What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5136173 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 5136173?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5136173?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5136173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198394-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5136173 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 5136173?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5136173?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5136173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198394-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 722 Manukau Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5136173 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5136173 — net $700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful termination	$500.00	Unlawful termination
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond	$200.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Net award	$700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$700.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5136173 — net $700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful termination	$500.00	Unlawful termination
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond	$200.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Net award	$700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$700.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Karen Halley must pay [The tenant/s] $700.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the in-person hearing on 31 July 2025. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Background facts
In October 2022, the tenant paid the landlord $1,040.00 held as a bond. The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre at any point. The landlord held the bond in her personal bank account throughout the tenancy.
The tenancy at Flat 1, 722 Manukau Road, Royal Oak (“the premises”) commenced on 1 November 2022.
On 29 November 2024, the landlord sent the tenant a text message in which the landlord stated she had sold the property the landlord was living in and she required the tenant to move out of the premises by 20 January 2025. 1
The parties say they communicated via text in order to organise an in-person meet-up which eventually occurred on 17 December 2024.
On 18 December 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord and stated the tenant had received advice that a landlord must give a tenant 63 days’ notice when terminating a tenancy on the basis the landlord intends to live at the premises. 2 The tenant stated the landlord had only given her 52 days. The tenant stated the tenancy “will end” on 28 January 2025. 1 The tenant denied receiving the relevant text message, and a copy of the message was not produced in evidence, however in verbal and text discussions in the months that followed both parties used the date of 29 November 2024 as the starting point of calculating any purported notice period. 2 That is correct, as per s51(2) of the RTA as at 29 November 2024. Following an amendment to the RTA effective 30 January 2025, a landlord is required to give 42 days’ notice to terminate a tenancy in such circumstances.
In January and February of 2025, the parties had email communications, in which the tenant asked that the tenancy end-date be extended to 11 February 2025. The landlord did not agree to the tenant’s request.
On 3 February 2025, the landlord incurred moving costs moving her belongings to storage as she could not move into the premises. The landlord arranged alternative accommodation for herself.
On 5 March 2025, the tenant gave notice that she would vacate the premises by the end of 26 March 2025. That is the date the tenant moved out.
The landlord moved into the premises in the days following 26 March 2025. The tenant’s claims
The tenant seeks exemplary damages (and compensation in relation to the first claim) for the following unlawful acts: a. Unlawful termination of the tenancy; i. As a result of the unlawful termination, the tenant says she incurred moving costs of $500 for movers attending on 26 March 2025 and storage costs of $767.50 for storage of her belongings from January – April 2025. b. Landlord’s failure to lodge the bond; c. Landlord’s breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The landlord confirmed all of the tenant’s claims are in dispute. The landlord’s counterclaim
The landlord seeks exemplary damages and compensation for the following unlawful act: a. Tenant’s failure to quit the premises on 28 January 2025; i. As a result of the tenant’s failure, the landlord says they incurred costs of $937.25 for movers to move the landlord’s furniture on 3 February 2025, and $457.08 for storage of that furniture from 3 February 2025 to 26 March 2025.
The tenant confirmed the landlord’s claim is in dispute. Tenant claim: unlawful termination of tenancy
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord breached their obligations under section 60AA of the RTA. Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give notice to terminate the tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The landlord accepts that they did not give notice in the proper way (that is pursuant to the requirements set out at s51(3) of the RTA, and that the landlord did not give the required 63 days’ notice when issuing the notice to terminate on 29 November 2024.
Given this, 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) of the RTA.
While the landlord admits she acted in error, the landlord says she did not have malicious intent and was unaware she was acting in breach of the RTA. The landlord says that once the error was brought to her attention by the tenant (in the email of 18 December 2024) the parties came to an agreement that the tenancy would end on 28 January 2025, rather than 20 January 2025 as had been stated in the landlord’s original text message.
The date of 28 January 2025 was chosen, the landlord says, because that is 63 days after 29 November 2024 (when notice was purportedly first given). 3 I note the sale of the landlord’s then-current address was due to settle on 28 January 2025.
The landlord did not have evidence of the agreement reached with the tenant in writing. The landlord relied upon an email from the tenant dated 24 December 2024 in which the tenant referred to making arrangements for rent to be paid up until 28 January 2025. From this, the landlord says the Tribunal can infer the tenant had agreed the tenancy would end on 28 January 2025.
The tenant denies agreeing the tenancy would end on 28 January 2025. The tenant says the landlord never gave proper notice to terminate the tenancy and the tenancy only ended when the tenant issued her own notice on 5 March 2025 that the tenancy would end on 26 March 2025. The tenant says in the email of 24 December 2024, she referred to the tenancy ending on 28 January 2025 as that was the date the landlord had said was 63 days after 29 November 2024. The tenant says that should not be taken as her agreement to the date – only that that was the date the landlord had insisted upon.
I am satisfied the landlord did not, at any time, give notice to terminate the tenancy in the manner required under the RTA. While I accept that the landlord was not acting maliciously when issuing notice on 29 November 2024 via text, 3 However, 63 days after 29 November 2024 would have been 31 January 2025. the landlord was on notice from at least 18 December 2024 that there were specific requirements when giving notice and the landlord failed to issue notice correctly on or after that date. The remedy was not simply to re-calculate 63 days from 29 November 2024, the remedy was to issue a new notice, in writing and pursuant to the other requirements set out at s51(3) of the RTA, recording the date 63 days from the date of the written notice when the tenancy would end.
The impact the unlawful termination had was to cause the tenant stress. Ultimately, however, the unlawful notice was not enforced by the landlord. The tenancy ended on 26 March 2025, pursuant to the tenant’s notice to terminate issued on 5 March 2025. Given this, I award the tenant exemplary damages in the nominal amount of $500 to recognise the stress caused to the tenant, and in recognition that the landlord breached their obligations under the RTA when she issued the unlawful notice to terminate on 29 November 2024.
As to the compensation costs claimed by the tenant, I am not satisfied the costs incurred by the tenant in March 2025 were incurred as a result of the landlord’s unlawful notice issued on 29 November 2024. Rather, I am satisfied the moving and storage costs were the result of the tenant giving notice on 5 March 2025.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation for moving and storage costs. Tenant claim: landlord failed to lodge the bond
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. The landlord accepts the tenant paid the landlord $1,040 in October 2022 and it was held in the landlord’s bank account for the duration of the tenancy. The parties agreed the bond held could be applied for the last two weeks rent at the property and therefore there is no dispute as to its refund.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) of the RTA.
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 of the RTA.
By failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, 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) of the RTA.
The tenant says the landlord’s breach resulted in the landlord being able to earn interest from the bond. No evidence of the landlord profiting from the retention of the bond was produced.
The landlord says she did not consider the payment of $1,040 to be a bond, “in the sense of a tenancy agreement.” The landlord says it was the tenant’s idea to pay the money to her and the landlord accepted it as, “a security, a relationship, a bond of moving ahead.”
The tenancy agreement records that a bond of $1,040 was paid. I am satisfied the payment of $1,040 from the tenant to the landlord in October 2022 was a bond in the usual way.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally held the bond in her bank account. The landlord was aware the tenant had paid her $1,040 in accordance with the tenancy agreement. I am satisfied the landlord chose to retain the funds in her personal bank account. The impact of the landlord’s unlawful act was minimal. I am not satisfied there is evidence the landlord financially benefitted from holding the bond in her personal bank account, however by doing so, the tenant was not afforded the security of knowing the bond was held by an independent third party.
I am satisfied it is just to award exemplary damages, but award only nominal damages, as the landlord’s failure had minimal impact on the tenant. A nominal award of $200 is justified in recognition that lodging of the bond with an independent third party provides security for both parties in the event of a dispute. Tenant claim: breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment, in circumstances that amount to harassment.
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) of the RTA.
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". 4 4 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant says the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment in circumstances that amount to harassment on the following occasions: a. 22 January 2025: taking photographs of the interior of the property during an inspection; b. 10 February 2025: contractors attending to wash the house exterior, and, the landlord attending the premises on the same occasion; c. 11 February 2025: the landlord emailed the tenant commenting on the state of the interior of the unit; d. Early March 2025: the landlord emailed the tenant enquiring when the unit would be cleaned; e. 26 March 2025: the landlord came to the premises before the tenant had vacated and aggressively moved some boxes inside the shed.
I am not satisfied any of the above incidents amounted to harassment, for the following reasons: a. 22 January 2025: I am not satisfied the landlord taking photographs during an inspection amounts to harassment. It is common practice for landlords to take photographs during inspections to document the property’s condition. Such photographs can serve as evidence in cases of damage or where maintenance issues arise. b. 10 February 2025: I am satisfied the landlord gave the tenant notice (via) email at least 48 hours’ notice of the planned exterior washing work. 5 I am satisfied the landlord attended the premises at the time the work was being carried out to allow the contractors access given the tenant had indicated she had a medical appointment that day. c. 11 February 2025: I am satisfied the landlord’s email sent on 11 February 2025 raising concern about the items photographed inside the premises was not intended to trouble, worry or distress, or to wear out, tire, or exhaust the tenant. The concern raised was in relation to the condition of the premises. The landlord may wish to reflect upon the tone of the email, however, I do not consider the language used to be aggressive. d. Early March 2025: while the actual emails were not produced by either party, I am not satisfied the landlord making email enquiries regarding when the premises would be clean amounts to harassment. As this was shortly before the end of the tenancy, such communications are appropriate. e. 26 March 2025: I am satisfied the parties had agreed the landlord would come to the premises at approximately 1pm on 26 March 2025. The tenant 5 In accordance with s48(2)(d). stated the time the landlord attended was “much earlier” than agreed but could not say a specific time other than “earlier”. The tenant stated the boxes moved by the landlord were empty boxes of hers. I am not satisfied the landlord moving empty boxes in an outdoor shed amounts to harassment.
I am not satisfied the landlord committed an unlawful act on the above occasions and dismiss the claim for exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment. Landlord claim:
Karen Halley claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 28 January 2025 (or 3 February 2025), the date the tenancy should have ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the RTA.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Given my finding that the tenancy lawfully ended on 26 March 2025, this claim can not succeed. The landlord did not give lawful notice to terminate the tenancy on 29 November 2024 or on any date thereafter. The only lawful notice to terminate was issued by the tenant on 5 March 2025, for the tenancy to end on 26 March 2025.
I am not satisfied the tenant committed an unlawful act by failing to vacate the premises by 28 January 2025 or 3 February 2025.
It follows that I am not satisfied the landlord is entitled to compensation for the costs of moving her property on 3 February 2025, or the costs of storage in the months of February and March 2025. Should the tenant’s identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See s 95A(1) of the RTA.
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See s 95A(4) of the RTA.
The tenant applied for suppression of their name. The tenant’s application was partially but not substantially successful, therefore the tenant is not automatically entitled to name suppression.
One of the more serious allegations (breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment) made against the landlord was not proven. While the facts and reasoning of the decision may be in the public interest, in these circumstances, I do not consider that interest necessarily extends to the tenant’s name.
Accordingly, I order suppression of the tenant’s name pursuant to s95A(4).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5136173 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 722 Manukau Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5136173 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 722 Manukau Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1023

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