What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5231940 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 5231940?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5231940?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5231940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12113036-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5231940 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 5231940?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5231940?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5231940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12113036-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5231940 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a witness, her mental health support worker, give evidence for her.
The tenancy started on 18 February 2022 and ended on 18 June 2025, the last day of the landlord’s 90-day notice period.
The tenant has vacated the tenancy and is currently in transitional housing awaiting a permanent rental placement. The application
The tenant has applied for the following orders: •A finding that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment of the tenancy •Compensation for emotional stress, breach of privacy, and interference with peaceful enjoyment •A reasonable extension of the termination period to allow her time to secure safe housing for her and her children •A written explanation from the landlord regarding the rationale for the termination and how it aligns with their company values •Reimbursement for lost wages while finding new accommodation •Any other remedies or penalties the Tribunal deems just. Relevant law.
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and 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.
Section 54 RTA allows the Tribunal to declare a notice to terminate a tenancy to be retaliatory if, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement, the RTA or any other Act, or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
Section 51(1) RTA allows a landlord to terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 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. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? Can the Tribunal award compensation?
The tenant states that her quiet enjoyment of the tenancy was breached by visits from previous property managers, builders, and electricians in the 4 th and 6 th weeks of her tenancy and after 3 months. She said the landlord conducted 6-monthly drug tests. And the landlord issued a 14-day notice for her to tidy the lawns at a time when her daughter was seriously ill in hospital.
She also referred to 2 inspections when her property manager attended with another staff member when she was not told that would happen.
None of the incidents the tenant referred to constitutes a breach by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. A landlord may notify and inspect the premises, may conduct drug testing, and may have contractors attend to do repairs.
The tenant said she had resolved some issues by making a complaint to her landlord and meeting with the appropriate people.
The Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint. It can only remedy proven breaches by a party (in this case the landlord) of their statutory responsibilities.
Without a proven breach the Tribunal cannot award compensation. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy? Was an explanation required? Can the Tribunal award compensation for lost wages?
Parliament amended the RTA by enacting the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 so that from 30 January 2025, landlords can terminate a tenancy without reason by giving 90-days’ notice. That is what happened here.
The landlord was therefore acting within its legal right to terminate the tenancy.
The Tribunal must apply the law as Parliament intended. Though the tenant wanted an explanation as to why the tenancy was terminated, the landlord was not required to give one, nor can the Tribunal require it to.
The tenant said that the notice to terminate the tenancy must have been retaliatory because she received a pre-inspection letter one day before she received the notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant said she had done nothing to prompt the 90-day notice.
The tenant has not proved that the landlord issued the notice to terminate the tenancy in retaliation for her exercising any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on her by the tenancy agreement, the RTA, or any other Act, or in response to any complaint she made against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
Because the landlord acted with statutory authority when it terminated the tenancy it committed no breach. Compensation follows a breach. Without one, the Tribunal cannot award the tenant compensation, including for her loss of wages trying to find a new tenancy.

What about penalties?

The Tribunal cannot award the tenant any amount by way of penalty (exemplary damages). First the alleged unlawful acts in some cases go back more than 12 months; exemplary damages cannot be awarded when the alleged unlawful act occurred more than 12 months before the date of the application.
Second, the tenant has not proved that the landlord committed any unlawful acts as defined in the RTA. Exemplary damages can only be awarded to a tenant when the landlord has committed a defined unlawful act. And even then, only when the section 109 RTA criteria are met. Result
The tenant has not proved any breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities that would attract an award of compensation or exemplary damages, nor can the Tribunal order reimbursement of lost wages. The landlord committed no breach when it terminated the tenancy on 90-days’ notice without reason. The application is dismissed. Comment
The tenant produced letters of reference from 6 people, including from her witness. They all speak highly of her as a person and as a mother. The Tribunal can understand why the tenant felt disappointed and traumatised when her tenancy ended, especially given her mental health challenges. However, it cannot make orders on that basis. Although the application is dismissed, the tenant should not read that as any negative reflection on her. It simply means that her application did not clear the legal hurdles it needed to. Name suppression
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as its defence to the application is successful.
The tenant also applied for name suppression. Although the application is unsuccessful, I have ordered suppression of the tenant’s name due to her documented mental health issues. There is no public interest in the matters raised in the application. The tenant’s interests in this case outweigh the presumption that the name of an unsuccessful applicant be published.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a witness, her mental health support worker, give evidence for her.
The tenancy started on 18 February 2022 and ended on 18 June 2025, the last day of the landlord’s 90-day notice period.
The tenant has vacated the tenancy and is currently in transitional housing awaiting a permanent rental placement. The application
The tenant has applied for the following orders: •A finding that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment of the tenancy •Compensation for emotional stress, breach of privacy, and interference with peaceful enjoyment •A reasonable extension of the termination period to allow her time to secure safe housing for her and her children •A written explanation from the landlord regarding the rationale for the termination and how it aligns with their company values •Reimbursement for lost wages while finding new accommodation •Any other remedies or penalties the Tribunal deems just. Relevant law.
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and 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.
Section 54 RTA allows the Tribunal to declare a notice to terminate a tenancy to be retaliatory if, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement, the RTA or any other Act, or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
Section 51(1) RTA allows a landlord to terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 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. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? Can the Tribunal award compensation?
The tenant states that her quiet enjoyment of the tenancy was breached by visits from previous property managers, builders, and electricians in the 4 th and 6 th weeks of her tenancy and after 3 months. She said the landlord conducted 6-monthly drug tests. And the landlord issued a 14-day notice for her to tidy the lawns at a time when her daughter was seriously ill in hospital.
She also referred to 2 inspections when her property manager attended with another staff member when she was not told that would happen.
None of the incidents the tenant referred to constitutes a breach by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. A landlord may notify and inspect the premises, may conduct drug testing, and may have contractors attend to do repairs.
The tenant said she had resolved some issues by making a complaint to her landlord and meeting with the appropriate people.
The Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint. It can only remedy proven breaches by a party (in this case the landlord) of their statutory responsibilities.
Without a proven breach the Tribunal cannot award compensation. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy? Was an explanation required? Can the Tribunal award compensation for lost wages?
Parliament amended the RTA by enacting the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 so that from 30 January 2025, landlords can terminate a tenancy without reason by giving 90-days’ notice. That is what happened here.
The landlord was therefore acting within its legal right to terminate the tenancy.
The Tribunal must apply the law as Parliament intended. Though the tenant wanted an explanation as to why the tenancy was terminated, the landlord was not required to give one, nor can the Tribunal require it to.
The tenant said that the notice to terminate the tenancy must have been retaliatory because she received a pre-inspection letter one day before she received the notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant said she had done nothing to prompt the 90-day notice.
The tenant has not proved that the landlord issued the notice to terminate the tenancy in retaliation for her exercising any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on her by the tenancy agreement, the RTA, or any other Act, or in response to any complaint she made against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
Because the landlord acted with statutory authority when it terminated the tenancy it committed no breach. Compensation follows a breach. Without one, the Tribunal cannot award the tenant compensation, including for her loss of wages trying to find a new tenancy.

What about penalties?

The Tribunal cannot award the tenant any amount by way of penalty (exemplary damages). First the alleged unlawful acts in some cases go back more than 12 months; exemplary damages cannot be awarded when the alleged unlawful act occurred more than 12 months before the date of the application.
Second, the tenant has not proved that the landlord committed any unlawful acts as defined in the RTA. Exemplary damages can only be awarded to a tenant when the landlord has committed a defined unlawful act. And even then, only when the section 109 RTA criteria are met. Result
The tenant has not proved any breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities that would attract an award of compensation or exemplary damages, nor can the Tribunal order reimbursement of lost wages. The landlord committed no breach when it terminated the tenancy on 90-days’ notice without reason. The application is dismissed. Comment
The tenant produced letters of reference from 6 people, including from her witness. They all speak highly of her as a person and as a mother. The Tribunal can understand why the tenant felt disappointed and traumatised when her tenancy ended, especially given her mental health challenges. However, it cannot make orders on that basis. Although the application is dismissed, the tenant should not read that as any negative reflection on her. It simply means that her application did not clear the legal hurdles it needed to. Name suppression
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as its defence to the application is successful.
The tenant also applied for name suppression. Although the application is unsuccessful, I have ordered suppression of the tenant’s name due to her documented mental health issues. There is no public interest in the matters raised in the application. The tenant’s interests in this case outweigh the presumption that the name of an unsuccessful applicant be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5231940 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5231940 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What about penalties?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What about penalties?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions