What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153389 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 5153389?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153389?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11741569-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153389 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 5153389?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153389?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11741569-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8B Wilson Street, Newtown, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153389 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153389 — net $3,677.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged	$500.00	bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: tenancy agreement	$250.00	tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: no heat pump or draught stopping	$2,400.00	no heat pump or draught stopping
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry	$500.00	unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,677.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,677.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Gita Jekishandas must pay [The tenant/s] $3,677.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing. The landlord attended and was represented by her son. The son was the main contact for the tenants through the tenancy.
This tenancy started in March 2024 and ended on 18 January 2025 after the tenants gave notice. They filed an application for exemplary damages because there were breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) during the tenancy. They are concerned the house did not have a heat pump, was freezing cold, and the landlord did not complete repairs. They are also concerned that the landlord failed to lodge their bond, entered the house without notice, and breached their quiet enjoyment. The questions I have to decide include whether the tenants should get exemplary damages because of: • the bond • breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards • unlawful entry • breach of quiet enjoyment. The bond
It is agreed evidence the landlord did not lodge the bond. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19 and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord’s representative said he forgot to lodge the bond. I find the landlord has 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 should have systems in place to check the bond has been lodged. The tenants said they were very stressed when they realised the landlord was holding on to the bond. It is tenants interests that bonds are held independently at the Bond Centre. There is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages when they breach the RTA. I allow $500 in exemplary damages. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders against the landlord for the same breach. The Healthy Homes Standards
Under s 13A(1CA) RTA landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations.
Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750.00 for failure to provide the information. See section Schedule 1A RTA.
It is agreed evidence the landlord only provided a two page tenancy agreement with no Healthy Homes statement or information. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The same considerations apply for exemplary damages.
The landlord said he was not aware of the need to provide the statement. I am not persuaded by this submission because the two page agreement the landlord provided is part of the standard form tenancy agreement available on the Tenancy Services website. It seems most likely to me the landlord would have seen the other pages which contain the statement and current compliance with the standards. The tenants said they were disadvantaged because they did not have this information at the start of the tenancy. The whole point of the statement is so tenants have the information to decide whether or not to rent a house. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $250. I am not aware of any previous breaches.
The tenants also claim that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 20 July 2024. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to 18 degrees Celsius. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. Essentially the landlord must provide a heat pump in the living area if there is no firebox or flued gas heater. Plug in heaters are not acceptable.
It is agreed evidence there was no heat pump in the living area. The landlord only provided a plug in heater. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances, but this was not an apartment and I find no exemptions apply. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The tenants have also claimed that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenants provided me with photos showing a gap under the front door, which opened into the living area, and three windows which did not close properly. They have also provided me with texts from 19 September showing the landlord knew about the gap under the door and the windows. No work was ever completed. The landlord said he did not know about the door gap but this seems unlikely given the text saying he will possibly need a thicker self adhesive strip for the door. It seems most likely to me the landlord did not complete draught stopping. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The claim is for exemplary damages. Section 109 RTA applies. The landlord said he was not aware of the need to install a heat pump. He said he checked for draughts at the start of the tenancy and there were none. I am not persuaded by this submission. Landlords are required to know the law relating to renting houses and there is easily accessible information about the heating standard on the Tenancy Services website. Further, there was no HHS statement in the tenancy agreement so there is no evidence from the start of the tenancy that draught stopping was carried out by the landlord. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The tenants were very cold. They had to buy a heater. When they turned the heater off the room got cold immediately because of the draughts. It is tenants interests that houses can be heated and there is public interest the landlord is penalised for the breaches. I allow $2400 because I am not aware of similar breaches. Unlawful entry
It is agreed evidence the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice while the tenants were away on holiday. The tenants had a camera installed which clearly shows the landlord inside the house.
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. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 48(1),(2) and (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
As to intention, the landlord said she entered the house to check the tenants were still living there. The tenants had given notice about a week beforehand. I am not persuaded by this submission. The landlord did not stand at the door and observe the partly packed house. She entered and was inside the living area for about 20 seconds. It seems most likely to me the landlord acted intentionally and took advantage because the tenants were away. The effect for the tenants was an immediate loss of trust. They were scared this had happened before. It is in tenants interests that landlords respect their privacy. There is public interest in exemplary damages as a deterrent. I allow $500, for the same reasons. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises. 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. See section 38(2) and (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants said there were a number of issues during the tenancy that affected their quiet enjoyment, including: • hostile text messages at the end of the tenancy • ongoing maintenance to the outside of the house • repairs that were not carried out during the tenancy.
The landlord said there was no breach. The claim is for exemplary damages which means the tenants have to prove there was harassment. 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.
I have read the texts again. I am not persuaded there was a pattern of hostile texts, nor that any one text was sufficiently hostile to amount to harassment. The tenants have not proved they were troubled, worried or distressed by the ongoing maintenance outside the house. It seems most likely to me that the failure to repair the kitchen drawers and the bedroom door handle were breaches of the duty to repair rather than a breach of quiet enjoyment. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest in names when landlords breach the RTA. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153389 — net $3,677.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged	$500.00	bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: tenancy agreement	$250.00	tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: no heat pump or draught stopping	$2,400.00	no heat pump or draught stopping
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry	$500.00	unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,677.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,677.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Gita Jekishandas must pay [The tenant/s] $3,677.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing. The landlord attended and was represented by her son. The son was the main contact for the tenants through the tenancy.
This tenancy started in March 2024 and ended on 18 January 2025 after the tenants gave notice. They filed an application for exemplary damages because there were breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) during the tenancy. They are concerned the house did not have a heat pump, was freezing cold, and the landlord did not complete repairs. They are also concerned that the landlord failed to lodge their bond, entered the house without notice, and breached their quiet enjoyment. The questions I have to decide include whether the tenants should get exemplary damages because of: • the bond • breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards • unlawful entry • breach of quiet enjoyment. The bond
It is agreed evidence the landlord did not lodge the bond. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19 and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord’s representative said he forgot to lodge the bond. I find the landlord has 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 should have systems in place to check the bond has been lodged. The tenants said they were very stressed when they realised the landlord was holding on to the bond. It is tenants interests that bonds are held independently at the Bond Centre. There is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages when they breach the RTA. I allow $500 in exemplary damages. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders against the landlord for the same breach. The Healthy Homes Standards
Under s 13A(1CA) RTA landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations.
Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750.00 for failure to provide the information. See section Schedule 1A RTA.
It is agreed evidence the landlord only provided a two page tenancy agreement with no Healthy Homes statement or information. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The same considerations apply for exemplary damages.
The landlord said he was not aware of the need to provide the statement. I am not persuaded by this submission because the two page agreement the landlord provided is part of the standard form tenancy agreement available on the Tenancy Services website. It seems most likely to me the landlord would have seen the other pages which contain the statement and current compliance with the standards. The tenants said they were disadvantaged because they did not have this information at the start of the tenancy. The whole point of the statement is so tenants have the information to decide whether or not to rent a house. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $250. I am not aware of any previous breaches.
The tenants also claim that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 20 July 2024. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to 18 degrees Celsius. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. Essentially the landlord must provide a heat pump in the living area if there is no firebox or flued gas heater. Plug in heaters are not acceptable.
It is agreed evidence there was no heat pump in the living area. The landlord only provided a plug in heater. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances, but this was not an apartment and I find no exemptions apply. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The tenants have also claimed that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenants provided me with photos showing a gap under the front door, which opened into the living area, and three windows which did not close properly. They have also provided me with texts from 19 September showing the landlord knew about the gap under the door and the windows. No work was ever completed. The landlord said he did not know about the door gap but this seems unlikely given the text saying he will possibly need a thicker self adhesive strip for the door. It seems most likely to me the landlord did not complete draught stopping. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The claim is for exemplary damages. Section 109 RTA applies. The landlord said he was not aware of the need to install a heat pump. He said he checked for draughts at the start of the tenancy and there were none. I am not persuaded by this submission. Landlords are required to know the law relating to renting houses and there is easily accessible information about the heating standard on the Tenancy Services website. Further, there was no HHS statement in the tenancy agreement so there is no evidence from the start of the tenancy that draught stopping was carried out by the landlord. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The tenants were very cold. They had to buy a heater. When they turned the heater off the room got cold immediately because of the draughts. It is tenants interests that houses can be heated and there is public interest the landlord is penalised for the breaches. I allow $2400 because I am not aware of similar breaches. Unlawful entry
It is agreed evidence the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice while the tenants were away on holiday. The tenants had a camera installed which clearly shows the landlord inside the house.
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. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 48(1),(2) and (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
As to intention, the landlord said she entered the house to check the tenants were still living there. The tenants had given notice about a week beforehand. I am not persuaded by this submission. The landlord did not stand at the door and observe the partly packed house. She entered and was inside the living area for about 20 seconds. It seems most likely to me the landlord acted intentionally and took advantage because the tenants were away. The effect for the tenants was an immediate loss of trust. They were scared this had happened before. It is in tenants interests that landlords respect their privacy. There is public interest in exemplary damages as a deterrent. I allow $500, for the same reasons. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises. 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. See section 38(2) and (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants said there were a number of issues during the tenancy that affected their quiet enjoyment, including: • hostile text messages at the end of the tenancy • ongoing maintenance to the outside of the house • repairs that were not carried out during the tenancy.
The landlord said there was no breach. The claim is for exemplary damages which means the tenants have to prove there was harassment. 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.
I have read the texts again. I am not persuaded there was a pattern of hostile texts, nor that any one text was sufficiently hostile to amount to harassment. The tenants have not proved they were troubled, worried or distressed by the ongoing maintenance outside the house. It seems most likely to me that the failure to repair the kitchen drawers and the bedroom door handle were breaches of the duty to repair rather than a breach of quiet enjoyment. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest in names when landlords breach the RTA. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153389 — Exemplary damages at 8B Wilson Street, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153389 — Exemplary damages at 8B Wilson Street, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions