the room “during daylight hours only.” The tenant responded to that email and confirmed that was acceptable and clarified her understanding that daylight hours were 7am – 7pm during the week, and 8am – 7pm on weekend.
In the email exchange the parties discussed times the tenant would agree to use (or not use) the second bedroom on the basis the landlord was concerned the tenant walking around the bedroom would disturb the landlord and his wife, whose bedroom was directly below. The discussion related to the times the tenant agreed not to walk around in the second bedroom. The exchange is not evidence the tenant agreed to the landlord entering or using the second bedroom at any time.
I am satisfied the arrangement made was for the tenant to have exclusive use of the second bedroom. I am however not satisfied the tenant has proved it is more likely than not that that arrangement was breached by the landlord (other than the occasions for which I have awarded exemplary damages for the landlord’s unlawful entry).
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation in relation to rent charged for the exclusive use of the second bedroom. Landlord claim: compensation for damage
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 of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
The landlord claimed the tenant had caused the following damage: a. A 2m long rip in the carpet in the living room; b. Glueing or otherwise fixing a mat to the carpet at the top of the stairs; and c. Damage to walls caused by picture hooks. (a) Carpet damage – rip and fixing of mat
John Eichelbaum claims the tenant damaged the carpet such that it required replacing completely. The landlord seeks $2000 compensation from the tenant.
The landlord says the carpet in the tenant’s unit was high quality carpet installed in 2015. A photograph of the living room carpet taken on or about 16 March 2024, and emailed to the tenant on 16 March 2024, was provided.
A photograph taken on 28 November 2024 shows damage to the carpet near where the carpet meets the kitchen flooring. The landlord says the damage was caused by the tenant. The landlord says the tenant also glued, or otherwise fixed, a mat to the carpet at the top of the stairs.
I am satisfied the photographs taken on or about 28 November 2024 show a rip in the carpet in the area adjacent to the kitchen flooring which occurred during the tenancy. It is not clear how large the rip is. No measurement was provided but, from the photographs, it would appear to be smaller than the two- metres claimed by the landlord.
I am not satisfied the photographs show a mat was glued or otherwise fixed to the carpet. The tenant stated the mat was attached by carpet tape which was not permanent and could be removed. The photographs provided by the landlord do not clearly show whether the carpet tape or other adheisve damaged the carpet.
The landlord says they did not hold insurance for tenant damage. The landlord says the landlord replaced the carpet at a cost of over $3,000. The landlord did not have an invoice to demonstrate the actual cost incurred to replace the carpet but provided copies of bank transactions which showed one payment of $1,573.50 was made to Factory Carpets on 27 June 2025 and a second payment of $1,573.50 was made to Bowkura Limited on 3 July 2025. No
Carpet installed in a residential rental property is estimated to have a useful lifespan of eight years. 9 The carpet in this unit was nine years old before the tenant moved in. Even so, I accept the carpet appeared to be in good condition at the start of the tenancy, and clearly had been ripped by the end of the tenancy.
I do not accept that the damage caused necessitated the replacement of all of the carpet. I consider it appropriate that the tenant pay $500 compensation for the damage caused to the carpet during the tenancy. 9 IR265 August 2024, p.36. (b) Wall damage
John Eichelbaum claims the tenant installed picture hooks on walls in several rooms which damaged the walls. The landlord seeks $165 compensation to repair the damage. The tenant accepts she installed picture hooks but says they were a removable type and/or any damage that was caused was fair wear and tear.
The landlord provided photographs taken on 28 November 2024 which show pictures hooks left in the lounge, at the top of the stairs and in one bedroom. The landlord did not have evidence to show the condition the walls were in at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord says they repaired the damage themselves. They say it took the two of them 1.5 hours to complete the work. They say a tradesperson would have charged $89 per hour to complete the work.
Given the tenant accepts installing the picture hooks, and accepts she did not remove them at the end of the tenancy, I am satisfied the damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy.
I consider it appropriate that the tenant pay the landlord $100 compensation for the damage caused to the walls. Landlord claim: compensation for cleaning carpet on stairs
John Eichelbaum claims the tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonable clean and reasonably tidy condition, in breach of s40(1)(e)(iii). The landlord says the carpet on the stairs of the unit was dirty and required cleaning. The landlord seeks compensation of $100.
The tenant denies liability for any alleged dirt at the bottom of the carpeted stairs.
The landlord did not produce a photograph the dirt allegedly left on the carpet at the bottom of the stairs. The only photo referred to, which the landlord says was taken on 28 November 2024, did not clearly show the bottom stairs.
The landlord has not proved the carpet at the bottom of the stairs was not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning the carpet on the stairs is dismissed. Landlord claim: failure, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter
John Eichelbaum claims the tenant did not allow the landlord (or their agent) entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy 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 without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord referred to an email sent to the tenant on 18 November 2024 in which he advised the tenant open homes were “scheduled for 1:45 on Sat & sun (30 min).” The landlord says the tenant had previously given verbal consent to agents and prospective purchasers entering the premises during open homes, and this email was just him confirming the times for that week.
The tenant accepts she gave permission for the open homes to take place, including on Saturday 23 November at 1:45pm. The tenant says at the time of the open home she had mistakenly thought the open home would begin at 2pm, as the open home the weekend prior had been at 2pm. When Mrs Eichelbaum entered the premises at 1:45pm, the tenant says she was in the bathroom. She says she came out and Mrs Eichelbaum was on the stairway of her unit.
At that point, the parties entered into a verbal argument in which Mrs Eichelbaum told the tenant to leave the premises as the open home was due to start. The tenant says she did not refuse to let the open home commence, or refuse the landlord’s entry into the premises, but says she told Mrs Eichelbaum to leave her unit until 2pm. The tenant says she also took offence to Mrs Eichelbaum’s directives that the tenant tidy her bed.
The landlord says the tenant blocked the agents from entering the premises to conduct the open home at the agreed time. The landlord relies on the affidavit evidence of Bobby McMillan and Cindy Yu, both real estate agents, who say they were present when Mrs Eichelbaum went up to the tenant’s unit. They both say they were standing in the downstairs courtyard. They both say the tenant’s upstairs unit could not be shown as part of the open home as, “that part of the house was blocked by this person [the tenant].”
I am satisfied the tenant had given consent to the open home at 1:45pm on Saturday 23 November 2024, but that the tenant had a reasonable excuse to refuse entry. The manner in which Mrs Eichelbaum entered the tenant’s unit and demanded the tenant tidy her bed and leave was unnecessarily aggressive. I find Mrs Eichelbaum’s actions caused the tenant distress and gave the tenant reasonable grounds to refuse the landlord entry.
I am not satisfied the tenant committed an unlawful act and dismiss the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
The landlord has not been substantially successful in their counterclaim, therefore the tenant is not required to reimburse the landlord’s application fee.
The tenant did not seek reimbursement of the applciation fee. Should the parties’ identifying details be suppressed?
Both parties sought name suppression in their applications.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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. See s 95A(1) of the RTA.
The tenant’s application was substantially successful, therefore the tenant is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.
The landlord’s counterclaim was not wholly or substantially successful. I have however considered whether I should grant suppression for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under section 95A(4) of the RTA.
The issue I need to consider is whether the interests of the landlord outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
The application for suppression is declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders but that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

John Eichelbaum must pay [The tenant/s] $7,050.00 immediately as set out below:

The landlord’s cross-application for compensation for wall damage and cleaning, and exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

Tenancy background

On 16 March 2024, the tenant commenced living in the upstairs unit at 41 St Georges Bay Road.

The unit was a self-contained unit comprising of two bedrooms, a lounge with balcony, kitchen, bathroom and laundry. The unit had a separate external entrance to that used by the landlord who occupied the middle part of the dwelling.

There was also a third unit at the bottom of the dwelling, which was also self- contained. I note that all three units could be accessed internally, but they could all equally be closed off from one another.

On 23 November 2024, there was a confrontation between the parties at the premises. Following the confrontation, the tenant moved out of the premises on 28 November 2024. Rent was paid up to (and including) 3 December 2024. Procedural background

On 19 November 2024, the tenant filed an application seeking exemplary damages.

On 28 January 2025, the first hearing was held to determine jurisdiction.

On 29 January 2025, I issued an order declaring the tenancy was not a boarding house tenancy and that the parties entered into a residential tenancy which was not excluded under section 5 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

On 11 February 2025, the landlord filed a cross-application seeking compensation for damage and exemplary damages.

On 16 April 2025, the second hearing was held. Both parties attended the hearing remotely. Evidence was heard on all of the tenant’s claims. There was insufficient time available to hear evidence on the landlord’s cross-application.

On 22 July 2025, the third (and final) hearing was held at Auckland District Court. The landlord attended in-person, the tenant attended by phone. Burden and standard of proof

The relevant law that applies is found in the RTA. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing a claim establish their claim(s) “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant party 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. The tenant’s claims

The tenant made the following claims: a. Exemplary damages for: i. Failure to give written notice premises on the market in breach of s47 of the RTA; ii. Altering existing lock (by locking the tenant out) in breach of s46 of the RTA; iii. Unlawful entry in breached of s48 of the RTA; iv. Acting to terminate the tenancy in breach of s60AA of the RTA; v. Failing to ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing in breach of s13(1) of the RTA; vi. Failing to lodge the bond in breach of s19(1)(b) of the RTA; and vii. Failure to appoint agent when out of the country in breach of s16A(1) of the RTA. b. Compensation for: i. The landlord accessing and/or using the second bedroom of the tenant’s unit in breach of the tenancy agreement.

The landlord denies all claims. The landlord’s claims

The landlord made the following counterclaims: a. Compensation for damage: i. Carpet rip and mat glued to carpet ($2,000); ii. Wall damage caused by picture hooks ($165); and b. Compensation for cleaning: i. Carpet at base of the stairs ($100). c. Exemplary damages: i. Failure, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises after previously consenting to the showing of the premises to prospective purchasers (an open home) in breach of s48(4)(b) of the RTA.

The landlord also pursued claims for assault on the landlord’s wife and “attempting to mislead the Tribunal.” As the landlord was unable to identify the statutory (or other) basis for these claims (that was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction) I dismiss these claims. 1 Tenant claim: failure to give written notice premises on the market

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord failed to give the tenant written notice that the premises were on the market for sale.

Under section 47 of the RTA, a landlord must, as soon as practicable, give written notice to the tenant if the premises are placed on the market. A landlord must also advise any prospective tenant if the house is on the market.

Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 See section 47(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.

It is not in dispute that the landlord did not give written notice that the premises were on the market. The parties both state that, on 4 November 2024, the landlord verbally told the tenant the premises were on, or would shortly be going on, the market. The landlord told the tenant the intended settlement date would be 20 January 2025 and that the tenant would need to vacate the premises by that date.

Given it is not in dispute that no written notice was given, I find the landlord 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 1 Pursuant to s78(1)(i) of the RTA. 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.

I am satisfied the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. The landlord could have followed up the verbal conversation with written notice of their intention to sell but chose not to. The landlord stated a “For Sale” sign went up on the property on 11 November 2024, and within days of that, [the tenant/s] gave notice that she intended to end the tenancy on 28 November 2024. The landlord submits that when the tenant gave notice on 28 November 2024 it “usurped” the landlord’s obligation to provide notice in writing that the property was on the market. That is not correct. The landlord’s obligation to give notice in writing that the property was on the market could have been fulfilled in the days after the conversation on 4 November 2024, but was not. The landlord’s obligation to give notice in writing is not “usurped” by any subsequent events.

The tenant says the failure to give written notice impacted her as, at that time of year, she felt it would be very difficult to find a new tenancy. The tenant was travelling for three weeks prior to Christmas and said the landlord’s notice that the property may be sold by 20 January 2025 (and that she would need to move out by that date) placed her under stress.

The tenant’s evidence as to impact was focussed on how the requirement that she move out by 20 January 2025 would impact her, not the impact of the failure to give written notice. I note the tenant did not make a claim under s60AA in relation to the notice given on 4 November 2024. 2

Nevertheless, it is a requirement under s47(3) to give written notice that the premises is on the market. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to do so, and did so intentionally. I am satisfied the technical failure by the landlord had minimal impact on the tenant and an award of nominal exemplary damages is appropriate. Taking into consideration that the maximum penalty for the unlawful act is $1,800, I consider a nominal award of $500 is appropriate. Tenant claim: landlord altering lock

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord altered the locks without her consent, that is, he locked the tenant out of the premises during the tenancy on 23 November 2024. 2 Under s51(2)(a)-(b) of the RTA (as it was at 4 November 2024) a landlord who wishes to terminate a periodic tenancy must give the tenant at least 90 days’ notice if the premises are to be put on the market within 90 days of the termination date, or, the owner is required under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises to give a purchaser vacant possession.

A landlord may not alter locks without the tenant’s consent. See section 46(2) of the RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The incident occurred on the day the landlord had planned to hold an open home. The tenant had left her home after a confrontation between the tenant and landlord at approximately 1:45pm that day. The tenant said that when she returned at approximately 2:30pm she found the chain had been placed across her entrance door, effectively locking her out of her unit.

The landlord confirmed that after the parties had a confrontation shortly before a planned open home, the tenant left the premises. The landlord confirmed they placed the chain across the tenant’s entrance door. At 2:54pm the landlord sent the tenant an email stating the landlord was issuing the tenant a trespass notice and stating she would have to collect her belongings on a specified day provided she gave 2 hours’ notice.

It is not in dispute that, after the tenant left the premises on 23 November 2024, the landlord altered the lock on the front door preventing the tenant from re- entering the premises. By doing so, the landlord 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) of the RTA.

The landlord says they issued the trespass notice after speaking to Police. They believed they were entitled to issue a trespass notice to the tenant and therefore believed they were entitled to lock the tenant out. However, trespass notices are typically for situations where a person has no right to be on the property, not for tenants who have a legal right to occupy the premises.

My focus is on whether the landlord intended to alter the locks on 23 November 2024, and I am satisfied they did. The intention was clearly to prevent the tenant from re-entering the premises. That is made clear by the email sent at 2:54pm in which the landlord tells the tenant she will have to make an appointment to collect her belongings.

The landlord’s unlawful act had a significant impact on the tenant. The tenant says she was “pretty stressed out” when she returned to the premises to find the door had been locked. She called a locksmith who advised her she may be able to force the chain by pushing with her shoulder. She did so, and managed to gain entry. The tenant said she grabbed what she could and immediately left the premises.

Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500. Taking into account the impact the unlawful act had on the tenant, I consider an award in the middle to upper range is appropriate and award the tenant $1,000 in exemplary damages. Tenant claim: unlawful entry

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord entered the premises without her consent or notice on at least four occasions: 2 April 2024, 4 November 2024, 11 November 2024 and 18 November 2024. The tenant says there were other occasions when the landlord sought her consent to enter the premises, and she granted it, but that she did not grant consent, nor did the landlord give notice, on these four occasions.

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, repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.

The landlord does not deny entering the premises on the four occasions identified but says all entries were with the tenant’s consent. (a) Entry on 2 April 2024

The tenant says she only became aware the landlord had entered the premises on this occasion because he emailed her at 1:06pm on 2 April 2024 to say, “I went upstairs to restart the modem this morning and I noticed the carpet looks a bit dirty on the stairs area.”

The landlord says he had the tenant’s consent, or implied consent, to enter the tenant’s premises twice a month to restart the modem. In support, the landlord refers to emails he sent to the tenant on 15 February 2024, 12 March 2024, 22 March 2024 and 2 April 2024. The landlord submits that because in each of those emails he referred to the parties’ agreement as a “boarding arrangement”, he did not require the tenant’s consent to enter her living room to reset the modem (which also provided Wi-Fi to the landlord in his neighbouring unit).

However, this was not a boarding house tenancy. The landlord was obligated to seek the tenant’s consent to enter the premises. I am satisfied the landlord did not seek the tenant’s consent before entering her premises on 2 April 2024 and the tenant had not given her express, or implied, consent.

Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act on 2 April 2024.

I am satisfied the landlord intentionally entered the tenant’s premises without seeking her consent. The landlord acted on the mistaken belief that it was a boarding house tenancy and therefore he was not required to obtain the tenant’s consent. It was not a boarding house tenancy, it was a residential tenancy. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The unlawful act impacted the tenant in that she felt violated discovering that the landlord had been in her private space. I note however, that no damage was caused and that the tenant was unaware of the invasion into her privacy until the landlord emailed her to say he had noticed the carpet was dirty. (b) Entry on 6 November 2024

The tenant says on 6 November 2024 she came home and noticed her belongings had been moved around inside her house. The tenant says someone had made her bed and also moved cushions around.

On Monday 4 November 2024 at 8:32am, the landlord sent the tenant a text message, “Hi [tenant/s] can I please have access the next couple days?” The tenant replied asking, “Hey John what days please and is it possible to have more notice as I do wfh at times.” The landlord responded, “Monday, Tuesday” and the tenant replied, “Great thanks that’s fine just more notice would be good please.”

The tenant says on Wednesday 6 November 2024 she arrived home and noticed someone had been in her home.

The landlord does not rely on the exchange of text messages as consent to enter on Wednesday 6 November 2024, but says the tenant gave consent verbally on Monday 4 November 2024. The landlord says during the conversation on 4 November 2024 (when the landlord told the tenant the property was going to be listed for sale) he also advised the tenant that in two days’ time an agent would come to take photos. The landlord says the tenant gave her consent for the agent to enter her unit to do so.

I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the tenant did not give verbal consent for the landlord (or their agent) to enter her premises on Wednesday 6 November 2024. I reject the landlord’s evidence that consent was verbally given on 4 November 2024. That is inconsistent with the landlord’s text message sent the same day requesting consent to enter over “the next couple days.” The tenant gave her consent for an agent to enter on Monday 4 November and/or Tuesday 5 November 2024, as recorded in the text message exchange. The tenant was not asked, and did not consent, to an agent entering the premises to take photographs on Wednesday 6 November 2024.

Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by entering, or permitting their agent to enter, the tenant’s unit on 6 November 2024.

I am satisfied the landlord intentionally entered the tenant’s premises without seeking her consent. The landlord sought the tenant’s consent (and was granted the tenant’s consent) to enter on Monday 4 November and Tuesday 5 November 2024. I am satisfied the landlord knew the tenant did not consent to him, or his agent, entering the premises on Wednesday 6 November 2024.

The unlawful act impacted the tenant in that she felt violated discovering that the landlord’s agent had been in her space. (c) Entry on 11 November 2024

The tenant says on 11 November 2024 the landlord was present inside her home when she arrived home in the afternoon. She says she had no prior notice he would be there, and she did not consent to the landlord entering. The tenant says the landlord told her he had entered because he needed to carry out urgent repairs on the roof from the balcony in her unit. The tenant says the landlord remained in the house for approximately 1 hour after she arrived home that day.

The tenant says while the landlord was in her home, his wife also entered the home, walking up the stairs to the open plan kitchen/lounge area. The tenant says Mrs Eichelbaum was only in the house briefly as the landlord told her he would come down to speak to her shortly.

The landlord says in the morning of 11 November 2024 he noticed the shingles on the roof were falling off or were “showing signs” of falling off. The landlord said the only safe way to access the roof to repair the shingles was via the balcony in the tenant’s unit. The landlord says he entered the tenant’s unit at 3:30pm or 4pm that day to undertake the urgent work. The landlord says he was concerned the loose shingles would cause a leak in the roof. The landlord said he didn’t text the tenant because he “didn’t have a moment” and was in a “state of panic”. The landlord said he didn’t text the tenant to request her consent to enter that day because it was an emergency. 3 3 Relying on s48(2)(a) of the RTA.

I am not satisfied the repairs to the roof were urgent. The landlord says he noticed the shingles were falling off or were “showing signs” of falling off in the morning of 11 November 2024 but did not enter the tenant’s premises to undertake repairs until 3:30pm or 4pm that day. On the landlord’s own evidence there was ample time – several hours – in which the landlord could have sought the tenant’s consent to enter her unit to undertake urgent repairs. There was insufficient evidence to suggest the repairs to the roof were an emergency, such that no notice would be required. If repairs were necessary (but not an emergency), the landlord could have issued the tenant notice under s48(2)(d) of the RTA and given the tenant 24 hours’ notice of the need to enter.

Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act on 11 November 2024.

I am satisfied the landlord intentionally entered the tenant’s premises without seeking her consent. The landlord had sought the tenant’s consent (and had been granted the tenant’s consent) on several prior occasions. I reject the landlord’s assertion that the maintenance or repairs were an “emergency.”

The unlawful act impacted the tenant in that she felt violated coming home to discover the landlord in her space. Furthermore, the landlord remained in her home for approximately an hour after she had returned home, meaning the tenant was unable to relax in her home. (d) Entry on 18 November 2024

The tenant says on 18 November 2024 the tenant came home and noticed clothes in her wardrobe had been moved and a mirror was sitting at a different angle. The tenant sent the landlord a text message and the landlord replied to say he had to get some carpet stored in the second bedroom of the tenant’s unit. The landlord said he entered on that occasion as a tradesperson (energy supplier) also required (and was given, by the landlord) access to her unit that day.

The tenant says she was not notified that the tradesperson (or the landlord) would enter her unit on 18 November 2024 and did not give her permission for them to enter.

The landlord says the energy supply company notified the landlord that they needed access to the tenant’s unit to replace something connected to the tenant’s stove. The landlord says on 18 November 2024 he, and the tradesperson supplier entered the tenant’s unit. The landlord says the tradesperson was present for two or three minutes. The landlord stated in a text message to the tenant that he “took the opportunity” to retrieve carpet from the “shared 2 nd room.” The landlord stated in the text that, “You’re (justifiably) frustration with the number of interruptions.”

I am satisfied the landlord did not seek the tenant’s permission to enter the premises on 18 November 2024, and the tenant had not previously given her consent for him to do so. Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act on 18 November 2024.

The unlawful act impacted the tenant in that she felt violated when she came home to realise someone had moved her clothes and mirror without her consent. One global award for four unlawful entries

The District Court has confirmed that when awarding exemplary damages for multiple breaches of the same unlawful act provision, the Tribunal must order exemplary damages as a global order, not for each individual breach. 4 Taking into consideration the maximum penalty available is $1,500, and the individual circumstances of each of the four breaches, I consider an award of $1,500 in exemplary damages is appropriate and make an order accordingly. Tenant claim: acting to terminate without grounds

[The tenant/s] claims on 23 November 2024 the landlord gave the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy knowing that they were not entitled under the RTA to give the notice.

A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant knowing that they are not entitled, under the RTA, to give the notice. See section 60AA of the RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A of the RTA. 4 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583.

The tenant says on 23 November 2024 the landlord terminated the tenancy effective immediately. The tenant says the landlord’s wife first verbally told the tenant to leave the premises, during an altercation between the tenant and landlord at approximately 1:45pm that day. At that time, the landlord had entered the tenant’s unit and asked the tenant to vacate for a planned open home. The tenant says she had mistakenly thought the open home commenced at 2pm and so was not ready to leave. The tenant says the parties then had a verbal argument, during which the landlord’s wife told the tenant to leave the premises. The altercation was both verbal, and the landlord says, also physical.

Once the tenant had left, the landlord’s wife sent the tenant an email at 2:54pm on 23 November 2024, copied to the landlord, stating: Given your aggressive behaviour and violence today, and deliberate blocking of our open home despite a week’s notice, we are issuing you a trespass notice, so you cannot enter our house again. Your chattels will be available to you to collect on any specified time/day with two hours notice, no later than Thursday this week, but strictly under supervision and in the presence of the police. Ira and John

The landlord confirmed his wife sent the tenant the email on his behalf on 23 November 2024. He says he and his wife were advised by Police to issue a trespass notice. He says he asked his wife to send the email because he was in shock. The landlord stated he believed they terminated the tenancy on legal grounds because they were afraid for their lives.

There is no provision of the RTA that permits the landlord of a residential tenancy to immediately terminate a tenancy. In circumstances where an alleged assault has occurred (as the landlord alleges occurred here), the landlord must apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on that basis. 5

The notice to terminate issued by email at 2:54pm on 23 November 2024 was clearly without grounds under the RTA. The landlord did not provide any basis under the RTA for issuing the notice to terminate, rather the landlord referred to their belief they could issue a trespass notice to the tenant.

The landlord’s evidence that he issued (or authorised his wife to issue) the notice to terminate in reliance upon the advice of the Police is rejected. The Police do not commonly provide legal advice to landlords regarding the termination of residential tenancies. Even if a Police officer had, on this occasion, given such advice, the landlord, as a former barrister and solicitor, 6 had the ability to consider whether that advice was sound. The landlord was required to consider whether grounds existed under the RTA, not the Trespass Act 1980, to terminate the tenancy. 5 Pursuant to section 55(1)(c) of the RTA. 6 Judicial notice is taken of this fact pursuant to s97(5) of the RTA.

In all the circumstances, I am satisfied the landlord knew they were not entitled under the RTA to give notice to the tenant to immediately terminate the tenancy on 23 November 2024.

Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act on 23 November 2024.

I am satisfied the landlord intentionally issued the notice to terminate the tenancy knowing that they were not entitled under the RTA to give the notice. The notice was issued in writing, by email, approximately one hour after the parties had had an altercation over the start of the open home.

The effect of the unlawful act was to cause the tenant high levels of stress. The tenant returned to the premises later the same day to collect her belongings (after gaining access after the landlord locked her out) and had vacated the premises by 29 November 2024. The tenant paid rent up until 3 December 2024. The landlord did not refund the tenant any rent paid.

Taking all those factors into account, I consider an award of half of the maximum amount permissible ($6,500) is appropriate.

I award $3,250 in exemplary damages and make an order accordingly. Tenant claim: failure to ensure tenancy agreement in writing

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord failed to ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing.

A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 of the RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.

The landlord accepts the tenancy agreement was not in writing. Therefore, 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 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.

The tenant says if the tenancy agreement had been in writing, the parties would have understood their obligations under the law better, and much of these issues may have been avoided. The landlord stated the tenant is seeking a windfall as she benefited from the “boarding arrangements,” which he says resulted in the tenant paying less in board than if the premises were rented on the basis it was a residential tenancy.

The landlord’s obligation to ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing applies to both residential tenancies and boarding house tenancies. 7 The landlord’s submission that the tenant benefitted from the agreement not being in writing is without basis.

I am satisfied the landlord intentionally breached the obligation to ensure the agreement was in writing. It was to the landlord’s benefit, not the tenant’s, to present the tenancy as a “boarding arrangement” in an attempt to avoid their obligations under the RTA. Regardless of that attempt to reclassify the agreement as a boarding house tenancy, the landlord remained obligated to ensure an agreement was in writing and I find the landlord intentionally failed to do so.

I am satisfied it is just to award exemplary damages, but award only nominal damages, as the landlord’s failure had minimal impact on the tenant. A nominal award of $200 is justified in recognition that a landlord’s obligations under the RTA can not be ignored.

I award $200 in exemplary damages and make an order accordingly. Tenant claim: failure to lodge the bond

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord accepts the bond of $1048 was not lodged with the Bond Centre and was instead held by the landlord personally throughout the tenancy. Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. 7 See s13 of the RTA, which is not excluded under the rules specific to boarding house tenancies as listed at s66A(2) of the RTA.

The landlord says he did not lodge the bond as he believed the tenancy was a boarding house tenancy. I reject that evidence. Under a boarding house tenancy, it is only if a bond of one week’s rent or less is received that the bond does not need to be lodged. 8 The bond the landlord received was more than one week’s rent. There is no basis for the landlord to have formed the view he was not required to lodge the bond.

I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond. The landlord’s evidence that he did not believe he was required to lodge the bond because it was a boarding house arrangement is without foundation. The tenant says the impact of the landlord’s failure was that she felt she had no way to challenge the landlord’s claims for damage at the end of the tenancy as the bond was held by him personally, and not secured by a third party.

I am satisfied it is just to award exemplary damages, but award only nominal damages, as the landlord’s failure had minimal impact on the tenant. A nominal award of $200 is justified in recognition that lodging of the bond with an independent third party provides security for both parties in the event of a dispute.

At the hearing, the parties confirmed a large portion of the bond had been refunded to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The parties confirmed the landlord still retained $400 of the tenant’s bond.

An order is made that the landlord pay the remaining $400 bond held by the landlord to the tenant. Tenant claim: failure to appoint agent when out of the country

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord failed to appoint an agent when they were out of the country between May and August 2024.

A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days mut ensure that the landlord has an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) of the 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 16(6) and Schedule 1A of the RTA. 8 See s66D of the RTA.

The landlord confirmed he and his wife were overseas from 8 May 2024 to 17 August 2024, a total of 101 days. The landlord says they did not appoint an agent. The landlord stated he remained contactable via email and that, if issues arose, he would arrange a tradesperson to deal with any repairs.

Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.

I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to appoint an agent. The landlord took the view that remaining contactable via email was sufficient and chose not to appoint an agent.

The tenant says the landlord told her they would be going away shortly before their departure in May 2024, but did not say where they were going or when they would be returning. The tenant did not experience any issues requiring maintenance, or otherwise, while the landlord was overseas.

I am satisfied it is just to award exemplary damages but award only nominal damages as the landlord’s failure to appoint an agent had little or no impact on the tenant. A nominal award of $200 is justified in recognition that the RTA requires a landlord to nominate an agent so that any issues which arise in their absence can be actioned in a reasonable timeframe. Tenant claim: compensation for rent charged for second bedroom

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord charged her rent on the basis she had exclusive use of the two-bedroom unit, however, she later discovered the landlord treated the second bedroom of her unit as being of “shared use”, entering it and using it for storage. The tenant says this is contrary to the agreement made between the parties and seeks reimbursement of $25 per week for the 38 weeks of the tenancy, being $950.00.

The tenant says before she moved in, the landlord offered her the option of renting the unit and having private use of the second bedroom, at a rate of $50 per week, or alternatively agreeing to share the second bedroom with the landlord (to use it for storage) at a rate of $25 per week. The tenant says she chose to have exclusive use and did not agree to the landlord having access to the second bedroom.

The landlord says the tenant was never granted exclusive use of the second bedroom. The landlord referred to an email exchange on 15 February 2024 in which the parties discussed the options of “separate use” or “shared use” of the second bedroom. In that exchange the landlord said the “separate use” arrangement would be on the basis the tenant used the room “during daylight hours only.” The tenant responded to that email and confirmed that was acceptable and clarified her understanding that daylight hours were 7am – 7pm during the week, and 8am – 7pm on weekend.

In the email exchange the parties discussed times the tenant would agree to use (or not use) the second bedroom on the basis the landlord was concerned the tenant walking around the bedroom would disturb the landlord and his wife, whose bedroom was directly below. The discussion related to the times the tenant agreed not to walk around in the second bedroom. The exchange is not evidence the tenant agreed to the landlord entering or using the second bedroom at any time.

I am satisfied the arrangement made was for the tenant to have exclusive use of the second bedroom. I am however not satisfied the tenant has proved it is more likely than not that that arrangement was breached by the landlord (other than the occasions for which I have awarded exemplary damages for the landlord’s unlawful entry).

I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation in relation to rent charged for the exclusive use of the second bedroom. Landlord claim: compensation for damage

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 of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.

The landlord claimed the tenant had caused the following damage: a. A 2m long rip in the carpet in the living room; b. Glueing or otherwise fixing a mat to the carpet at the top of the stairs; and c. Damage to walls caused by picture hooks. (a) Carpet damage – rip and fixing of mat

John Eichelbaum claims the tenant damaged the carpet such that it required replacing completely. The landlord seeks $2000 compensation from the tenant.

The landlord says the carpet in the tenant’s unit was high quality carpet installed in 2015. A photograph of the living room carpet taken on or about 16 March 2024, and emailed to the tenant on 16 March 2024, was provided.

A photograph taken on 28 November 2024 shows damage to the carpet near where the carpet meets the kitchen flooring. The landlord says the damage was caused by the tenant. The landlord says the tenant also glued, or otherwise fixed, a mat to the carpet at the top of the stairs.

I am satisfied the photographs taken on or about 28 November 2024 show a rip in the carpet in the area adjacent to the kitchen flooring which occurred during the tenancy. It is not clear how large the rip is. No measurement was provided but, from the photographs, it would appear to be smaller than the two- metres claimed by the landlord.

I am not satisfied the photographs show a mat was glued or otherwise fixed to the carpet. The tenant stated the mat was attached by carpet tape which was not permanent and could be removed. The photographs provided by the landlord do not clearly show whether the carpet tape or other adheisve damaged the carpet.

The landlord says they did not hold insurance for tenant damage. The landlord says the landlord replaced the carpet at a cost of over $3,000. The landlord did not have an invoice to demonstrate the actual cost incurred to replace the carpet but provided copies of bank transactions which showed one payment of $1,573.50 was made to Factory Carpets on 27 June 2025 and a second payment of $1,573.50 was made to Bowkura Limited on 3 July 2025. No

Carpet installed in a residential rental property is estimated to have a useful lifespan of eight years. 9 The carpet in this unit was nine years old before the tenant moved in. Even so, I accept the carpet appeared to be in good condition at the start of the tenancy, and clearly had been ripped by the end of the tenancy.

I do not accept that the damage caused necessitated the replacement of all of the carpet. I consider it appropriate that the tenant pay $500 compensation for the damage caused to the carpet during the tenancy. 9 IR265 August 2024, p.36. (b) Wall damage

John Eichelbaum claims the tenant installed picture hooks on walls in several rooms which damaged the walls. The landlord seeks $165 compensation to repair the damage. The tenant accepts she installed picture hooks but says they were a removable type and/or any damage that was caused was fair wear and tear.

The landlord provided photographs taken on 28 November 2024 which show pictures hooks left in the lounge, at the top of the stairs and in one bedroom. The landlord did not have evidence to show the condition the walls were in at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord says they repaired the damage themselves. They say it took the two of them 1.5 hours to complete the work. They say a tradesperson would have charged $89 per hour to complete the work.

Given the tenant accepts installing the picture hooks, and accepts she did not remove them at the end of the tenancy, I am satisfied the damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy.

I consider it appropriate that the tenant pay the landlord $100 compensation for the damage caused to the walls. Landlord claim: compensation for cleaning carpet on stairs

John Eichelbaum claims the tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonable clean and reasonably tidy condition, in breach of s40(1)(e)(iii). The landlord says the carpet on the stairs of the unit was dirty and required cleaning. The landlord seeks compensation of $100.

The tenant denies liability for any alleged dirt at the bottom of the carpeted stairs.

The landlord did not produce a photograph the dirt allegedly left on the carpet at the bottom of the stairs. The only photo referred to, which the landlord says was taken on 28 November 2024, did not clearly show the bottom stairs.

The landlord has not proved the carpet at the bottom of the stairs was not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning the carpet on the stairs is dismissed. Landlord claim: failure, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter

John Eichelbaum claims the tenant did not allow the landlord (or their agent) entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.

A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy 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 without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord referred to an email sent to the tenant on 18 November 2024 in which he advised the tenant open homes were “scheduled for 1:45 on Sat & sun (30 min).” The landlord says the tenant had previously given verbal consent to agents and prospective purchasers entering the premises during open homes, and this email was just him confirming the times for that week.

The tenant accepts she gave permission for the open homes to take place, including on Saturday 23 November at 1:45pm. The tenant says at the time of the open home she had mistakenly thought the open home would begin at 2pm, as the open home the weekend prior had been at 2pm. When Mrs Eichelbaum entered the premises at 1:45pm, the tenant says she was in the bathroom. She says she came out and Mrs Eichelbaum was on the stairway of her unit.

At that point, the parties entered into a verbal argument in which Mrs Eichelbaum told the tenant to leave the premises as the open home was due to start. The tenant says she did not refuse to let the open home commence, or refuse the landlord’s entry into the premises, but says she told Mrs Eichelbaum to leave her unit until 2pm. The tenant says she also took offence to Mrs Eichelbaum’s directives that the tenant tidy her bed.

The landlord says the tenant blocked the agents from entering the premises to conduct the open home at the agreed time. The landlord relies on the affidavit evidence of Bobby McMillan and Cindy Yu, both real estate agents, who say they were present when Mrs Eichelbaum went up to the tenant’s unit. They both say they were standing in the downstairs courtyard. They both say the tenant’s upstairs unit could not be shown as part of the open home as, “that part of the house was blocked by this person [the tenant].”

I am satisfied the tenant had given consent to the open home at 1:45pm on Saturday 23 November 2024, but that the tenant had a reasonable excuse to refuse entry. The manner in which Mrs Eichelbaum entered the tenant’s unit and demanded the tenant tidy her bed and leave was unnecessarily aggressive. I find Mrs Eichelbaum’s actions caused the tenant distress and gave the tenant reasonable grounds to refuse the landlord entry.

I am not satisfied the tenant committed an unlawful act and dismiss the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?

The landlord has not been substantially successful in their counterclaim, therefore the tenant is not required to reimburse the landlord’s application fee.

The tenant did not seek reimbursement of the applciation fee. Should the parties’ identifying details be suppressed?

Both parties sought name suppression in their applications.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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. See s 95A(1) of the RTA.

The tenant’s application was substantially successful, therefore the tenant is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

The landlord’s counterclaim was not wholly or substantially successful. I have however considered whether I should grant suppression for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under section 95A(4) of the RTA.

The issue I need to consider is whether the interests of the landlord outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.

The application for suppression is declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders but that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.

Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name.