How much money was awarded in case 5235092?

Compensation: inability to use kitch…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: vacant possession at s…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: yard and grounds not c…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Infested: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Landlord'S Belongings: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $321.43 awarded to landlord; Start Of Tenancy: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5235092?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5235092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198079-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5235092?

Compensation: inability to use kitch…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: vacant possession at s…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: yard and grounds not c…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Infested: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Landlord'S Belongings: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $321.43 awarded to landlord; Start Of Tenancy: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5235092?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5235092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198079-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

100 Wayne Francis Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5235092 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5235092 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5235092 — net $7,455.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears calculated to 4 May 2025	$321.43		Rent arrears calculated to 4 May 2025
Exemplary damages: breach of section 18A and 23 RTA		$750.00	breach of section 18A and 23 RTA
Compensation: vacant possession at start of tenancy		$500.00	vacant possession at start of tenancy
Compensation: premises not reasonably clean and tidy at		$500.00	premises not reasonably clean and tidy at
start of tenancy		$500.00	vacant possession at start of tenancy
Compensation: inability to use kitchen (cockroach		$500.00	inability to use kitchen (cockroach
infested		$1,000.00	infested
Compensation: yard and grounds not cleared of		$3,000.00	yard and grounds not cleared of
landlord's belongings		$1,000.00	landlord's belongings
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$321.43	$7,777.00
Net award		$7,455.57
Bond		$3,375.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$7,455.57

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Manel Samarakoon, Janaka Attapathu must pay [The tenant/s] $7,455.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,375.00 ([Bond number suppressed]BN-00072239) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

The landlord’s claims presently filed herein are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The parties were on a fixed term which commenced on 8 March 2025 expiring on 8 March 2026.

The tenant vacated on 4 May 2025.

The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).

The landlord raised a cross-application on 24 April 2025 for the Tribunal’s attention on these matters: a) The tenants have submitted an application claiming reimbursement for certain invoices. However, when we arranged for our plumber to attend the property, the tenants refused access and opted to use their own plumber instead. b) Additionally, without obtaining proper approval, the tenants installed a cabin on the property. They have also connected electrical wiring from the main house to the cabin without certification or permission. This poses a serious health and safety risk. c) The tenants have now expressed a desire to vacate the property. However, they are currently bound by a fixed-term lease agreement. As per the terms of the contract, they remain liable for rent payments until a suitable replacement tenant is secured.

I first address the matters raised in the landlord’s cross-application. Reimbursement of costs or invoices

The tenant has not claimed reimbursement of costs or invoices. I therefore make no order in respect of this issue. Permission for the cabin placed on the property

The tenant placed a cabin at the front of the property. The landlord denies ever granting permission to the tenant to place a cabin on the property.

Having heard from the parties, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that they had requested for and were given permission by the landlord to place a cabin at the front of the property. The landlord’s permission was given verbally.

I find the tenant’s evidence to be more credible than the landlord’s. I accept the tenant’s evidence that they would not have taken up the tenancy had the landlord said no to their request for placement of a cabin while viewing the property in early February 2025.

I also note that in their cross application, the landlord stated that “without obtaining proper approval, the tenants installed a cabin on the property”. Proper approval here appears to refer to Council or other authorities’ or written approval formally stated on the tenancy agreement rather than the landlord’s actual permission which had been verbally given. I consider the landlord verbal permission given to the tenant to constitute “proper approval” for the placement of the cabin, despite the approval not formally recorded on the tenancy agreement.

Given that the tenant has already vacated on 4 May 2025 and since removed the cabin, no further orders are necessary on the issue of placement of the cabin.

Any further issues arising from the tenant’s placement of the cabin may be revisited by the landlord lodging vacated claims for compensation and damages, if any. For the avoidance of doubt, I have only dealt with the issue of whether permission/approval has been given by the landlord on the placement of the cabin on the property at this juncture. My finding that permission has been given on placement of the cabin does not prevent the landlord from filing further claims under sections 49A through 49E RTA subsequently.

Has the fixed term tenancy come to an end?

The landlord contend that the tenant remains liable for rent payments until a suitable replacement tenant is secured because the parties were on a fixed term tenancy for one year.

However, the landlord’s communication with the tenant indicates that they were prepared and willing to release the tenant prior to expiry of the fixed term. In response to the tenant’s notice to vacate the premises and end the tenancy on 4 May 2025, the landlord wrote on 11 April 2025: a. You have now claimed there are health-related issues with the home and have indicated you wish to leave early while also seeking compensation. If you believe the property is unsuitable for living, I expect that you vacate the property immediately for your own wellbeing. Continuing to reside in a home you claim is unsafe is inconsistent and difficult to accept as a genuine concern.... b. Given your stated dissatisfaction, we formally request that you vacate the property within a week from today’s date.

I consider that the landlord has duly accepted the tenant’s request for early release from the fixed term tenancy under the circumstances.

Pursuant to section 50(1)(d) RTA, the fixed term tenancy has been terminated by the tenant having surrendered the tenancy and delivered up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.

While the landlord had expected the tenant to vacate immediately or within a week, the tenant duly vacated on 4 May as per their notice. It would not have been feasible for the tenant to vacate immediately or within the week as requested by the landlord.

The tenant’s notice provided more than sufficient time for the landlord to find replacement tenants under the circumstances and it was harsh and unreasonable for the landlord to have sought their immediate vacation from the premises.

For those reasons, I consider that the tenancy had terminated under 50(1)(d) RTA and rent is only payable until 4 May 2025. As at that date, the rent is in arrears of $321.43 which sum is to be set off against the successful claims of the tenant, as set out in the table above.

I now address the tenant’s claims. Breaches of section 45 RTA on maintenance and cleanliness of the premises

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; and c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Further, section 37 RTA provides that the tenant shall have 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.

The premises had not been provided reasonably clean and tidy at start of tenancy. The landlord were still in the process of moving out at the same time (12 noon onwards) on the day that the tenant had contracted to move into the premises on 8 March 2025. The landlord’s belongings were still at the property at the material times. The tenant’s movers were already on site that the time.

The landlord failed to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the tenant at noon (12pm) on 8 March 2025.

The tenant was unable to use kitchen for a week due to cockroach infestation which occurred at the start of the premises. The landlord had duly organised pest controllers to attend the premises but the tenant has been inconvenienced by the being unable to use the kitchen during the first week of the tenancy

The yard and grounds were not cleared of landlord's belongings on the tenancy move-in date. While the landlord had organised the gardener to attend to their clearing prior to the tenancy commencing, the fact remains that the premises were not cleared of the landlord’s belongings and rubbish.

I award the tenant compensation for the landlord’s breaches of section 45 RTA as set out in the table above.

However, I decline to award exemplary damages because I am not satisfied that the landlord had acted intentionally in breach of section 45 RTA. Quiet enjoyment and harassment

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.

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) RTA 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 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the District Court held that there is no logical reason to doubt that harassment can (and should) extend to a single act of sufficient seriousness.

Sufficient seriousness has been found in a case before the tenancy tribunal where the landlord has carried out improper and illegal processes to enforce the tenant’s eviction from the premises. This was despite the landlord having earlier secured a possession order from the tenancy tribunal through lawful means, i.e., by an application to the tenancy tribunal. See Tie v Ashik Homes [2023] NZTT 4548053.

Here, the landlord breached the tenant’s privacy by engaging a private investigator to covertly observe them at the premises. Had the private investigator merely observed the tenant briefly from a public location such as from the road, the breach would have been less objectionable.

The landlord’s private investigator’s covert surveillance went as far as knocking on the door and engaging in false pretences that he was merely checking on the whereabouts of “former tenants” when in fact, the landlord had confirmed at the hearing that the landlord had been living at the premises (their own home) prior moving to Ponsonby; there were no “former tenants” at the premises!

The private investigator’s actions which infringed on the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and privacy have been documented in the private investigator’s report filed with the Tribunal.

I consider the covert surveillance undertaken on to tenant by the private investigator on the landlord’s direct instructions to amount to harassment.

Consequently, I find that the landlord have committed an unlawful act under section 38(3) RTA.

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.

Having regard to those factors, and the lack of remorse by the landlord on their actions in covert surveillance of the tenant, the public interest and effect of the unlawful act on the tenants, I award exemplary damages on the highest end of the scale against the landlord.

I also award compensation for breach of the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment as set out in the table above. Breach of section 18A and 23 RTA

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord required security other than a bond.

A landlord may not require a tenant to provide any form of security for the tenancy other than a bond or a guarantee. See section 18A(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 18A(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

[The tenant/s] also claims the landlord has required rent to be paid before the rent already paid has been used up.

A landlord must not require the payment of any rent before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already. Section 23(1)(b) 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. Section 23(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The amended tenancy agreement contains a clause that 2 weeks’ rent is required to be paid as a form of deposit over and above the week’s rent in advance payable under the tenancy agreement. The bond consists of 3 weeks’ rent. The first payment of $2,625 by the tenant to the landlord on 18 February has not been regarded as part of the bond but a form of “security deposit” required by the landlord.

I consider that the landlord has committed unlawful acts under sections 18A and/or 23 RTA when the landlord insisted on a further payment of $3,000 at the start of the tenancy on 8 March before the tenant were allowed to move in. This causes stress and inconvenience to the tenant; they had to obtain an urgent loan in order to satisfy the landlord’s unlawful demands which were in breach of sections 18A and/or 23 RTA.

Having regard to factors set out in section 109(3) RTA, I award exemplary damages of $750 against the landlord. Bond lodgement

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged 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 only lodged the bond on 23 April 2025, outside 23 working days from receipt of part of the bond on 18 February 2025. I do not accept the landlord’s explanation that she was unwell and that it was due to inadvertence.

The landlord is a lawyer who should be well acquainted with the law and requirement to lodge all or part of the bond promptly. I find the landlord have committed an unlawful act.

Having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest, I am satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages of $1,000 against the landlord. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The tenant are largely successful on their claims; I order suppression of their names and reimbursement of the filing fee in the tenant’s favour.

I also order the return of the tenant’s bond of $3,375.00The landlord has not lodged a counterclaim against the bond as required under section 22B RTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5235092 — net $7,455.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears calculated to 4 May 2025	$321.43		Rent arrears calculated to 4 May 2025
Exemplary damages: breach of section 18A and 23 RTA		$750.00	breach of section 18A and 23 RTA
Compensation: vacant possession at start of tenancy		$500.00	vacant possession at start of tenancy
Compensation: premises not reasonably clean and tidy at		$500.00	premises not reasonably clean and tidy at
start of tenancy		$500.00	vacant possession at start of tenancy
Compensation: inability to use kitchen (cockroach		$500.00	inability to use kitchen (cockroach
infested		$1,000.00	infested
Compensation: yard and grounds not cleared of		$3,000.00	yard and grounds not cleared of
landlord's belongings		$1,000.00	landlord's belongings
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$321.43	$7,777.00
Net award		$7,455.57
Bond		$3,375.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$7,455.57