What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5091525 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 5091525?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Electricity: $584.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Insulation: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5091525?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5091525?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11740214-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5091525 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 5091525?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Electricity: $584.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Insulation: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5091525?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5091525?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11740214-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5091525 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5091525 — net $2,511.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: electricity	$584.43	electricity
Compensation: delay in repairs/electricity	$200.00	delay in repairs/electricity
Compensation: insulation	$800.00	insulation
Compensation: unlawful entry	$500.00	unlawful entry
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$400.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,511.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,511.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5091525 — net $2,511.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: electricity	$584.43	electricity
Compensation: delay in repairs/electricity	$200.00	delay in repairs/electricity
Compensation: insulation	$800.00	insulation
Compensation: unlawful entry	$500.00	unlawful entry
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$400.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,511.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,511.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Michelle Godsiff must pay [The tenant/s] $2,511.43 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, with the landlord having a support person in attendance. Background
This is a periodic tenancy which began on 12 April 2024. The rent is $695.00 per week and a bond of $1,390.00 was paid.
On 29 November 2024 the landlord issued a notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenants challenged this notice and applied to the Tribunal. They claimed the notice was retaliatory and sought exemplary damages.
The Tribunal issued an order on 17 January 2025, with Adjudicator Tam ruling that as the notice was invalid and unenforceable, it was not necessary to consider whether it was also retaliatory. This was on the basis that the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to consider whether a notice is retaliatory if the notice first complies with section 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
As a result, the Tribunal is unable to award exemplary damages arising from the notice ending the tenancy.
The balance of the tenants’ claims was adjourned, to be considered at a later hearing. These claims were the subject of a subsequent hearing, and are discussed below. The tenants’ claims
The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA. The claimed breaches are as follows: • Failure to lodge the bond • Compensation for the additional costs incurred for power usage arising from a poorly maintained hot water cylinder resulting in high power consumption • Compensation for additional power usage arising from the swimming pool and UV filter • Insulation: false insulation statement and breach of Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) • Questionable residential conversion by the landlord and a lack of a verified council consent. • Unlawful entry • Breach of quiet enjoyment
At the hearing, the tenants advised that they had given notice to end the tenancy on 30 March 2025. The landlord refunded the bond in full to the tenants at the hearing, with the bond of $1,390.00 being received by the tenants. Following further discussions, the tenants agreed to withdraw their claim regarding the failure to lodge the bond. The landlord stated that she would not be renting the property out again.
For each of the remaining claims, the tenants provided detailed written submissions, photographic, documentary and oral evidence. The landlord provided oral evidence and submissions in response. General principles
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must take into account the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more 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.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. It must be shown that a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, and the Tribunal must be satisfied that it would be just to make the award, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 1 Electricity consumption
The tenants state they have incurred additional electricity consumption costs as a result of the landlord failing to maintain the hot water cylinder, and being charged additional costs arising from the swimming pool and UV filter.
The tenants have provided a detailed timeline of events and supporting documents. The tenants’ evidence is that they first notified the landlord on 1 September 2024 about the high power consumption and they suspected a leak in the hot water cylinder. While the landlord responded on the same day, there were delays in a plumber attending to the issue. In January 2025 the landlord advised that a plumber had put some sealant in, however, they were unaware of this. The tenants claim the landlord’s guests also have access to their hot water.
The tenants independently tested the hot water cylinder using a clamp meter. This showed the hot water cylinder’s power draw exceeded its rated capacity. They understood the hot water cylinder would be replaced, but this had not occurred.
The tenants state their first power bill was more than double their power bill at their previous place. They purchased smart plugs to test their appliances. They later discovered that the swimming pool and UV filter were connected to their power circuit and was a major contributor to their high power bill. After months of waiting for the landlord to take meaningful action, they employed an electrician to isolate the power point that the landlord was using unlawfully. The tenants explained the reasons for their actions. They had notified the landlord on multiple occasions. They issued a 14-day notice requesting disconnection of the pool and UV filtration systems from their power supply. The tenants referred to the extensive e-mail correspondence with the landlord on this issue. 1 Section 109(3) of the RTA
The tenants provided a comparative graph showing the power consumption at their previous tenancy and the current tenancy. They detailed how they had tracked and raised the issue with the landlord, noting they began documenting their power usage and confirmed that the pool and UV filtration system were the major contributors to the inflated costs.
The tenants sought reimbursement of $584.43 for the unauthorised power usage, reflecting their actual monitored consumption estimates, and the kilowatt per hour unit price for the pool and UV usage. This reflected the additional power usage from the start of the tenancy on 12 April 2024 to 22 December 2024.They sought additional compensation for the financial burden, emotional distress, and time lost due to the landlord’s inaction, retaliation and false accusations.
In response, the landlord described the medical issues she was facing at the time and explained the reasons for the delays. She was under financial pressure dealing with family events, and had difficulties with her medical issues, including surgery. She was not in the right frame of mind to attend to this issue and had been on strong pain medication. She had arranged for the plumber to test the circuit and he had found a small leak, which he fixed with silicon. He said the cylinder was old and could be changed, but was still functional.
In terms of power usage from the shared connection, the landlord noted there was a sink, which had minimal use for hand washing. This was part of the tenancy agreement. Regarding the swimming pool and UV filtration system, the landlord said the pool filter worked for 10 hours a day. She had offered to compensate the tenants for the additional power usage. She spoke of the effect of the communication she had received from the tenants. Legal framework and analysis
The RTA divides responsibility for outgoings between landlords and tenants. 2 A landlord is responsible for all outgoings for the premises incurred whether or not the premises are occupied, and outgoings incurred for common facilities. On the other hand, a tenant is responsible for all outgoings for the premises exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, including electricity, gas, telephone and internet. 3 A tenant is also liable for water charges where a water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. 4
In this case I am satisfied that the tenants have established that they have been paying additional power charges beyond those they would ordinarily incur for their own usage. They have provided detailed evidence to support the claim that the 2 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018) 3 Section 39(4)(a) and (b) 4 Section 39(4)(c) power charges they have incurred exceeds the amount that can be attributed to their occupation of the premises. They have also demonstrated, with cogent evidence, how they were able to calculate these additional charges.
Accordingly, they are to be compensated in the amount of $584.43, being a reflection of actual loss.
In terms of the claim that the landlord had been in breach by not replacing the hot water cylinder, under section 45 of the RTA a landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. The tenants’ frustration at the hot water cylinder not being replaced is understandable. However, while the cylinder needed to be repaired, due to a leak, I am not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to show that it had reached the stage where it was not functioning properly and had to be replaced. Therefore, I do not find that the landlord has been in breach for failing to replace the hot water cylinder.
However, I do accept that the tenants are to be compensated for the delays in investigating and repairing the hot water cylinder, and for the additional power costs incurred up to the end of their tenancy. I consider $200.00 to be fair and reasonable compensation for this. Insulation
The tenants claim the landlord has been in breach of the RTA by making a false insulation statement, claiming the ceiling was insulated with pink batts and in a very common good condition, when it was not. They also claim the landlord has been in breach of obligations regarding insulation.
The tenants state that the landlord verbally assured them that the premises was fully compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). However, they discovered there was no insulation in the ceiling. Photographic evidence has been provided. When they brought this to the attention of the landlord, it was not rectified.
The landlord states that she had checked and was reliant on what she had been told. There was foil under the floor, and she was unable to see the insulation. She was not sure about the walls. She had not been up the ladder to have a look. However, rats had got into the batts in the other building. She accepts she never had a healthy home standards assessment and does not have a recent healthy home standards assessment report. However, she believes it does comply. Legal framework and analysis
Under the RTA a landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. 5
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. 6 Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 7
The landlord is required under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3. There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 8
In this case, I am satisfied that the tenants have established that the premises does not comply with the insulation requirements. I am persuaded by the photographic evidence, which shows there is no insulation in the ceiling, and the tenants’ oral evidence. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the premises complies with the insulation requirements before signing a statement in the tenancy agreement indicating that it does comply.
Therefore, the tenants are to be compensated. Taking into account the nature of the breach, duration, and the effect of the breach on the tenants, the amount of 5 See section 13A(1A) of the RTA. 6 See section 13A(1B) and (1C) of the RTA 7 See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA 8 See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA. $800.00 in compensation is awarded to the tenants. This comprises $200.00 for the insulation statement/information and $600.00 for the lack of insulation.
In view of the landlord’s explanation, it is unclear whether the required intent was present in this case. Therefore, there is no separate award for exemplary damages. Whether the residential conversion was lawful
The tenants claim the landlord’s conversion of the premises to residential use was questionable. They were informed that the dwelling was previously a childcare centre and had since been converted to residential use. They were also told the landlord was maintaining aspects of the commercial building warrant of fitness in case she wanted to lease it as a childcare facility again. A copy of the building warrant of fitness was produced. The tenants state they had checked with [Local Council] and the helpdesk confirmed no consent records were on file for more than one dwelling. There were three separate residential dwellings on the property.
In response, the landlord states she had sold the childcare business and then there were repair bills after the building was damaged. The council had temporarily allowed her to provide equine therapy with people living at the premises. [Local Council] had come to carry out inspections one year ago and also more recently.
In this case, the evidence concerning the use of the premises for residential purposes, and whether it was lawful, is unclear. Accordingly, I am unable to make any findings on this issue and dismiss this claim. Unlawful entry
The tenants claim the landlord has entered the premises without the required consent or notice. They have provided detailed evidence concerning each event, including photographs, written communication, and oral evidence. Altogether, there are 13 events, which are summarised as follows, along with the landlord’s response:
April 2024: an unknown woman entered the deck and peered into the tenants’ daughters’ bedroom, causing distress. The tenants installed a privacy mesh to prevent further incidents. In response, the landlord states she knew nothing about this event.
9 June 2024: the landlord allowed unknown Airbnb guests to enter shared spaces. The tenants communicated their concerns with the landlord via text. In reply, the landlord states the tenants had misconstrued the events, since she had only been showing the guests the areas they were not permitted to enter.
7 December 2024: the landlord brought unknown individuals onto the property, who lingered near restricted areas and looked into the premises, making the tenants feel unsafe. The landlord has explained she had been obtaining a quote for cleaning of the swimming pool.
16 December 2024: An electrician was working within the tenancy premises without prior notice or explanation. The landlord informed them he was there for pool circuit re-connection, but this work had already been done (as shown on CCTV footage). The tenants provided photographic evidence of this work being completed 14 days prior.
In response, the landlord states that the technician had come to do work in the shared zone, hence the tenants were not notified. She did not believe she needed to obtain the tenants’ permission. She apologised for what occurred.
18 December 2024: the landlord, accompanied by two unknown individuals, entered their exclusive-use gated yard unannounced, to pick plums, disregarding their privacy and security. In reply, the landlord accepts that she did not get their permission.
18 December 2024: an unidentified individual was observed peering into their premises. The landlord provided conflicting explanations regarding their presence. The landlord states that contractors were given permission to go through the hay area to the toilet.
21 December 2024: the landlord allowed a guest to enter the premises unannounced and then conducted an unauthorised tour. The landlord states that people from church came to look at the garden and see what work needed to be done. They may not have been aware of the exclusive use area.
21 December 2024: the landlord entered the tenants’ exclusive use area without notice or consent to pick plums. The landlord accepted the tenants’ account of this event, stating that she acted on impulse and thought she was doing them a favour. She accepts that she was trespassing into their area.
Monthly unannounced building warrant of fitness compliance checks/fire system checks being conducted without their knowledge or consent. The landlord states that she had made it clear to those undertaking the compliance checks that they were to come through the back door and not go onto the tenants’ property.
17 January 2025: unauthorised entry by the landlord’s gardeners without notice, to charge batteries for tools. The landlord states she was not aware of this incident and apologised. She had walked the gardener around the property and showed him the areas that required work.
20 January 2025: the landlord’s pest management contractor entered the premises unannounced. The landlord says she believed the contractor was trying to find her and had never been to this property before. The contractor had found her in the barn and apologised for the fact that he had entered their exclusive area.
6 February 2025: insufficient notice for hay delivery on a public holiday. This was disruptive and occurred at a time when the tenants expected peace and quiet. The landlord explained that she had not been given any warning, and was given short notice that the hay was to be delivered.
11 February 2025: unauthorised entry by a fire service tradesman, purportedly to perform fire safety checks, but surveillance evidence suggested the testing was not fully carried out. The tenants explained that they had put up surveillance cameras because of the earlier events, and for personal safety reasons.
The landlord states in reply that she believed she had asked the tradesman not to go in. Upon seeing the tenants’ evidence, she was shocked that the person had gone onto their property. She had never wanted to do anything to upset the tenants and apologised for them not feeling comfortable. Legal framework and analysis
Under section 48 of the RTA, 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, and repairs and maintenance. 9 If a landlord enters the premises in contravention of section 48, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 10
In this case, having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find the tenants have established that the landlord has been in breach of her obligations under section 48. In making this finding, I acknowledge the landlord’s evidence that this is a property with shared and exclusive areas, and I accept that in some instances, there may have been an inadvertent breach. I also accept that, in a few instances, it is likely that people entered the premises without the landlord’s knowledge (for example, in April 2024), and in some instances, it was outside the landlord’s control.
However, overall, I find the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to establish that there have been multiple occasions where either the landlord, a landlord’s agent, or other people given permission by the landlord, have entered the premises without giving the required notice. The events involving the electrician (16 December 2024), building warrant of fitness checks, gardener, pest management contractor, and fire service tradesman would fall within this 9 See section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA 10 See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA category. The hay delivery event would also appear to involve entry without the required consent.
There are other occasions where the landlord has entered the premises without the required permission, and has accepted this occurred. For example, the two occasions when she went to pick plums, with one of these involving additional people accompanying her. It is acknowledged that the landlord has accepted responsibility and has apologised for these two events. Some of the examples given would also fall within the category of a breach of quiet enjoyment, which is discussed below.
In view of the overall circumstances, I consider it appropriate that the tenants are compensated. Taking into account the nature of the breach, duration, the resulting effect for the tenants, the amount of $500.00 is awarded in compensation.
The tenants also claim exemplary damages. For this to be awarded, the test for exemplary damages must be met. This is set out in section 109(3) of the RTA, and requires, as a precondition, that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally. An intentional act is a deliberate act, not a negligent or careless oversight, nor does it catch mere incompetence. In this case, I find that the required intent for exemplary damages is not met, so there is no separate award for exemplary damages. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants state that the unauthorised entries and violation of their privacy, as detailed in their claim regarding unlawful entry, together with other failures by the landlord, have led to a breach of their quiet enjoyment. This includes mismanagement of the shared utilities resulting in financial strain, failure to perform necessary maintenance, and a failure to lodge the bond (this claim has since been withdrawn). The tenants state that these breaches have caused significant emotional distress, financial hardship, and disruption to their peaceful enjoyment of the property.
The landlord states that this is a beautiful property on five acres, and she apologised to the tenants for people knocking on their door. She felt that the process was punitive, and it was never her intention to do any wrong. She had felt anxiety from the e-mails sent by the tenants and had been unwell. She did not realise this had caused ill feeling and she wished the tenants had told her at the time. She had never intended to do harm and felt she was being misunderstood. She often lost her phone, does not use her computer very much, and finds using technology to be challenging.
In reply, the tenants state that at the start of the tenancy, they tried to verbally discuss the issues with the landlord. However, they found the landlord was deflecting the issue rather than addressing them. After that, they started communicating in writing. Legal framework and analysis
Section 38(1) of the RTA states that the tenant is entitled to have “quiet enjoyment” of the premises without interruption by the landlord or anyone acting on the landlord’s behalf. This provision imposes a limited duty on the landlord not to do anything to interrupt the tenant’s use of the premises. 11 Section 38(2) of the RTA further provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment. In this context “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 12 This right is commonly used in reference to the uninterrupted use of the premises, and can include the right not to have the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents.
Where this obligation has been breached in circumstances that amount to harassment, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, 13 up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 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." 14
In this case, I acknowledge that, as a result of the shared spaces on the property, some contact is unavoidable. However, taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find there has been a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises. This is because of the overall impact of the multiple events involving the landlord, visitors and contractors at the premises, together with the landlord’s poor communication about the presence of others on the property. I find this has resulted in a breach of the tenants’ right to the uninterrupted use of the premises. Accordingly, taking into account the nature of the breach, the duration of the breach, and its effect on the tenants, I consider the amount of $400.00 to be reasonable compensation.
While the landlord has been in breach, I do not find her actions amount to harassment. The landlord’s purpose does not appear to be malicious, and her conduct does not show a pattern of behaviour targeted at the tenants to trouble, 11 ‘Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice’ 4 th edition, D. Grinlinton (2012) 12 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018) 13 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA 14 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. worry, or cause distress. The landlord has also expressed regret for some of her actions. Therefore, as this breach does not amount to harassment, there is no unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded. Filing fee and name suppression
As the tenants have been substantially successful with their claim, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee.
The tenants have requested name suppression, which is granted, since they have been substantially successful in the proceedings.
The landlord also seeks name suppression. Having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, and noting the landlord’s reasons, the Tribunal declines this request. The landlord has not been substantially successful, and has not provided any persuasive reasons for name suppression in this case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5091525 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5091525 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions