What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5077948 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5077948?

Compensation: $2,787.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $187.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5077948?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5077948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12471852-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5077948 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5077948?

Compensation: $2,787.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $187.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5077948?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5077948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12471852-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5077948 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5077948. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for no tenancy agreement	$187.50	Exemplary damages for no tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond	$375.00	Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages for cutting power	$900.00	Exemplary damages for cutting power
Exemplary damages for unlawful/retaliatory notice	$3,250.00	Exemplary damages for unlawful/retaliatory notice
Exemplary damages for interfering with reasonable peace	$500.00	Exemplary damages for interfering with reasonable peace
Compensation overpaid rent to 21/12/24	$2,787.50	Compensation overpaid rent to 21/12/24
Bond repayment	$300.00	Bond repayment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5077948. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for no tenancy agreement	$187.50	Exemplary damages for no tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond	$375.00	Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages for cutting power	$900.00	Exemplary damages for cutting power
Exemplary damages for unlawful/retaliatory notice	$3,250.00	Exemplary damages for unlawful/retaliatory notice
Exemplary damages for interfering with reasonable peace	$500.00	Exemplary damages for interfering with reasonable peace
Compensation overpaid rent to 21/12/24	$2,787.50	Compensation overpaid rent to 21/12/24
Bond repayment	$300.00	Bond repayment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The landlord] must pay [the tenant] $8,327.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The claim is allowed as set out in this order and its

Reasons

. All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages for no tenancy agreement$187.50 Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond$375.00 Exemplary damages for cutting power$900.00 Exemplary damages for unlawful/retaliatory notice Exemplary damages for interfering with reasonable peace $3,250.00 $500.00 Compensation overpaid rent to 21/12/24 Bond repayment Filing fee reimbursement $2,787.50 $300.00 $27.00 Total award$8,327.00

REASONS:

I heard this matter on 30 May 2025 and 5 September 2025 at the Waitakere District Court.
Both parties attended the hearings.
Both parties have made claims against the other Introduction
The case involves a tenancy of a sleepout on the landlord’s property. The landlord is an older woman with serious health issues. The tenant is a young man finding his way in the world with his own personal and health issues.
The tenancy was an informal one and the landlord disregarded the formalities required of her by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Unfortunately, the originally amicable relationship between the parties disintegrated to distrust, loathing, and fear. The landlord did not want the tenant living by her any longer and evicted the tenant, but once again in breach of the Act. The tenant did not accept the eviction, but the landlord refused to let the tenant back onto her property. Background
The tenancy began on 27 February 2023. On 11 October 2024, the landlord gave notice terminating the tenancy as at midnight on 25 October 2025.
The landlord is in her late 60s. She lives on the property in the main house. The property also has a self-contained sleepout with its own kitchen, bathroom, and facilities.
The tenant and the landlord met for the first time in the landlord’s driveway in February of 2023. The tenant, a young man, was moving out of another tenancy just up the road. He was looking for another place to live in the area. They had a pleasant conversation. The landlord’s sleepout was vacant. The tenant told the landlord he was looking for somewhere to live and she offered the sleepout to the tenant on terms including rent of $180.00 plus six hours “general property maintenance work” per week in lieu of rent.
The landlord and tenant got on well to begin with. However, over time their initially good relationship broke down. They increasingly argued about the tenant’s work in lieu of rent. The tenant overheard a conversation between the landlord and her friend that led him to believe the landlord had gone into the premises without his permission. He thought she had breached an agreement to provide Wi-Fi to the premises.
The increasingly acrimonious discussions led to the utter fallout between the landlord and tenant. From having had a good opinion of the tenant to begin with, the landlord found the tenant sneaky and manipulative. The tenant found the landlord bullying and abusive.
The landlord, who has serious health issues, now distrusted the tenant and felt unsafe. The tenant was vulnerable and also unwell. His family relations were strained, and my impression is that he was a little isolated and finding his way in the world.
On about 11 October 2024, the landlord and the tenant had an explosive argument which destroyed whatever trust there may have been between them. The tenant told her that he had overheard her private conversations, talked to lawyers and spoken to Police about her. The landlord angrily responded by telling the tenant he had to move out. The next day the landlord gave the tenant two weeks’ written notice to leave.
The tenant did not move out. He contested the landlord’s notice as invalid and continued paying rent.
The landlord, who says she was extremely distressed by the tenant’s refusal to go, doubled down. She turned the power to the sleepout off and repeatedly texted the tenant “where to go” in no uncertain terms.
The tenant continued to stand upon his legal rights and declined to surrender the tenancy. He advised the landlord that the notice was invalid, served her asked for the power to be returned, and with a trespass notice on 30 October. On 21 and 22 December the tenant went to the property to retrieve some of his possessions, which led to physical standoff and pitched verbal battles with the landlord and her friend barring the tenant’s way and telling him to leave and not return in florid language.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord provide the tenant with a written tenancy agreement? 1 b. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond? 2 c. Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises? 3 d. Did the landlord issue the tenant with a knowingly unlawful or retaliatory termination notice? 4 e. Did the landlord interfere with the supply of power to the premises? 5 f. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy to the aggravated level of harassment? 6 g. Did the landlord breach an agreement to provide Wi-Fi to the premises? h. What does the landlord owe the tenant for overpaid rent? i.Is the tenant liable for the landlord’s costs in respect to cleaning, damage, and other matters?
For remedies the tenant seeks compensation, the return of rent paid when the premises had no power, and exemplary damages. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 13, 13A. 2 RTA, s 19(1). 3 RTA, s 48. 4 RTA, ss 54, and 60AA. 5 RTA, s 45(2). 6 RTA, s 38.
The landlord applies for rent arrears and compensation for matters including the cost of cleaning, replacing chattels, moving the tenant’s belongings, and purchasing Wi-Fi boosters and a padlock.

Did the landlord provide the tenant with a written tenancy agreement?

It is common ground the landlord did not give the tenant a written tenancy agreement. There wasn’t one. The landlord says people only lived in the sleepout intermittently and informally. She was “Not a big landlord person” and due to recent health event was “fairly broken”. She offered the sleepout to the tenant on the spur of the moment mainly out of kindness, not for the financial benefit to her, but because the tenant was desperate for accommodation.
The landlord says she was not aware of her legal obligations. However, landlords cannot contract out of the RTA and ignorance of the law is no excuse. 7 I am satisfied that the landlord’s failure to provide a written tenancy agreement was intentional.
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. 8
This is the first time she has faced allegations of breaching the RTA. The landlord’s intent was not malicious, but landlords who evade this primary obligation will generally evade all of their obligations under the Act. The result is tenants are potentially denied their fundamental rights under the Act to serve the landlord’s convenience and control. The downstream effect of the breach was to risk circumventing the Act’s protections. The tenant’s interests favour an order that vindicates his rights. The public interest calls for exemplary damages to punish the landlord who is in breach and to deter other landlords who might be minded to overlooking their obligations.
In light of these factors it is just to order exemplary damages at 25 per cent of the maximum.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

The landlord’s explanation for failing to lodge the bond is again that she did not think the Act applied to the agreement.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 9
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. 10 7 See RTA s 11. 8 RTA s 109(3). 9 RTA, s 19(2). 10 RTA, s 109(3).
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that intentionality is proven. The Tribunal cannot lightly absolve landlords of their bond obligations. The intention was not malicious. It was directed at avoiding the technicalities and inconvenience of a formal tenancy.
The effect of the unlawful act on the tenant was modest in that the landlord does not dispute the bond is his. This claim may not have been brought if the tenant had not been spurred on by other issues with the tenancy. It is in the tenant’s interests to award exemplary damages. It is in the public interest to award exemplary damages to deter this landlord and other landlords from similar defaults. If the Tribunal did not penalise landlords for non-compliance, there would be less disincentive for landlords to comply.
It is just to award exemplary damages.
It is appropriate to order 25 percent of the maximum in the circumstances.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

The tenant believed that the landlord unlawfully entered the premises. This was based on overhearing a conversation the landlord had with her friend in what she thought was the privacy of her own home.
The landlord denies she unlawfully entered the premises.
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. 11
The tenant heard the alleged inculpatory admission when was under the landlord’s house. He says the landlord could only know the personal details she spoke about if she had entered the premises. The tenant did not take a contemporaneous note of what he believes he heard. I do not find the circumstances of acquiring the evidence conducive to accurate hearing. The tenant is not a professional investigator, and I am not confident that his account can be relied upon.
Moreover, the evidence was unlawfully obtained, and I would refuse to admit it in any event.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did enter the premises.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord issue an unlawful or retaliatory termination notice?

The tenant claims the landlord’s termination of the tenancy was unlawful and given for retaliatory reasons. 11 RTA s 48(1) and (2), and s 60AA.
The tenant recorded the landlord’s comments during their encounter on 11 October 2024. The tenant told the landlord he spoken to lawyers, had been to Police, and had been recording her. The landlord said, “That is the final nail! That’s it! How dare you”. The tenant She issued him with a written termination notice two days later. Legal principles
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory or giving a notice to terminate knowing that they are not entitled to do so are unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 12
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord: s 54(1) of the RTA.
To be “motivated by” something, means the “thing” was a factor in the landlord’s decision to terminate.
The thing relied on does not have to be the only thing; it only needs to be a contributing factor.
The tenant in this case submits a relevant “thing” was the tenant exercising her right to ask the landlords to correct the premises non-compliance with the HHS.
A notice infected with a desire to “get back” at the tenant for exercising their rights against the landlord will be bad for being retaliatory. A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 13 Discussion
The audio recording records the landlord’s response to the tenant’s mentioning exercising his legal rights was one of outrage. That led to the landlord terminating the tenancy. Nor was the written notice lawful. The landlord only gave the tenant 14 days’ notice. However, as the law stood the landlord was not even entitled to give the tenant notice without cause.
It is probable the landlord would have checked her legal entitlements to give notice to the tenant in the circumstances. She was clearly desperate to be rid of him. It would not make sense for her not to have explored her rights to end the tenancy prior to taking the steps she did. 12 RTA, s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A. 13 For example, in Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988, Judge Ongley upheld the Tribunal’s decision that a termination notice was not retaliatory. Judge Ongley was “quite satisfied that Mrs Woodman acted reasonably on the basis of the information known to her...I am not called upon to decide whether the complaints were justified, only to decide whether Mrs Woodman gave notice in retaliation or for genuine and fair reasons.”
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the notice was retaliatory and that the landlord gave the tenant notice knowing that she was not entitled to do so.
Therefore, the landlord committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed an unlawful act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Section 109 of the RTA states that exemplary damages may be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and it is just to do so having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c.The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest.
The landlord wanted to be rid of the tenant because she now utterly distrusted and disliked him to the point of not feeling safe. I take that into account, but it cannot excuse the breach. The effect of giving the notice was to create considerable stress and inconvenience to the tenant. It is in the tenants’ interests to recognise the unlawful act by awarding exemplary damages. It is in the public interest that landlords are deterred from giving tenants notice motivated wholly or partly by tenants asserting their basic rights under the RTA.
I consider it is just to make an award in this case.
I set exemplary damages at $3,250.00 which is half of the maximum award available.

Did the landlord interfere with the supply of power to the premises?

After the tenant refused to accept the landlord’s termination notice, the landlord turned off the power to the sleepout on 26 October 2024.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. 14
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 15 14 RTA s 45(2). 15 RTA s 45(2A) and Schedule 1A.
The landlord deliberately turned off the power I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 16
Having regard to the statutory factors, I set exemplary damages at $900.00.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant claims the landlord’s actions towards him amounts to harassment. Legal principles
Tenants are entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises. 17 Landlords must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 18
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 19
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person": MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Black’s Law Dictionary 20 defines “harassment” as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English“ 21 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation”. Discussion
The landlord purported to cancel the tenancy. However, the termination was invalid, so technically the tenancy continued despite the landlord’s unequivocal repudiation.
The situation was unbearable for the landlord because the sleepout was on her own property and I accept the landlord was genuinely afraid of the tenant. It was probably fear that was expressed as hostility to the tenant who would simply go. 16 RTA s 109(3). 17 RTA s 38(1). 18 RTA s 38(2). 19 RTA s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 20 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 21 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).
Having regard to the audio and video recordings the tenant made and text messages, I am satisfied that the landlord did harass the tenant. Exemplary damages
I have regard to intent, the effects, the tenant’s interests, and the public interest.
To ensure that the level of exemplary damages is just, I take account of the exemplary damages awarded for the unlawful notice and turning off the power totalling $4,150.00.
The landlord used abusive language in person and in writing and physically barred the tenant from entering the premises. That conduct did not occur in a vacuum. The tenant whom she feared would not leave (albeit in reliance of his legal rights) and she genuinely felt threatened and was traumatised.
In all the circumstances, it is just to award $500.00 against the landlord.

Did the landlord breach an agreement to provide Wi-Fi to the premises?

The tenant claims the landlord agreed to provide access to Wi-Fi connection to fibre broadband.
Landlord says she did not formally contract to provide Wi-Fi but did take steps to provide it including buying a Wi-Fi booster unit.
The tenant could not provide any contemporaneous documents that proved that the Wi-Fi connection was a term of the tenancy contract.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that providing Wi-Fi was a contractual term.
This claim is dismissed.

What does the landlord owe the tenant for overpaid rent and bond?

The tenant continued to pay rent even though the landlord refused access and turned the power off.
The sleepout was uninhabitable and the tenant could not live there without interruption by the landlord. That being so, the landlord must repay the rent paid after the purported termination date.
Therefore, the Tribunal orders the landlord to repay the tenant $2,787.50 for rent. The landlord’s claims for cleaning, damage, and other matters
Tenants must ordinarily leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
In this case, the tenant did not have the opportunity to move out with dignity and time to attend to his cleaning obligations.
The landlord’s fridge may have been damaged by rotten food, but the fridge was old, and the food rotted due to her turning off the power.
The landlord wanted compensation for repaying her friends for their help in moving the tenant’s belongings by way of a koha restaurant meal. The landlord did not give the tenant proper opportunity to move his belongings out in accordance with a lawful notice.
The landlord wished to claim for the impact of the tenant’s conduct. However, she could not connect the alleged harm to a breach of the RTA.
The landlord’s claims are dismissed. Filing fee
The Tribunal orders the landlord to reimburse the tenant for the filing fee because the tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. 22 Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 23
The tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that the Tribunal should order publication in the public interest or because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances. The Tribunal orders non-publication of the tenant’s details.
The landlord also seeks an order for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published. 24
The landlord is in her late sixties and in poor health. The circumstances are unusual and not all of the landlord’s making. She embarked upon the tenancy with kind intentions. She is unlikely to rent out the sleepout again and if she does, this order will be a salutary lesson to obey the RTA. The public interest is consistent with an order for non-publication. The Tribunal also orders non-publication of the landlord’s details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5077948 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5077948 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide the tenant with a written tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord issue an unlawful or retaliatory termination notice?

Did the landlord interfere with the supply of power to the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord breach an agreement to provide Wi-Fi to the premises?

What does the landlord owe the tenant for overpaid rent and bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide the tenant with a written tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord issue an unlawful or retaliatory termination notice?

Did the landlord interfere with the supply of power to the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord breach an agreement to provide Wi-Fi to the premises?

What does the landlord owe the tenant for overpaid rent and bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions