What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5138492 about?

The tribunal order states: Rose Elle must pay Lance Kerry Morrell and Tayla Emily Fry $499.12

How much money was awarded in case 5138492?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138492?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138492?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12011093-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5138492 about?

The tribunal order states: Rose Elle must pay Lance Kerry Morrell and Tayla Emily Fry $499.12

How much money was awarded in case 5138492?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138492?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138492?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12011093-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1346 Takapau Ormondville Road, Ormondville, RD 7, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5138492 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5138492 — net $499.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$300.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Bond balance (with landlord	$172.12	Bond balance (with landlord
Net award	$499.12
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$499.12

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5138492 — net $499.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$300.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Bond balance (with landlord	$172.12	Bond balance (with landlord
Net award	$499.12
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$499.12

Order

Rose Elle must pay Lance Kerry Morrell and Tayla Emily Fry $499.12 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted remotely.
The tenant sought compensation and exemplary damages. A previous hearing and order considered this tenancy arrangement and determined this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
As previously explained to the parties, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered where appropriate. Background
The premises were typically let as short-term accommodation on Booking.com and Airbnb. It is a freestanding studio unit with a ranch-slider access door.
This tenancy formed after the future employer of one tenant requested accommodation via a local social media community page. The respondent engaged with that employer and shortly afterwards, having brokered the introduction, the employer exited the discussion and the two parties here engaged in formalising the arrangement. It is accepted by both that the intended duration was from “mid-November to mid-March” – fitting in with one tenant coming to the region for seasonal work. The tenants confirmed they stayed for that season, albeit in a second premises after this one ended after less than a month.
This direct engagement was a departure by the landlord from the typical use of short-term accommodation sites for arranging stays. A direct engagement offered both some financial benefit, without the deductions made by such sites. The negative is that those sites provide terms and conditions that are agreed as part of the booking. No such terms or conditions were agreed via the direct approach here.
The owner lives at the same property, operating a dog kennel business there. Permission for the tenants to have their dog, Gus, reside was granted. There was some later disagreement regarding what was discussed at the start regarding Gus, given some concerns of the other dogs nearby in the kennels, and other properties.
During, or after, the short tenancy, issues between the parties arose regarding unlawful entry by the landlord, failure to lodge the bond, quiet enjoyment, and no means of securing the premises. The tenants instigated an end to the tenancy although both parties attempted to end the tenancy.
The bond has been partially returned to the tenants.

Did the landlord enter unlawfully?

The tenants claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepted she had entered the premises twice. Once, on or around19 November 2024, the entry was to drop off some washing (three bath towels) of the tenants that had been air-drying outside. The landlord said she did this as rain was likely and the items had dried.
The other instance was an entry to switch off an external light that had been left on. There was an external sensor light but this one was switch operated and left on by the tenants as they had left the premises to work before sunrise and not thought to turn it off. This took place two days before the above entry. The tenants knew about it as the landlord told them she had done it, and why.
The landlord claimed a concern as she was incurring the electricity costs for such needless consumption.
No compelling evidence of other entry by the landlord was provided.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act in entering the premises at these times.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

The tenant claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
In this instance, I accept the landlord may have considered she was operating outside of a residential tenancy. There is still some bond retained by the landlord. I also note that the tenancy ended before the lapse of 23 working days so no technical unlawful act occurred.
The bond taken was $600.00. The tenants agreed $65.00 should be deducted for gas used. The landlord has already returned $362.88 to the tenants. That leaves a balance of $172.12 that is to be returned to the tenants.

Was there interference with quiet enjoyment?

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 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 s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
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 s 109(3) 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.
The tenants cited an incident involving a person (Peter) “housesitting” the landlord’s home while she was away. He has done this a number of times before. There was a dispute regarding the behaviour of their dog Gus towards Peter. The issue of Gus and its behaviour and claimed impact around the kennel dogs ensued later with the owner and the tenants. Peter was called as a witness. He recounted the single event. I have no reason to disbelieve his experience but note the tenants have a different recollection. It certainly triggered further issues between the owner and the tenants, but I do not consider this event was a case of any landlord interference with quiet enjoyment.
Noise from the other dogs was cited as an ongoing problem with the noise occurring at night and interfering with the tenant’s sleep. Whether Gus had some role in any such occasions remains unclear.
The tenant knew the kennels were collocated prior to accepting the tenancy. The noise appears to have been raised later, rather than at the time and I do not find the tenants have proven any unreasonable interference with their quiet enjoyment due to dogs.
Other impacts on the tenants’ quiet enjoyment due to landlord behaviours as claimed were not supported evidentially.
I do not consider grounds exist for a specific order due to interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The impacts and awards for specific failures have factored in the adverse impact on tenant quiet enjoyment.

Were locks provided?

A landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure (see s 46) Residential Tenancies Act 1986)
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not provide keys.
I was told this is usual practice for previous short-term stays and if the tenants wanted a key the landlord believes they should have asked. The tenants claim they did not ask for a key due to a reluctance to confront the landlord. They further claimed the lack of a key was a serious insurance impediment, requiring alternative storage for tools and such (with the employer). If so, the failure to raise the issue with the landlord is curious given other conversations evidenced. I also consider the insurance issue overstated as it appears the tools were never intended to be stored in the premises.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act as section 46 RTA places the onus on the landlord to provide, not on the tenant to request. Termination
Like other aspects of this tenancy, the way it ended did not conform with statutory requirements. Both parties failed to adhere to their respective requirements.
The tenants requested employer assistance in finding a new home, on or around 3 December 2025. They secured accommodation shortly afterwards. Two days later they received notice from the landlord but that was rendered moot as the tenants moved out the next day to their new home.
Given the mutual failures I make no specific orders pertaining to how the tenancy ended. Exemplary damages
As I have determined that the landlord committed unlawful acts I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
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).
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) RTA.
The landlord stated that “I did not enter into a long-term contract at this stage as it was not required. Had they stayed longer than 90 days I would have expected a contract to be entered into and the bond would then have been forwarded to Tenancy”. Events meant intent was not tested.
Having considered the formation and operation of this tenancy, while the landlord has committed unlawful acts, as well as the impacts, I do not consider exemplary damages should follow the unlawful acts. Compensation will redress impacts on the tenants and the punitive or deterrent intention of exemplary damages are considered unjust here. Compensation
Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.
The nature of some of the breaches may on the face of them appear technical or arbitrary, but some adverse impact on the tenants, and this tenancy’s messy operation and ending was, at least in part, a responsibility of the landlord.
Mindful of the three considerations set out above in Palmer, I consider compensation of $300.00, the equivalent of one week’s rent, appropriate for the failure to provide a means of securing the premises and the two entries by the landlord without notice, and with consideration of the consequential impacts on quiet enjoyment . This is ordered. Filing fee
Because Lance Kerry Morrell and Tayla Emily Fry have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed their filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138492 — Tenancy dispute at 1346 Takapau Ormondville Road, Ormondville, RD 7,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138492 — Tenancy dispute at 1346 Takapau Ormondville Road, Ormondville, RD 7,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord enter unlawfully?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Was there interference with quiet enjoyment?

Were locks provided?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord enter unlawfully?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Was there interference with quiet enjoyment?

Were locks provided?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions