What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5124877 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 5124877?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5124877?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5124877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12471233-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5124877 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 5124877?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5124877?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5124877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12471233-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Para Close, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5124877 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5124877 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Landlord not entitled to give notice	$2,000.00	Landlord not entitled to give notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Yihan Wang must pay [The tenant/s] $2,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal had the assistance of an interpreter.
This was short tenancy that lasted around 14 weeks. The tenants moved into the landlord’s house and rented one of the bedrooms. The landlord had the exclusive use of a bedroom and bathroom and the common areas were shared. The tenants signed a boarding house tenancy agreement. Adjudicator Stirling established there was jurisdiction in her order dated 1 July 2025. She also established the residential premises was not a boarding house. The landlord gave a 28 notice to end the tenancy and the tenants moved out soon after.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages because they believe the notice was retaliatory, the landlord entered their bathroom without giving notice, and there was a breach of quiet enjoyment. The questions I have to decide include: • Was the notice retaliatory? • Was the landlord entitled to give a 28 day notice? • Did the landlord enter the bathroom unlawfully and was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Should the tenants get compensation?

Was the notice retaliatory?

On 13 December 2024 the landlord emailed the tenants a notice, ending the tenancy on 10 January 2025. The tenants claim the notice was retaliatory. For a notice to be declared retaliatory the tenants must prove that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenants exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The parties agree there was an argument on 22 November 2024 in the kitchen while the tenants were cooking. The specifics of what was said is not relevant to the claim. After the argument the landlord felt stressed and unwell. By 13 December she had decided to give the tenants a notice to end the tenancy. The tenants said the relationship deteriorated badly after the notice was given.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. It seems most likely to me the landlord decided to end the tenancy after the argument on 22 November. However, I am not persuaded the landlord did this in response to the tenants exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or under the RTA. What happened was the parties argued in the kitchen while the tenants were cooking. Both the landlord and the tenants felt uncomfortable and unsafe after the argument, but the tenants did not serve any 14 day notices or file an application (at the time) with the Tribunal complaining about the landlord. I have not been provided with any messages or emails before 13 December where the tenants asked the landlord to respect their rights as tenants. I find the tenants have not proved the notice was given because they were exercising a right or making a complaint. This means the notice was not retaliatory. The claims relating to a retaliatory notice are dismissed.

Was the landlord entitled to give a 28 day notice?

While the notice was not retaliatory there is still an issue about whether the landlord was allowed to give the tenants 28 days notice to end the tenancy. This is an issue that was discussed at the hearing. The landlord gave the 28 day notice because she read the information about terminating a boarding house tenancy as set out on the Tenancy Services standard form agreement. The problem with that is the parties did not have a boarding house tenancy.
The landlord said this was her first time renting out rooms in her home. She believed the boarding house agreement suited the living arrangements. In fact the tenancy was a periodic tenancy of residential premises, meaning the landlord could only give notice if one of the criteria set out in section 51 RTA was met. At the time the notice was given the law stated that periodic tenancies could be ended by giving 63 or 90 days notice for very specific reasons, such as family moving in, the premises being put on the market or sold, or significant maintenance being scheduled. I find none of these apply here, which means the landlord was not entitled to give the 28 day notice.
Under section 60AA RTA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord 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) RTA.
The landlord knew about the RTA, and she knew there were rules around ending tenancies. Her submission is that she made a mistake because she believed there was a boarding house tenancy and she should not be penalised. However, the landlord was clearly not running a boarding house or intending to rent to 6 or more tenants at a time. I find the landlord acted intentionally by choosing not to get legal advice before giving the notice.
I find the consequences of the 28 day notice were that the tenants were very stressed trying to find somewhere else to live. The tenants said they had to pay double rent for a period of time. It is in tenants interests that landlords apply the RTA when ending tenancies, and there is public interest that landlords are penalised when they breach the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2,000. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders against the landlord. Did the landlord enter the bathroom unlawfully and was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?
The tenants claim there was a breach of quiet enjoyment. Their claim overlaps with the law about unlawful entry. This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The law states that landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenants’ consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA. Also, a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
The tenants claim the landlord entered their bathroom without consent or notice. The landlord said the tenants were never given the exclusive use of the bathroom. I have read the tenancy agreement and the messages and I am persuaded by the landlord’s submission. I find the tenants did not have the exclusive use of the bathroom, so the landlord was allowed to enter the bathroom.
The tenants also claim the landlord harassed them by messaging them about cleaning the bathroom, about proper use of the laundry appliances, and about closing doors quietly. I have considered the evidence. I find the messages sent by the landlord were pedantic, but they were not a breach of quiet enjoyment in the context of a shared living arrangement.
I do not find the disagreement between the landlord and the tenants when cooking on 22 November to be a breach of the RTA. It seems most likely to me the argument happened because people who live together sometimes fall out. I am not persuaded the landlord acted intentionally to breach the quiet enjoyment of the tenants.
The tenants said the way the landlord spoke to them when they asked about the bond was a breach of quiet enjoyment. I am not persuaded by this submission. I note the tenants have not claimed exemplary damages and the bond was refunded in full to the tenants after the tenancy ended.
The tenants have not provided me with sufficient evidence to persuade me that the landlord posted unfair comments on social media after the tenants were given notice, warning other landlords about them.
Finally, there is no provision of the RTA which requires landlords to disclose health issues or allow access to a surveillance system.
The claim there was a breach of entry and/or of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.

Should the tenants get compensation?

The tenants have claimed $1780 in compensation. This is made up of a $1680 reimbursement of rent and $100 moving costs. This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I was not provided with any supporting information to prove the claim for additional moving costs. I was not provided with a copy of the new tenancy agreement, so it is hard for me to establish if the tenants paid double rent. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have made an application for suppression. This is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest when landlords have to pay exemplary damages. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5124877 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Landlord not entitled to give notice	$2,000.00	Landlord not entitled to give notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Yihan Wang must pay [The tenant/s] $2,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal had the assistance of an interpreter.
This was short tenancy that lasted around 14 weeks. The tenants moved into the landlord’s house and rented one of the bedrooms. The landlord had the exclusive use of a bedroom and bathroom and the common areas were shared. The tenants signed a boarding house tenancy agreement. Adjudicator Stirling established there was jurisdiction in her order dated 1 July 2025. She also established the residential premises was not a boarding house. The landlord gave a 28 notice to end the tenancy and the tenants moved out soon after.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages because they believe the notice was retaliatory, the landlord entered their bathroom without giving notice, and there was a breach of quiet enjoyment. The questions I have to decide include: • Was the notice retaliatory? • Was the landlord entitled to give a 28 day notice? • Did the landlord enter the bathroom unlawfully and was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Should the tenants get compensation?

Was the notice retaliatory?

On 13 December 2024 the landlord emailed the tenants a notice, ending the tenancy on 10 January 2025. The tenants claim the notice was retaliatory. For a notice to be declared retaliatory the tenants must prove that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenants exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The parties agree there was an argument on 22 November 2024 in the kitchen while the tenants were cooking. The specifics of what was said is not relevant to the claim. After the argument the landlord felt stressed and unwell. By 13 December she had decided to give the tenants a notice to end the tenancy. The tenants said the relationship deteriorated badly after the notice was given.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. It seems most likely to me the landlord decided to end the tenancy after the argument on 22 November. However, I am not persuaded the landlord did this in response to the tenants exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or under the RTA. What happened was the parties argued in the kitchen while the tenants were cooking. Both the landlord and the tenants felt uncomfortable and unsafe after the argument, but the tenants did not serve any 14 day notices or file an application (at the time) with the Tribunal complaining about the landlord. I have not been provided with any messages or emails before 13 December where the tenants asked the landlord to respect their rights as tenants. I find the tenants have not proved the notice was given because they were exercising a right or making a complaint. This means the notice was not retaliatory. The claims relating to a retaliatory notice are dismissed.

Was the landlord entitled to give a 28 day notice?

While the notice was not retaliatory there is still an issue about whether the landlord was allowed to give the tenants 28 days notice to end the tenancy. This is an issue that was discussed at the hearing. The landlord gave the 28 day notice because she read the information about terminating a boarding house tenancy as set out on the Tenancy Services standard form agreement. The problem with that is the parties did not have a boarding house tenancy.
The landlord said this was her first time renting out rooms in her home. She believed the boarding house agreement suited the living arrangements. In fact the tenancy was a periodic tenancy of residential premises, meaning the landlord could only give notice if one of the criteria set out in section 51 RTA was met. At the time the notice was given the law stated that periodic tenancies could be ended by giving 63 or 90 days notice for very specific reasons, such as family moving in, the premises being put on the market or sold, or significant maintenance being scheduled. I find none of these apply here, which means the landlord was not entitled to give the 28 day notice.
Under section 60AA RTA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord 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) RTA.
The landlord knew about the RTA, and she knew there were rules around ending tenancies. Her submission is that she made a mistake because she believed there was a boarding house tenancy and she should not be penalised. However, the landlord was clearly not running a boarding house or intending to rent to 6 or more tenants at a time. I find the landlord acted intentionally by choosing not to get legal advice before giving the notice.
I find the consequences of the 28 day notice were that the tenants were very stressed trying to find somewhere else to live. The tenants said they had to pay double rent for a period of time. It is in tenants interests that landlords apply the RTA when ending tenancies, and there is public interest that landlords are penalised when they breach the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2,000. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders against the landlord. Did the landlord enter the bathroom unlawfully and was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?
The tenants claim there was a breach of quiet enjoyment. Their claim overlaps with the law about unlawful entry. This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The law states that landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenants’ consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA. Also, a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
The tenants claim the landlord entered their bathroom without consent or notice. The landlord said the tenants were never given the exclusive use of the bathroom. I have read the tenancy agreement and the messages and I am persuaded by the landlord’s submission. I find the tenants did not have the exclusive use of the bathroom, so the landlord was allowed to enter the bathroom.
The tenants also claim the landlord harassed them by messaging them about cleaning the bathroom, about proper use of the laundry appliances, and about closing doors quietly. I have considered the evidence. I find the messages sent by the landlord were pedantic, but they were not a breach of quiet enjoyment in the context of a shared living arrangement.
I do not find the disagreement between the landlord and the tenants when cooking on 22 November to be a breach of the RTA. It seems most likely to me the argument happened because people who live together sometimes fall out. I am not persuaded the landlord acted intentionally to breach the quiet enjoyment of the tenants.
The tenants said the way the landlord spoke to them when they asked about the bond was a breach of quiet enjoyment. I am not persuaded by this submission. I note the tenants have not claimed exemplary damages and the bond was refunded in full to the tenants after the tenancy ended.
The tenants have not provided me with sufficient evidence to persuade me that the landlord posted unfair comments on social media after the tenants were given notice, warning other landlords about them.
Finally, there is no provision of the RTA which requires landlords to disclose health issues or allow access to a surveillance system.
The claim there was a breach of entry and/or of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.

Should the tenants get compensation?

The tenants have claimed $1780 in compensation. This is made up of a $1680 reimbursement of rent and $100 moving costs. This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I was not provided with any supporting information to prove the claim for additional moving costs. I was not provided with a copy of the new tenancy agreement, so it is hard for me to establish if the tenants paid double rent. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have made an application for suppression. This is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest when landlords have to pay exemplary damages. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5124877 — Exemplary damages at 20 Para Close, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5124877 — Exemplary damages at 20 Para Close, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the notice retaliatory?

Was the landlord entitled to give a 28 day notice?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the notice retaliatory?

Was the landlord entitled to give a 28 day notice?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions