What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5174031 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 5174031?

Compensation: Electricity breach - s…: $420.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Insulation breach - s…: $2,510.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Retaliatory terminatio…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $740.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174031?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Rent arrears, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12326913-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5174031 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 5174031?

Compensation: Electricity breach - s…: $420.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Insulation breach - s…: $2,510.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Retaliatory terminatio…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $740.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174031?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Rent arrears, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12326913-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

43 Endeavour Avenue, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5174031 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5174031 — net $1,790.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$740.00		Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$300.00		Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages - right of entry - s 48	$500.00		Exemplary damages - right of entry - s 48
Exemplary damages - smoke alarms - s 40	$1,600.00		Exemplary damages - smoke alarms - s 40
Compensation: Insulation breach - s 45		$2,510.00	Insulation breach - s 45
Compensation: Electricity breach - s 38		$420.00	Electricity breach - s 38
Compensation: Retaliatory termination notice -s 54		$2,000.00	Retaliatory termination notice -s 54
Total award	$3,140.00	$4,930.00
Net award		$1,790.00
Bond		$1,680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,790.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5174031 — net $1,790.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$740.00		Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$300.00		Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages - right of entry - s 48	$500.00		Exemplary damages - right of entry - s 48
Exemplary damages - smoke alarms - s 40	$1,600.00		Exemplary damages - smoke alarms - s 40
Compensation: Insulation breach - s 45		$2,510.00	Insulation breach - s 45
Compensation: Electricity breach - s 38		$420.00	Electricity breach - s 38
Compensation: Retaliatory termination notice -s 54		$2,000.00	Retaliatory termination notice -s 54
Total award	$3,140.00	$4,930.00
Net award		$1,790.00
Bond		$1,680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,790.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties name and identifying details.
The landlord’s notice terminating the tenancy is declared to be retaliatory.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,790.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held over two days in the Tauranga registry.
The tenancy commenced in July 2020 and relates to a property in Welcome Bay, Tauranga.
The tenant filed proceedings in early 2025 in relation to various breaches of the landlord’s responsibilities. The landlord subsequently served the tenant with a notice to terminate the tenancy with the termination date of 24 April 2025. A case conference was held in April 2025. The landlord filed a cross application. Following the case conference the tenant vacated the tenancy in accordance with the termination notice.
Both parties called witnesses to give evidence. Both parties filed a significant amount of evidence, much of which I consider was repetitive or irrelevant to the claims before the Tribunal. Both parties provided recordings they have taken of each other at various times without informing the other. This has contributed to the significant level of animosity evident between the parties at the hearing.
The tenants’ claims are: a. That the termination notice is retaliatory and should be set aside and she seeks compensation - $6,000. b. Compensation in respect of an insulation breach - $7,200. c. Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment - $3,000. d. Compensation for overpayment of power - $42,000.
The landlord has applied for: a. Rent arrears - $1,300. b. Water rates - $290. c. Rubbish removal - $395. d. Exemplary damages: Tenant failing to quit premises. e. Exemplary damages - Tenant interfering with smoke alarms. f. Exemplary damages - Tenant failing to allow the landlord to enter premises. g. Exemplary damages - Exceeding maximum number of occupants.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. 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. c. 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.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 1 the Court of Appeal said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.” 1 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P)
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors set out in section 109 of the RTA: a.the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, b.the effect of the unlawful act, c.the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, d.the public interest, e.whether it is just to make the award. 2
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, confusion, lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law is no defence. A party is deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The District Court has confirmed in the appeal of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited 3 , that exemplary damages are to be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately under the same provision of the RTA.
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 4 2 Section 109 of the RTA. 3 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583 4 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. TENANT’S CLAIMS

FAILURE TO INSULATE PREMISES

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (the Regulations).
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. a. The Regulations require ceiling and underfloor insulation. b. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R- value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in a reasonable condition. c. Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The tenant said there was no insulation under the floor and that the ceiling insulation was not compliant with the regulations.
The tenant provided photographs from under the premises which show a lack of any insulation.
The landlord (and her partner, who gave evidence and I understand has a background in building) said: a. the ceiling insulation R-value was not known but was 75mm. No evidence was provided about its condition. b. that the insulation did need topping up to meet the HHS. c. there was no insulation under the floor.
The landlord also said she was unaware she had to provide insulation and tenancy services gave her incorrect information about compliance. In this regard I note: a. the obligation on the landlord to provide insulation was in place at the commencement of the tenancy in 2020, and b. the landlord is expected to know their legal obligations and understand the difference between her obligations in respect of insulation and HHS.
The landlord also said that the tenant never raised a concern during the tenancy prior to filing her application. In this regard: a. I do not consider this is an obligation on the tenant. b. The obligation is on the landlord to ensure compliance, in this case, from the commencement of the tenancy.
I also note that the landlord has provided a healthy homes statement dated 25 February 2025 which records the insulation HHS standard as compliant. This HHS statement does not align with both parties’ evidence as to the status of the insulation at that time but also the subsequent need by the landlord to install insulation on 11 March 2025, which I understand was finally done on 25/26 April 2025. I understand it reflects the insulation following the landlord completing the installation of insulation in April 2025.
I am satisfied the premises did not have the required insulation in compliance with the Regulations. The property had a suspended floor therefore underfloor insulation was required and was not present throughout the tenancy.
I consider the tenant is entitled to compensation for the breach of the landlord’s obligation to comply with the Regulations. Compensation should reflect the impact the breach would have had on the tenant’s enjoyment of the home by the premises being cold over the winter period. I consider that the tenant should be compensated at the rate of $10.00 per week of the tenancy (251 weeks). I make an order for compensation of $2,510.

REIMBURSMENT FOR ELECTRICITY

The tenant says the landlord’s other tenant, Nigel, who lives in a connecting self-contained unit was “piggy backing” off the tenant’s power account. Both dwellings are running off the same power meter. The tenant seeks reimbursement of the electricity she paid for the duration of the tenancy which she estimated at $42,000.
The issue is determined under section 39 RTA which provides that the tenant is responsible for electricity charges where such charges are “exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities” 5 5 See section 39(3) of the RTA.
In the relevant decision of Geraghty v Raui 6 the District Court needed to consider a situation where there was one power meter for both a main house and a semi-detached flat (the tenancy).
The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for power charges because there was no separate meter to be able to determine what the power consumption to the tenancy was with precision. The District Court did not agree with that approach, and stated in the decision: [23] It is clear from the comments of the Adjudicator recorded at [18] above that the adjudicator took a strict legal approach and applied a strict application of the words “exclusively attributable” used in s 39(3) of the Act. There is an argument that whilst the strict legal application of s 39(3) means that Ms Raui does not have to pay for any of her power use, an application of the principle of determining the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, and considering whether that, “... strict application of the law gives rise to a fair result...,”5 might arguably lead to a result where Ms Raui should be paying something for her power and not, effectively, receiving it for free. Also by requiring the landlord to pay for the power clearly used by Ms Raui, the benefit of rental income from the property to the landlord is significantly reduced by the amount of the order. [24] In all the circumstances, where there is an argument that s 85 might apply to produce a different result and that provision has not been considered, then that could be said to amount to a procedural error which in turn has possibly resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Section 85 is a provision in the RTA which relates to decision making of the Tribunal and confirms that the Tribunal should look to a fair resolution of the dispute, taking into account substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities. It states: 85Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be Graeme Geraghty Leonie Jones v Raui 6 [2019] NZDC 3813, bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
What that means, is that the Tribunal could (if not should) look to an approach which deals with the electricity charges on a fair basis.
The tenant says she was not told about the power arrangement until close to moving in. The landlord’s evidence is that on 1 July 2025 the landlord informed the tenant that Nigel would contribute a set amount per week for power and water which is paid directly to the landlord and that the landlord would on pay this contribution to the power company. The tenant signed the tenancy agreement on 7 July 2025; therefore, I consider she was aware of the situation.
The tenant claim’s a refund of all electricity she paid, however that would not be a fair outcome.
Further, the evidence provided by the tenant is insufficient for the Tribunal to accurately assess the amount paid monthly and in total during the tenancy by the tenant and Nigel.
My impression from the correspondence between the parties throughout the tenancy is that the parties discussed the matter time to time and settled on a contribution by Nigel at a fixed rate that the tenant accepted. On the face of it, that generally seems to be a fair approach in relation to the electricity charges.
However, was apparent Nigel was paying $20 per week for the period 1 May 2024 to 1 October 2024. This is less than the amount MSD will provide people receiving a benefit or pension as a Winter Energy Payment of at least $20 per week to help with the cost of power as heating a home over winter increases power costs. I consider that a reasonable contribution that should have been paid to the tenant during this period of 21 weeks would have been $40 a week. I consider it reasonable to compensate the tenant an additional $20 per week for this period. The amount ordered is therefore $420.
I do not consider I am able to assess on the evidence provided what might be an arrangement or adjustment that is any fairer than what was implemented prior to 2024. The tenant accepted the arrangement with the power for several years, and I won’t otherwise disturb the party’s arrangement with respect to the electricity costs.
The balance of the claim for reimbursement of electricity costs is dismissed.

RETALIATORY NOTICE

Section 54 of the RTA relates to retaliatory notices. It states: 54Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1)This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U). (2)The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. (3)If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. (4)If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in subsection (2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under subsection (3), of no effect. (5)However, the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the case of subsection (2)(a), the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. (6)The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (4) to be retaliatory.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint.
The Tribunal in Easton v Marks 7 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. a. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the landlord was not incited or impelled by the tenant’s actions. b. The Tribunal in that case noted that: “It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that the tenants gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.”
A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 8
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with section 51 of the RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? a. The tenant raised a concern that the termination notice may have been without lawful grounds as it was served on the tenant on the basis the landlord, as owner of the premises, required the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the landlord owner or a member of the owner’s family. b. The tenant says the landlord did not move into the premises and has since sold the property. The landlord said her son was returning from Australia and intended to live in the premises but given the state of the home that 7 Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987 8 Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988 was not possible, and the landlord’s financial situation meant that she ultimately decided to sell the home. The landlord’s evidence at the hearing, that her son would be moving into the property does contradict the landlord’s written evidence 9 that she would be moving into the property. c. In any event for the purposes of section 54 (1) of the RTA I find the notice complies with the technical requirements of section 51.
Was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? a. The tenant has applied to set aside the termination notice within 28 days of receiving the termination notice, accordingly there is jurisdiction to declare the notice of no effect if it is declared retaliatory. I accept that there is no practical relevance of this declaration now that the tenant has vacated.
Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? a. By way of her application to the Tribunal the tenant has complained about aspects of the tenancy. b. Given the very short time between the tenant’s application to the Tribunal and the termination notice being issued there is an inference that the landlord is at least partly motivated by the tenant’s complaint. This then puts an evidential onus on the landlord to show that she was not motivated, even in part, by the tenant exercising her right to make a complaint 10 . c. The landlord listed a number of reasons why she issued the termination notice, including that the tenant had not allowed her to meet her obligations by refusing to allow her entry into the property, the stress of that but crucially that the tenant had “bribed” her. The landlord says the tenant bribed her by seeking compensation from her on the basis that she would withdraw her claim in the Tribunal. I do not consider this is a bribe by the tenant but rather a offer to settle her claims in relation to her complaints about the premises, and in particularly her complaint about the lack of insulation. The landlord’s written evidence explaining why she terminated the tenancy included her view that the tenant had been “lying right through the application”. 9 Landlord’s statement dated 17 April 2025. 10 McIntyre v Just Junction 2017 NZTT 4067876. d. I consider it likely that in giving the notice (to use the words of section 54) the landlord was at least partly motivated by the exercise of a right, power, authority or remedy that the tenant had in relation to the tenancy, or a complaint by the tenant in relation to the tenancy. e. I am confident in concluding that the landlord’s decision to issue the termination notice was in part because of the tenant’s complaints about the insulation and attempts to negotiate resolution of this issue.
Was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious? a. I do not consider the tenant’s complaint was frivolous or vexatious. In particular, the tenant raised a reasonable concern about insulation.
I find that the termination notice is retaliatory. I do not make a declaration that it is to be off no effect as the tenant has vacated therefore the tenancy has effectively ended pursuant to the notice to terminate in any event. I must therefore consider the other claims that can follow from this declaration. Compensation for stress
The tenant claims compensation for the stress she has been put under due to the retaliatory termination notice.
The Tribunal has the authority to award damages for stress and inconvenience. 11 Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove a breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.
The tenant says she has suffered considerable stress as a result of becoming homeless. She remains in transitional housing. She said her possessions had to be stored in a storage unit and have become damaged as a result.
I consider it would be foreseeable that the tenant would suffer stress and hardship in the circumstances. Stress is intangible loss, making it difficult to value. Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens 12 provided bands to apply when making awards for emotional harm. Those amounts have been increased in the 2022 Tribunal case A v Singh 13 to take into account inflation: 11 See section 77 (2) (n) of the RTA. 12 Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775 13 A v Singh [2022] NZTT Auckland 4315225 a. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. b.Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. c. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.
I accept the tenant’s stress was aggravated by the issuing of notices for anti- social behaviour at the time tenancy was terminated. These notices were served on the tenant, but it appears there is some confusion between both parties as to their purpose, given a termination notice was also served on the tenant. In any event the tenancy has ended, and I am not having to consider an application for termination for anti-social behaviour.
Adopting the formula in A v Singh, I consider the tenant has experienced stress, hardship and insecurity as a result of the landlord issuing a retaliatory termination notice. I find that compensation of $2,000.00 is reasonable in the circumstances.

BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT

Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act. In respect of harassment, I note: a. The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person. b. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined 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. c. From these definitions, it seems that 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 14 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 tenant says on 11 March 2025 the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment by attending at the premises without giving the proper notice. The tenant says the landlord’s partner had a metal pole and was intimidating.
The landlord said she and her partner arrived at the premises to install insulation and the tenant stopped them and would not let them on the property. The landlord said she felt intimidated by the tenant and her support people. The landlord said she was served with a trespass notice and went to the Police for advice. I note that the trespass notice was directed to the landlord’s partner, not the landlord herself.
I find the landlord gave proper notice to enter the premises. Section 48 of the RTA relates to the landlord’s right of entry. The relevant subsections say: (5) Notwithstanding anything in subsections (2) to (4), the landlord shall not use force or the threat of force to enter or attempt to enter the premises while the tenant, or any other person with the permission of the tenant, is in the premises.
Attempting to use force to enter the premises a serious breach of the landlord’s obligations. I consider a one off- serious incident of the landlord using force to enter the premises could amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment as well as it being an unlawful act under the RTA.
The tenant provided a recording of the incident on 11 March 2024. I consider all parties involved acted poorly. However, I do not consider that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment on this occasion. It appears to me that the landlord attempted to enter the property, through negotiation, but I am not satisfied that force was used and that the landlord’s actions could amount to a 14 Whatiura v Shoulder Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987. breach of quiet enjoyment, harassment or, for the sake of completeness, an unlawful act under s 48 of the RTA.
The tenant also gave evidence that the landlord threatened to deliver belongings to her she had left at the property. This as I understand it also correlated to the landlord contacting the tenant’s friend’s workplace (who the landlord understood was residing at the premises), which the landlord accepted doing in order to organise removing items of the property. In respect of this issue, I also consider this was not a breach of her quiet enjoyment of the property but a unhelpful attempt to return the tenant’s belongings to her.
The claim in respect of a breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

The tenant initially claimed that the landlord had breached her obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards. The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”). 15 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. For the sake of completeness, I record the tenant withdrew this claim as this tenancy commenced prior to 1 July 2021. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

RUBBISH REMOVAL

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 16
The landlord claimed the cost of removing rubbish left by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided confirmation of payment of $395 for a skip bin.
The tenancy did end by way of the tenant vacating. The tenant did not remove all her rubbish. The landlord claimed the costs of a skip bin. The landlord used 15 See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA 16 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. the skip bin to dispose of the oven that was over 6 years old and provided as part of the tenancy. The landlord did not test the oven to see if it was working and required disposal. It appears to me that tenant should not be liable for removing an oven that was near the end of its useful lifespan and may have still been operable. I will award $300 for rubbish removal to compensate the landlord for the removing the rubbish the tenant did leave at the premises.

FAILING TO QUIT

The landlord claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 24 April 2025 in accordance with the termination notice served on her by the landlord.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. 17 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. 18
As I have made a finding that the termination notice was retaliatory, (and had the tenancy not ended I would have made an order setting it aside) I consider it would be unjust to make an order for exemplary damages in respect of this claim. This claim is dismissed.

FAILING TO ALLOW LANDLORD TO ENTER PREMISES

The landlord claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
Section 48 (2) (d) of the RTA provides a landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry.
Section 48 (4)(b) of the RTA says failure by the tenant, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter under subsections 48 (2) to (3) is an unlawful act.
Exemplary damages may be awarded for this unlawful act up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 19
The landlord gave notice to the tenant on 3 March 2025 that she would be attending at the premises on 11 March 2025 to undertake maintenance to the property. The notice said she would be attending at the property for 2 or 3 days 17 See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 18 See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 19 See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. thereafter. The landlord said in the notice that she did not know the time she would be at the property. The landlord said she was not informed prior to attending at the property that the day would not suit the tenant. It is this event that the tenant made a complaint of breach of quiet enjoyment which I have referred to under her claims.
The landlord arrived at the property on 11 March 2025 and the tenant did not allow the landlord to enter the premises. The landlord arrived with insulation she intended to install.
The tenant says she did not allow the landlord to enter the premises as she was not given a specific time that the landlord would be at the property, and she had an appointment that she had to attend for her son. She also says she was not told of what repairs or maintenance were being done to the premises.
I consider the landlord is not required to provide a specific time they intend to enter the premises, and provided notice is given the landlord may enter the premises at any time between 8am-7pm. The tenant was not required to remain at the property and did not provide the landlord with any reason why the day was not suitable. I also consider the landlord is not required to itemise all the intended repairs and maintenance they plan to do on a notice to enter the premises.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has provided a reasonable excuse for not allowing the landlord to enter the premises.
I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
I must have regard to the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA: a. The tenant had been given the statutory required notice of the landlord’s intention to enter the premises. I consider she intentionally did not allow the landlord to enter the premises. The exchange was heated between the parties and let to the landlord being unable to complete the maintenance required. b. It is in the landlord’s interests to receive exemplary damages in respect of the tenant’s breach of her obligations. c. There is a public interest for tenant’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations. d. There was no suggestion from the landlord that the tenant had previously failed to allow her to enter the premises following proper notice being given.
I consider it would be just to award a third of the maximum for the reasons above. The amount ordered for exemplary damages in respect of this claim is $500.

INTERFERENCE WITH SMOKE ALARMS

The landlord claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. 20 The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. 21
The landlord says the tenant removed the two fire alarms during the tenancy.
The tenant acknowledged removing the fire alarms in the kitchen and hallway in early 2024. The tenant said she removed the fire alarms because they kept going off when cooking as a result of the poor ventilation in the kitchen (which was disputed by the landlord) and the alarm would upset her child.
I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
I must have regard to the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA: a. The tenant accepted she intentionally removed the smoke alarms. b. There is, however, no evidence that the landlord issued the tenant with a formal written warning or notice to reinstate the smoke alarms. c. The tenant removed two smoke alarms which were the only smoke alarms in the home. The property appears therefore to have had no smoke alarms in the home at all for at least a year. d. It is in the landlord’s interests to receive exemplary damages in respect of the tenant’s breach of her obligations in respect of smoke alarms. e. Removal of smoke alarms/batteries is a serious breach of the RTA, the effect of which is to put the lives of occupants at risk and puts the property at further risk in the event of an undetected fire. There is considerable public interest in ensuring that tenants comply with fire safety obligations.
I consider it would be just to award slightly more than a third of the maximum for the reasons above. The amount ordered for exemplary damages in respect of this claim is $1600. 20 See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 21 See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

EXCEEDING OCCUPANTS

The landlord claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement. The landlord seeks exemplary damages in relation to this alleged breach.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. 22
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. 23
The landlord says the tenant had additional adults and two children living in the premises and at the end of the tenancy had two adults and two children in the premises.
The tenant agreement says, “1 Adult 2 Children will be resident at the property”. The clause is not clear that it is setting a maximum number of occupants to reside at the property. Because the tenancy agreement has not specified the maximum number of occupants the claim is dismissed.
I also note section 109 (2) of the RTA says a landlord or tenant may not apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act.
In 2021 the landlord provided consent for the tenant to have an additional occupant. There was a dispute about whether the tenant had an additional occupant in the 12 months prior to the tenancy ending, but in any event, I consider the landlord provided consent to an additional occupant more than 12 months prior to bringing the claim.
Accordingly, I find the time for bringing a claim for exemplary damages in relation to the tenant alleged to have exceeded the number of occupants has expired and accordingly may be dismissed of this basis also.

RENT ARREARS AND WATER RATES

The landlord claimed rent arrears of $740 and water rates of $297. The landlord has not provided any evidence by way of a rent summary /statement or bank statements in support of the claim for rent arrears. The landlord has not provided any evidence by way of water rates invoices in support of the claim for 22 See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 23 See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. water rates. The tenant consented to paying the amounts for the rent arrears and water rates. I will make an order by consent in respect of the rent arrears. I would not have made this order were it not for the clear consent at the hearing and in the written documentation provided that the tenant agreed to pay this amount for rent arrears until the 28 April 2025 when she vacated.
However, it appears in the text messages between the landlord and tenant that the water rates claimed by the landlord included the fixed fee charges for water rates and penalty interest, for which I do not consider the tenant is liable for.
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facility. 24 This includes supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption and wastewater charges but not the fixed daily charge for water rates.
In the absence of invoices and clarity about the tenant’s usage I am not prepared to make an order in respect of water rates, and I dismiss this claim.

BOND

I noted at the hearing that the original application by both parties did not include the Bond and the tenant did not agree to the Tribunal making an order in respect of the Bond. However, on further review I also note that the landlord did amend the application by email for the bond on 22 May 2025 and the tenant was included in this email. I therefore have determined to make an order in respect of the bond.
The bond is to be paid to the tenant in full.

OTHER CLAIMS

The landlord’s application and supporting documents referred to a number of claims, a number of which it was unclear what the landlord was seeking.
The landlord’s application and additional claims filed indicated the landlord was seeking a disposal of goods order and compensation in respect of replacement of garage door opener, two broken windows, holes in doors and walls, stains in carpet, damage to sky lights, replacement of oven, carpet 24 See section 39(3) of the RTA. damage in the conservatory. Claims for compensation for these matters were not sought at the hearing.
The landlord’s application referred to seeking a written apology from the tenant. This is a claim that often comes up in the Tribunal. There is no jurisdiction in the RTA for the Tribunal to make such an order.
The landlord had originally sought termination of the tenancy. The tenant has vacated the tenancy. The tenant does not seek to return to the premises. There is no requirement to make a termination order or possession order and accordingly this claim is dismissed.
The tenancy has ended therefore there is no requirement to make an order in respect of the anti-social notices issued (which were disputed by the tenant).
The landlord confirmed at the hearing that the claims I have addressed in this order are the only claims she sought to pursue.
The balance of the landlord’s claim is therefore dismissed.

FILING FEE

As both parties have had some success in their claims, I decline to award the filing fee to either party, as they will cancel each other out.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name 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. 25
The Tribunal may, 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. 26
Both parties sought name suppression.
Both parties have had some success.
I consider the tenant’s current circumstances support suppression. 25 See Section 95 A (1) of the RTA. 26 See section 95 A (4) of the RTA.
The landlord has successfully defended the tenant’s most significant claim (the electricity claim).
Overall I consider the public interest does not outweigh the parties interests or justify publication in this case and grant name suppression to both parties.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

FAILURE TO INSULATE PREMISES

REIMBURSMENT FOR ELECTRICITY

RETALIATORY NOTICE

BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

RUBBISH REMOVAL

FAILING TO QUIT

FAILING TO ALLOW LANDLORD TO ENTER PREMISES

INTERFERENCE WITH SMOKE ALARMS

EXCEEDING OCCUPANTS

RENT ARREARS AND WATER RATES

BOND

OTHER CLAIMS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

FAILURE TO INSULATE PREMISES

REIMBURSMENT FOR ELECTRICITY

RETALIATORY NOTICE

BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

RUBBISH REMOVAL

FAILING TO QUIT

FAILING TO ALLOW LANDLORD TO ENTER PREMISES

INTERFERENCE WITH SMOKE ALARMS

EXCEEDING OCCUPANTS

RENT ARREARS AND WATER RATES

BOND

OTHER CLAIMS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions