What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158831?

The tribunal order states: Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited must pay Zoe Alexandra Eckhoff, Tom Aidan

How much money was awarded in case 5158831?

Compensation: $3,565.71 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,337.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158831?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11498119-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158831?

The tribunal order states: Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited must pay Zoe Alexandra Eckhoff, Tom Aidan

How much money was awarded in case 5158831?

Compensation: $3,565.71 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,337.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158831?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11498119-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

116 Queen Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5158831 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158831 — net $4,228.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 26/2/2025	$1,337.40		Rent arrears to 26/2/2025
Compensation		$3,565.71	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$1,337.40	$5,565.71
Net award		$4,228.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$4,228.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158831 — net $4,228.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 26/2/2025	$1,337.40		Rent arrears to 26/2/2025
Compensation		$3,565.71	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$1,337.40	$5,565.71
Net award		$4,228.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$4,228.71

Order

Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited must pay Zoe Alexandra Eckhoff, Tom Aidan Dyer and Marek David Leith Rickerby $4,228.71 calculated as shown in table below:
The amount payable to be credited towards the weekly rent of $624.00 owing for the premises.
By way of declaration the tenancy agreement dated 18/9/2024 for 116 Queen Street North Dunedin between Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited and Zoe Alexandra Eckhoff, Tom Aidan Dyer and Marek David Leith Rickerby is valid.
The application by Zoe Alexandra Eckhoff, Tom Aidan Dyer and Marek David Leith Rickerby for a rent refund of $1,744.00, compensation of $6,000.00 and exemplary damages is dismissed.
The application by Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited for compensation of $341.50 and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
On 10/2/2025 the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, compensation for assignment costs and exemplary damages for abandonment.
Four days later the tenants cross applied for the tenancy agreement to be declared null and void, refund of rent paid of $3,744.00 and exemplary damages for breach of tenancy agreement requirements, quiet enjoyment, the state of the premises, unlawful entry, breach of healthy homes standards and assault.
On 18/9/2024 the parties signed a fixed term tenancy for the premises from 1/1/2025 to 31/12/2025 at $624.00 rent per week.

Is the tenancy agreement null and void?

Before considering the various claims, I must first determine if the tenancy agreement is void.
The tenants submitted that because of what they believed was the state of the premises when they wanted to move in on 8/2/2025 that the agreement between the parties was invalid, despite the fact they had been paying rent.
In addition, the tenants were unhappy the landlord had entered the premises during January 2025, issued her with a trespass notice and stopped paying rent.
On the other hand, the landlord suggested that the premises would have been ready for the tenants to move into and a key available on the agreed date of 8/2, but they chose not to do so.
I find there is no evidence to support that the tenancy agreement is null and void.
The parties signed the agreement on 18/9/2024 at which time all tenants confirmed they were over the age of 18 years.
While the tenancy agreement did not contain a chattels list or property inspection report and the landlord subsequently amended a page that had been left out, I do not consider any of these omissions sufficient to void the agreement.
The form used by the landlord was that recommended by Tenancy Services, is in common use by many landlords and is a legally binding contract.
It is not open for one party to unilaterally decide that a contract between them is void or to stop paying rent.
The legislation provides various remedies for breaches of a tenancy agreement, including what happens at the beginning of a tenancy. Landlord’s case

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

The landlord claimed rent arrears of $1,337.14 to 26/2/2025 and provided handwritten rent records to support the claim.
The tenants did not dispute that they had only paid the first six weeks rent but had stopped paying after receiving legal advice.
Section 40(1)(a) provides that a tenant shall pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
I find the landlord has proved the tenants owe rent arrears and an award is made.

Are the tenants liable for assignment costs?

The landlord claimed $351.50 being advertising and labour costs of assigning the tenancy.
Under section 44A a landlord who, among other matters, consents to assignment of a tenancy is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment.
The landlord must provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
I find the claim for assignment costs fails because the tenancy has not been assigned.
Moreover, there is no evidence to support that the tenants have asked for the tenancy to be assigned, rather the tenants rely on the mistaken belief that there is no tenancy.

Have the tenants abandoned the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant abandoned the premises because they have stopped paying rent and did not move in on the agreed date.
A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse and fails to notify the landlord, not intending to return or to meet their obligations.
A tenant commits an unlawful act if they abandon the premises when the rent is in arrear. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 61(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the tenants have not committed an unlawful act because, despite not taking possession they have been in correspondence with the landlord about the tenancy.
The claim for exemplary damages fails. Tenants’ case

Did the tenants have vacant possession?

The tenants’ submitted when they viewed the premises and signed the tenancy agreement on 1/102024, they felt the premises were untidy inside and out but thought these matters would be rectified by the time they moved in.
However, the tenants suggested when driving past the premises in late January 2025 they became concerned because of the state of the property.
Subsequently on 4/2/2025 when they saw the landlord at the premises there was an altercation with her and some of the tenants and their parents and a trespass notice was issued to the landlord.
Further the tenants suggested they found it difficult to arrange a move in date and inspection with the landlord.
In response, the landlord suggested she did not deny access to the tenants, but wanted the inspection to happen at the time the tenants moved in.
The landlord indicated that she felt intimidated by the incident on 4/2/2025.
Section 37 provides that a tenant shall have vacant possession of premises on the date on which, according to the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to occupation of the premises.
I find the tenants did not have vacant possession on 1/1/2025, the date in the tenancy agreement which entitled them to occupy the premises.
The landlord had not provided the tenants with keys or made the premises available from 1/1/2025.

Has the landlord harassed the tenants?

The tenants suggested they felt harassed by the tone and content of the landlord’s emails when they asked her questions about the utilities and moving in date.
In addition, the tenants submitted they also felt intimidated by the actions of the landlord during the incident on 4/2/2025 when she took photographs of them.
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 landlord did interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises because she did not allow them access at the beginning of the tenancy.
However, I do not consider the behaviour of the landlord amounted to harassment and she has not committed an unlawful act.
The evidence supports that both parties felt intimidated by the incident on 4/2/2025 and the subsequent actions of both parties led to a rapidly escalating dispute which resulted in applications to the Tribunal.

Has the landlord breach her obligations?

Zoe Alexandra Eckhoff, Tom Aidan Dyer and Marek David Leith Rickerby claim that the landlord has breached her obligations about the state of the premises and healthy homes, in particular overgrown gardens, full gutters, moisture damage, peeling paint and mould.
On the other hand, the landlord submitted that the premises were reasonably clean and tidy in January and that it was only the outside which needed attending to before the tenants moved in.
Further the landlord confirmed that the premises were healthy homes compliant, and she had made a mistake when filling out the draught stopping certification in the tenancy agreement.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) for, among other standards, the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
As the tenancy began on 1/1/2025 the compliance date for healthy homes standards is 30 April 2025.
I find the evidence of the parties and the respective photographs support that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy on 1/1/2025.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
However, I consider there is no breach of healthy homes standards because the compliance date has not yet been reached.

Zoe Alexandra Eckhoff, Tom Aidan Dyer and Marek David Leith Rickerby claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice in January to undertake cleaning, repairs, and removal of furniture.
As they did not receive a chattels list with the original tenancy agreement the tenants were unaware what furniture was supposed to be in the premises, other than it was “fully furnished”.
The landlord confirmed she entered the premises to undertake cleaning and furniture removal in January and thought she had consent for the latter.
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 evidence supports that the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice on several occasions in January 2025 for different reasons.
Irrespective of when the tenants agreed to move in, as the tenancy commenced on 1/1/2025 the landlord should have obtained consent to enter the premises or provided the prior required notice.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

I have awarded compensation of $3,565.71 being 40 days rent for the period the tenants have not had access to the premises.
As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by breaching her obligations at the start date of the tenancy and entering without consent, 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
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).
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.
I consider an inference can be drawn from the evidence that the landlord intentionally failed to comply with her obligations at the start of the tenancy and turned a ‘blind eye’ to the requirements of the Act.
The landlord is very experienced and would be well aware of the requirements at the start of a tenancy.
In effect the landlord took advantage of the lack of knowledge of the tenants who had not previously rented premises, by not having the premises ready and available from the start of the tenancy.
I have carefully considered the evidence provided by the tenants, who have clearly been significantly adversely affected by the behaviour of the landlord and the power imbalance involved.
In addition, I have taken into account the behaviour of all parties during the incident on 4/2/2025.
Having considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect on both parties and the public interest I consider it just to award exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale, which I have set at $2,000.00.
The renting of premises is a business. Landlords have obligations under the legislation and need to comply with these.
Tenants have rights under the legislation which landlords should not ignore.
No filing fee is awarded because the fees effectively cancel each other out.
The tenants did not ask for suppression.
No suppression is available to the landlord because she was only partly successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158831 — Exemplary damages at 116 Queen Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158831 — Exemplary damages at 116 Queen Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenancy agreement null and void?

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

Are the tenants liable for assignment costs?

Have the tenants abandoned the premises?

Did the tenants have vacant possession?

Has the landlord harassed the tenants?

Has the landlord breach her obligations?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenancy agreement null and void?

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

Are the tenants liable for assignment costs?

Have the tenants abandoned the premises?

Did the tenants have vacant possession?

Has the landlord harassed the tenants?

Has the landlord breach her obligations?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenancy agreement null and void?

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

Are the tenants liable for assignment costs?

Have the tenants abandoned the premises?

Did the tenants have vacant possession?

Has the landlord harassed the tenants?

Has the landlord breach her obligations?

Did the landlord enter the premises without notice or consent?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenancy agreement null and void?

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

Are the tenants liable for assignment costs?

Have the tenants abandoned the premises?

Did the tenants have vacant possession?

Has the landlord harassed the tenants?

Has the landlord breach her obligations?

Did the landlord enter the premises without notice or consent?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions