What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5237891 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and

How much money was awarded in case 5237891?

The reconciled net award was $870.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5237891?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5237891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12226029-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5237891 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and

How much money was awarded in case 5237891?

The reconciled net award was $870.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5237891?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5237891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12226029-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5237891 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5237891 — net $870.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$870.00	Bond refund
Net award	$870.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$870.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5237891 — net $870.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$870.00	Bond refund
Net award	$870.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$870.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $870.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the landlord.
This was a boarding house tenancy which the tenant says commenced on 1 March 2023 and was terminated by the landlord on or about 22 March 2023. Unfortunately, the tenant was unable to provide a copy of the boarding house tenancy agreement.
The tenant has filed an application seeking refund of the bond and exemplary damages against the landlord for failing to maintain the locks on his boarding room and failing to ensure that the boarding room was secure; unlawful entry; harassment; and terminating the tenancy without grounds.
I deal with each of the claims in turn. Burden of proof
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails and texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden. Where the other party does not attend the hearing, the allegations must still be proved to the civil standard.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
The tenant alleges that a bond of (he thinks) $1,160 was paid and refunded to the landlord. He further claims that he was forced through criminal threats of violence by the landlord to sign a bond refund form refunding the entire bond to the landlord for broken furniture and rent arrears.
I telephoned the Bond Centre during the hearing. The Bond Centre confirmed that a bond was lodged in the tenant’s name in respect of [[Tenancy address suppressed] on 8 March 2023 and was refunded to the landlord on 3 April 2023 under section 22A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 22A RTA, on receiving a one-party application for refund of the bond, the Bond Centre must notify the other party of the claim and invite the other party to indicate, within ten working days of being notified, whether or not they wish to contest the application. If the other party does not respond, the Bond Centre must either pay the bond in accordance with the application or decline to make a decision and advise the parties how to apply for a determination from the Tenancy Tribunal.
In this case, the landlord made a one-party application for the bond. The Bond Centre then released the bond to the landlord under section 22A, after the 10- working day period expired without a response from the tenant.
The information provided by the Bond Centre calls into question the reliability of the tenant’s evidence and recollections of being forced to sign a bond refund form. Certainly, a bond refund form signed by the tenant was not lodged with the Bond Centre. The tenant mentioned at the hearing, when asked about other claims, that during this tenancy in March 2023 his mental health was deteriorating and his functionality was not great. That factor may have affected his recollection and evidence about events at the time.
The tenant says that he possibly recalls receiving an email from the Bond Centre but was not able to respond as he was homeless at the time after being evicted from [Tenancy address suppressed]. He says he was unable to communicate by digital means.
In any event, the tenant says the landlord is not entitled to the full bond. He concedes that something may have been owed for rent arrears but he cannot be sure. Therefore, he seeks refund of the bond in full unless there is evidence of arrears.
If the landlord has a claim against the bond, I note that they have not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services and have not attended this hearing to explain their case and present any evidence.
Bond money belongs to a tenant. Section 22B(2) RTA provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Various claims for exemplary damages
The tenancy ended on or about 22 March 2023. The tenant seeks exemplary damages in respect of several alleged breaches of the RTA, which are unlawful acts. However, there is a limitation for bringing exemplary damages claims. Section 109(2) RTA provides that a party may not apply for exemplary damages later than: a. 12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— i. an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or ii. a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or b. 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act.
I am satisfied on the evidence presented by the tenant that his claims regarding allegations that the landlord failed to maintain the locks and ensure that the boarding room was secure; unlawful entry; harassment; and terminating the tenancy without grounds, are all allegations which, if proved, occurred prior to the tenancy ending on or about 22 March 2023. The tenant’s application for exemplary damages was lodged on 9 May 2025 more than 2 years after the tenancy ended and certainly more than 2 years after the date of commission of the alleged unlawful acts. Therefore, I cannot award exemplary damages in respect of any unlawful acts proved. The claims for exemplary damages must therefore be dismissed.
Compensation for any proved breaches of the RTA may be considered.

Did the landlord end the tenancy unlawfully?

The tenant claims that the landlord breached their obligations under section 60AA which provides a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant claims that the landlord’s property manager issued him with a notice on 22 March 2023 to immediately terminate the tenancy that day with only a few hours warning. He believes that there were no grounds for ending the tenancy. He says that the notice was blank as to the grounds for termination. However, he was unable to provide a copy of the notice.
The tenant gave evidence that the property manager entered his room unlawfully on 22 March 2023 after serving the termination notice which resulted in him grabbing her by the collar and yanking her out of the room and she fell over. He also gave evidence that others assisting the manager (possibly other employees of the landlord or other tenants) then assaulted him brutally and seriously. This has resulted in criminal charges which he advises are currently before the District Court. On the tenant’s evidence, there are allegations of assault and other criminal behaviour that each party alleges against the other.
Section 66U RTA provides that a landlord may terminate a boarding house tenancy immediately if the tenant has: caused, or threatened to cause, serious damage to the premises; or endangered, or threatened to endanger, people or property; or caused, or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants. Section 66U also sets out other circumstances in which the tenancy can be terminated on 48 hours’ notice and on 28 days’ notice.
The tenant was unable to provide a copy of the termination notice nor any other evidence to support his claim. Therefore, I cannot determine the grounds for the notice and whether or not it was validly given. It is possible, based on the tenant’s own evidence, that the physical altercation that occurred on 22 March 2023 was the reason for the notice, although he says that the notice was served before the altercation occurred. There is also other evidence, disclosed by the tenant, in which he says that he had to physically strike another worker employed by the landlord who he says unlawfully entered his boarding room on an earlier occasion. As detailed later in this decision, I am not satisfied on the evidence that the landlord’s worker unlawfully entered the tenant’s room. However, the tenant’s reaction to the alleged unlawful entry in striking the worker might also be a reason behind the termination notice.
After careful consideration, and bearing in mind that the tenant has the burden of proving the allegations, I am not satisfied that the claim is proved on the balance of probabilities with no other evidence to support the claim aside from the tenant’s own testimony. I also have concerns about the reliability of the tenant’s recollection of events (as mentioned in paragraph 12 above). Therefore, I dismiss the claim.

Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the locks?

Under section 66I(1)(b) a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and under section 66I(1)(d), ensure that there are sufficient locks or similar devices to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Breaching the maintenance and other obligations in 66I(1)(a)-(c) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 66(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 66I(b) is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 66K(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so
The tenant says that the door handle/locks to the two rooms he occupied during his tenancy were smashed three separate times and had to be repaired each time. He believes someone was targeting him and breaking into his room. While the landlord fixed the lock the first two times, there was a delay before the repairs were completed. On the third occasion, the tenant says that the property manager refused to repair the door lock at first but later did so. As a result he says that he spent three nights in a room that could not be locked and he felt very scared because of the bad characters living or accessing the boarding house. When a worker was sent to fix the lock after the third incident, the tenant says that he brandished his screwdriver towards the tenant in a threatening manner.
The tenants says that he reported the broken locks orally so cannot produce written evidence of the lock complaints and establish exactly when they were smashed and how long it took the landlord to fix them. He also does not have any other evidence such as photos of the broken locks.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved the claims on the balance of probabilities with no other evidence to support the claims aside from the tenant’s own testimony. In particular, there are no specific details about when the locks were reported and how long the landlord took to fix them, and whether it was completed in a reasonable time. Therefore, I dismiss the claims.

Did the landlord enter the boarding room unlawfully?

The tenant claims the landlord’s employees/contractors entered his boarding room unlawfully.
A landlord must not enter the tenant’s room during the tenancy except with the tenant’s consent, in an emergency, for providing services in the room, or after giving the required notice. See section 66R RTA. Breaching this obligation, or entering with the use of threat or force are unlawful acts for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be awarded. See section 66T(1)(a) and (b), and Schedule 1A RTA.
He says that one of the workers who was responsible for locks and other maintenance entered the room on two occasions using a master key. On the first occasion, the tenant says he heard him coming and removed him by barricading his door. The second time, the tenant says the worker came in naked except for underpants and smashed the tenant’s phone from his hand which he was using to record the incident. He says that he had to strike the worker in the face to remove him from the room.
He also says that the property manager entered his room unlawfully twice on the last day of the tenancy without knocking and by simply opening the door with a key without first asking to come inside.
The tenant says he has video footage of some of the unlawful entry incidents but it was not available for the hearing. He says that there were no witnesses to the incidents who could give supporting testimony.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved the claims on the balance of probabilities with no other evidence to support the claims aside from the tenant’s own testimony. Therefore, I dismiss the claims.

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

The tenant claims the landlord (including the manager and other landlord employees/contractors) and other tenants residing at the boarding hose at the relevant time harassed him. He filed an extensive written submission outlining instances of harassment including serious allegations of criminal offences perpetrated against him.
Every tenant of a boarding house is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of the premises, without interruption by the landlord or another tenant of the boarding house. A landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 66G(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be awarded. See section 66G(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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". See MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant made extensive claims in a written submission to the Tribunal that I will not repeat in detail here but they may be summarised as follows: a. Repeated break-ins of his room in which the door lock was smashed or broken by landlord employees/contractors or other tenants; b. Repeated instances of unlawful entry by the property manager and other landlord employees or contractors and other tenants; c. The landlord knowingly harbouring bad tenants and criminals and potential criminals creating an unsafe living environment. He made comments about other tenants appearance, demeanour and political beliefs which he says implies that they are of bad character, dangerous and he believes likely seeking his death or murder; d. The landlord endangering the tenant’s life by forcing him to live with murderers, potential murderers and violent offenders; e. Threatening, hostile and intimidating behaviour by other tenants preventing and discouraging the tenant from enjoying communal facilities such as the kitchen and the lounge for watching. The tenant describes the behaviour as silent intimidation tactics with other tenants grouping around the tenant when he tried to use these facilities but not verbalising their intimidation or threats; f. Claims of violent and serious assault and harm or threats of serious harm which injured the tenant significantly on the last day of the tenancy caused by other landlord employees, contractors or other tenants as instructed/incited by the property manager. The tenants says that he has made complaints to the police that have been ignored and which he is pursuing.
The tenant seeks maximum damages of $100,000 available for the harassment and harm caused to him.
The tenant’s allegations are broad with no specific dates and times of alleged incidents other than the events on the last day of the tenancy..
The tenant confirmed that there is no other supporting evidence available for the Tribunal such as testimony from any independent witnesses nor any security camera footage. The tenant also says that he did not raise his complaints about break-ins to his room or other tenants’ behaviour with the landlord or Police. However, he says he complained to Police about the assault and harm he suffered on the last day of the tenancy. No written complaint or police acknowledgment of a complaint was provided in evidence.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved the allegations of harassment on the balance of probabilities with no other evidence to support the claims aside from the tenant’s own testimony. Therefore, I dismiss the claims. Filing fee and suppression
The tenant has not succeeded with most of his claims. Therefore, I do not award the filing fee on the application.
The tenant did not seek suppression of his name and identifying details and the landlord was not present at the hearing to make any request about suppression. However, I consider that suppression orders for the tenant and the landlord should be determined.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
I consider that the bulk of the allegations (and those that would have a potentially negative effect on the landlord) have not been proved. Therefore, the information concerning those claims is not in the public interest and I consider that the landlord’s name and identifying details should be suppressed because publication would be a disproportionate result.
In relation to the tenant, he has not requested suppression. Given that he has not substantially succeeded in the proceedings, he would not be automatically entitled to suppression if he requested it. However, I am concerned that the claims he has made arise from a time when he has advised that his mental health was deteriorating, and this may be an ongoing concern. Also, the tenant says that some of the claims concerning allegations of assault are before the District Court criminal jurisdiction. I do not know whether any criminal proceedings are subject to suppression orders. To preserve any suppression orders in another jurisdiction, and given that the criminal proceedings between these parties may still be under consideration, I consider that the tenant’s name and identifying details should also be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5237891 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5237891 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord end the tenancy unlawfully?

Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the locks?

Did the landlord enter the boarding room unlawfully?

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord end the tenancy unlawfully?

Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the locks?

Did the landlord enter the boarding room unlawfully?

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions