What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5111848 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 5111848?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5111848?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5111848?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11666440-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5111848 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 5111848?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5111848?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5111848?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11666440-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Macville Road, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui Tenancy Tribunal Case 5111848 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5111848 — net $2,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: - unlawful entry	$500.00	- unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: - unlawful termination	$2,000.00	- unlawful termination
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,527.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5111848 — net $2,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: - unlawful entry	$500.00	- unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: - unlawful termination	$2,000.00	- unlawful termination
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Juliana Gultekin must pay [The tenant/s] $2,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person in the Tauranga registry.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages on the grounds the termination notice served on her by the landlord was without grounds and retaliatory and for an unlawful entry by the landlord. Background
The tenancy commenced on 10 July 2024.
On 16 December 2024 the landlord served the tenant notice terminating the tenancy.
On 17 December 2024 the tenant filed her application with the Tribunal.
On 31 December 2024 a trespass notice was emailed by the landlord to the tenant.
On 12 February 2025 the Tribunal made an order that this is a residential tenancy to which the RTA applies.
The tenant remained living in the premises after being served the termination notice but she has since served the landlord notice to terminate the tenancy herself and the final day of the tenancy was 31 March 2025. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The decision of the 12 February 2025 sets out further relevant legal considerations and I do not repeat them here. Exemplary damages
The tenant seeks exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 1 the Court of Appeal 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 when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.
Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors: 1 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) a. the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, b. the effect of the unlawful act, c. the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, d. the public interest, e. whether it is just to make the award. 2
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 3
The District Court has confirmed in the appeal of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited 4 , that exemplary damages under the RTA are ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately. Tenant’s claims
I will deal with the tenants claims in turn.

UNLAWFUL ENTRY

Section 48 of the RTA states the landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry; or in any of the circumstances described in subsection 48 (2) - (3).
The tenant states that the landlord unlawfully entered the premises on 8 November 2024.
The tenant says she did not see the landlord but that she was aware the landlord was in the premises, that her partner spoke to the landlord, and she remained in the bedroom while the landlord was there. 2 Section 109 of the RTA. 3 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 4 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583
The landlord accepts entering the premises. She says she did so to inspect the premises following a previous occupant moving out of the premises. I understand the landlord was beginning to make plans to move into the premises. It appears the tenants partner confronted the landlord and asked her to leave, in a way that made her uncomfortable. She went into the previous occupant's bedroom (which I understand the landlord has also used as a bedroom at times prior to this tenancy) and stayed for approximately an hour. The landlord left when she felt able to do so safely.
Section 48 (2) (b) of the RTA applies to inspections and says the landlord may enter the premises “...for the purpose of inspecting the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on a day specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry, and not more frequently than once in any period of 4 weeks.”
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has unlawfully entered the premises as she did not have consent and did not enter the premises in any of the circumstances provided for in the RTA and in particular did not give sufficient notice to undertake an inspection.
The unlawful entry into a premises by the landlord is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be ordered. 5
The maximum level of exemplary damages that may be ordered for an unlawful entry by the landlord is $1,500.00. 6
I consider the following factors are relevant in assessing the level of exemplary damages: a. This appears to have been a planned entry into the premises by the landlord. The landlord is expected to know the law and therefore I consider I can infer the act was intentional. b. The tenant says she remained in her bedroom because she was anxious about the situation. c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against her. d. There is a public interest in landlord’s being penalised for breaching fundamental obligations set out in the RTA. 5 Section 48 (4)(a) of the RTA. 6 See Schedule 1A of the RTA. e. It is just to make an award for exemplary damages.
I consider, having regards to the relevant factors above, that an order of a third of the maximum is appropriate and the amount ordered is therefore $500.
The tenant also raised that the landlord was present on the property on 18 December 2024. Both parties provided video evidence in relation to this day. The tenant confirmed that her claim in respect of an unlawful entry does not relate to that day. Accordingly, while both parties provided video evidence, it was not relevant to the matter I have had to determine of an unlawful entry into the premises on 8 November 2024.

TERMINATION NOTICE

The tenant claims the notice to terminate the tenancy was without grounds and did not provide the required notice period set out in the RTA and was retaliatory.
Section 51 of the RTA, which has been amended since the termination notice in this case was served, sets out the limited grounds upon which a landlord can terminate a tenancy. At the time the termination notice was served by the landlord s51 said every termination notice must: a. be in writing; b. identify the premises to which it relates; c. specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; d. if the notice is given by the landlord, set out the reasons for the termination; e. be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent. 7 Retaliatory notice
The Tribunal may declare a notice to terminate a tenancy of no effect, and retaliatory if in giving the termination notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or the RTA or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. 8 7 See section 51 (3) of the RTA. 8 Section 54 of the RTA. The giving of a termination notice declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be ordered. 9
The Tribunal may only find a termination notice retaliatory if it is a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 of the RTA. In this case the termination notice has not complied with s 51 of the RTA, therefore it cannot be declared retaliatory.
The claim that the termination notice was retaliatory is dismissed. Termination without grounds
A landlord must not give notice to terminate a tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 10
The time for deciding if there was an intention by the landlord to give notice knowing they are not entitled to do so is when the notice was given.
At the time the notice was given s 51 required specified grounds to be provided to terminate the tenancy.
The notice to terminate dated 16 December 2024 did not specify any grounds for terminating the tenancy. In addition, the notice gave the tenant two weeks’ notice.
The tenant said receiving the termination notice caused her stress because it is hard to find a new tenancy and she felt that there was no reason for her tenancy to terminate. She also raised that the landlord did not engage in communication with her about the termination.
The landlord says that the notice period provided was as per the flatmate written agreement between them. The landlord said she was trying to do the right thing as the owner of the premises and believed she was doing the right thing in the circumstances and complying with the flatmate agreement. The landlord said she wanted to move back 9 Section 54(6) of the RTA. 10 See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA. into the premises but was not able to return because of the actions of the tenant’s partner.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by serving the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
I consider the following factors are relevant in assessing the level of exemplary damages: a. The landlord is expected to know the law and know that she cannot terminate a tenancy with only two weeks’ notice and without a reason. The landlord was also aware, following the incident on 8 November 2024, that the tenant considered that this was a residential tenancy not a flatting situation. Therefore, I consider the act was intentional. b. The tenant has experienced stress and worry as a result of being given notice terminating the tenancy (which I note was shortly before Christmas) and with only two weeks’ notice. This stress would have been exacerbated by a trespass notice being emailed to her by the landlord on 31 December 2024. c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress and inconvenience she has experienced. d. There are strong interests for tenants and the public generally, that when termination notices are given, they are only given lawfully and only for genuine and fair reasons. e. There is a public interest in landlord’s being penalised for terminating tenancies without grounds and without sufficient notice. f. It is just to make an award for exemplary damage. g. The landlord’s act in terminating the tenancy is mitigated to a degree by the tenant ultimately being able to remain in the premises until she has been able to find new accommodation and she has now given proper notice to terminate the tenancy. h. There are no other aggravating or mitigating factors.
I consider, having regards to the relevant factors above, that an order of exemplary damages of $2,000 is appropriate. Compensation claim
The tenant's application form referred to a claim for compensation with no amount specified. At the hearing the tenant did not seek compensation and the claim for compensation is accordingly dismissed. Filing Fee - $27
As the tenant has been substantially successful with the claim, I have awarded the filing fee. Name suppression
The Tribunal made an order for name suppression for the tenant on 12 February 2025. This order continues to apply in respect of this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5111848 — Exemplary damages at 13 Macville Road, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5111848 — Exemplary damages at 13 Macville Road, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

UNLAWFUL ENTRY

TERMINATION NOTICE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

UNLAWFUL ENTRY

TERMINATION NOTICE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions