What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5132610 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 5132610?

Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132610?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11568928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5132610 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 5132610?

Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132610?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11568928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 4, 7 Greenhill Avenue, Wakari, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5132610 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5132610 — net $3,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for breach of Ss16 & 38	$3,000.00	Exemplary damages for breach of Ss16 & 38
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,027.00
Bond	$800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Sandra Gertrude Kannemeyer must pay [The tenant/s] $3,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application by Sandra Gertrude Kannemeyer for rent and compensation of $860.00 is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord by teleconference from Australia.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for failing to appoint an agent while overseas, late lodgement of the bond and breach of quiet enjoyment.
The landlord has cross applied for compensation of $860.00 and exemplary damages for harassment.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 15/2/2024 to 15/2/2025 at $200.00 rent per week.
Although not specified in the tenancy agreement the premises were let on a room by room basis, originally to four individual tenants.
By agreement the tenant vacated early on 9/1/2025. Tenant’s claim

Has the landlord failed to appoint an agent while overseas?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
The tenant suggested, based on the evidence from a neighbour, that the landlord had lived in Australia for around 12 years and had deliberately omitted the country code for their cell phones on the tenancy agreement.
While agreeing that they had lived in Australia for the past 12 to 15 years the landlord submitted that their daughter was the agent for the property and had lived in the premises herself until a year ago.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the evidence supports that although their daughter conducts property inspections from time to time and her name is mentioned on the Rules provided for the premises, her responsibilities do not meet the definition of an agent in section 2.
Both landlords gave separate evidence that they liked to be “hands on” and “do things themselves” with managing the premises.
The tenant confirmed that his interactions were with the landlord and not their daughter.
I the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to appoint an agent.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

The tenant submitted that he paid the bond of $800.00 on 12/2/2024.
In response the landlord agreed that she did not lodge the bond until 15/4/2024 but could not provide an explanation as why she lodged the bond late except that was not her intention.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no dispute that the landlord lodged the bond late.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed him by staying at the premises for a month over the Christmas period, expecting high standards of cleanliness and entering his room without notice or consent.
The landlord submitted she had stayed at the premises over the Christmas period and twice during the tenancy as it was her home and she intended to eventually return and live there.
Further the landlord disputed that she entered rooms without permission and suggested that the rules provided to the tenant were designed to assist the four tenants living in the premises.
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.
I find the evidence supports the landlord has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in his use of the premises, in circumstances which amount to harassment.
The rules which form part of the tenancy agreement are very prescriptive and more suggestive of a boarding house, which this tenancy is not.
Further the fact that the landlord occasionally occupied a room in the premises and shared facilities I consider amounted to an invasion of the tenant’s privacy.
There was no suggestion by the landlord that the premises were excluded under section 5(1)(n) and the evidence does not support that such a claim would have been successful.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
For the avoidance of doubt, I find the evidence does not support that the tenant harassed the landlord and their claim for exemplary damages fails. Landlord’s claim

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

After the tenant vacated the landlord sought compensation of $800.00 as rent for the nights, she believed the tenant’s girlfriend stayed over at the premises.
In support of her claim the landlord relied on the clause in the tenancy agreement stating “...maximum number or(sic) occupants is the number of tenants who is renting the room”.
Further three witnesses provided written statements and gave evidence about how often the tenant’s girlfriend stayed over.
While not disputing that his girlfriend did often stay overnight the tenant submitted, she did not live full time at the premises. He provided a copy of his girlfriend’s tenancy agreement for different premises and two of her flatmates at those premises gave evidence.
I find there is no basis for the landlord to claim rent for the tenant’s girlfriend.
While I accept the tenant’s girlfriend did stay over for some nights each week the landlord has failed to persuade me this amounted to her occupying the premises.
Moreover, the clause in the tenancy agreement is ambiguous because the agreement itself does not specify the tenant is renting a single room. Indeed, the clause could be read as meaning there should only be one occupant in the premises, not one occupant per room.
The claim for rent fails.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord claimed compensation of $60.00 for cleaning the tenant’s room and his food from the kitchen.
In support of the claim the landlord provided a photograph taken on 10/1/2025.
In response the tenant suggested that the landlord had asked him to leave the food in the refrigerator and freezer.
On termination of a tenancy section 40(1)(e)(iii) provides that a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and remove all rubbish.
The claim for compensation fails.
I am not persuaded by the evidence provided by the landlord that the tenant’s room was not left reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, or that the food in the shared areas belonged exclusively to the tenant.

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by failing to appoint an agent while overseas, lodging the bond late and harassing the tenant I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
That decision, which was a case about the failure to supply Healthy Homes Standards documents and Insurance details, also confirmed that “Like all citizens a landlord is deemed to know the law. Parliaments intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law.”
I do not consider the evidence supports that the landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond. The landlord couldn’t remember why the bond was lodged late, and the date of lodgement was within a reasonable time of the 23 working days.
However, the situation is different with failure to appoint an agent and harassment where I consider there is sufficient evidence to raise a presumption of intent.
For many years while their daughter was living at the premises the landlord did not need to appoint an agent, but although that changed when the daughter left no agent was appointed. Instead, the landlord continued withj their “hands on” way with the tenancy, which included the use of very restrictive rules as part of the tenancy agreement.
Having carefully considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect on the tenant and the public interest I consider it just to award exemplary damages to deter a repeat performance in the way the tenancy is managed.
I have awarded combined exemplary damages at the middle end of the scale of $3,000.00.
As the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A as he has been wholly successful with the claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5132610 — net $3,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for breach of Ss16 & 38	$3,000.00	Exemplary damages for breach of Ss16 & 38
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,027.00
Bond	$800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Sandra Gertrude Kannemeyer must pay [The tenant/s] $3,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application by Sandra Gertrude Kannemeyer for rent and compensation of $860.00 is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord by teleconference from Australia.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for failing to appoint an agent while overseas, late lodgement of the bond and breach of quiet enjoyment.
The landlord has cross applied for compensation of $860.00 and exemplary damages for harassment.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 15/2/2024 to 15/2/2025 at $200.00 rent per week.
Although not specified in the tenancy agreement the premises were let on a room by room basis, originally to four individual tenants.
By agreement the tenant vacated early on 9/1/2025. Tenant’s claim

Has the landlord failed to appoint an agent while overseas?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
The tenant suggested, based on the evidence from a neighbour, that the landlord had lived in Australia for around 12 years and had deliberately omitted the country code for their cell phones on the tenancy agreement.
While agreeing that they had lived in Australia for the past 12 to 15 years the landlord submitted that their daughter was the agent for the property and had lived in the premises herself until a year ago.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the evidence supports that although their daughter conducts property inspections from time to time and her name is mentioned on the Rules provided for the premises, her responsibilities do not meet the definition of an agent in section 2.
Both landlords gave separate evidence that they liked to be “hands on” and “do things themselves” with managing the premises.
The tenant confirmed that his interactions were with the landlord and not their daughter.
I the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to appoint an agent.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

The tenant submitted that he paid the bond of $800.00 on 12/2/2024.
In response the landlord agreed that she did not lodge the bond until 15/4/2024 but could not provide an explanation as why she lodged the bond late except that was not her intention.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no dispute that the landlord lodged the bond late.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed him by staying at the premises for a month over the Christmas period, expecting high standards of cleanliness and entering his room without notice or consent.
The landlord submitted she had stayed at the premises over the Christmas period and twice during the tenancy as it was her home and she intended to eventually return and live there.
Further the landlord disputed that she entered rooms without permission and suggested that the rules provided to the tenant were designed to assist the four tenants living in the premises.
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.
I find the evidence supports the landlord has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in his use of the premises, in circumstances which amount to harassment.
The rules which form part of the tenancy agreement are very prescriptive and more suggestive of a boarding house, which this tenancy is not.
Further the fact that the landlord occasionally occupied a room in the premises and shared facilities I consider amounted to an invasion of the tenant’s privacy.
There was no suggestion by the landlord that the premises were excluded under section 5(1)(n) and the evidence does not support that such a claim would have been successful.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
For the avoidance of doubt, I find the evidence does not support that the tenant harassed the landlord and their claim for exemplary damages fails. Landlord’s claim

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

After the tenant vacated the landlord sought compensation of $800.00 as rent for the nights, she believed the tenant’s girlfriend stayed over at the premises.
In support of her claim the landlord relied on the clause in the tenancy agreement stating “...maximum number or(sic) occupants is the number of tenants who is renting the room”.
Further three witnesses provided written statements and gave evidence about how often the tenant’s girlfriend stayed over.
While not disputing that his girlfriend did often stay overnight the tenant submitted, she did not live full time at the premises. He provided a copy of his girlfriend’s tenancy agreement for different premises and two of her flatmates at those premises gave evidence.
I find there is no basis for the landlord to claim rent for the tenant’s girlfriend.
While I accept the tenant’s girlfriend did stay over for some nights each week the landlord has failed to persuade me this amounted to her occupying the premises.
Moreover, the clause in the tenancy agreement is ambiguous because the agreement itself does not specify the tenant is renting a single room. Indeed, the clause could be read as meaning there should only be one occupant in the premises, not one occupant per room.
The claim for rent fails.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord claimed compensation of $60.00 for cleaning the tenant’s room and his food from the kitchen.
In support of the claim the landlord provided a photograph taken on 10/1/2025.
In response the tenant suggested that the landlord had asked him to leave the food in the refrigerator and freezer.
On termination of a tenancy section 40(1)(e)(iii) provides that a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and remove all rubbish.
The claim for compensation fails.
I am not persuaded by the evidence provided by the landlord that the tenant’s room was not left reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, or that the food in the shared areas belonged exclusively to the tenant.

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by failing to appoint an agent while overseas, lodging the bond late and harassing the tenant I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
That decision, which was a case about the failure to supply Healthy Homes Standards documents and Insurance details, also confirmed that “Like all citizens a landlord is deemed to know the law. Parliaments intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law.”
I do not consider the evidence supports that the landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond. The landlord couldn’t remember why the bond was lodged late, and the date of lodgement was within a reasonable time of the 23 working days.
However, the situation is different with failure to appoint an agent and harassment where I consider there is sufficient evidence to raise a presumption of intent.
For many years while their daughter was living at the premises the landlord did not need to appoint an agent, but although that changed when the daughter left no agent was appointed. Instead, the landlord continued withj their “hands on” way with the tenancy, which included the use of very restrictive rules as part of the tenancy agreement.
Having carefully considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect on the tenant and the public interest I consider it just to award exemplary damages to deter a repeat performance in the way the tenancy is managed.
I have awarded combined exemplary damages at the middle end of the scale of $3,000.00.
As the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A as he has been wholly successful with the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132610 — Exemplary damages at Room 4, 7 Greenhill Avenue, Wakari, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132610 — Exemplary damages at Room 4, 7 Greenhill Avenue, Wakari, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to appoint an agent while overseas?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to appoint an agent while overseas?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions