What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5228466 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 5228466?

Compensation: failure to comply with…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 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 5228466?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228466?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12579166-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5228466 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 5228466?

Compensation: failure to comply with…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 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 5228466?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228466?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12579166-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5228466 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228466 — net $2,777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to comply with heating standard	$1,000.00	failure to comply with heating standard
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$250.00	failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: retaliatory notice	$1,500.00	retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,777.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,777.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228466 — net $2,777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to comply with heating standard	$1,000.00	failure to comply with heating standard
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$250.00	failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: retaliatory notice	$1,500.00	retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,777.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,777.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the tenants and landlords’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,777.00 immediately calculated on the basis of the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy began on 27 February 2023. The tenancy property was a standalone dwelling with garden in a fairly rural setting, located down a driveway behind the landlords’ auto-workshop business.
The parties were known to each other prior to the start of the tenancy and agreed that the tenancy began on a friendly basis. The correspondence between the parties shows considerable good will and cooperation at the outset.
Regrettably the friendly relationship has broken down over the course of the tenancy.
On 13 April 2025 the tenants filed a number of claims seeking orders as follows: a. Work orders requiring the landlord to install a ground moisture barrier, draught stop the bifold door in the lounge, obtain a Healthy Homes report and provide clarification of the outside boundary of the tenancy. b. Reduction of market rent. c. Compensation as follows: i. Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) as follows:
Fireplace condition and delay in installation of a heat pump;
Lack of ground moisture barrier; and
Draughts. ii. Drainage work carried out by tenants - $3,800; iii. Garage and painting and ventilation to combat mould carried out by tenants - $3,000; iv. Sensor lighting installations carried out by tenants - $240; v. Hot water cylinder repair labour - $1,000; vi. Increased power bill from hot water cylinder leak - $300; vii. Loss of property from garage flooding and mould - $1,500; viii. Fuel paid for by tenant to mow lawns that were outside the tenancy; and ix. General compensation for time and stress. d. Exemplary damages for the following unlawful acts as set out in Schedule 1A RTA: i. Failure to meet the HHS; ii. Breach of quiet enjoyment and privacy; iii. Harassment by the landlord and their agent (property manager); iv. Bond was lodged two years late.
A case management conference was held by phone on 10 June 2025 to clarify the tenants’ claims and make directions for the parties to file evidence.
On 11 June 2025 the landlords served the tenants with a 42-day notice terminating the tenancy on the basis that a family member needed to move into the property.
On 12 June 2025 1 the tenants amended their claim to include a claim that the notice given by the landlord was retaliatory. The Tribunal then set down an urgent hearing to determine whether the notice should be set aside.
In the meantime however the tenants gave notice and left the property on 6 July 2025. The interim hearing was therefore vacated.
At the hearing the tenants confirmed that they had left the property in accordance with notice given by them. The landlords have refunded their bond. The work orders sought in their application are no longer required. They confirmed that they seek a determination of all other matters. Onus and evidence
As with all claims filed in the Tribunal the party bringing the claim bears the onus to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
To find a matter proven I do not need to be completely certain, but I must be more certain than uncertain.
A large amount of detailed evidence was filed in this matter. The hearing took an entire day. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence produced and referred to at the hearing but the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence in making this decision. Reduction of market rent
The tenants said that when the tenancy began they were paying $700 per week in rent. However on 7 April 2025 the landlord served them with a 60 day notice increasing the rent to $825 per week (effective 14 June 2025).
The issue was complicated by the fact that the rent also includes (bore) water, but as this is a rent reduction claim I have considered the entire amount as rent.
As the tenancy ended on 6 July 2025 the tenants ended up paying two weeks of rent at the increased rate. They seek an order reducing the rent to $700 per week for those two weeks, a total sum of $250.00.
Sections 25(1) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provide: 1 By email sent on 11 June 2025 after 5pm and so received by the Tribunal on 12 June 2025 (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent. (3) For the purposes of this Act, the market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents (other than income-related rents within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992) for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.
The tenant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the rent exceeds market rent by a “substantial amount”. The term 'substantial' is not defined in the RTA, but it is the opposite of ‘minor’ or ‘insignificant’.
The factors the Tribunal may have regard to are the general level of rents for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.
The evidence for comparable rents is usually based on advertisements for similar premises in the locality. This evidence has limitations, as advertisements usually list the essential features of the property advertised, there is often limited qualitative information available for comparison. Also, advertisements only cover houses currently on the market and do not necessarily reflect the overall level of rents charged for existing similar tenancies in the area.
In support of their claim the tenants referred me to the overall condition of the property (with supporting photos) and to a listing for a 3-bedroom property in nearby [area] for $825.00 per week which they say is similar to the tenancy property but superior and has much more privacy than the tenancy property.
The landlords said that the rent was in fact well below market rent when the tenancy began. They produced a market appraisal dated 22 December 2022 indicating that the property had a market rental of $795.00 - $850 per week even before the tenancy began. They said that they agreed that the tenants could pay less than market rent because the tenants had said that they would do work around the property and because they were known to them.
Having reviewed the evidence I do not consider that the tenants have proved that the rent being sought by the landlord was substantially above market rent. I find this because: a. The only rental appraisal available for this property indicates that market rental, three months before tenancy began, was up to $850 per week; b. The tenancy began in February 2023 and the rent was not increased the following year in 2024; and c. The tenants have only provided one advertisement for comparison, so it is not possible for me to come to a view as to market rents in the area generally, but in any event the properties appear fairly similar.
The tenants claim for reduction of market rent is not proved and is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The compliance date for this tenancy was therefore 27 June 2023. Heating
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater is and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The tenants said that there was a woodburner fireplace installed at the tenancy but that it was not very effective and they ended up using a lot of wood to heat their home.
The explained that they noticed gaps in the metal of the woodburner and did not think that it was safe to use. They produced photos showing the gaps. They said that they told the landlords who gave them a gasket sealant to use on the gaps, which did not work.
The tenants said that they advised the landlord in December 2024 that they needed a heat pump, as the house was by this stage very hot and they had a young baby.
They said that they followed in up February 2015 as nothing had happened. After that several tradespeople came to check on the wood burner but a metal fabricator who came to look told them that it was beyond repair.
The tenants said that they issued a 14 day notice on 3 April 2025.
The tenants said the landlords installed a heat pump on 29 April 2025 but it was installed in an unusual place high up on the wall, making it less effective than if it had been installed on the floor or wall.
The landlords said whenever they went to the tenancy property it appeared nice and warm. They had a chimney sweep crew come and sweep the chimney on 10 July 2024 after reports of the chimney smoking, and they did not report any concerns.
The landlords said that there were gaps in the woodburner but they did not seem significant. They noted the tenants’ request for a heat pump but said that the tenants wanted the heat pump for cooling which was not the landlords’ obligation to provide.
The landlords said that they liked the aesthetic of the woodburner and so had it inspected, only to be told in April 2025 that it was beyond repair, so they went ahead and installed a heat pump. The landlord produced an invoice confirming the date of installation.
The landlords said that the woodburner met the HHS. They said that they were not aware that the woodburner could not be repaired until April 2025 at which time they installed the heat pump, which also met the HHS. They provided a HHS report confirming compliance.
Having considered all of the evidence, including the correspondence between the parties (not set out in detail here), I find that: a. The tenants have not proved that the woodburner did not comply with the HHS at the outset; b. The woodburner clearly degraded over time and I consider that it is more likely than not that the woodburner could not be used safely from approximately (and as best as I can estimate from the evidence) December 2024; c. The heatpump installed by the landlords on 29 April 2025 did comply with the HHS; d. The property therefore did not comply with the HHS (heating standard) for a period of approximately six months, being the period during which the woodburner could not be used but the heat pump had not yet been installed.
The tenants are entitled to compensation for this breach. In considering the appropriate amount of compensation to award I note that the heating standard does not require landlords to install a heat pump (and with it a cooling function) and so I am not able to take into account the fact that the tenants found the summer uncomfortable without cooling.
I am able to take into account the fact that the tenants did not have means of heating the property for six months between December and April 2025. Most of that time period is over summer but even in Auckland there can be days where heating is still required over that period.
In addition, I consider that it is appropriate to have regard to the fact that the HHS standards were introduced to ensure certain minimum standards are met, and they were not met in this case for a six month period.
Taking into account the above factors, I award the sum of $1,000 by way of compensation to the tenants. Ground moisture barrier
The moisture ingress and drainage standards require the landlord to install a ground moisture barrier where there is an enclosed sub-floor.
The tenants said that there was no ground moisture barrier installed, leading to dampness in the house. The tenants produced photos of the area.
The tenants referred me to the tenancy agreement, noting that the landlord had confirmed in the HHS statement that the sub-floor was enclosed and that there was a ground moisture barrier installed.
The landlords said that they had made a mistake in completing that section of the HHS statement. They said that the underfloor was not “enclosed” as there are slats around the subfloor area allowing air flow.
The landlord provided evidence showing the ventilation slats, including measurements, together with a HHS report (done after the tenancy ended but without any changes having been made to the sub-floor area) confirming that the property is exempt from having a ground moisture barrier.
Having reviewed all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenants have proved that the landlord is in breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard. I do acknowledge that the landlords should have accurately recorded the position in the HHS statement.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Draughts
The tenants said that there were draughts in two of the doors in the lounge. They said that there were gaps of approximately 2mm as the material attached to the window that seals that gap had become degraded over the years.
The tenants provided photos but it was difficult to see the gaps from the photos.
The landlord said the gaps were tiny and that they adjusted the door and were not told there was any issue after that.
Having reviewed all of the evidence I do not consider that the tenants have proved that there were unreasonable gaps and draughts.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Compensation for work carried out by tenants/power bill/items damaged in garage Work carried out by tenants
The tenants said that they did a huge amount of work during the tenancy including mowing outside the tenancy area (and paying for fuel), digging out a trench for drainage with a digger, painting garage, installing sensor lighting and hot water cylinder repair. One of the tenants is a registered electrician.
The tenants presented evidence of the work done, time spent and the likely cost to the landlord. They said that they had never intended to seek compensation but have done so now as part of their overall claim in relation to the tenancy.
The landlords said that the tenant offered to do work around the property, that the rent was reduced from market rent in any event, and that it had never been agreed that they would compensate the tenants for the work done. They said that the lawns were the tenants responsibility, but they offered the tenants the use of their mower, and the tenants elected to mow outside the tenancy boundary.
The landlord also produced evidence refuting the amount of work done and the likely cost/benefit.
I have reviewed all of the evidence produced by the parties but ultimately I do not consider that it is necessary for me to make any findings on exact the work done and the likely value as I do not consider that there is any basis on which the tenants can succeed in their claim for compensation. I say this because: a. There is no provision in the RTA for landlords to compensate tenants for work done/improvements made to the property; b. Whether or not the tenant is in fact entitled to compensation can only be determined by what was agreed by the parties in relation to the work done; c. The text messages between the parties prior to the start of the tenancy show that the tenant negotiated a reduced rent of $700 on the basis that he would set up the garage and lend a hand with the landlords’ electrical needs; d. The tenancy agreement provided that the lawns were the responsibility of the tenants; e. There was no mention of remuneration or compensation in any of the correspondence between the parties in relation to the various work done. Increased power
As part of this claim the tenants referred to an increased power bill from a hot water cylinder leak. However I am not satisfied that the tenants had an increased power bill due to any breach by the landlords (and there was no evidence produced confirming increased power usage). This part of the claim is not proven and is dismissed. Damage to items stored in garage
The tenants also referred to mould and flooding that occurred in the garage and various car parts that were damaged due to water and mould.
I note at the outset that the garage is a non-habitable space and therefore does not need to comply with the HHS.
From my review of the evidence it appears that the landlord agreed that the tenants could paint the garage and install ventilation if they wished to do so (the landlord paid for the paint and almost all of the materials) but the tenants then went ahead and stored vehicles there at their own risk.
Even if I had found a breach by the landlord however I would not have made any order for compensation as the tenants did not provide sufficient evidence proving the items damaged and the cost of the items.
This claim is therefore not proven and is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The RTA deems certain breaches to be “unlawful acts”.
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.
Exemplary damages are different from compensatory damages. The purpose of exemplary damages is not to compensate the aggrieved party but to punish and deter the other party.
It is common practice in the Tribunal to award approximately 1/3 of the maximum amount as a starting point on the first occasion that a landlord comes before the Tribunal having committed an unlawful act. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
Section 45(1A) RTA provides that breaching the HHS is an unlawful act.
Breaching the landlord’s HHS obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
The tenants have already proved that the landlords breached the HHS (heating standard). By doing so have committed an unlawful act.
Having heard from the parties I am not satisfied that the landlords have committed an unlawful act intentionally. My view, after reviewing the evidence, is that the landlords preferred to fix the woodburner if at all possible, did not prioritise this matter over summer and so did not do sufficient further investigations to establish whether it was working or not, leading to a period where there was no heating. I regard this breach as negligent rather than intentional.
The tenant has already been awarded compensation for this breach. I do not consider that it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages in all the circumstances. Breach of quiet enjoyment/harrassment
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) RTA.
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.
The tenants say that: a. The fact that they lived down the driveway behind the landlords’ business meant that people would mistakenly drive onto their property; b. The landlords allowed people to pick fruit in the orchard next to the tenancy (and would come into the area themselves) which impacted on their privacy as people could see into their home from the orchard; c. The landlords seemed to be watching them and knew when they were coming and going and erected security cameras around their business; d. The landlords engaged contractors to do various exterior work, including the shared driveway without notice; e. The landlords stopped their cleaner in the driveway while she was on the way to their property and then talked about them to a neighbour; and f. The landlords instructed a property manager who did not appear to have a legitimate business, asked for person details and credit checks that they were not under an obligation to prove (having already entered into a tenancy agreement) and who then behaved rudely and harassed them.
The landlords said that the tenancy began in a friendly manner and that they would see the tenants almost every day as their workplace was on the road frontage to the property.
The landlords said that: a. People did occasionally mistakenly drive down towards the tenant’s property but this was infrequent and when they were told by the tenants they erected a sign saying “private residence please do not enter”; b. They did allow friends to pick fruit from time to time but the orchard was not on the tenancy property and was some distance away and they told friends to pick on the side away from the house; c. They continued to see the tenants regularly as their business was in front of their home, they had no reason to monitor their movements and the security cameras were set up for security of their business as they had customer vehicles and parts stored on site; d. They engaged contractors to do exterior works (water main and driveway) and these were necessary repairs and some distance away from the house; e. The interactions with the cleaner and neighbour were simply friendly conversations; f. They instructed a friend who was a property manager part way through the tenancy in the hope that this would make management of the property easier, but the initial communications between the proposed property manager and the tenants became so fractious that they never formally engaged her.
There was a considerable amount of evidence filed on these issues and they were discussed at some length during the hearing.
I have carefully reviewed all of the evidence which included text messages, emails, transcripts of phone conversations and phone records, photos and newspaper articles.
This tenancy, situated as it was behind the landlords’ business, was inevitably going to bring the parties into much closer contact than is the case with most landlords and tenants. While this does not appear to have been an issue at the outset, it became a point of real difficulty as issues arose during the tenancy and the relationship between the parties broke down.
It was clear to me at the hearing that both the landlords and the tenants have been affected by the breakdown in their relationship. This has understandably had a much greater impact on the tenants as the tenancy property was their home. The landlords on the other hand would leave the property at the end of the day and go to their own home.
While I can appreciate that the tenants felt a lack of privacy, and I empathise with their position, I do not consider that that they have proved that the landlords have breached their quiet enjoyment in circumstances that amount “harassment”.
The attempted appointment of the property manager did not go well, and while there was some very direct correspondence between the parties I do not consider that the evidence proves that the proposed property manager harassed the tenants.
The other issues were in my view part and parcel of the location of this tenancy and do not amount to behaviour “directed to” the tenants. The landlords were focussed on operating their business, keeping their business and stock secure, engaging contractors to fix outdoor issues, allowing select friends to pick fruit from the orchard and engaging with people who came and went. While I accept that it is possible that they they may not have kept the tenants’ privacy at the top of their minds at all times, I do not consider that they have intended to upset or harass the tenants in any way.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Failure to lodge bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The requirement to lodge the bond is such a fundamental obligation that a failure to do so will almost always be regarded as intentional. The bond money belongs to the tenant, and while it is provided as security for the landlord, it must be protected in the event of a dispute.
In this case the landlord has already refunded the tenants’ bond in full. No harm has been done. However it is important that landlords are deterred from retaining tenants bonds and not sending them to the Bond Centre, and so I consider that it is just to make a small award in this instance, of $250.00. Retaliatory notice
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
The tenants say that the landlords gave notice the day after the case management conference held in this matter, at which the tenants set out their claims in detail. They say that the notice was retaliatory.
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 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?
The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to ... to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy (or filing a claim) and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice.
In this case the notice complied with section 51RTA, is a valid notice, and the tenants made the application within 28 working days of the notice being served. The tenants’ claims are not frivolous or vexatious.
The only issue for determination is whether the landlords were motivated wholly or partly by the tenants filing this claim.
In my view the fact that the landlords served notice the day after the case management conference held in this matter, at which the tenants itemised their claims in some detail, leads to a strong inference that the landlords were at least partly motivated by the tenants exercising their rights.
The landlords explained that they did not serve the notice because the tenants were exercising their rights. They explained that because the house at the rear of their business, the local Council bylaws only allow them to let the house to either a family member or to an employee. They said that they had received legal advice to this effect and that their son had plans at that stage to move in (although as matters turned out he did not do so and the landlords explained that they have now moved in themselves).
The landlords produced a copy of the letter of advice to them from their lawyer dated 13 June 2025. This letter confirms that they were advised that they or their family would need to live in the property to ensure compliance with zoning requirements. However the letter also confirms that the landlords had known about the zoning requirement before the tenancy began and even before the purchase of the property.
While I acknowledge that the landlords needed to ensure compliance with Council bylaws, the fact that the notice was served almost immediately after the case management conference, when the landlords had known about the zoning requirements for so long, leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the landlords were at least partly motivated by the tenants having filed this claim.
When I questioned the landlords about this timing at the hearing they explained that they had received legal correspondence from a neighbour’s lawyer just prior to giving notice which had been the actual impetus for them doing so. I allowed the landlord time to file a copy of this letter after the hearing (and for the parties to make submissions regarding this letter).
In reviewing the legal letter from the neighbour’s lawyer I note that it is dated 4 June 2025 (8 days before notice was given) and refers to a range of issues but the fact that the tenancy property was not being let to family or employees, but should have been, was not one of them.
I am satisfied, having considered all of the evidence and having heard from the parties, that the landlords were at least partly motivated to give notice because the tenants had filed this claim.
The landlords gave notice intentionally. The impact on the tenants was fairly significant as they had a young baby and dogs and had to relocate at short notice.
I consider that the appropriate starting point for an award of exemplary damages to be $2,160. In this case I think it is appropriate to recognise that the landlords were only partly motivated to give notice because of the tenants’ claim.
In my view an award of $1,500 is an appropriate award to mark this breach. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenants have had some success in their claim. I consider that it is appropriate to award them the filing fee.
Both parties sought an order for name suppression in the event that they were the successful party. It is a difficult assessment to make in this case as, while the tenants have had some success, the landlords have also successfully defended many of the tenants’ claims.
In the circumstances I consider that, both parties having had some success, it is appropriate to supress both parties’ names and identifying details (including the tenancy address).
I note in addition, that as the parties are known to one another, and that fact is inevitably recorded in this decision, if I had named one party only it would likely have led to the identification of the other party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228466 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228466 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions