What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5086329 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 5086329?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: no heating in the apar…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5086329?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5086329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12227783-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5086329 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 5086329?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: no heating in the apar…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5086329?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5086329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12227783-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 42 Peachgrove Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 5086329 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5086329 — net $1,077.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: no heating in the apartment	$400.00	no heating in the apartment
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment from other tenants	$400.00	breach of quiet enjoyment from other tenants
Exemplary damages: entering apartment unlawfully	$250.00	entering apartment unlawfully
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,077.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,077.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5086329 — net $1,077.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: no heating in the apartment	$400.00	no heating in the apartment
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment from other tenants	$400.00	breach of quiet enjoyment from other tenants
Exemplary damages: entering apartment unlawfully	$250.00	entering apartment unlawfully
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,077.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,077.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Centrum Apartments is not a boarding house and Apartment 1 is not a boarding room.
Waikato Facilities And Property Management Limited and W&L Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,077.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant (JAEP) and her representative (JP), and two representatives for the landlord (PM and LL) attended the hearing on 31 March 2025. A second hearing took place on 3 July 2025 to hear submissions on the sole issue of whether this was a boarding house tenancy. JP (for tenant) and PM and LL (for landlord) attended.
Both the tenant and the landlord have made applications to the Tribunal. Background
This tenancy started on 16 March 2023 and ended on 3 October 2024.
The landlord and tenant signed a ‘Boarding House Tenancy Agreement’ in the form supplied by Tenancy Services.
The premises are an apartment, or unit, within a residential complex.
The complex is known as ‘Centrum Apartments’ and contains two three-level blocks with four apartments on each level: a total of 24 apartments.
The tenant rented apartment number one on the ground floor for $400.00 per week (including gas and power). She paid a bond of $1,600.00.
Each level of each block also contains a shared kitchen which the tenant (and all tenants in the complex) can use.
The day-to-day management and maintenance of the apartments is handled by the landlord’s agent’s staff.
The tenant has applied for compensation. She says there were maintenance problems, the landlord entered her unit unlawfully, and that she was threatened and intimidated by the behaviour of other tenants. She said these issues caused her stress and then to move out.
The landlord refunded the full bond to the tenant and a rent credit on about 15 November 2024. The tenant’s claims
The tenant made this application soon after the tenancy ended. She seeks compensation ($400 refund of rent and $60.50 bus fare) and exemplary damages (fines) for:- a. A breach of the landlord’s maintenance and heating obligations; b. Harassment by other tenants living at the property; c. Unlawful entry into her apartment by the landlord’s agent. The landlord’s claim
The landlord claims compensation for two after hours call-outs ($75 each) because the tenant had misplaced her keys. This is $150.00. Evidence and claims
The person that makes a claim has the task of supplying evidence to prove their claim. Evidence can include oral evidence or written documents, photographs, receipts and similar.
I do not have to be certain of what is claimed, but I do have to be satisfied that it is more probable than not. The issues to be decided
The issues to be decided are:- a. Is this a boarding house tenancy or a standard residential tenancy? b. Was the landlord required to provide heating in the living room of the tenant’s apartment? c. Did the landlord comply with its maintenance obligations relating to:- i. three flooding incidents; ii. lights and power points; iii. the stove in the shared kitchen. d. Was the tenant harassed by other tenants living at the property and did the landlord fail to protect her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy? e. Did the landlord’s agent enter the tenant’s apartment unlawfully? f. Is the tenant required to compensate the landlord for two after-hours call out fees?

What is a boarding house?

The parties signed a Boarding House Tenancy Agreement on 16 March 2023.
Also signed that day was a chattels list and inspection checklist noting the condition of the premises and a one-page list of additional terms or rules.
The question as to whether this is a boarding house tenancy arose in the first hearing.
The tenant had included with her application a copy of her tenancy agreement on which she had written: (tenant handwriting in italics) Centrum Apartments “Not a Boarding House” Tenancy Agreement “studio Appartments” with Kitchin Rooms.
I asked more about this when I realised that the apartment the tenant rented was more than a bedroom. I decided to have a second hearing to allow the parties to provide evidence or submissions.
A boarding house is defined in the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) and I must apply that definition.
Other agencies and legislation may also define a boarding house, but those definitions are for different purposes. For example, the local authority or council may define a boarding house for the purpose of their District Plan.
Section 66B RTA is the definitions section related to boarding houses. It says: boarding house means residential premises— (a) containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and (b) occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time boarding house tenancy means a residential tenancy in a boarding house— (a) that is intended to, or that does in fact, last for 28 days or more; and (b) under which the tenant is granted exclusive rights to occupy particular sleeping quarters in the boarding house, and has the right to the shared use of the facilities of the boarding house boarding house tenancy agreement means a tenancy agreement (as defined in section 2(1)) relating to a boarding house tenancy boarding room means a room in a boarding house that is used as sleeping quarters by 1 or more tenants of the boarding house, and that is for use only by a tenant whose tenancy agreement relates to that room contact person means a natural person or an organisation facilities means the facilities provided by the landlord of a boarding house for the shared use by tenants of the boarding house, such as— (a) toilet and bathroom facilities: (b) cooking facilities: (c) general living, dining, or recreational areas: (d) laundry facilities: (e) lifts and stairways: (f) rubbish storage and rubbish disposal facilities: (g) appliances for heating or cooling premises: (h) communication facilities: (i) lawns, gardens, and outhouses: (j) any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles premises means the boarding house, comprising the boarding rooms and all the facilities of the boarding house; and includes any part of any premises.
It can sometimes be difficult to decide what is a boarding house and what is some other type of tenancy premises.
The landlord told me that the Centrum Apartments have been treated as a boarding house for many years and that there has been a previous Tribunal decision determining that. However, the landlord could not provide me with a reference to the decision and I have not been able to locate it.
In any event, I must make my decision based on the facts of this case.
It is important that I do this because the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants in boarding houses are different from those that apply to other residential tenancies.
The question of “what is a boarding house” has been considered by the High Court. 1
His Honour Justice Van Bohemen recommended starting with a series of questions based on the definitions in the RTA; see Karmarkar v Pandem & Ors [2018] NZHC 693. 2
These are:- a. Does the house contain one or more bedrooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants? b. Is the house occupied or intended to be occupied by 6 or more tenants? c. Is the tenancy intended to, or does in fact, last for 28 days or more? d. Are tenants granted exclusive rights to occupy particular bedrooms, whether that occupancy is for single or shared use? e. Does the right to occupy a particular bedroom derive from the tenancy agreement between the individual tenant and the landlord rather than from a collective decision of the tenants? 1 See Portfolio Property Management Ltd v Clutterbuck [2013] NZHC 3165 and Karmarkar v Pandem & Ors [2018] NZHC 693. 2 At paragraph 34.
His Honour found that if the answer to all the questions was “yes” then the premises are a boarding house.
The intention of the parties is also relevant, as it is in any contract, but is not determinative. What is determinative is the words and intent of the legislation. 3
Parliament introduced the boarding house provisions as an amendment to the RTA to make sure that these tenancies were covered by the Act and to create a separate set of rules for them. 4
The District and High Court cases emphasise a remedial purpose, quoting from the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing who said the boarding house provisions were “to provide protections for some of the most vulnerable in New Zealand – those who live in boarding houses”. 5
Interestingly though, greater powers are given to landlords of boarding house tenancies to terminate a tenancy than given to the landlords of other tenancies.
A landlord of a boarding house may terminate on short notice and without an order of the Tribunal in several circumstances.
These include when rent is in arrears and a tenant has not paid this after being given a notice to do so, 6 if a tenant has endangered or threatened to endanger people or property or caused or threatened to cause serious disruption to other tenants, 7 used the premises for an illegal purpose, 8 or abandoned the premises. 9
A landlord of other periodic tenancies must apply to the Tribunal for an order if it considers a tenancy should be terminated for these reasons.
The only exception is where a landlord or agent has been physically assaulted and the police have filed a charge in respect of that; s55AA RTA. In that case, a landlord can terminate on 14 days’ written notice.
A landlord can terminate a boarding house tenancy without a reason on 28 days’ notice; s66U(1)(d) RTA.
This compares to other periodic tenancies for which 90 days’ notice must be given; s51(1) RTA. 3 “The fact that parties may have intended a particular outcome cannot override the statute. It is the intention of the legislature that must be the driving consideration ...”; Karmaker at 29. 4 Summarised in Karmarkar at 23 to 25 citing Platinum Rentals NZ Ltd v Madden [2013] DCR 125 and Portfolio Property (above). 5 (8 December 2009) 659 NZPD 8364. 6 The breach notice must give at least 10 days to pay but if the rent is not paid by then, the landlord can terminate the tenancy on 48 hours’ notice; section 66U(1)(b) RTA. 7 A landlord can immediately terminate the tenancy; s66U(1)(a) RTA. 8 By giving 48 hours’ notice; section 66U(1)(b) RTA. 9 By giving 48 hours’ notice; section 66U(1)(b) RTA.
In Portfolio Property Management Ltd v Clutterbuck [2013] NZHC 3165, the Judge includes a quote from the Hon Maurice Williamson during the first reading of the Bill 10 which refers to this difference: “... some of the rights and obligations of tenants will differ from those of other tenants, because of the different dynamics created by communal living. These differences include the way tenancies are terminated, ...”
I am not aware of discussion or comment in the District or High Court cases as to why the tenancies of boarding house tenants may be terminated more easily than those of other tenants.

Is this a boarding house?

This question often arises in the Tribunal where a tenancy has features of both a boarding house and a standard tenancy.
In answering the questions posed by the High Court, the key issue arises on the very first question posed in Karmarkar: a. “Does the house contain one or more bedrooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants?” [my emphasis]
The word “bedroom” does not form part of the boarding house definitions in the RTA.
Presumably the word was used by the High Court because the definition of “boarding room” in s66B RTA is: “a room in a boarding house that is used as sleeping quarters by 1 or more tenants of the boarding house” 11 [my emphasis]
The word for a room used for sleeping is “bedroom”.
Both the landlord and tenant told me that the apartments in this complex contain more than a bedroom.
The tenant’s furnished apartment consisted of a bedroom, a living room with kitchenette (kitchen sink, microwave and fridge), a bathroom and laundry facilities (washing machine and dryer).
The landlord says that all twenty-four of the Centrum Apartments are like this.
There is an element of communal living in that there are shared kitchen facilities provided on every floor of the complex. The kitchens contain an oven, rangehood, dining table and chairs, and heater. 10 Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2010. Hon Maurie Williamson’s speech on (26 May 2009) 654 NZPD 3827. 11 Section 66B RTA and paragraph 20, above.
The landlord says there are other shared facilities including a lobby area outside the apartments on each floor, shared rubbish disposal facilities, and outdoor areas (a garden at the back of the apartments and a front grass area).
The landlord explained that tenants are not allowed to cook in the kitchenettes in their apartments. By “cook” the landlord told me it means to cook on a stove or cooktop. This is because the apartment complex has fire alarms connected to the Fire Service and smoke or steam will set them off and result in a callout.
This prohibition on cooking is in the additional terms/rules list.
That said, tenants are allowed to cook some things in their apartments as the landlord supplies them with a microwave.
However, the apartments cannot be said to be only a bedroom (room used as sleeping quarters).
It is true that the tenant had access to some shared facilities. However, that alone does not mean that premises are a boarding house.
Apartment blocks may share rubbish and laundry facilities, lifts, stairways and carparks. That does not make them boarding houses.
The answers to the other Karmarkar questions are “yes”: b. Is the house occupied or intended to be occupied by 6 or more tenants? Yes. c. Is the tenancy intended to, or does in fact, last for 28 days or more? Yes. d. Are tenants granted exclusive rights to occupy particular bedrooms, whether that occupancy is for single or shared use? Yes, the right to occupy a particular apartment is exclusive. No other tenant has the right to enter your apartment. e. Does the right to occupy a particular bedroom derive from the tenancy agreement between the individual tenant and the landlord rather than from a collective decision of the tenants? Yes, it is the tenancy agreement which gives a tenant the right to occupy their apartment.
Based on the Karmarkar questions, my decision is that Centrum Apartments complex is not a boarding house because the complex does not consist of, or contain, one or more boarding rooms.
Apartment 1 (these tenancy premises) is more than a boarding room – it consists of sleeping quarters, a kitchenette, a living area, and a bathroom all of which are for the exclusive use of the tenant.
The landlord is concerned that if the Tribunal decides that Centrum Apartments is not a boarding house, that it will not be able to continue to provide housing to people who, it says, may otherwise not be offered a residential tenancy.
It says it needs the ability to manage difficulties and incidents between tenants quickly. It also said that tenants often leave their apartment with little or no notice, and if this was a standard tenancy then they would be liable for a 21-day notice period which would disadvantage them financially.
I hear these concerns and I accept the landlords’ evidence that it tries to provide housing to people who may not otherwise be offered it.
However, I cannot go outside the wording of the legislation. Put simply, the apartment is not merely a bedroom.
To extend the definition of a boarding room to premises that contain sleeping quarters, a living room, a private bathroom, and some kitchen facilities would extend the boarding house definition beyond what was intended by Parliament.
Parliament has decided to give landlords significantly more ability to terminate a boarding house tenancy than other landlords.
However, this only applies where six or more tenants are living communally and only their sleeping quarters (whether a bedroom to themselves or a bed within a room) are within their exclusive control.
I have made declarations to this effect.
This landlord, like all other landlords of tenancy premises, has several tools available to manage tenant behaviour and rent arrears. It can take bonds, issue breach notices, and apply to the Tribunal.
If it wants to allow its tenants to give shorter notice to terminate their tenancies than is legally required, it can. A landlord can agree to waive its right to a 21- day notice period if it thinks this is better for its tenants; see s11(2) RTA. The short notice given to terminate this tenancy
For completeness, I record that the tenant emailed the landlord her notice to end her tenancy on 3 October 2024.
She referred to the “2 days” required notice period for a boarding house tenancy in her email; s66V RTA allows a tenant to give 48 hours’ written or oral notice.
The landlord charged rent up to and including 3 October 2024.
The balance of that week’s rent has been refunded to the tenant.
Although I have decided this is not a boarding house tenancy, the tenant acted reasonably to give 2 days’ notice to terminate her tenancy because this is what was in her tenancy contract and the landlord accepted that notice. Was the landlord required to provide heating in the living room of the tenant’s apartment?
JAEP claims the landlord should have supplied a heater in the apartment.
The landlord explained that it supplied a wall heater in the shared kitchen but did not provide heaters in the individual units.
The Healthy Homes Standards 12 (HHS) have different requirements depending on whether premises are a boarding house or not.
A landlord must provide a suitable heater of the appropriate heating capacity in the “main living room” of tenancy premises.
If it is a boarding house that has a shared living room, the landlord must provide a heater in that living room; regulation 8(3) HHS.
If the premises are not a boarding house, then the heater must be in the living room of the apartment itself; regulation 8(2) HHS.
A living room means: a room that consists of, or includes, a habitable space that is for use, or could reasonably be expected to be used, for general everyday living, whether as a lounge room, dining room, sitting room, family room, or other similar use Regulation 3 HHS.
The landlord told me at the first hearing that it had worked with the Tenancy Services Compliance and Investigations team 13 to make sure it complied with its obligations and was told that, as this is boarding house, it only needed to provide a heater in the shared kitchens.
The shared kitchen was treated by the landlord as a living area. It said that tenants use the foyers and the shared kitchens as living spaces sometimes putting a couch in the foyer and children playing there.
The landlord completed the Healthy Homes Standards compliance information in the tenancy agreement based on this. This says the heating required in the shared kitchen is 1.9 kilowatts and that a 2200-2400 watt electric wall heater is installed.
The landlord provided an email it had been sent from a member of the compliance team however that email does not mention heaters or heating. The landlord told me in the second hearing that the compliance officer did 12 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 13 The Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment team which monitors compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. specifically address the heating issue, but his laptop had crashed so he could not obtain the evidence and had not contacted the team to obtain a copy of it.
The result is that I do not have evidence from the compliance team of their view. Even if I did, I must decide the issue based on the facts in this case.
I have already made the decision that these premises are not a boarding house.
The tenant’s apartment contains a living area and she usually used it as a lounge (there was a sofa).
The landlord was required to provide a heater of the appropriate capacity in the living room of the tenant’s apartment.
The landlord did not do this so has breached s45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with the healthy homes standards.
To fail to do so is an unlawful act and, if breached intentionally, exemplary damages (which are like a fine) can be awarded; s45(1A) RTA.
I find the landlord did not intentionally breach this requirement as I accept it sought advice from Tenancy Services including inspectors from the Compliance team. It reasonably relied on advice that it did not have to provide a heater in the apartment.
However, I have decided there is a breach, and the tenant did experience detriment from the lack of a supplied heater in her apartment. She had to buy her own heaters (saying she bought three over the time she lived there and they all “blew up”).
File notes made by the tenant’s legal representatives from information given to them by an advocate who had been helping the tenant at the time, say: 26/08/2024: ... There was no heating to dry out the wet, smelly carpet in my unit. ..... I tried using a fan heater on a chair to keep warm as the cold and damp was making me sick.
The lack of heating is also mentioned in notes from 14 March 2024 and 28 September 2024.
JAEP applied for compensation of $400.00. I award this amount to recognise she had to buy her own heaters, that these were probably insufficient to heat the living room to the standard required in the HHS, and the resulting discomfort. The modest amount takes into account the fact that power was included in the tenant’s rent so was not an additional cost to her. Did the landlord comply with its maintenance obligations relating to:- i. the flooding incidents?
A landlord must keep premises in a “reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises”; s45(1)(b) RTA.
A landlord will not usually be found to have breached this obligation if it takes steps to remedy a maintenance issue within a reasonable time.
JAEP says she was affected by three flooding incidents while she lived here. The landlord does not dispute this.
The first flood was in August 2023 and was caused by the washing machine in an upstairs unit overflowing. Water came through the ceiling into the tenant’s bedroom.
The second incident was in late February 2024 and happened when a hot water pipe burst in the shared kitchen on the same floor as the tenant’s unit. Water entered the tenant’s unit along the floor under the tiles and affected some of the carpet.
The third flood took place in late September 2024, was caused by another burst pipe, and caused considerable damage to the foyer outside the tenant’s unit and to unit two.
There are differences between the tenant’s evidence and the landlords.
The tenant says the first flood left her bed wet, that the landlord did not supply her with a replacement bed and that meant she was left to sleep on the couch or the floor. She said the apartment was unliveable for days mainly because the carpet was soaking wet and described a bad smell from the damp carpet.
The landlord says that if her bed was wet then the landlord “would have” offered her another bed (a bed was supplied as part of the tenancy agreement).
The landlord also says that a wet-vac and drying machine was used to mop up and to dry carpet over two or three days after each flood. The landlord says that the tenant’s unit was not affected by the third flood although agrees her unit was used to store the drying machine which was being used on unit two.
The tenant says all her interactions with the landlord were verbal because the property manager is on site most of the time. However, she did not provide photographs or video evidence at the first hearing to prove her bed was wet or the unit was wet during the third flood.
She did send evidence on a USB stick before the second hearing, and I was prepared to view this however it had been saved on a used device. I cannot insert a used USB device into a Ministry of Justice computer (due to the risk of a virus) so could not view it and the tenant’s representative did not have a copy of the evidence to show during the video hearing. There had been plenty of time to provide this earlier. This means I cannot consider this evidence.
The landlord’s evidence of plumbing invoices and insurance claim records support its submission that it did take reasonable and prompt steps to dry the carpet and to repair any damage each time. The first flood was caused by another tenant so cannot be the landlord’s fault. The second and third were caused by burst pipes but there is nothing to suggest these were caused by maintenance deficiencies.
In summary, the tenant has not proven that the landlord failed to take reasonable action to remedy the premises after the flooding incidents. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
No doubt the fact that there were three floods did inconvenience and negatively affect the tenant even though the landlord did what they could and as soon as they could. However, if there is no breach proven then no compensation can be awarded. Did the landlord comply with its maintenance obligations relating to:- ii. lights and power points that did not work and caused damage?
JAEP alleges there were problems with the electrical fittings in her apartment including that several lights did not work for about eight months and the tenant’s heaters would overload and stop working meaning she had to buy three heaters in total.
This claim is not proven because there is nothing showing the tenant raised her concerns with the landlord or to verify the problems. I note that the tenancy agreement does record that the bathroom light in the tenant’s unit needed to be fixed but there was not enough evidence to show that issues were ongoing. This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord comply with its maintenance obligations relating to:- iii. the stove in the shared kitchen?
This claim was not proven and is dismissed. There was simply no evidence. Was the tenant harassed by other tenants living at the property and did the landlord fail to protect her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy?
JAEP says she was harassed by other tenants living at the property including an incident with the person who cleans the complex, and many disturbances from neighbours. She feels the agents take the side of others and do not take issues seriously.
Landlords have an obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises; s45(1)(e) RTA.
The landlord of a boarding house has the same obligations; s66G RTA.
I believe the tenant when she says she had her peace and privacy upset by other tenants in the complex. She describes many police callouts and took the step of making two police complaints herself (in May and August 2024).
The advocate’s notes also support this. They are dated and make frequent mention of disturbances from neighbours including someone attempting to drive through the glass doors of her unit, a girl upstairs being stabbed, drug deals, theft and violence, feeling trapped, being verbally abused, and people banging on her door late at night.
I heard oral evidence from a support worker who assisted the tenant at times during the tenancy. She described personally experiencing verbal abuse and arguments going on in the apartment complex when she was there visiting the tenant and confirmed that JAEP frequently sought help from her organisation.
There are some limitations to the tenant’s evidence as there is nothing to corroborate reports of stabbings, drug deals or serious violence.
However, the file notes, police complaint records, and oral evidence from the support worker satisfy me that the tenant did have her quiet enjoyment breached while living here.
The property manager is on call 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. He does not live on site (he did for 10 years) but says he lives 5 minutes away. His phone number is displayed in numerous locations at the complex including on the front door, and on the house rules. The police and fire department have his details. The owner is also able to be contacted.
The landlord accepts that there are disturbances and that these can escalate. It relates this back to its intention and role to provide housing for people that may not otherwise be offered it, describing referrals from social agencies and WINZ.
The availability of the landlord and property manager is helpful and part of its duty to take “reasonable steps” to protect its tenants.
However, there was no evidence of other tools or steps that might be taken. I accept that much of this is personal or oral behaviour management but note there were no written breach notices, police complaint reports by the landlord, or termination notices.
My decision is that the landlord breached its obligation to take reasonable steps to protect JAEP’s peace, comfort and privacy at the premises. This is a breach of s45(1)(e) RTA.
I mention here that my decision that this is not a boarding house means that the landlord will no longer have the wider powers to terminate tenancies immediately or on notice for tenant behaviour issues.
On the one hand that could be seen as a disadvantage.
On the other hand, the landlord must now use formal written notices of anti- social behaviour and breach and apply promptly to the Tribunal if they are breached. Sections 55A and 56 RTA.
If a tenant threatens or causes substantial damage or assault, a landlord can apply immediately to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy; s55 RTA. It is possible to request an urgent hearing.
Also, s56 RTA does not require a landlord to first give a tenant a notice of breach if a breach is serious and cannot be remedied. An application to terminate could be made straight away.
This increased formality and process may help behaviour management at these premises.
Importantly, a landlord can terminate a tenancy on 14 days’ notice if a tenant assaults a landlord or agent and the police have filed a charge. This does not require a Tribunal application, but it does require the correct form and evidence of the police charge being filed; s55AA RTA.
The tenant’s quiet enjoyment was breached during her tenancy, and I do consider compensation to be appropriate. The tenant did not feel safe and secure in her apartment. This is arguably the most important feature of a home.
This sort of detriment is difficult to value but I award $400.00 which again, is the amount the tenant applied for. I do not award the amount of her bus fare as it is not directly related to the landlord’s breach.
I do not award exemplary damages because it is not an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to protect a tenant’s quiet enjoyment. This only applies if a landlord causes or permits harassment; s38(3) RTA. There is not enough evidence to show persistent, repeating abuse or incidents. Did the landlord’s agents enter the tenant’s apartment unlawfully?
JAEP says the landlord’s agents entered her apartment without giving her notice and without her permission. This was at the time of the third flood.
The landlord’s property manager said he entered the apartment to check that the serious flooding that had gone through the foyer and unit two had not entered unit one. He said that he knocked first, and when there was no answer, he went in. The tenant was out of town at the time.
A landlord can enter tenancy premises without notice or consent in an “emergency”; s48(2)(a) RTA.
The right to do so is broader in a boarding house but a landlord must believe on reasonable grounds that there is an emergency or serious risk to life or property and immediate entry is necessary to reduce or eliminate that risk; s66R(1)(b) and (c) RTA.
The photographs of the flooded foyer immediately outside the door of apartment 1 satisfy me that it was reasonable for the landlord to enter without notice to check that the apartment was not being damaged by water. I accept his evidence that he knocked first.
However, it was not reasonable to re-enter the premises which the landlord must have done because it decided to lock the landlord’s wet vac machine in the tenant’s unit for safe storage overnight. The tenant found the machine in her unit when she arrived in the morning.
The landlord said that JAEP agreed to him leaving the wet vac dryer in her unit over the following days. That may be the case, but she was not there to agree to it the first night. The file notes also record JAEP complaining to her advocate that one of the property managers walked straight into her apartment the next day.
The landlord needs to take care. Tenants have the right to exclusive use and occupation of the apartments. This also applies to boarding rooms. The landlord must closely observe the right of entry provisions.
I find that the landlord unlawfully entered the tenant’s apartment for the purpose of storing the wet vac machine in it. This is an unlawful act.
I do consider it just to award exemplary damages (a fine) in this case. The maximum is $1,500.00.
I must consider the factors in section 109 RTA. The landlord deliberately (intentionally) used the tenant’s apartment to store its maintenance equipment when she was not there.
The intent of the landlord was initially justifiable and lawful which was to check the apartment was not flooded. However, once it knew this it again entered with the intent of keeping its equipment safe. This is not a valid reason for entering without consent.
The effect of the entry was that the tenant was understandably upset at the breach of her rights and privacy.
The tenant’s interests are that she should be able to leave her home and know it will not be entered except in an emergency. This applies to an apartment or a boarding room. It is unacceptable.
There is a public interest. The landlord may have thought this was a boarding house but that does not explain or excuse the use of a tenant’s home for storage.
I award exemplary damages of $250.00. This is a modest amount mainly because there was initially a genuine reason for the entry. Landlord’s claims
The landlord seeks compensation of two call-out fees relating to the tenant being locked out without keys.
The tenant objects to this saying she only needed this service when something extraordinary had happened.
My decision is to dismiss this claim. The landlord agreed it was not initially intending to pursue the claims (it has refunded the bond in full). The details of exactly what the lock-out incidents relate to are too uncertain. Rent ledger
The landlord has supplied a rent ledger showing all rent and bond paid during and after the tenancy. This confirms the tenant was due a rent refund of $342.86 which was paid to her by the landlord after the tenancy ended. Filing fee and suppression
The tenant has been substantially successful with her application, so I award the filing fee.
Also for this reason, and because she may be disadvantaged if her name is published, I suppress her name from the published order.
I have decided not to suppress the landlord’s name. It is important that it is known that the Centrum Apartments are not a boarding house and I have determined there are other breaches of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5086329 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 42 Peachgrove Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5086329 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 42 Peachgrove Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is a boarding house?

Is this a boarding house?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is a boarding house?

Is this a boarding house?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions