What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5084111 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5084111?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Painter Lost Income Invoice: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Management Invoice: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Refund: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Trade Me Advertising Fees: $108.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5084111?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5084111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11596335-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5084111 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5084111?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Painter Lost Income Invoice: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Management Invoice: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Refund: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Trade Me Advertising Fees: $108.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5084111?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5084111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11596335-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5084111 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5084111 — net $1,058.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Trade Me advertising fees	$108.00		Trade Me advertising fees
Property management invoice	$1,400.00		Property management invoice
Painter lost income invoice	$800.00		Painter lost income invoice
Rent refund		$750.00	Rent refund
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$500.00	Unlawful entry
Total award	$2,308.00	$1,250.00
Net award	$1,058.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,058.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5084111 — net $1,058.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Trade Me advertising fees	$108.00		Trade Me advertising fees
Property management invoice	$1,400.00		Property management invoice
Painter lost income invoice	$800.00		Painter lost income invoice
Rent refund		$750.00	Rent refund
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$500.00	Unlawful entry
Total award	$2,308.00	$1,250.00
Net award	$1,058.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,058.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] to pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 in exemplary damages for unlawful entry and $750.00 for a rent refund, as included in the table below.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,058.00 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,058.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,942.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants had originally applied for a reduction of a fixed term tenancy and exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry.
The landlord made a cross application for termination and possession, rent arrears, outgoings, compensation damages, refund bond and exemplary damages for failure to allow entry.
Since the original applications there was an agreement for the tenants to break the fixed term lease, although the specific terms of that agreement are in dispute, together with the remaining claims. Background
On 19 October 2024 the tenants commenced a fixed term tenancy agreement, due to end on 7 December 2025.
Prior to the tenancy agreement, there were some discussions around the spa pool (and whether it worked) and internal painting requirements.
The landlord had also scheduled maintenance work to occur prior to the tenants moving in, including maintenance to the floors. These were scheduled to be finished prior to move in and as a result the tenants planned to move in during the weekend of 9 th November 2024. The landlord submits that they worked with the tenants on this date, and it was earlier than anticipated to accommodate the tenants’ move from Auckland – although the tenants dispute this.
Prior to the tenants moving into the property, there were some further discussions about gas bottles at the property (required for hot water), and an arrangement was made for the landlord to leave two gas bottles until the tenants could arrange delivery through a gas company.
On Friday 8 November 2024, the landlord called the tenants to confirm that the planned maintenance work at the property was mostly done, there was just some outstanding exterior painting that would likely be done the following week.
That same evening at around 8:45pm, the tenants contacted the landlord to advise that they had arrived at the property, but that the wrong keys had been left out for them. Correct keys were arranged for access through the owner’s neighbours. In addition, the landlord advised by text that they had not had time to fill the gas bottles left at the property.
That same weekend, the landlord also entered the property as part of the handover process and to drop the correct keys. The spa pool was discussed, as it was not working, and the landlord advised they were looking to replace it with another one. There was also a discussion around the interior repainting work discussed earlier, which had also not been done. The landlord advised they were waiting on the tenants to select a colour.
The landlord said they told the tenants the exterior paint work would commence the next day (weather dependant). This was subsequently delayed, and the tenants were told it would possibly be the following week. The tenants say that during this handover discussion the landlord also listed other required maintenance items including renovating the wooden deck and painting the chimney.
The tenants were not aware of any pre-inspection report, so they say they took photographs of items they believed relevant, and submitted they had concerns around a possible leak in the laundry and bathroom.
On 11 November 2024 the tenants advised the landlord that they no longer wanted to remain in the tenancy because of the work that was still required to the tenancy, the requirement for a replacement spa pool and the property having no exterior plugs for their electric cars. The tenants offered to assist with finding replacement tenants. The records show that the landlord was “happy to release upon finding another tenant” and the tenants covering the costs related to finding replacement tenants.
It is clear from both parties’ submissions and the documents provided that the relationship between the parties starts to break down from this point.
A viewing for a potential replacement tenant was held on 13 November 2024.
From 19 November 2024 the tenants requested updates from the landlord on replacement tenants and offered to help with administration around advertisements and there are several messages exchanged between the parties relating to updates and potential tenant viewings. At this time, the tenants began publishing the property for rent on Facebook and at some stage after this point, they also posted a listing on myRent. At the hearing, the landlord raised significant concerns about the listing on myRent and the tenants holding themselves as having authority to list and/or rent the property.
On 25 November 2024 the exterior painter texted the tenants in the morning to say he would be at the property at about 9am to carry out the external painting and maintenance work. When he arrived at the property, one of the tenants was annoyed and demanded 48 hours’ notice. The painter advised that he was confused, felt uncomfortable and immediately phoned the landlord. The painter was required to leave the property, despite having scheduled his week for the exterior maintenance work. As a result, he invoiced the landlord $800.00 for two days loss of income, due to an inability to schedule other jobs at short notice. The tenant phoned the landlord upset about the exterior painter arriving when she was working from home and after that discussion, she says she no longer felt safe, phoned the police, and left the property to stay with friends.
On the same day and due to advice from tenancy services (provided as evidence), the landlord issued the tenants a notice for anti-social behaviour.
The tenants filed an application with the Tribunal seeking a mediation the following day.
On 27 November 2024 the landlord issued a 14-day notice to the tenants for refusing the allow the painter access to the exterior of the property as agreed. The landlord also proposed resolution terms whereby the tenants would grant access for potential tenant viewings when required and cover any incurred costs relating to the break of the fixed term tenancy.
On 26 November 2024 the tenants wrote to the landlord proposing counter terms for breaking the lease and advising that they would be going to the Tribunal to “seek formal resolution”.
On 28 November 2024 the tenants proposed a new agreement for resolution that was not accepted by the landlord.
The tenants advised that they moved out of the property on 29 November 2024, although say that they still had possession of the property and were continuing to pay rent.
On 4 December 2024 the tenants say that the landlord emailed advising that an inspection had been held the day prior, but that they had not been advised of any such inspection. The tenants issued the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy for the unlawful entry.
The following day, on 5 December 2024, the tenants received an email advising that the landlord intended to carry out “necessary repairs and maintenance of the premises”. They advised that between the hours of 8am to 7pm tradespersons and potential tenants would be allowed at the property without the need for notifying the tenants or obtaining their consent.
The tenants went to the property that same day to prepare the house for a viewing for prospective tenants through the myRent listing they had created. At that time, they found that the bathrooms and laundry had been gutted with rubbish and bathroom fittings outside the house. They cancelled the viewings and phoned police again. The tenants have provided photographs of the state of the property.
On 6 December 2024 the tenants emailed the landlord expressing shock at the condition of the property and issued a second notice for unlawful entry.
On 10 December 2024 the landlord wrote to the tenants advising that they had sought to accommodate the tenants desire to vacate and had been able to secure a new tenant who could move in prior to Christmas. They included a letter serving to terminate the tenancy on 20 December 2024 on the condition that, in the same manner proposed on 27 November 2024, the tenants agree to pay; Trade Me adverts and related costs, painter’s loss of earnings, two weeks bond and one week rent they said was owing at that time.
The tenants did not accept these terms.
Evidence has been provided in respect of several other issues, for example the gas bottles being improperly installed by the tenants, however it is not necessary to canvas this additional evidence for the purpose of this decision.
I also note for completeness that both parties submitted that the situation has caused them significant emotional distress, in some instances culminating in illness as a result.

When did the tenancy end?

The fixed term tenancy was reduced by agreement and a new tenant moved into the property on 20 December 2024.
The first question to consider is when did this tenancy end?
The landlord submits that the tenancy was not terminated until 20 December 2024 as the new tenant did not move into the property until this date, and that they only agreed to release the tenants from their lease obligations when a new tenant moved into the property.
In normal circumstances, I would be inclined to award rent until the new tenants moved into the property. The landlord did not need to agree to release the tenants from the tenancy at all, and they did try to be accommodating despite the inconvenience.
However, the evidence shows that the landlord did effectively have possession of the property on 5 December 2024, when they commenced (what appears from the photographs to be) major maintenance of the bathroom and laundry. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the property was not able to be lived in at this time. I also cannot see any notice given to the tenants that this work was going to be undertaken until the day it commenced. Although the landlord may not have intended for the tenancy to have ended at this stage, they treated the property and their obligations under the RTA as though it had. It would not be fair or reasonable to allow the landlord to receive rent when they had full and unfettered access to the property.
This also appears to be the last day that the tenants attended the house to facilitate a potential tenant to viewing (that was cancelled due to the works).
I therefore find that the tenancy ended on 5 December 2024. Claim for outstanding rent arrears
The landlord claims for rent arrears to 20 December 2024. The tenants have paid rent until 12 December 2024.
As I have found that the tenancy ended on 5 December 2024, I therefore find that the tenants are entitled to a rent refund of $750.00. Compensation for reduction of fixed term lease
The landlord is still entitled to be compensated for costs relating to the reduced fixed term tenancy, and the reasonable costs incurred in securing new tenants.
The landlord claims for Trade Me advertising costs of $108.00 and has provided evidence of these in support and these costs are awarded.
The landlord also claims for $1,725.00 in additional rental management costs and has provided an invoice for these. I find that most of the items included in the invoice were reasonable. The landlord did find a replacement tenant quickly, prior to Christmas, and no doubt there was significant additional and unexpected time incurred in doing so. These costs would not have been incurred, but for, the tenants requesting to break their fixed term lease.
However, the invoice includes an amount for “maintenance”, which is not the tenant’s responsibility. There is no breakdown provided on the invoice and so I have reduced the amount awarded to $1,400.00 to reflect a deduction for maintenance.
The amounts ordered are proved. Landlord claims
The landlord also claims for the costs incurred by them in respect of the exterior painter who was unable to complete the works and claims the invoice of $800.00 for loss of income. The landlord also claims exemplary damages for the tenant’s refusal to allow entry.
Section 48 of the RTA details the required notice periods when the landlord is to enter the premises during the tenancy. However, these notice periods do not apply to the exterior of the premises. The landlord can have access to the exterior of the property without notice.
In addition, these works were not a surprise. The landlord had advised the tenants at the handover meeting that the exterior painting still needed to be done and estimated that it would be the following week (weather permitting). It obviously hadn’t occurred that week, but the tenants knew it was still going to happen soon. The painter also messaged the tenants prior to leaving home that morning and had received no reply.
In my view, there were no grounds for the tenant to prevent the painter undertaking the work.
The invoice for the painter’s wasted time was a foreseeable loss in the tenant taking this action and it is fair and reasonable for the tenant to cover the invoiced cost of $800.00.
Exemplary damages can be sought where the tenant fails to allow the landlord to enter the premises in circumstances where the landlord is entitled to enter (see section 48(4)(b) RTA). However, as this was not a situation where the landlord was seeking to enter the property, this section does not apply.
The exemplary damages claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claims for exemplary damages
The tenant claims the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment and that they entered the property unlawfully for an inspection on around 3 December 2024.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises, and they also must not enter the premises in circumstances that do not comply with section 48 of the RTA. See section 38(2) and section 48(4) RTA.
Breaching the 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.
Entering the property in contravention of the requirements of the RTA is also an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4) 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.
I cannot see any notice given for the inspection on 3 December 2024. As I have found that the tenancy ended on 5 December 2024, even though the tenants had moved out of the property, sufficient notice was still required prior to conducting an inspection and specifically section 48(2)(a) of the RTA requires that a landlord give not less than 48 hours’ notice prior to carrying out an inspection.
There is no evidence that the landlord gave at least 48 hours’ notice and accordingly I find that 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) RTA.
A landlord is deemed to understand the law relating to tenancy and accordingly this must be considered an intentional act. It is important that landlords give tenants sufficient notice of any intention to enter the property to maintain the tenant’s exclusive right to occupation. This is even when the landlord may have grounds to believe the tenant is no longer living at the property (and the rent is not in arrears). Accordingly, I have awarded $500.00 to the tenant for exemplary damages.
The tenants also claim exemplary damages for harassment, emotional harm and stress. Although the relationship between the parties had broken down and I have no doubt that this caused the tenants trouble, worry and stress, I am not satisfied that this was caused by any specific behaviour or pattern of behaviour of landlord directed towards the tenants and that any steps by the landlord meet the level for harassment. The correspondence from both parties became contentious and heated.
This claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
As both parties have both had some success, I have not awarded the filing fee to either party.
Both parties have applied for suppression and again, as both parties have had some level of success, and any decision benefit to the public can be achieved without publishing names, I have suppressed both the landlord’s and tenants’ names and identifying details. R Harvey-Lane 19 March 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5084111 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5084111 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions