What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5119288 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression is made and the Tribunal orders suppression of

How much money was awarded in case 5119288?

Electrician Callout Fee: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Plumber Callout Fee: $155.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5119288?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5119288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11563365-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5119288 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression is made and the Tribunal orders suppression of

How much money was awarded in case 5119288?

Electrician Callout Fee: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Plumber Callout Fee: $155.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5119288?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5119288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11563365-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5119288 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5119288. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrician callout fee	$138.00	Electrician callout fee
Plumber callout fee	$155.25	Plumber callout fee
Exemplary damages	$200.00	Exemplary damages
Reimbursement of the filing fee	$27.00	Reimbursement of the filing fee

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5119288. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrician callout fee	$138.00	Electrician callout fee
Plumber callout fee	$155.25	Plumber callout fee
Exemplary damages	$200.00	Exemplary damages
Reimbursement of the filing fee	$27.00	Reimbursement of the filing fee

Order

An application for suppression is made and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] owes All Things Property Limited - As Agent For St Mary's Silverstream $520.25 being rent arrears to 14 March 2025 (“the rent debt”).
[The tenant/s] must pay the rent debt by 21 March 2025.
If [the tenant/s] fails to pay the rent debt within 2 working days of 21 March 2025: a. The tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
[The tenant/s] must also pay the landlord $520.25 in accordance with the following table:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Tweedale represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for the following: i. termination of the tenancy for a breach of the tenant’s obligations being a failure to pay rent in accordance with the tenancy agreement. ii. An order for rent arrears. iii. Compensation and exemplary damages for a breach of section 46 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) being the change of the locks without consent. iv. Reimbursement of both filing fees.
The claims were initially heard by way of remote hearing on 28 February and adjourned to an in person hearing today to follow an inspection.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Ms Tweedale seeks termination of the tenancy as [the tenant/s] is currently two and a half weeks in rent arrears ($1,671.43). This relates to two missed weeks: 4-10 January 2025 and 25-31 January 2025 and this current week.
[The tenant/s]’s evidence is that the two weeks were missed accidentally when Work and Income (WINZ) inexplicably ended her rent redirection in January this year. She has an appointment with WINZ on Friday and says they have verbally told her they will pay the debt for her, and she can reinstate her redirection. She says she will pay this week’s rent on Thursday. The law and discussion
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord has served three 14-day notices on [the tenant/s] on 17 and 30 January and 10 February 2025. The breaches have not been rectified during those periods although Ms Tweedale did apply to the Tribunal for termination prior to the expiry of the third 14-day period.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenancy agreement has been breached by the failure to pay rent, and the breaches have not been rectified within the 14 day period outlined in the notices. I must therefore consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as sought.
As stated in the District Court case of Te Rangi v HNZC, CIV-2010-091-110, DC Porirua, it is a balancing exercise in considering whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The nature of the breach is most relevant, however the circumstances of the tenant or consequences to the tenant are also relevant.
The issue of inequitability to refuse to terminate was specifically discussed in Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229. Judge Rowe noted at paragraph 61 that the following are relevant when considering such an application (I note each one with my comments regarding this case immediately following): a. The history of the tenancy: this tenancy is over five years in duration. This is [the tenant/s]’s home, and she does not want to leave. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: There is no evidence that [the tenant/s] has ever failed to pay her rent in the past. In fact, until August 2024 she was consistently one week in credit on her rent. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. I accept [the tenant/s]’s evidence that the missing rent has occurred due to changes in WINZ payments, and she is willing to reinstate the redirection. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. Given [the tenant/s] was paid directly by WINZ her failure to pay the rent has to be seen as deliberate. e. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has decided not to engage fully with [the tenant/s]’s attempts to resolve the issue with them, instead applying to terminate the tenancy days prior to a Tribunal hearing on another matter. f. The gravity of the breach. The rent has not been paid, a breach which is taken seriously by the Tribunal. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I do not accept it is. [The tenant/s] has explained how the breach has occurred and how she will remedy it and ensure it will not occur again. There is no evidence that this is not a one-off event due to administrative issues with WINZ.
Considering the above, I find that termination of the tenancy would be disproportionate to the breach and therefore it is equitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Accordingly, the application for immediate termination is dismissed.
However, pursuant to sections 78(3) and 85 of the RTA, I consider a conditional termination order just. This is because the rent is overdue and must be paid. It has been overdue for three months to date and clearly [the tenant/s] requires the assistance of WINZ to pay the debt.
I am satisfied however on her past history that if WINZ does clear the debt and the rent redirection is reinstituted, a similar situation is not likely to occur. The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If [the tenant/s] breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) RTA.

Ms Tweedale alleges that [the tenant/s] has changed the locks on the property without her consent. This resulted in her being unable to access the property on 19 December 2024 for an inspection and maintenance. The trades who attended have subsequently invoiced the landlord for their wasted time.
She established in evidence that she gave lawful notice of the attendance and when [the tenant/s] asked her to change the date she declined. The maintenance work was urgent and needed to occur.
[The tenant/s] says she was likely home at the time but did not hear the door and the locks had not been changed. She says she has been trying to get consent for the lock to be upgraded over the last few years because her home has been broken into a number of times; on one occasion she was assaulted.
She says the requests have been ignored by Ms Tweedale and as a result the cheap lock that it is, is at times faulty. She denies changing the lock saying she has no funds to do so and did not receive any calls on the day when the trades were trying to enter.
She provided evidence of notifying the landlord several days after the event that it appeared her home had been broken into because the lock was even more askew than it already was. She also provided a 14-day notice asking the landlord to replace the lock on January 8 th 2024. It is agreed that there have been discussions over the years about changing the lock, but it has not been done. The law and discussion
Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) RTA. 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 RTA.
In considering the claim, the “standard of proof” or the level or evidence required is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord as applicant must establish with evidence that their position is “more likely than not.” I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral testimony). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be taken into account when weighing all evidence.
After the first hearing of this matter, I directed that an inspection be held at which point Ms Tweedale could try her key again. This occurred and access was gained. Ms Tweedale says this must be because [the tenant/s] changed the lock back to the original one.
Having assessed the evidence I find it more likely than not that [the tenant/s] did alter the lock in some way that meant that Ms Tweedale was not able to enter on the 19 th . I make this finding because there was no issue with Ms Tweedale’s key prior, nor subsequent. [The tenant/s] had asked to change the inspection date and been refused. She has had issues with some of Ms Tweedales’ tradesmen previously and the parties were in the midst of acrimonious discussions at the time.
[The tenant/s] was aware of the inspection date and time. Both trades’ invoices state that the door was knocked on but not answered and calls to [the tenant/s] were not answered. If she was at home as she says was likely, she should have been on alert for their attendance. I consider the subsequent notification that her home had been broken into by the owner was likely disingenuous.
Accordingly, I find it more likely than not that [the tenant/s] did prevent the landlord’s access. I therefore find it reasonable that she reimburses the landlord the call out fees. These are foreseeable costs that can arise if access to trades is denied.
Ms Tweedale has also sought reimbursement of her costs as provided to the owner of the property regarding the matter which total $1,205.09. Firstly, pursuant to section 102 of the RTA the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award costs. Secondly, the invoice relates to maintenance issues as well as attendance on the day costs. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Ms Tweedale also seeks exemplary damages. I have found that [the tenant/s] has committed an unlawful act in tampering with the lock to prevent access. 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) RTA.
In applying the elements of section 109, I note that this was an intentional act by [the tenant/s] and the effect on the landlord was time consuming and costly. The situation has arisen due to a breakdown in the relationship between the parties and considerable miscommunications.
There is no evidence that [the tenant/s] has undertaken similar actions and I accept that she was extremely frustrated by what she considers multiple failures on behalf of her landlord with respect to maintenance. This does not excuse her actions but provides them with context.
Taking into account the situation as a whole, I find that an award of $200 exemplary damages is justified in the circumstances. The application fee
The landlord filed two applications and so now seeks reimbursement of both application fees. Because All Things Property Limited - As Agent For St Mary's Silverstream has only partially succeeded with the claims I reimburse one filing fee, but not the other. Suppression orders
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion whilst weighing up the parties’ interests and the public interest.
[The tenant/s] was successful in defending the claim for termination and has safety reasons supporting her application for suppression orders. Accordingly, I approve her claim. The landlord does not seek similar orders.
For clarity, a provision of a copy of this order to WINZ to be kept in [the tenant/s]’ private file for the purposes of seeking assistance with the payment of the debt, will not be considered a breach of the suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5119288 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5119288 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Did the tenant change the locks without consent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Did the tenant change the locks without consent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions