Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5079709 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 9 Elizabeth Street, Papakura, Papakura
Decided 15 Jul 2025 · Published 15 Jul 2025 · Application 5079709
- Exemplary damages
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Jessica Victoria Carter must pay [The tenant/s] $4,277.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- In addition, Jessica Victoria Carter is to ensure that the bond of $1,380.00 has been returned to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 11 July 2025.
- This was a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 30 July 2024 and ended on the tenant vacating the premises on 20 January 2025. Rent is up to date at the end of the tenancy.
- While the landlord has cross claimed for compensation against the tenant, the landlord abandoned her claims at the end of the hearing.
- I now address each of the tenant’s discrete claims as follows. Bond lodgment
- [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged 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 (‘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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord failed to lodge the bond, placing it with her accountants instead. I find they have committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The bond was also not returned promptly at the end of the tenancy. Having regard to the landlord’s explanation, the fact that the bond was kept in her accountant’s trust account and the failure to return it promptly at the end of the tenancy, and the effect of the unlawful act on the tenant, I am satisfied it is just to award $750.00 exemplary damages against the landlord. Breach of quiet enjoyment and harrasment
- [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed her.
- A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
- The landlord had tried to evict the tenant in November 2024 on grounds of incompatibility. Matters came to a head after the tenant refused to vacate (as she was well entitled to ignore the landlord’s notice) and advised the landlord to seek legal advice for their actions.
- The landlord believed that they were entitled to give 4 weeks’ notice to terminate the tenancy as this was set out in the tenancy agreement. However, this was a fixed term tenancy which did not allow the landlord to end the tenancy by notice despite the terms of the tenancy agreement purporting to allow the landlord to do so.
- Further, the relevant provisions of Residential Tenancies Act 1986 effective at the time did not allow a landlord to give notice to terminate a periodic tenancy without cause.
- Whether the tenancy agreement is viewed as periodic or fixed term, one thing is clear: the landlord could not have given 4 weeks’ notice without cause to end the tenancy!
- By failing to take legal advice or even making a phone call to Tenancy Services to enquire as to the parties’ positions, the landlord conducted themselves from November 2024 onwards on the footing that the tenant had been difficult, refusing to leave and tried to trespass the tenant from the premises.
- The landlord’s actions were unlawful. I find the landlord have interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in circumstances that amount to harassment.
- Considering the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act of harassment on the tenant, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest, I am satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages of $1,000 against the landlord. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I also award general damages in favour of the tenant for both the breach of her quiet enjoyment and the landlord’s inference with mail services. Interference with services
- [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises by limiting her access to mail (letterbox) services, internet and electricity.
- 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. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I accept the landlord’s explanation on the disruption of internet services and temporary power outage which were beyond their control. However I find they have committed an unlawful act when the letterbox was padlocked preventing the tenant’s access.
- Considering the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act on the tenant, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest, I am satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages of $350 against the landlord for interfering with the letterbox and ability of the tenant to retrieve her mail without delay. Landlord acting to terminate without grounds
- The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA RTA.
- Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
- 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 $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord gave 4 weeks’ notice to end the parties’ fixed term tenancy when they are not entitled to do. 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Here the landlord had relied on the specific term in the tenancy agreement which appears to allow the landlord to give 4 weeks’ notice to terminate the fixed term tenancy without cause. However, when challenged by the tenant subsequently, the landlord did not take advice from Tenancy Services or obtain legal advice to check on whether their position was correct or otherwise. If the landlord had then taken proper advice, it is likely they would have then retracted the invalid notice and there would be less stress and inconvenience caused to the tenant.
- I consider the landlord’s failure to take legal or appropriate advice to render the un-retracted notice a form of wilful blindness to the effect that the landlord has issued an invalid notice knowing (or being wilfully blind) they are not entitled to do so.
- Considering the landlord’s intent/wilful blindness, the effect of the unlawful act on the tenant, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest, I am satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages of $850 against the landlord for giving a notice to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
- Finally, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the landlord had tried to annoy the tenant by switching the washing machine off and throwing her blanket onto the floor/steps. The ensuing altercation also resulted in the landlord manhandling the tenant causing stress and inconvenience to the tenant. I award the tenant general damages of $500 for the disturbance to the tenant’s peace and quiet enjoyment of the premises on that occasion.
- Only the amounts ordered are proved.
- The tenant is largely successful in her claims. I order the reimbursement of the filing fee and an order for suppression of the tenant’s name accordingly.