What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5124016 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 5124016?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $780.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment: $111.12 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5124016?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5124016?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11702802-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5124016 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 5124016?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $780.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment: $111.12 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5124016?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5124016?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11702802-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5124016 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5124016 — net $2,168.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent overpayment	$111.12	Rent overpayment
Exemplary damages: Bond breaches	$500.00	Bond breaches
Exemplary damages: Breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$780.00	Breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$750.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,168.12
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,168.12

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5124016 — net $2,168.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent overpayment	$111.12	Rent overpayment
Exemplary damages: Bond breaches	$500.00	Bond breaches
Exemplary damages: Breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$780.00	Breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$750.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,168.12
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,168.12

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,168.12 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing. [Landlord 1] is overseas and was given the opportunity to participate remotely but chose not to. [Landlord 2] and [Landlord 3] attended. [Landlord 3] was supported by his father. Background
[Landlord 2] and [Landlord 1] own the property. They had previously occupied the property with [Landlord 3], a longtime friend of [Landlord 2].
[Landlord 2] and [Landlord 1] decided to spend some time overseas and agreed that [Landlord 3] could remain living in the property while they were away and could bring in other tenants/ flatmates.
A bond of $780.00 was paid. The bond was paid into a rental account established by [Landlord 3]. No receipt was given and the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre.
The agreement is signed by the tenants, by [Landlord 2] and [Landlord 1] who the agreement names as the landlords and by [Landlord 3], who is added into the agreement as property manager. It is titled “Residential Tenancy Agreement”.
The premises are described as a room at the property. The room included an ensuite. The agreement includes use of “Fridge/freezer, couch, washing machine, BBQ, lounge, tv etc.”
The landlords’ contact details are given as c/- [Landlord 3]. It is not disputed that during the tenancy, the tenants were given no contact details for [Landlord 2] or [Landlord 1] and that all issues concerning the tenancy were dealt with by [Landlord 3].
On 29 October 2024 [Landlord 2] txt [Landlord 3], “As discussed over the phone I’m looking at coming back home in January and am wanting to move back in. This is your 90 days’ notice for terminating the agreement with the tenants in [Tenancy address suppressed], with the move out date no later than 28/01/2025.”
Notice of termination was given to the tenants who confirmed they would move out on 28 December 2024.
About after a week after the tenants moved out, [Landlord 2] did an inspection of the premises and advised the tenants that he would deduct $170.00 from the bond for the cost of repair work which he carried out himself. The balance of the bond ($610.00) was paid to the tenants. Following the earlier hearing, the whole of the bond has now been refunded to the tenants.
The tenants bought this application on 7 January 2025 claiming that their rights as tenants had been breached.
A preliminary hearing was held to determine whether this was a dispute within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. An Order dated 26 March 2025 determined that this was a residential tenancy subject to the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
The landlord brought an application for a rehearing of that Order. On 3 April 2025 the Tribunal granted a rehearing and directed that the matter proceed on the basis that if following rehearing of the jurisdiction issue the Tribunal determined that the matter falls within its jurisdiction, the substantive claims should be considered at this hearing as well. Jurisdiction
Section 4 RTA provides that. “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.” The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant (s.77(1)(a) RTA).
Under s.2 RTA, “Tenancy” means the right to occupy premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. That is the case here. The tenancy is for residential purposes, so this is a tenancy for residential purposes.
The next question is whether it is a residential tenancy that is excluded from the RTA. Those exclusions are set out in s.5(1) RTA. Of those exclusions, the relevant one to consider here is s.5(1)(n) which provides that the RTA does not apply, “...where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family”
“Landlord” in s.2 RTA, is the grantor of a tenancy. Where appropriate in the context of a particular tenancy, “landlord” can include a landlord’s agent.
I have considered whether the arrangement should be construed as [Landlord 3] having rented the property from [Landlord 2] and [Landlord 1] and then sublet to the tenants. That would make [Landlord 3] the landlord for the purposes of this tenancy, because he would then have been the grantor of the tenancy to the tenants. In that case, as he continued to occupy the premises during the tenancy, the exclusion in s.5(1)(n) might apply.
The landlords do not strongly suggest that was the situation here.
[Landlord 3] set up a rental account into which rent was paid, outgoings were met and regular payments remitted to [Landlord 2] and [Landlord 1].
The evidence shows that significant issues were referred by [Landlord 3] to [Landlord 2] for instruction. The txt about ending the tenancy sent by [Landlord 2] to [Landlord 3] on 29 October 2024, instructing him to give notice of termination to the tenants is a clear example of [Landlord 3] acting as intermediary in the tenancy between the tenants on the one hand and [Landlord 2] and [Landlord 1] as landlords on the other. Another is the fact that [Landlord 2] undertook the final inspection and determined what deduction from the bond should be made.
I find that the landlords here are [Landlord 2] and [Landlord 1]. They are the owners of the property, the agreement describes them as the landlord and they have signed the agreement in that capacity. They were grantors of the tenancy. They did not occupy the premises during the tenancy so the exclusion in s.5(1)(n) RTA does not apply.
Much attention has focussed on the question of whether [Landlord 3] is properly described in the agreement as a property manager. That is not a term or role defined in the RTA. The appropriate question is whether [Landlord 3] acted as the landlords’ agent for the purposes of the tenancy. If so, they will be responsible for actions he undertook while acting in that capacity.
[Landlord 2] says that [Landlord 3] should be regarded not as agent or property manager but as a “head tenant”. His being head tenant and also the landlords’ agent, are not mutually exclusive.
The instances given above show, in my view, that [Landlord 3] was acting on the owners’ behalf in connection with the tenancy. He was described in the agreement as property manager, dealt with all issues concerning the tenancy and indeed the tenants were given no means of communicating with the owners except through [Landlord 3].
All those circumstances are consistent with his acting as agent for the owners. Indeed, as the owners were out of New Zealand for more than 21 days they were required to appoint an agent for the tenancy (s.16A RTA).
While I accept that the owners may not have thought about exactly those legal consequences of the arrangement, I find that: a. the owners are parties, as landlords, to a residential tenancy agreement with the tenants; b. the tenancy is not one that is excluded from the RTA and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this dispute; c. [Landlord 3] acted as the landlords’ agent in administering the tenancy; d. the landlords are responsible for the actions of [Landlord 3], as their agent, when acting in that capacity. Rent
The tenancy began on Tuesday 27 February 2024. It is not disputed that weekly rent in advance was paid throughout the tenancy. The final rent payment will have paid the rent to Monday 30 December 2024. The tenancy ended on Saturday 28 December 2024, so the tenants have overpaid for 29 and 30 December 2024. That overpayment should be refunded. Bond
Section 19 RTA requires that on receiving a bond the landlord must: a. give a written receipt; and b. lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days.
Failure to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded (s.19(2) RTA).
The landlords did neither of those things and thereby 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.
In this context, intent requires that the act itself was intended, not that the landlord intended to act unlawfully. Here, the landlords intended not to lodge the bond or issue a receipt, but I accept that was because they were not aware that the circumstances required them to.
The tenants say that they too were unaware of those requirements at the time, so did not follow up on whether the bond had been lodged.
In considering the s.109(3) criteria, I take into account: a. the landlord’s error in understanding their obligations; b. that the bond was lodged into a separate tenancy account which to a degree protected the bond but could have been dissipated if rent deposited into that account did not keep up with withdrawals and the remittances to the owners; c. that only one award of exemplary damages should be made for breach of s.19(2) although 2 separate unlawful acts were committed (no receipt given and failure to lodge the bond); d. the owners unilaterally made deductions from the bond they thought they were entitled to but have since (as required) released the balance; e. the tenants did not have the assurance of having it confirmed that their bond was safely held – but were not aware at the time of their entitlements.
Weighing those considerations, I find it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages of 1/3 the maximum. Seizure of Goods
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants say that on the last day of the tenancy they ran out of time to remove all their belongings. They believed that they were entitled to more time because they had paid rent beyond the termination date. They say they agreed with [Landlord 3] that their remaining belongings would be placed outside, behind the gates on the property but the next day found that they had been placed outside the gates, exposing them to the risk of theft.
[Landlord 3]’s evidence is that he discussed with the tenants the need for them to remove their belongings by the end of the tenancy. He conferred with [Landlord 2] who said he wanted the keys back and the property vacated by the end of the day on the 28 th . [Landlord 3] says he understood [Tenant 1] would be coming back to the property to collect the rest of the tenants’ belongings so put them out (except for the tv) for him to collect. He txt [Tenant 1], “Hey Bro, [Landlord 2] has asked for the keys back tonight. I’ll sort out the wall mount for you and have put the rest of the stuff out front. If you need time, you can pick that stuff up tomorrow though.”
The tenants did not have the right to remain in the premises beyond termination date. As they had paid rent beyond that date, they were entitled to have that rent refunded, but not to a continuing right of occupation. Nevertheless, It was not appropriate for [Landlord 3] to deal with their belongings except as specifically agreed by the tenants. I am not persuaded that was the case here.
The circumstances do not seem to me to amount to a seizure or disposal of the tenant’s goods. No harm or loss was caused.
For those reasons. While [Landlord 3] ought to have been more careful to ensure he was dealing with the tenants; property in the way they had authorised him to, I do not find a breach of s.33 or that an award of exemplary damages would be just. That claim is dismissed. Retaliatory Notice
It is unlawful for a landlord to issue a notice of termination that is, “...motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or ......any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.” (see s.54(6) RTA).
There was tension between the tenants and [Landlord 3] over a message he sent to the tenants on 23 October 2024 about a door having been left unlocked. [Landlord 3] told the tenants (and the other flatmates) “The hose was left unlocked. You guys need to do better....” The tenants and the other flatmates took offense at the tone.
The tenants and [Landlord 3] met on 24 October 2024 to discuss that issue and the tenants’ concerns about [Landlord 3] going into their room.
Having received notice of termination very soon after, the tenants believe that the termination notice was issued in retaliation for them raising those concerns.
[Landlord 2]’s evidence is that his relationship with [Landlord 1] ended around that time, triggering his wish to return to New Zealand and a need to live in the premises. He says that the issues raised by the tenant with [Landlord 3] had no bearing on that decision.
I understand the tenants’ concern that the sequence of events suggests a link between their having made complaints to the landlord and their being given notice of termination.
However, I have no reason to question [Landlord 2]’s evidence about the reasons behind the termination notice and do not find it proved that the notice of termination was motivated by the tenants’ complaints. That claim is dismissed. Breach of Right to Quiet Enjoyment/ Unlawful Entry
Section 38 RTA provides that, “The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
Under s.48(4) it is unlawful for a landlord to enter premises except with the tenants’ consent or with notice, where permitted under s.48(2) or (3).
The tenants say that [Landlord 3] unlawfully entered their room without notice or consent
The tenants claim that their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises was also interfered with because: a. there were wrongly denied use of some amenities (BBQ, Dishwasher); b. there was improper scrutiny by [Landlord 3] of security camera footage in which they featured; c. they were dictated to by [Landlord 3] in how they occupied the premises.
The tenants acknowledge having given [Landlord 3] permission to enter their room on two occasions, once on 20 September 2024 when [Tenant 2] asked that something from their room be dropped off to her and once on 9 November 2024 to lock a sliding door that the tenants had accidentally left open.
They say that on several other occasions [Landlord 3] entered their room without their knowledge. They say they know that happened because items of theirs that they had left in the common areas had been put on their bed. They found dog hairs in their ensuite shower which made them believe [Landlord 3] had used their ensuite to wash the dog. They say the that other flatmates ([Flatmate 1] and [Flatmate 2]) told them they had seen [Landlord 3] enter their room.
[Flatmate 1] and [Flatmate 2] (by phone) both gave evidence. Both gave direct evidence of having seen [Landlord 3] go into the tenants’ room when the tenants were not there. [Flatmate 2], whose room backed onto to the ensuite in the tenants’ room, says that he is aware of [Landlord 3] having used the toilet in the tenants’ ensuite when they were away.
[Landlord 3]’s evidence is that he never entered tenants’ room except on the occasions he was given permission to do so. He says that sometimes he took responsibility for cleaning up the common areas and threw back onto the tenants’ bed things they had left in the common areas. He says he did not need to enter their room to do that.
As this is the tenants’ claim they must produce evidence that proves the facts on which their claim is based. Proof is required, not beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal matters, but on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not).
I do not find it proved that [Landlord 3] entered the tenants’ room for any malicious or improper purpose. It may be that [Landlord 3] believed he was being helpful by keeping the premises tidy or was acting out of out of frustration by “cleaning up” after the tenants and taking back to the tenants’ room things he thought should be been kept there, not in the common areas.
The weight of the evidence however, is that there were several occasions when, while the tenants were away, without prior notice or consent, [Landlord 3] did enter the tenants’ bedroom, opening the closed door to do so.
The right to privacy and security of premises is a fundamental tenant right. Even if the tenants had not made their expectations clear, [Landlord 3] ought to have known that he must not enter the privacy of their bedroom without their explicit consent.
I find it proved on balance that [Landlord 3] unlawfully entered the tenants’ room, which was their “premises” for the purposes of the parties agreement.
That amounts to the intentional commission of an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded.
In considering the s.109(3) criteria referred to above, I take into account the evidence that: a. there was more than one such entry; b. the evidence does not prove improper motivation; c. the tenants’ bedroom was their private space within a shared living environment and the tenants clearly felt violated by the intrusions when made aware of them.
Weighing those considerations, I find that an award of exemplary damages of ½ the maximum would be appropriate. Breach of Right to Quiet enjoyment
The tenants and the 2 witness each gave evidence that [Landlord 3] controlled use of the dishwasher, unplugging it from the wall, and made the BBQ unavailable.
[Landlord 3]’s evidence is that says that he only unplugged the dishwasher because the other tenants did not turn it off property and that it could still be used when plugged in again. He says he lent the BBQ to [Landlord 2]’s parents for a short while and told the others he had done so.
Those are chattels included with the premises and which should have been available for the tenants’ use. It was not appropriate for [Landlord 3] to prevent or complicate their use of those chattels without the tenants’ prior agreement.
The tenants and the other two witnesses all expressed discomfort at the extent to which there was scrutiny by [Landlord 3] of the security camera footage. Without evidence showing the content of that footage, it is difficult to assess whether that is a valid concern. There is nothing unusual in premises being fitted with security cameras and there is no dispute that the cameras were pointed only toward the driveway and street.
The tenants and the other witnesses also take issue with what they see as an overly rigid and dictatorial approach by [Landlord 3] to his expectations of them.
[Landlord 3]’s evidence is that his expectation of the tenants was only to do what was obviously appropriate.
People’s views of what is appropriate and reasonable vary widely. The tenant’s obligations are set out in s.40 RTA. As long as those obligations are met they are entitled to occupy the premises without, “...interference with [their] reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy...”
My assessment of the evidence given is that [Landlord 3] had expectations of the tenants that exceeded their obligations and felt entitled to take measures to “manage” the situation (for example by restricting use of the dishwasher or use of the BBQ or gathering up the tenant’s belongings that he felt should be kept in their rooms). I stress again that I do not find any improper motivation for those actions proved – rather that [Landlord 3] thought that he was doing what was appropriate. Ultimately, that resulted in significant tension in the living environment in the premises which was strongly felt by all of the occupants, not least [Landlord 3] who felt “ganged up on”.
While such dynamics can occur in many house sharing situations, over which the Tribunal generally does not have jurisdiction, in this case [Landlord 3] was acting as agent for the owners, who had appointed him in that capacity. That put him in a position of added responsibility, to ensure that the tenants’ rights, including to quiet enjoyment, were respected.
I find that the tenants’ right to, reasonable peace, comfort and or privacy in their use of the premise was interfered with by some of the actions of [Landlord 3], acting in his capacity as the owners’ agent. Compensation should be paid.
No direct economic loss was caused by that breach.
The appropriate award is one of general damages, the purpose of which is to compensate for emotional harm, taking into account: a. the nature of the breach; b. the duration of the breach; and c. the effect of the breach on the other party.
Here the evidence suggests that relations between the parties were positive for much of the tenancy but deteriorated as tensions grew.
In terms of the nature of the breach, it seems to me more a case of unreasonable expectations on [Landlord 3]’s part, than of an intentional abuse of his position as the landlords’ agent.
The effect of these breaches was largely one of frustration and annoyance. The more serious breaches of the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment, from unlawful entry into their exclusive space, has been separately recognised by an award of exemplary damages.
I find that an award of general damages equal to 2 weeks’ rent would be fair.
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5124016 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5124016 — Exemplary damages

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