What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230292 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 5230292?

Compensation: Failure to clear the g…: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230292?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12992032-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230292 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 5230292?

Compensation: Failure to clear the g…: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230292?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12992032-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5230292 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5230292 — net $400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to clear the garage	$400.00	Failure to clear the garage
Net award	$400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$400.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5230292 — net $400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to clear the garage	$400.00	Failure to clear the garage
Net award	$400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$400.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $400.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed work orders, compensation, exemplary damages.
At the hearing the Tenant withdrew their claim for work orders.
All the Tenants final claims and evidence were presented in a folder at the hearing.
The Tenant filed extensive evidence and both parties evidence was considered however for brevity, only the documents that were relevant in making the decisions will be referred to.
By way of background, the tenancy began on 23 December 2024 and ended on 27 May 2025. The Tribunal determined that this was a boarding house Tenancy agreement after the previous hearing and at the time the Tenant lived at the property, there were six boarders in total occupying the four bedrooms. Rent Reimbursement – $8,740.00
The Tenant claimed a full rent refund of $8740.00 because the landlord misrepresented their tenancy agreement as a flat-sharing agreement. As a result, when the Tenant had issues with the tenancy such as the Landlords refusal to clear the garage, the Tenant had to take steps to research her tenancy rights. It took a considerable amount of time and effort to consult with Citizens advice bureau and community law. She had to take time out of work to confirm her legal standing because the Landlord lied.
The Tenant provided letters of support from her mother, Kitty Jonker, her work Manager Julia Dragicevic, her current partner, Mr Hutchinson-Topia and the Tenants former partner Marcos Allendorf. All letters confirmed the stress the Tenant suffered from the tenancy. These witnesses were not made available at the hearing to test their evidence so it was difficult to place much weight on their statements.
The Landlord submitted that she never misrepresented this as a Tenancy and has lodged a rehearing application to challenge the decision of the Tribunal because she maintains this is a flat- sharing agreement. She asserts that she lives at the property and her partner and child live in the house next door. She submitted the Tenant was trying to manipulate the situation to get money o of her. Furthermore, the decision to not clear the garage so the Tenants dance pole could be installed was due to the age and structure of the garage. The old garage would not sustain a pole.
Having considered the evidence, I find that whether this was listed as a Tenancy agreement or flatmate sharing agreement, the Tenant would have had to consult with CAB and community law to find out her rights about the refusal of the Landlord to clear the garage and unannounced visits by the Landlord. The Tenant would have had to take time off work either way. The Tenant did not provide any further evidence as to how the impact of misrepresenting the tenancy affected her in this claim.
The claim is dismissed. Emotional distress- $6000.00
The Tenant seeks $6,000 compensation for emotional distress, alleging stress, anxiety, and feelings of unsafety during the tenancy, which she attributes to the Landlord’s conduct and the household environment. Being described as manipulative, hostile and controlling by the Landlord had severely damaged her sense of safety and dignity when she had made every effort to be respectful and polite. She felt isolated in the flat. The Tenant provided a timeline of key events and communications and email correspondence relating to the clearing of the garage space for the Tenant to conduct dance practice.
The Tenant relied primarily on an incident on 19 May 2025, when she believed the Landlord deliberately organised a flat meeting without her, while the Tenant was working from home. The Tenant stated she overheard comments from the kitchen which she interpreted as relating to her and the Tribunal proceedings. She reported experiencing an acute anxiety reaction with physical symptoms. At the hearing, the Tenant confirmed her partner was present at the meeting. Medical evidence was provided; however, this was based on a telephone consultation and relied on the Tenant’s self-report, noting a history of stress and anxiety.
The Tenant’s partner gave oral evidence that he was contacted during the meeting by the Tenant, observed her physical reaction, but confirmed he was not present at the property and could not verify that a meeting was held or that the discussion concerned the Tenant.
The Tenant required all communication with the Landlord be in writing and this was evident in a text message from the Tenant in March 2025 stating “I appreciate the offer to meet in person but I would prefer to keep our communication in writing so we have a clear agreement. This ensures we both are on the same page”. While this was her preference, the evidence indicates that this approach contributed to misunderstandings and escalation, rather than resolution. The Landlord gave evidence of attempts to engage in person, which the Tenant largely declined. On 19 May 2025, the Tenant remained in her room when she overheard the Tenants and landlord speaking, rather than taking it as an opportunity to talk openly about the issues.
The Tenant also referred to the emotional pain of rehoming her dog because the Landlord repeatedly turned up to the property with her child which would unsettle the dog. She was overwhelmed when the Landlord attempted to show her room to a prospective tenant without notification. She denied pointing a camera at the Landlord or her child and stated it was installed for room security. In support of her claim, the Tenant provided emails, text messages, a timeline and medical certificates. The Tenant also had a statement in support from her current partner Mr Hutchinson-Topia which referred to the Tenant being distressed, breaking down at work, being at breaking point everyday, the Landlord being deceptive and her dog changing behaviours because of the stressful tenancy. There was also confirmation from Tenancy Services that her bond had not been lodged.
The Landlord stated she thought the Tenant had vacated the property when she attempted to show the Tenants room to prospective buyers as per the termination notice she had provided. She was not aware the Tenant was in her room still. .
Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Tenant’s emotional distress was caused by unreasonable acts or omissions of the Landlord. I find the Tenant’s insistence on written communication, reluctance to engage directly with the Landlord, and assumptions about the Landlord’s intentions significantly contributed to the situation. There is no independent evidence that the Landlord acted in a manner likely to cause the high level of distress claimed by the Tenant. To seek compensation for being excluded at a flatmate meeting when the Tenant was in the next room and could have joined in the meeting or approached the Landlord afterward, is incomprehensible and the issue comes down to miscommunication.
While I accept that the Tenant experienced genuine distress and physical symptoms, I find that her anxiety, misunderstandings, request that communication be in writing and limited engagement were material contributing factors to her emotional distress, rather than the Landlord’s conduct.
The claim for compensation is dismissed.: Lack of security
The Tenant seeks $500 compensation for the lack of security at the property stating she did not feel safe due to the Landlords unannounced visits and the absence of a lock on her bedroom door. She alleged the Landlord or her nanny regularly attended the property, picked fruit, and left debris on the ground. The Tenant identified multiple dates in April and May 2025 when the Landlord allegedly attended without notice. She stated she feared for the safety of her belongings, threatened to change the locks, and installed a video camera. She also noted that other flatmates had locks on their doors. The Tenant confirmed that no theft, damage, or security incidents occurred during the tenancy.
The Landlord gave evidence that the rooms at the property had never been fitted with locks and that the Tenant did not raise this issue until near the end of the tenancy.
Section 66I RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain adequate locks to ensure reasonable security.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the Landlord did not install locks because she believed the arrangement was a flat-sharing agreement. To the extent that locks were required, this amounts to a technical breach. However, there is no evidence of any security incident, loss, or interference with the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment arising from the absence of locks. Compensation is not warranted.
The claim is dismissed. Cost of camera- $70.74
The Tenant claimed the cost of purchasing a camera for their room due to the unsafe environment.
The Landlord submitted that the arrangement was a flat-sharing situation, requiring the Tenant to live with others she did not previously know. She stated that no security incidents occurred at the property and that, if the Tenant felt unsafe, she had the option to move out.
In considering the evidence, a Landlord is not legally required to provide security cameras at the property for the safety of the Tenants. The Tenant felt unsafe and this is a choice she made to make her feel more secure. There was no agreement by the Landlord to contribute towards this cost when she installed it and no evidence of security incidents were provided to justify the cost.
The claim is dismissed. Loss of work time – $224.00
The Tenant claimed compensation for two hours of lost work time on 19 May 2025, when the Landlord allegedly held a flat meeting without her. The Tenant suffered emotional and physical stress which took her away from her work. Medical evidence was provided of her consultation with the GP where she reported what had happened to her.
No evidence was provided of the Tenant’s hourly rate, that she was working that day, or that any income was lost.
The Landlord gave evidence that she attempted to resolve issues directly and did not organise a meeting to the exclusion of the Tenant. The flatmates had met informally in the kitchen that day.
While the Tenant maintained that the Landlord intentionally organised a meeting without her and spoke about the Tenant to the other flatmates, this was not independently established. The Tenant also could have sought clarification by engaging directly with those present but she stayed in her bedroom and did not engage.
I am not satisfied that any loss of work time was caused by the Landlord’s actions and holding a flatmate meeting without the Tenant is not a breach of Landlord obligations. The medical evidence is also based on what the Tenant had told the GP over the telephone rather than examining the Tenants symptoms in person.
The claim is therefore dismissed. Doctors appointment fee-$62.00
The Tenant sought compensation for her Doctors appointment as a result of her reaction to the meeting on 19 May 2025.
The Landlord did not agree. The Landlord had previously stated that the Tenant would work herself up and make assumptions about things because she did not communicate verbally or wish to meet with the Landlord separately.
For reasons stated previously, I find the Landlords actions did not cause the Tenants reaction that day. The Tenant could have prevented the reaction by letting the flatmates and Landlord know she was home.
The claim is dismissed. Loss of garage space- $400.00
The Tenant claims $400 compensation for loss of use of the garage, stating the Landlord verbally agreed at the initial viewing that the garage would be cleared and could be used for pole dance practice. As a result the Tenant could not undertake her practice. The Tenant says the garage was not excluded from the agreement and was a key reason for entering the arrangement. She relied on a statement from her former partner, Mr Marcos Allendorf who confirmed the Landlord promised to clear the garage when they first met for the initial viewing. The Tenant also provided email and text message correspondence to support the claim.
The Landlord submitted that the agreement did not provide for access to storage in the garage. She accepted that some items in the garage were hers and that the garage was not cleared at the start of the tenancy. She stated that other flatmates also wished to use the space and that the garage was later found to be unsuitable for installing a pole.
Section 38(1) RTA provides a landlord must provide the tenant with vacant possession of the premises on the date on which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to enter into occupation of the premises.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord did not provide vacant possession of the garage and if it was to be excluded in the tenancy, this should have been written into the agreement. The text and email messages demonstrate the Landlord had her own personal items in the garage which is evident from the text message correspondence provided.
The amount ordered is proved. Title search fee-$8.00
The Tenant claims compensation for the cost of searching property records to confirm whether the Landlord was the head tenant or the owner.
The Landlord submitted that the Tenant did not ask her directly about ownership and did not agree to reimburse this cost.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the cost of conducting property searches is a reasonable expense associated with bringing an application.
The claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages Retaliatory damages- $6500.00
On 28 April 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 26 May 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
The Tenant submitted because of the issues she raised about the garage being cleared, unannounced visits by the Landlord, her dog being unsettled and the Landlords broken mirror, the Landlord sent a retaliatory notice. The impact of the tenancy being terminated was that she had to find a place to move to that would accept her dog, it was expensive to move, the move caused her stress and there was uncertainty for her.
The Landlord claimed she had to end the tenancy because of the potential leak in the Tenants bedroom. Furthermore, she was not required to provide a reason for the termination.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 66U(1)(d) RTA provides that a landlord may terminate a boarding house agreement on 28 days notice if no reason is given.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not committed an unlawful act. The Landlord was not required to give a reason to terminate and the reasons why she did terminate was to repair the leak in the bedroom. I do not find the Landlord was retaliatory or intended to be in this instance.
For this reason the claim is dismissed. Termination without notice
The Tenant claimed the Landlord attempted to terminate the tenancy without providing notice. The interim order was made on 19 May 2025 however the Landlord continued to act as if the Tenant had to move out on 26 May 2025. The Tenant received notice that there would be new tenants moving in and by doing this the Landlord intentionally disregarded the Order. She had advised the other Tenants that the Tenant would be leaving.
The Landlord submitted she did not receive the Order until the 26 May 2026 in the mail so she thought, as per her notice to terminate that the Tenant would vacate on 26 May 2025.
As this breach is not an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be claimed and there was no intention by the Landlord to terminate without notice, the claim is dismissed. Harassment and breach of quiet enjoyment- $4800
The Tenant has claimed the Landlord breached the Tenants quiet enjoyment on 19 May 2025, when the Landlord held a flatmate meeting without her, on 23 April 2025 when the Nanny and Landlords child attended the house and caused her dog stress and on 27 May 2025, when the Landlord tried to show a prospective flatmate her bedroom without announcing it.
The Tenant also claimed the Landlord’s correspondence was very harsh towards her. The Landlord had accused her of being hostile, manipulative and controlling. This correspondence was provided in support.
The Landlord submitted she did not breach the Tenants quiet enjoyment. She did not have a flatmate meeting without the Tenant being invited and she thought the Tenant would have vacated the property when she had prospective Tenants visit the property. The landlord submitted they always announced their visits. The Tenants dog was not well trained so was anxious when strangers were around.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord had committed an unlawful act by not providing notice to the Tenant of the viewing for her bedroom. I find however that the Landlord genuinely thought the Tenant had vacated in accordance with her notice so there was no intention to breach. Furthermore, the Landlord was permitted to enter the boarding house without notice pursuant to section 66Q RTA which states a Landlord can enter the property at any time. The nanny and child did not enter her bedroom when they visited.
I also do not consider there was sufficient evidence provided to confirm that the Landlords unannounced visits caused the dog to be unsettled. It could have been that the dog required more socialising or this was an anxious dog. Because of the lack of intention by the Landlord to breach, the Tenants claim is dismissed.
The claim is dismissed. Failure to lodge bond
Juane Jonker claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. The bond was more than one weeks rent.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not file the bond. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Landlord submitted they always perceived this arrangement as a flat- sharing arrangement so were not obliged to lodge the bond. There was never an intention to act unlawfully.
In considering the evidence I find because there was no intention by the Landlord to not file the bond due to their misunderstanding that this was a flat sharing agreement, the grounds for exemplary damages has not been met.
The claim is dismissed. Misrepresentation of the tenancy
The Tenant has claimed $2000.00 for misrepresentation of the tenancy by the landlord in that they stated this was a flat sharing agreement not a tenancy agreement. The Landlord also made verbal agreements such as clearing the garage for the Tenant and advising there would be a gate installed for the dog but then did not follow through with it.
These misrepresentations are not unlawful acts for which exemplary damages can be claimed.
The claim is dismissed. Name suppression
Section 95A(1) RTA provides 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.
As the Tenant has not been substantially successful with their claim, name suppression is declined. As the Landlord has been successful in defending the Tenants claim, name suppression is granted to the Landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230292 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230292 — Tenancy dispute

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