What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5116628 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 5116628?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5116628?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5116628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11764769-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5116628 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 5116628?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5116628?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5116628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11764769-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Hawker Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5116628 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5116628 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Peter Blades must pay [The tenant/s] $5,000.00 immediately.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] attended the hearing via teleconference. Mr Blades made no appearance. I allowed a reasonable period in case he was unexpectedly delay., but when he remained absent I heard the matter. Entry without notice
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] has outlined at least 4 occasions when the landlord entered without notice. These dates from a few weeks into the tenancy in April 2023 to when the tenancy ended in October 2024.
On those occasions when she was home [The tenant/s] consented to the entry, however, she says she felt forced to comply by the circumstances. It appears from her descriptions that the visits were justified by maintenance needs, however, it appears that the landlord was not well organised hence the lack of notice. This lack of organisation was also apparent in a number of incidents when [The tenant/s] was unable to make contact with the landlord, requiring her to arrange and pay for plumbing repairs herself on one occasion.
The issue with this aspect of [The tenant/s] claim is that she did consent to the entries and there is no evidence that, apart from the situation, her consent was not freely given. Moreover, the reasons for the entries appear to have been legitimate maintenance issues.
While I accept that [The tenant/s] felt unsettled, I do not consider that the lack of notice justifies exemplary damages for breaches of s48. Unconsented changes to locks
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has altered the locks without consent.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] gave evidence that she lost her only key to the premises and a lock smith attended and re-keyed the lock. Several month later she came home from work to find the locks had been changed and a door key left under a cup with a note. No notice had been received of the change to the locks. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Considering the criteria of s109(3) a. The landlord’s intentions in changing the locks are unknown, as he made no appearance; b. The change of locks was unsettling for [The tenant/s], particularly as it occurred in the midst of the pattern of un-notified visits. c. [The tenant/s] has a right to feel safe and secure in her home. Instead, she returned home from work to find a locksmith had entered the premises and changed the locks without her knowing. d. The public interest is served by Landlords following the notice requirements in the ERA so that tenant’s rights to quiet enjoyment in their own homes are respected.
I find the landlord is liable to pay [The tenant/s] $500 exemplary damages for the breach of s46 RTA. The breach appears not to have occurred previously, and there is no evidence that the change of locks was motivated by bad faith. Harassment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed her.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Without notice the landlord has entered the flat on the occasions discussed above and made changes to the locks. There was a pattern of behaviour, and [The tenant/s]’s evidence was that the repeated entries left her feeling unsafe in her own home. I find the landlord has 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Considering the criteria of s109(3) a. The landlord’s intentions in the failures to give notice are unknown, as he made no appearance. b. [The tenant/s] advised that the front door opens into the living area, therefore, any entry was an intrusion. She described feeling unsettled, as she lived alone and did not know when an intrusion might occur. This was compounded by the situation with the change of locks. c. The right to quiet enjoyment of home is a significant interest, and is one of the most important rights of a tenant. It is protected by the law. While a landlord owns the tenancy, it is the tenant’s home and the landlord must accept the constraints that this causes. [The tenant/s] interest is to feel at peace and undisturbed in her home. d. The public interest is served by the Tribunal using its powers to prevent landlords from harassing their tenants and to send a signal that such behaviour is unlawful.
[The tenant/s]
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5116628 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Peter Blades must pay [The tenant/s] $5,000.00 immediately.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] attended the hearing via teleconference. Mr Blades made no appearance. I allowed a reasonable period in case he was unexpectedly delay., but when he remained absent I heard the matter. Entry without notice
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] has outlined at least 4 occasions when the landlord entered without notice. These dates from a few weeks into the tenancy in April 2023 to when the tenancy ended in October 2024.
On those occasions when she was home [The tenant/s] consented to the entry, however, she says she felt forced to comply by the circumstances. It appears from her descriptions that the visits were justified by maintenance needs, however, it appears that the landlord was not well organised hence the lack of notice. This lack of organisation was also apparent in a number of incidents when [The tenant/s] was unable to make contact with the landlord, requiring her to arrange and pay for plumbing repairs herself on one occasion.
The issue with this aspect of [The tenant/s] claim is that she did consent to the entries and there is no evidence that, apart from the situation, her consent was not freely given. Moreover, the reasons for the entries appear to have been legitimate maintenance issues.
While I accept that [The tenant/s] felt unsettled, I do not consider that the lack of notice justifies exemplary damages for breaches of s48. Unconsented changes to locks
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has altered the locks without consent.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] gave evidence that she lost her only key to the premises and a lock smith attended and re-keyed the lock. Several month later she came home from work to find the locks had been changed and a door key left under a cup with a note. No notice had been received of the change to the locks. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Considering the criteria of s109(3) a. The landlord’s intentions in changing the locks are unknown, as he made no appearance; b. The change of locks was unsettling for [The tenant/s], particularly as it occurred in the midst of the pattern of un-notified visits. c. [The tenant/s] has a right to feel safe and secure in her home. Instead, she returned home from work to find a locksmith had entered the premises and changed the locks without her knowing. d. The public interest is served by Landlords following the notice requirements in the ERA so that tenant’s rights to quiet enjoyment in their own homes are respected.
I find the landlord is liable to pay [The tenant/s] $500 exemplary damages for the breach of s46 RTA. The breach appears not to have occurred previously, and there is no evidence that the change of locks was motivated by bad faith. Harassment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed her.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Without notice the landlord has entered the flat on the occasions discussed above and made changes to the locks. There was a pattern of behaviour, and [The tenant/s]’s evidence was that the repeated entries left her feeling unsafe in her own home. I find the landlord has 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Considering the criteria of s109(3) a. The landlord’s intentions in the failures to give notice are unknown, as he made no appearance. b. [The tenant/s] advised that the front door opens into the living area, therefore, any entry was an intrusion. She described feeling unsettled, as she lived alone and did not know when an intrusion might occur. This was compounded by the situation with the change of locks. c. The right to quiet enjoyment of home is a significant interest, and is one of the most important rights of a tenant. It is protected by the law. While a landlord owns the tenancy, it is the tenant’s home and the landlord must accept the constraints that this causes. [The tenant/s] interest is to feel at peace and undisturbed in her home. d. The public interest is served by the Tribunal using its powers to prevent landlords from harassing their tenants and to send a signal that such behaviour is unlawful.
[The tenant/s]
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5116628 — Exemplary damages at 7 Hawker Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5116628 — Exemplary damages at 7 Hawker Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions