What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208331 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 5208331?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ki…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Misrepresentation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement of outgo…: $211.75 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208331?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12151747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208331 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 5208331?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ki…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Misrepresentation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement of outgo…: $211.75 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208331?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12151747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 14 Waipa Street, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208331 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208331 — net $2,038.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$800.00	17. I order the landlord to pay $800.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain kitchen sink	$200.00	60. The tenant seeks compensation for this misrepresentation.
Compensation: Misrepresentation	$200.00	60. The tenant seeks compensation for this misrepresentation.
Compensation: Reimbursement of outgoings	$211.75	Reimbursement of outgoings
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$600.00	84. I order the landlord to pay $600.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,038.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,038.75

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208331 — net $2,038.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$800.00	17. I order the landlord to pay $800.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain kitchen sink	$200.00	60. The tenant seeks compensation for this misrepresentation.
Compensation: Misrepresentation	$200.00	60. The tenant seeks compensation for this misrepresentation.
Compensation: Reimbursement of outgoings	$211.75	Reimbursement of outgoings
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$600.00	84. I order the landlord to pay $600.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,038.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,038.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Jasminka Duranska to pay [The applicant/s] $2,038.75 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 July 2025.
The tenant has filed an application alleging the landlord has breached the following provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986: a. Failure to lodge the bond (section 19(1)(b)) b. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (section 45(1)(b)) c. Breach of quiet enjoyment (section 38)
The tenant also claims the landlord misrepresented the tenancy address as being compliant with the healthy homes standards when it was not.
Further, the tenant claims the landlord charged them for outgoings that were not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or use of facilities (section 39(3)).
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. COMPENSATION & EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – THE LAW GENERALLY
The Tribunal may award compensation for losses arising from a proven breach by a landlord or tenant of the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) 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.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines an unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: 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 tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 1 that: 1 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages. TENANT’S CLAIMS Failure to lodge the bond
A landlord is required to lodge a bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after payment is made. 2
Failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after payment is made is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be ordered. 3
The tenant claims they paid the landlord a bond of $1,160.00 on 11 January 2025 that was never lodged with the Bond Centre.
The landlord accepts they did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. The landlord claims it is faster and easier to deal with the bond at the end of the tenancy if it is not lodged with the Bond Centre and retained by them personally. The landlord gave evidence that they have not lodged the bond before with other tenancies.
Both parties accept the bond was refunded by the landlord to the tenant in full following the end of the tenancy on 29 March 2025. Analysis
Given the admission of the landlord, I have no trouble in finding that the landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after payment was made. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 19(1)(b). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 19(2) and Scheduled 1A.
I find it just to order exemplary damages in this case for the following reasons: a. The landlord gave evidence that they have not lodged bonds previously with other tenancies. The landlord should be deterred from doing this in the future. b. The tenant gave evidence that they experienced a sense of unease at the end of the tenancy when they realised their bond had not been lodged. Given the deterioration of the relationship between the landlord and tenant in this case, the tenant was understandably worried that the landlord may not refund their bond. c. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from not lodging bonds within 23 working days after payment is made. The purpose of a bond is to provide security for the duration of the tenancy. It is not the landlord’s money to do with as they wish. Lodging the bond with the Bond Centre provides tenants with security that their money will be available to be returned to them at the end of the tenancy, subject to any proven claim the landlord may have for outstanding rent arrears, outgoings, cleaning or damage. Tenants are significantly prejudiced when a landlord fails to lodge the bond. If the landlord does not refund the tenant the un- lodged bond at the end of the tenancy, the tenant is required to file a claim with the Tribunal and pursue the landlord through civil enforcement of the Tribunal’s order, which is a lengthy and arduous process.
I order the landlord to pay $800.00 in exemplary damages. In settling on this figure, I have considered the above factors, together with the fact that the tenant fortunately received a full refund of their bond at the end of the tenancy. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair The law
Section 45(1)(b) RTA states: (1) The landlord shall – ... (a) Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and ...
Failure by a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 4
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. What is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy the problem. 5
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 6 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 7
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 8 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant gave evidence that the kitchen sink pipes were leaking below into the kitchen cupboard. The tenant claims they inherited the tenancy with this problem.
The tenant submitted a photograph of the pipes below the kitchen sink. The tenant also submitted a video of the pipes, which was taken on 10 March 2025 with the water turned on.
The tenant claims there was a tray underneath the sink to catch the leaking water, which was provided at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims the landlord must have known about the problem if they knew to supply the tenant with a tray underneath the sink.
The tenant claims the leaking sink caused mould and grime to grow around the pipes, which was unsanitary and smelly.
The tenant submitted a copy of a text message sent to the landlord on 4 February 2025 raising the issue. The tenant claims a plumber visited the premises shortly thereafter, but the problem was not fixed by the end of the tenancy on 29 March 2025. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 6 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 7 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 8 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The landlord gave evidence that they did not know about the problem at the beginning of the tenancy, as the previous tenant never mentioned anything. The landlord claims the tray referred to by the tenant was left by the previous tenant and not supplied by the landlord.
The landlord claims they organised for a plumber to visit the premises shortly after receiving the tenant’s text on 4 February 2025. The landlord gave evidence that the plumber advised them that the sink needed a special part, which could not be sourced in New Zealand and needed to be ordered from overseas. The plumber asked the landlord to pay him in advance, which the landlord refused. The landlord told the plumber that they would pay them once the job was completed.
The landlord claims the problem was fixed just before the tenancy ended and they had a discussion with the tenant on the phone who confirmed the problem had been fixed.
The landlord submitted a screen shot of an electronic bank transfer of $184.00, which they claim was made to the plumber on 10 February 2025. The payee details are “MCB Plumbing.” Analysis
The photograph submitted by the tenant shows the pipes underneath the kitchen sink are thick with grime. The video submitted by the tenant shows water running out of the pipes at a relatively rapid rate when the water is turned on. On the basis of this evidence, I am convinced that the kitchen sink was leaking, and this was a maintenance issue that required repair.
The tenant sent the landlord a text message about the leaking kitchen sink on 4 February 2025. I find this to be the date the landlord was first notified about the issue.
The landlord gave evidence that the problem was fixed just before the tenancy ended on 29 March 2025. The tenant disputes that the problem was ever fixed before the end of the tenancy. The parties disagree about whether the problem was fixed by the end of the tenancy however their evidence is consistent on the point that the problem persisted until late March 2025. That is a period of approximately 8 weeks since the tenant first notified the landlord of the problem on 2 February 2025.
The landlord claims the reason for the delay was because the plumber needed to order parts from overseas. The tenant disputes this and claims the reason for the delay was because there was a dispute between the landlord and plumber about how and when the plumber would be paid.
The landlord did not call the plumber as a witness to give evidence in support of the reason for the delay. No written evidence from the plumber regarding the reason was submitted either.
In the absence of any supporting evidence from the plumber, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that there is a reasonable excuse for the delay in fixing the leaking pipes under the kitchen sink.
The video submitted by the tenant shows water was leaking from the sink at a relatively rapid rate. This was not a minor leak and the problem needed to be fixed quickly.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the delay of approximately 8 weeks to repair the kitchen sink was unreasonable.
The tenant has proven their claim that the landlord failed to maintain the kitchen sink in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation. I consider $25.00 per week reasonably reflects the loss of amenity suffered by the tenant. In settling on this figure, I have considered the extent of the problem as shown in the video submitted by the tenant, as well as the fact that a kitchen sink is generally used multiple times on a daily basis, which increases the level of inconvenience suffered by the tenant.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $200.00.
I decline to order exemplary damages as I do not consider it is just to do so. This is because the breach only relates to one area of the premises and is therefore not egregious. The purposes of deterring landlord’s from delaying maintenance and compensating the tenant for any lack of amenity are appropriately reflected in the amount of compensation ordered. Misrepresentation that premises complied with healthy homes standards The law
The law relating to misrepresentation is found in sections 35 and 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 and common law. Essentially, as encapsulated in section 35, as far as damages are concerned, if a party to a contract has been induced to enter into it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made to them by or on behalf of another party to that contract, they shall be entitled to damages from that other party in the same manner and to the same extent as if the representation were a term of the contract that has been broken. The representation however, must be one of fact, not opinion. The representation must be false, and it must relate to a matter of present or past fact, not one which relates to the future.
To summaries, for there to be an actionable misrepresentation, the following elements must be present: a. A false representation b. The misrepresentation must have been made by one party to the other c. The party who made the misrepresentation must have intended for the other party to rely on it d. The misrepresentation must induce the party to enter the contract Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord misrepresented that the premises were compliant with the healthy homes standards from 11 January 2025. This is what is recorded in the tenancy agreement and signed by the landlord.
The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards because the bathroom does not have an extractor fan.
The tenant gave evidence that they have respiratory issues and having a tenancy that complied with the healthy homes standards was important to them. The tenant claims they relied on the representation in the tenancy agreement that the premises complied with the healthy homes standards when they entered into the tenancy. The tenant claims they would not have tenanted the premises if they knew it was non-compliant.
The landlord accepts there is no extractor fan in the bathroom, but gave evidence there is a window, which the tenants could open. The landlord claims the window looks out to a bush and therefore, there would be no privacy concerns for the tenant if they were to open it.
The landlord gave evidence that they stated the premises complies with the healthy homes standards in the tenancy agreement, because this is what they believed to be the case. The landlord’s belief was based upon their own knowledge of the healthy homes standards and the landlord accepts they did not get an appropriately qualified building inspector to complete an assessment of the premises to confirm its compliance.
The landlord claims they believed the premises complied with the healthy homes standards, because they are insulated, have a heat pump and an extractor fan installed in the kitchen. The landlord did not know the healthy homes standards required an extractor fan to be installed in the bathroom as well. Analysis
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. These regulations provides a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies relating to heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage.
Regulation 23 states: 23Mechanical ventilation standard for kitchens and bathrooms (1)each kitchen and bathroom in the premises must have installed in it – (a) an extractor fan; or (b) qualifying ventilation.
Regulation 3 defines “qualifying ventilation” as meaning: (a) a mechanical ventilation that – (i) is designed to vent extracted air continuously from residential premises to the outdoors; and (ii) for a kitchen or bathroom, extracts the air directly from the room; and (iii) was installed in premises or a tenancy building that first received building consent on or after 1 November 2019; and (iv) was part of the original building consent for the premises or tenancy building; and (v) continues to meet the requirements of the building consent; or (b) mechanical ventilation that – (i) is designed to vent extracted air continuously from residential premises to the outdoors; and (ii) for a kitchen or bathroom, extracts the air directly from the room; and (iii) is designed to provide ventilation for multiple rooms; and (iv) for a kitchen, has an exhaust capacity of at least 12 l/s; and (v) for a bathroom, has an exhaust capacity of at least 10 l/s
Regulation 24 defines the circumstances in which a kitchen or bathroom do not need to have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation. It states: 24Exemption from mechanical ventilation standard if extractor fan not reasonably practicable to install (1)A kitchen or bathroom need not comply with regulation 23 if all of the following apply: (a)at the commencement of the tenancy, - (i)the room does not have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation: (ii)it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements of regulation 23(2) and (3): (b)when the room was built or converted into a kitchen or bathroom, not having an extractor fan was lawful: (c)if not having an extractor fan was lawful only because the room met alternative ventilation requirements, as the commencement of the tenancy the room still meets those requirements. (2)This exemption ceases to apply if, during the term of the tenancy, it becomes reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements of regulation 23(2) and (3).
The landlord gave evidence that the bathroom does not have an extractor fan and only has an openable window. No evidence was submitted to suggest it was not reasonably practicable for the landlord to install an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation in the bathroom. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards, because the bathroom does not have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation, as required by regulation 23.
The tenancy began on 11 January 2025 and the landlord had 120 days (up to 10 May 2025) to comply with the healthy homes standards. The problem for the landlord is that despite having until 10 May 2025 to comply with the healthy homes standards, they have stated in the tenancy agreement that the premises complies with the healthy homes standards from 11 January 2025. I find this to be a false representation because the bathroom did not have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation.
The representation that the premises complies with the healthy homes standards from 11 January 2025 was made by the landlord to the tenant via the tenancy agreement. I am convinced that the landlord intended the tenant to rely on the representation, otherwise there would have been no reason to state the premises complied with the healthy homes standards, as the landlord had until 10 May 2025 to comply. I accept the tenant’s evidence that it was important for them to live in premises that complied with the healthy homes standards and that they were induced to enter into the tenancy on the basis of the representation.
The tenant has proven their claim that the landlord misrepresented the premises as complying with the healthy homes standards from 11 January 2025, when they did not.
The tenant seeks compensation for this misrepresentation. I find $200.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have considered the following factors: a. The tenant has only proven that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards because the bathroom does not have an extractor fan. They have not proven that the premises does not comply for other reasons such as, lack of qualifying insulation, lack of heating etc. b. The tenancy was short and only lasted from 25 January 2025 – 29 March 2025. Reimbursement of outgoings Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant gave evidence that the tenancy address is two stories. They lived upstairs and the landlord’s son lived downstairs. The tenant claims there is no separate power or water meter for the upstairs and downstairs unit. The tenant was required to pay 50% of all water, electricity and internet bills issued throughout the tenancy.
The landlord accepts that there is no separate power or water meter for the upstairs unit the tenant occupied and that the tenant was required to pay half of all bills for water, power and internet. The landlord claims this was made clear to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy and they agreed to this arrangement. Analysis
Section 39 RTA states that a tenant is only responsible for outgoings exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of facilities.
Section 11 RTA states that any agreement or arrangement entered into in respect of a tenancy that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the RTA is of no effect.
An arrangement whereby a tenant pays 50% of all water, electricity and internet bills in circumstances where there is no separate power, water or internet meter to prove the tenant’s use of these facilities equates to 50%, is inconsistent with section 39 RTA and therefore of no effect.
The tenant submitted copies of two electronic bank transfers to the landlord during the tenancy for water, electricity and internet. These payments total $211.75.
The landlord is unable to prove that these payments were for outgoings exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of facilities. Therefore, the landlord must reimburse the tenant $211.75. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment The law
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 an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be ordered. 9
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in section 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.
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.
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 (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) 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.” 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(3) and Schedule 1A. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant gave evidence that during the tenancy the landlord would frequently visit the premises unannounced. On one occasion, the tenant claims the landlord visited the premises at 9:15pm to show the tenant some bills that were due. The tenant claims this was inconvenient as it was late and they were in their pyjamas.
The tenant claims there was one instance on 25 March 2025 where the landlord called them 65 times within two hours. The tenant submitted a screenshot of their call log history proving this. The tenant claims the landlord then visited the premises and knocked on the door until the tenant answered.
The tenant claims they called the Police who spoke with the landlord about their behaviour. The tenant’s mother also spoke with the landlord.
The tenant gave evidence the landlord also sent them threatening text messages and voicemails, but did not submit any of these.
The landlord accepts that they called the tenant 65 times on 25 March 2025 and in retrospect state that they feel bad about this. The landlord claims they only knocked on the door three times before the tenant answered.
The landlord claims the reason they called the tenant so many times was because an electricity bill was due at the end of the month and they needed to show the tenant. The landlord claims they were visiting their son at the time in the downstairs unit and knew the tenant was home, but the tenant was purposely avoiding the landlord.
The landlord also accepts that they visited the premises, including late at night, but claims they would always ring the tenant beforehand to let them know that they were coming over.
The landlord accepted that the tenant never specifically agreed to the landlord visiting the premises on these occasions, but claims they told the tenant they were coming over and the tenant never asked them not to. Analysis
The landlord accepts that they called the tenant 65 times on 25 March 2025 and the call log history of the tenant proves this. By calling the tenant so many times in one day and then eventually visiting the premises unannounced and uninvited, I find the landlord interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
I also find that the landlord’s behaviour reached the level of harassment. By calling the tenant 65 times within a short amount of time, the landlord engaged in a particular pattern of behaviour towards the tenant, which was distressing and wore the tenant out. This is obvious from the tenant’s evidence that they had to turn their phone off to avoid being inundated with phone calls from the landlord and also felt concerned to the point where they reported the matter to the Police.
I find the landlord acted intentionally by calling the tenant 65 times within a short period of time. The landlord accepted that they did this because they needed to show the tenant an electricity bill that was due to be paid soon and were not able to get a hold of the tenant.
I find it just to make an order for exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The effect on the tenant was significant. They gave evidence that they were very distressed by the behaviour of the landlord and the event negatively affected their mental health. The tenant called the Police to report their concerns and had to take some time off university and work. Further, the incident prompted the tenant to end the tenancy entirely. b. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlord’s are deterred from engaging in behaviour that amounts to harassment against tenants. Where a tenant does not pay their rent or outgoings, the appropriate recourse for a landlord is to send the tenant a 14-day notice and file a claim with the Tribunal if the tenant fails to remedy the breach within 14- days. Landlord’s should be encouraged to use the remedies available in the RTA, rather than taking matters into their own hands.
I order the landlord to pay $600.00 in exemplary damages. In settling on this amount, I have considered the above factors, as well as the following: a. The maximum amount of exemplary damages the Tribunal is able to order for behaviour that amounts to harassment of a tenant by a landlord is $3,000.00. This indicates the level of seriousness Parliament intended breaches of this nature to be treated. b. The landlord demonstrated remorse towards the tenant for their behaviour at the hearing. c. The tenant has only proven that the landlord’s behaviour reached the level of harassment on 25 March 2025, not at any other time. FILING FEE & NAME SUPPRESSION
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant their request for name suppression. 10 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 102(4)(a) & 95A(1).
The landlord also requested name suppression on the basis that the tenant’s claim was for small breaches and there is little public interest. Further, publication would negatively affect the landlord’s reputation.
I have a discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The fact that publication might embarrass or negatively affect a party’s reputation is an ordinary consequence. It is not extraordinary or a “very special circumstance.” The public’s interest in publication outweighs the landlord’s interests in suppression.
I decline to order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208331 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 6, 14 Waipa Street, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208331 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 6, 14 Waipa Street, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626

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