What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5182072 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 5182072?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5182072?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5182072?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12112390-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5182072 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 5182072?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5182072?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5182072?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12112390-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5182072 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5182072 — net $3,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,000.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,527.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5182072 — net $3,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,000.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
By declaration, the tenancy ended at 11:59pm on Sunday, 17 November 2024.
Jacob Sim must pay [The tenant/s] $3,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation $2,000.00 Exemplary damages $1,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $3,527.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,527.00
The Landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] attended the hearing, with a witness. Mr Sim did not attend.
Before the hearing, Mr Sim provided a written submission and asked for the applications to be determined on the papers. The issues raised in these applications are not suitable for determination on the papers, a hearing is 1 This decision was recalled and re-issued on 14 July 2025 to correct Mr Sim’s name in the intitulement only. In all other respects the Order is the same as issued on 30 April 2024. required so that the Tribunal has an opportunity to hear and assess the evidence.
Even though Mr Sim did not attend the hearing, and his attendance was not excused by the Tribunal, I have considered his written submission in full (including all supporting documentation).
[The tenant/s] has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged unlawful entry by the landlord and breaches of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Mr Sim had submitted a cross-application but did to appear to be making a claim. Rather, his cross-application was a response to [The tenant/s]’s application. As Mr Sim did not attend the hearing to explain whether he was seeking anything from [The tenant/s], the cross-application (5182072) is dismissed. The Tenancy Dates
The tenancy started on 4 April 2022. [The tenant/s] paid the bond at the start of April 2022 and paid rent from that date.
[The tenant/s] was in the process of selling his own home and did not completely move into these premises until around June 2022. However, he began the process of moving in early April, was paying full rent from 4 April and was entitled to all rights of the tenant from that date.
The tenancy was periodic. Because of Mr Sim’s behaviour, the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy in November 2024. In an email, [The tenant/s] recorded that the end date would be Friday 15 November 2024. That date was amended by agreement between the parties to Sunday 17 November 2024.
Both parties provided me with copies of text exchanges and other messaging platforms. Those messages record Mr Sim acknowledging: a. “Hey mate, I’ll let you have the place for the weekend. I won’t start anything until next week.” b. “[The tenant/s] we f%*^& agreed on Sunday....”
I find that the tenancy ended at 11:59pm on Sunday 17 November 2024. Even if I am wrong on that, the tenancy would have ended at 11:59pm on Friday 15 November 2024 (which is relevant to Mr Sim’s entry on that day). The Tenant’s Claims
[The tenant/s] claims that Mr Sim has improperly entered the premises and has breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. I heard detailed evidence from [The tenant/s] on these issues. I also heard from his partner (who lived at the premises from mid-2024).
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.
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. Quiet enjoyment means the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agent. See Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994.
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 $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] gave evidence of incidents which concerned him from the start of the tenancy.
On 23 April 2022 [The tenant/s] arrived at the premises to find that a treadmill had been set up and a TV mounted to a wall in one room. A half empty handle of an alcoholic drink had been left beside the treadmill. 2 [The tenant/s] asked Mr Sim about this. [The tenant/s] said that the reply was to the effect of “I can do what I like, I own the property.” [The tenant/s] reiterated that he was paying rent and Mr Sim could not enter whenever he liked. The items had been removed (again, without notice being given) sometime during the following week.
In mid-June 2022, there were issues with the Heat Pump at the premises. [The tenant/s] advised Mr Sim and requested repairs. Mr Sim entered without notice 2 [The tenant/s] provided a photograph of the treadmill, TV and drink. to carry out repairs and install additional heaters. He was required to provide at least 24 hours’ notice (see s48(2)(d) RTA). [The tenant/s] also provided a photograph of a note he says Mr Sim left on the bench which stated: “It’s fixed ya winging pr*$k”.
[The tenant/s] also provided a photograph from 6:31am on Monday 11 December 2023, of Mr Sim sitting in [The tenant/s]’s work van drinking (what appears to be a handle of beer). The photo was taken when [The tenant/s] went to access his van to go to work, Mr Sim had not been invited over and [The tenant/s] did not expect him to be in the van.
Mr Sim lives on the same driveway as these premises. [The tenant/s]’s partner also gave evidence of Mr Sim coming over (often intoxicated) banging on the door and calling out to her. She said that she stopped answering the door to him. She also gave evidence of the nature of his comments and conversation; she described it is inappropriate and made her feel uncomfortable. I accept this evidence. It is consistent with the tone of Mr Sim’s messaging.
[The tenant/s] began “setting traps” when he was going to be away to see whether someone was entering the property. When a closed bathroom door was open on his return in about April 2024, he approached Mr Sim. [The tenant/s] says that Mr Sim acknowledged entering and said that he wanted to take “a sneaky look at the bathroom.”
Mr Sim’s written response says that he entered to look at a shower drain. There is no evidence that that was an emergency and there is no evidence of him providing the notice required under s 48(2)(d) RTA.
[The tenant/s] changed the locks in mid-2024. He acknowledges this was a breach of his obligations under the RTA, but felt he had no other option. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 3
[The tenant/s] also claims that Mr Sim entered the premises on 15 November 2024. Mr Sim says that I cannot consider that issue, because the tenancy ended on 15 November 2024. For the reasons set out above, I find the tenancy ended on 17 November. Even if I am wrong, the tenant is entitled to possession until the end of the day (11:59pm) of the final day of the tenancy, and Mr Sim entered the property, without consent, before then (and on 14 November). Messages from Mr Sim to [The tenant/s] record: a. On 15 November: 3 While the lock replacement was an unlawful act by [The tenant/s], I would not order him to pay exemplary damages given the context I which the locks were changed. i. “I can always get in” – 3:57pm (in response to a comment from [The tenant/s] that Mr Sim could no longer get into the premises) ii. “Going over to MY house soon just to show dad, I’ll lock it up again when I leave.” – 8:14pm iii. Easy to pop a window, you might find it’s a breach of tenancy to change the locks.” – 8:18pm iv. I also have a lock picking kit which is how I got in yesterday.” - 8:21pm b. On 18 November: i. “Hey [The tenant/s], I know your rightfully p*&^ed off with me. I take responsibility for leaving the house unsecured on Friday. I don’t think I relocked it.” ii. Can you give me an indication of what was taken and I’ll personally pay it back” – 8:49pm c. Date not clear – after 18 November: i. I will admit to breaking in but you are not allowed to change the locks without informing the owner...” ii. Only thing I did wrong was I didn’t lock the place when I left.” – 7:44pm iii. “I DID NOT OPEN YOUR SAFE, go ask the f*&^%n S*$#*$%# next door than saw me climbing in the window.”
Mr Sim’s written submission suggests that there is no evidence of improper entry, yet his own text messages record that he entered the property by picking the lock on 14 November 2025 and through a window on 15 November 2025. These are flagrant breaches in relation to entering the property and the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment,
[The tenant/s] claims that when he returned to the premises on 16 November 2024, to finish moving, his gun safe had been opened. He said that the electronic lock had been by-passed and the mechanical lock forced. [The tenant/s] claims that $3,000 cash and a ring box containing two rings had been removed from the safe. He said that personal documents and ammunition had been left.
[The tenant/s] seeks to recover the $3,000 from Mr Sim. He provided a breakdown of where he received the cash from, sales of items (including to a work mate of Mr Sim). He also provided a copy of Police acknowledgement form. However, he did not provide evidence (photograph) of the condition of the safe on 16 November. The evidence did not satisfy me that its more likely than not that cash of $3,000 or rings were removed from the safe.
I find that Mr Sim entered the premises without providing the proper notice on or around 22 - 28 April 2022, 20 June 2022, April 2024 and 14 & 15 November 2024. He also displayed a persistent, cavalier attitude to the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises, as set out above. He has committed unlawful acts in breach of s48 and 38 RTA.
I find that [The tenant/s] is entitled to compensation for loss of amenity for the repeated breaches of quiet enjoyment, particularly when Mr Sim had been drinking and the unlawful entry of the premises. I award $2,000 compensation.
It is also appropriate to award exemplary damages in this instance. Mr Sim’s communication shows a blatant disregard for the tenant’s rights and his obligations. I award exemplary damages of $1,500 for unlawful entry of the premises and breaches of quiet enjoyment.
As [The tenant/s] was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and granted his request for suppression of his details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5182072 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5182072 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions