What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5234711 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $427.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5234711?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234711?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12590291-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5234711 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $427.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5234711?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234711?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12590291-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Simkin Avenue, Saint Johns, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5234711 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5234711 — net $427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages not providing written tenancy agreement	$200.00	Exemplary damages not providing written tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages failing to lodge bond	$200.00	Exemplary damages failing to lodge bond
Net award	$427.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$427.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $427.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] appeared for the tenants and [The landlord/s] appeared as the landlord. A Mandarin interpreter assisted both parties and the Tribunal with a full translation for the entire hearing.
The tenant’s application includes claims for failing to provide a written tenancy agreement, failing to deposit the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of the tenancy beginning, unlawfully terminating the tenancy, and breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by withdrawing permission for the tenant to keep a cat.
On 18 June 2025 I held a jurisdictional hearing for this claim in which I determined that this tenancy fell within the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”). Reasons were given in support of my determination.
Key dates concerning this tenancy are as follows: a. May 2023. The building of the house was completed. Ms Yao moved in. b. August 2023. Ms Yao moved to China for 13 months for medical treatment. c. 5 May 2024. Ms Han and Mr Wang’s tenancy began. Han Li Mei was Ms Yao’s agent. d. September 2024. Ms Yao returned to New Zealand and the same house. e. 14 February 2025. Ms Yao gave Ms Han and Mr Wang 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. f. 15 February 2025. Ms Han gave Ms Yao 21 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. Tenancy agreement not in writing
A landlord must ensure a tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims the landlord did not ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing or provide a copy to the tenant.
The tenant claims that the tenancy was arranged through the landlord’s representative Ms Mei and began on 5 May 2024. The parties arranged for Ms Mei to meet the tenants at the property and give them a written copy of the tenancy agreement on 5 May 2024. On this date however, Ms Mei said she was not well enough to meet at the property. Ms Mei then never followed up with a written tenancy agreement.
The tenant claims that following getting a cat in July 2024, she again requested a written tenancy agreement from Ms Mei, but again Ms Mei did not provided one.
In response Ms Yao explained that her intention was to have friends and family live at the property while she was also living there. She described the house as being intended to be “owner-occupied”. Under these circumstances the residents would be flatmates and written tenancy agreements would not be necessary under the RTA.
However, from August 2023 until September 2024 Ms Yao was living overseas. When Ms Han’s tenancy began, Ms Han was not aware of any of Ms Yao’s family members living in the house. During this time the house was not “owner- occupied” and no exception to the Residential Tenancies Act applies to this tenancy arrangement. Therefore, a written tenancy agreement was required and in not providing one, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I accept that Ms Yao did not want her activities to fall within the ambit of the RTA. However, her activities with regard to this specific tenancy did. The rights of a tenant are of equal importance to the rights of a landlord. By not providing a written tenancy agreement to the Ms Han, Ms Han’s protection under the law was compromised. I note that whereas it appears Ms Mei apparently said she would provide a written tenancy agreement, Ms Yao persists with her position that she shouldn’t be expected to provide one because the house was intended to be “owner-occupied”. This casts doubt on whether Ms Mei ever intended to provide a written tenancy agreement to Ms Han. A landlord must act within the law. This includes getting reliable legal advice and not simply seeking information from non-legal professionals that confirms the landlord’s beliefs.
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.
I determine that exemplary damages are warranted for this breach. I consider a low to moderate amount is sufficient given the intentions and factors raised in subsection 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA. Bond not lodged at bond centre
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 accepts that the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. Her reasons for not ensuring this happened are the same as her reasons for not providing a written tenancy agreement; that is, the landlord believed that the RTA did not apply to the tenancy, and she was therefore not required to lodge the bond with the bond centre.
Similarly I find that a landlord is expected to correctly understand the law and failing to do so can not be a defence to her actions. The landlord has therefore committed an unlawful act.
The purpose of lodging a bond with the Bond Centre is to protect a tenant’s rights and the bond, which remains the tenant’s money unless a claim is made against it. In this case, the bond was returned by the landlord to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. I consider a low award of exemplary damages is sufficient for this breach. Breach of quiet enjoyment
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.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims the landlord breached her obligation to not interfere with their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises, by withdrawing permission for them to keep a cat.
The tenant said that on 14 July 2024 she asked Ms Mei if they could keep a cat at the premises. Ms Mei agreed. Ms Han’s request involved her personal circumstances which was a temporary situation. Ms Mei allowed the cat on a temporary basis and on a condition that the cat stay in Ms Han’s bedroom.
In February 2025 Ms Yao, who had by this time returned to the premises, withdrew permission for Ms Han to keep her cat at the premises.
Ms Yao explained that in February 2025 a new tenant moved in who had an allergy to cats. Discussions were held and permission to keep the cat was withdrawn.
The RTA does not allow a landlord to ban pets. Whether a pet may be kept depends on the type of pet and the circumstances of the tenancy.
I am not persuaded that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by telling the tenant that she could no longer keep a cat. The landlord initially dealt with the tenant’s request for a cat in good faith and allowed it on a conditional basis, which the tenant accepted. The situation remained fluid, and I am satisfied that the circumstances genuinely changed in that a new tenant with an allergy to cats moved in making the continuing keeping of a cat untenable. Negotiations continued and I am not persuaded these were not in good faith or not reasonable.
On 14 February 2025, the landlord gave the tenant 90 day’s notice to terminate the tenancy. This is a correct lawful notice under section 51(1) of the RTA.
The next day, 15 February 2025, Ms Han gave the landlord 21 day’s notice to end the tenancy. The tenancy then came to an end on 9 March 2025.
The tenant did not raise the notice as being retaliatory, and I was not presented with information today that despite the close connection in time between the issue with the cat and the tenancy ending, would persuade me the notice was retaliatory.
In the circumstances I cannot be satisfied the tenancy ended in any way other than lawfully.
The claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is not proved.
Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5234711 — net $427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages not providing written tenancy agreement	$200.00	Exemplary damages not providing written tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages failing to lodge bond	$200.00	Exemplary damages failing to lodge bond
Net award	$427.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$427.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $427.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] appeared for the tenants and [The landlord/s] appeared as the landlord. A Mandarin interpreter assisted both parties and the Tribunal with a full translation for the entire hearing.
The tenant’s application includes claims for failing to provide a written tenancy agreement, failing to deposit the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of the tenancy beginning, unlawfully terminating the tenancy, and breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by withdrawing permission for the tenant to keep a cat.
On 18 June 2025 I held a jurisdictional hearing for this claim in which I determined that this tenancy fell within the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”). Reasons were given in support of my determination.
Key dates concerning this tenancy are as follows: a. May 2023. The building of the house was completed. Ms Yao moved in. b. August 2023. Ms Yao moved to China for 13 months for medical treatment. c. 5 May 2024. Ms Han and Mr Wang’s tenancy began. Han Li Mei was Ms Yao’s agent. d. September 2024. Ms Yao returned to New Zealand and the same house. e. 14 February 2025. Ms Yao gave Ms Han and Mr Wang 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. f. 15 February 2025. Ms Han gave Ms Yao 21 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. Tenancy agreement not in writing
A landlord must ensure a tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims the landlord did not ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing or provide a copy to the tenant.
The tenant claims that the tenancy was arranged through the landlord’s representative Ms Mei and began on 5 May 2024. The parties arranged for Ms Mei to meet the tenants at the property and give them a written copy of the tenancy agreement on 5 May 2024. On this date however, Ms Mei said she was not well enough to meet at the property. Ms Mei then never followed up with a written tenancy agreement.
The tenant claims that following getting a cat in July 2024, she again requested a written tenancy agreement from Ms Mei, but again Ms Mei did not provided one.
In response Ms Yao explained that her intention was to have friends and family live at the property while she was also living there. She described the house as being intended to be “owner-occupied”. Under these circumstances the residents would be flatmates and written tenancy agreements would not be necessary under the RTA.
However, from August 2023 until September 2024 Ms Yao was living overseas. When Ms Han’s tenancy began, Ms Han was not aware of any of Ms Yao’s family members living in the house. During this time the house was not “owner- occupied” and no exception to the Residential Tenancies Act applies to this tenancy arrangement. Therefore, a written tenancy agreement was required and in not providing one, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I accept that Ms Yao did not want her activities to fall within the ambit of the RTA. However, her activities with regard to this specific tenancy did. The rights of a tenant are of equal importance to the rights of a landlord. By not providing a written tenancy agreement to the Ms Han, Ms Han’s protection under the law was compromised. I note that whereas it appears Ms Mei apparently said she would provide a written tenancy agreement, Ms Yao persists with her position that she shouldn’t be expected to provide one because the house was intended to be “owner-occupied”. This casts doubt on whether Ms Mei ever intended to provide a written tenancy agreement to Ms Han. A landlord must act within the law. This includes getting reliable legal advice and not simply seeking information from non-legal professionals that confirms the landlord’s beliefs.
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.
I determine that exemplary damages are warranted for this breach. I consider a low to moderate amount is sufficient given the intentions and factors raised in subsection 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA. Bond not lodged at bond centre
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 accepts that the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. Her reasons for not ensuring this happened are the same as her reasons for not providing a written tenancy agreement; that is, the landlord believed that the RTA did not apply to the tenancy, and she was therefore not required to lodge the bond with the bond centre.
Similarly I find that a landlord is expected to correctly understand the law and failing to do so can not be a defence to her actions. The landlord has therefore committed an unlawful act.
The purpose of lodging a bond with the Bond Centre is to protect a tenant’s rights and the bond, which remains the tenant’s money unless a claim is made against it. In this case, the bond was returned by the landlord to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. I consider a low award of exemplary damages is sufficient for this breach. Breach of quiet enjoyment
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.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims the landlord breached her obligation to not interfere with their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises, by withdrawing permission for them to keep a cat.
The tenant said that on 14 July 2024 she asked Ms Mei if they could keep a cat at the premises. Ms Mei agreed. Ms Han’s request involved her personal circumstances which was a temporary situation. Ms Mei allowed the cat on a temporary basis and on a condition that the cat stay in Ms Han’s bedroom.
In February 2025 Ms Yao, who had by this time returned to the premises, withdrew permission for Ms Han to keep her cat at the premises.
Ms Yao explained that in February 2025 a new tenant moved in who had an allergy to cats. Discussions were held and permission to keep the cat was withdrawn.
The RTA does not allow a landlord to ban pets. Whether a pet may be kept depends on the type of pet and the circumstances of the tenancy.
I am not persuaded that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by telling the tenant that she could no longer keep a cat. The landlord initially dealt with the tenant’s request for a cat in good faith and allowed it on a conditional basis, which the tenant accepted. The situation remained fluid, and I am satisfied that the circumstances genuinely changed in that a new tenant with an allergy to cats moved in making the continuing keeping of a cat untenable. Negotiations continued and I am not persuaded these were not in good faith or not reasonable.
On 14 February 2025, the landlord gave the tenant 90 day’s notice to terminate the tenancy. This is a correct lawful notice under section 51(1) of the RTA.
The next day, 15 February 2025, Ms Han gave the landlord 21 day’s notice to end the tenancy. The tenancy then came to an end on 9 March 2025.
The tenant did not raise the notice as being retaliatory, and I was not presented with information today that despite the close connection in time between the issue with the cat and the tenancy ending, would persuade me the notice was retaliatory.
In the circumstances I cannot be satisfied the tenancy ended in any way other than lawfully.
The claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is not proved.
Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234711 — Exemplary damages at 15 Simkin Avenue, Saint Johns, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234711 — Exemplary damages at 15 Simkin Avenue, Saint Johns, Auckland 1072

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