What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5246614 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 5246614?

Compensation: Storage and moving cos…: $799.75 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246614?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246614?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12584862-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5246614 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 5246614?

Compensation: Storage and moving cos…: $799.75 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246614?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246614?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12584862-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Gazelle Avenue, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5246614 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5246614 — net $5,326.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Disposing of tenant's goods	$3,000.00	Disposing of tenant's goods
Compensation: Storage and moving costs	$799.75	Storage and moving costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,326.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,326.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 3 Gazelle Avenue, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626 is reduced and has ended officially as of 5 May 2025.
Darren Williams must pay [The tenant/s] $5,326.75 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 1 September 2025.
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term of 1 year starting 30 August 2024.
The tenant made an application for reduction of the fixed term tenancy, compensation and exemplary damages for harassment, breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry, unlawful interference with the tenant’s goods, unlawful seizure of property and threatening behaviour.
I outline the background between the parties first. Timeline of events
On 30 August 2024, the tenancy began with a weekly rent of $700.00 per week.
The landlord told the tenant to hold off on paying the bond. Accordingly, the bond was not paid to the landlord.
On 29 January 2025, the dishwasher stopped working. The landlord said that it might be due to food clogs but that he would check.
On 1 February 2025, the landlord inspected the dishwasher and said it was old. He ordered and installed a new dishwasher without mentioning any damage caused by the tenants.
On 16 March 2025, the landlord sent a note to the tenant saying that the rent would increase to $765.00 per week starting from May 2025.
The tenant explained that this was not allowed under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). After some going back and forth, the landlord agreed to delay the rent increase starting date to 30 August 2025.
On 12 April 2025 at around 2 am, the power tripped and sparked. The tenant left the premises for safety and informed the landlord about it in the morning. The landlord accused the tenant of malicious damage and made bizarre remarks that caused the tenant distress. The tenant fixed the electricity with advice from an electrician.
On 16 April 2025, the landlord claimed that the water bill was $83.00. The tenant paid and requested the invoice from the landlord. He responded with more strange comments, including one implying racial undertone.
On 17 April 2025, a garage panel came loose during strong winds. The landlord refused the take responsibility saying it was the neighbour’s issue.
On 26 April 2025, the landlord sent an image of a screw asking the tenant whether they had an explanation. The landlord demanded money and used derogatory language and threatened to remove the dishwasher without notice.
After 26 April 2025, the tenant reminded the landlord of the 24-hour entry rule. The landlord refused and continued sending derogatory and racially suggestive messages.
On 3 May 2025, the landlord entered the premises multiple times. The landlord threw the tenant’s belongings out and handed the tenant a handwritten bill and forcibly took the tenant’s $4,000.00 personal computer. At the hearing, the tenant provided photos of the bedding, clothes, appliances having been thrown out the house by the landlord. There was also a photo of the landlord taking the tenant’s desktop away. The tenant had reported the incident to the Police.
On 5 May 2025, the tenant rented a storage unit and began moving the belongings out from the premises due to safety concerns.
At the hearing, the landlord did not dispute the tenant’s narrative of events but wished to apologise and explained that he had mental health issues at the time. Reduction of the fixed-term tenancy
Due to the events above, on 28 April 2025, the tenant made an application to be released from the fixed-term tenancy.
The hearing was set for 3 June 2025, but the landlord had applied for an adjournment due to health reasons.
I granted the adjournment, but I made a preliminary decision to allow for the reduction of the fixed-term tenancy to 5 May 2025.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The tenant did not foresee that the landlord would be intrusive and take the tenant’s belongings.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. The tenant would be house bound to a premise where the landlord is unlawfully entering without notice.
The landlord would suffer hardship if the term was to be reduced. The landlord would lose out on weekly rent of $700.
In the circumstances, I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) RTA.
However, I do not find that any compensation is warranted for the landlord as the tenant’s unforeseen circumstances was caused by the landlord.
Therefore, I make my interim decision made on 3 June 2025 final. The tenancy is reduced and now has ended on 5 May 2025. Compensation and exemplary damage claims
I now consider the tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages. The applicable law and maximum exemplary damages are outlined below.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA. 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.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA. 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 RTA.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
For exemplary damages to be awarded, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the party has committed the unlawful act intentionally, and that it would be just to grant exemplary damages 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) RTA.
Having heard and seen the evidence presented, I find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages for the landlord breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and disposing of the tenant’s goods.
The landlord did not receive any bond so there is no failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
The landlord’s unlawful entry without the tenant’s consent is also established on the evidence, but I have factored that into account for the landlord’s unlawful act of seizing and disposing of the tenant’s goods.
I take into account the landlord’s mental health issues at the time. Although that is explains his bizarre acts, it does not do so to the extent of it completely excusing his actions. Mental health issues does not mean that he was not acting unintentionally. It was just his mental state at the time that made him act that way at that particular point.
The effect of the acts of the landlord had made the tenant fear for continued stay and had personal belongings thrown out through an extreme invasion of privacy. The perplexing messages and emails with reference to the tenant’s race were such that it amounted to harassment. There is public interest in denouncing the actions of the landlord.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,500.00 for exemplary damages for breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and $3,000.00 for disposing of the tenant’s goods. Reimbursement of storage costs and filing fee
Due to the behaviour of the landlord, the tenant had to move out urgently incurring storage and moving costs that could have been avoided if it was a planned move out in advance. I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant $799.75 for moving and storage costs.
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim, the landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5246614 — net $5,326.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Disposing of tenant's goods	$3,000.00	Disposing of tenant's goods
Compensation: Storage and moving costs	$799.75	Storage and moving costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,326.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,326.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 3 Gazelle Avenue, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626 is reduced and has ended officially as of 5 May 2025.
Darren Williams must pay [The tenant/s] $5,326.75 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 1 September 2025.
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term of 1 year starting 30 August 2024.
The tenant made an application for reduction of the fixed term tenancy, compensation and exemplary damages for harassment, breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry, unlawful interference with the tenant’s goods, unlawful seizure of property and threatening behaviour.
I outline the background between the parties first. Timeline of events
On 30 August 2024, the tenancy began with a weekly rent of $700.00 per week.
The landlord told the tenant to hold off on paying the bond. Accordingly, the bond was not paid to the landlord.
On 29 January 2025, the dishwasher stopped working. The landlord said that it might be due to food clogs but that he would check.
On 1 February 2025, the landlord inspected the dishwasher and said it was old. He ordered and installed a new dishwasher without mentioning any damage caused by the tenants.
On 16 March 2025, the landlord sent a note to the tenant saying that the rent would increase to $765.00 per week starting from May 2025.
The tenant explained that this was not allowed under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). After some going back and forth, the landlord agreed to delay the rent increase starting date to 30 August 2025.
On 12 April 2025 at around 2 am, the power tripped and sparked. The tenant left the premises for safety and informed the landlord about it in the morning. The landlord accused the tenant of malicious damage and made bizarre remarks that caused the tenant distress. The tenant fixed the electricity with advice from an electrician.
On 16 April 2025, the landlord claimed that the water bill was $83.00. The tenant paid and requested the invoice from the landlord. He responded with more strange comments, including one implying racial undertone.
On 17 April 2025, a garage panel came loose during strong winds. The landlord refused the take responsibility saying it was the neighbour’s issue.
On 26 April 2025, the landlord sent an image of a screw asking the tenant whether they had an explanation. The landlord demanded money and used derogatory language and threatened to remove the dishwasher without notice.
After 26 April 2025, the tenant reminded the landlord of the 24-hour entry rule. The landlord refused and continued sending derogatory and racially suggestive messages.
On 3 May 2025, the landlord entered the premises multiple times. The landlord threw the tenant’s belongings out and handed the tenant a handwritten bill and forcibly took the tenant’s $4,000.00 personal computer. At the hearing, the tenant provided photos of the bedding, clothes, appliances having been thrown out the house by the landlord. There was also a photo of the landlord taking the tenant’s desktop away. The tenant had reported the incident to the Police.
On 5 May 2025, the tenant rented a storage unit and began moving the belongings out from the premises due to safety concerns.
At the hearing, the landlord did not dispute the tenant’s narrative of events but wished to apologise and explained that he had mental health issues at the time. Reduction of the fixed-term tenancy
Due to the events above, on 28 April 2025, the tenant made an application to be released from the fixed-term tenancy.
The hearing was set for 3 June 2025, but the landlord had applied for an adjournment due to health reasons.
I granted the adjournment, but I made a preliminary decision to allow for the reduction of the fixed-term tenancy to 5 May 2025.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The tenant did not foresee that the landlord would be intrusive and take the tenant’s belongings.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. The tenant would be house bound to a premise where the landlord is unlawfully entering without notice.
The landlord would suffer hardship if the term was to be reduced. The landlord would lose out on weekly rent of $700.
In the circumstances, I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) RTA.
However, I do not find that any compensation is warranted for the landlord as the tenant’s unforeseen circumstances was caused by the landlord.
Therefore, I make my interim decision made on 3 June 2025 final. The tenancy is reduced and now has ended on 5 May 2025. Compensation and exemplary damage claims
I now consider the tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages. The applicable law and maximum exemplary damages are outlined below.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA. 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.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA. 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 RTA.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
For exemplary damages to be awarded, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the party has committed the unlawful act intentionally, and that it would be just to grant exemplary damages 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) RTA.
Having heard and seen the evidence presented, I find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages for the landlord breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and disposing of the tenant’s goods.
The landlord did not receive any bond so there is no failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
The landlord’s unlawful entry without the tenant’s consent is also established on the evidence, but I have factored that into account for the landlord’s unlawful act of seizing and disposing of the tenant’s goods.
I take into account the landlord’s mental health issues at the time. Although that is explains his bizarre acts, it does not do so to the extent of it completely excusing his actions. Mental health issues does not mean that he was not acting unintentionally. It was just his mental state at the time that made him act that way at that particular point.
The effect of the acts of the landlord had made the tenant fear for continued stay and had personal belongings thrown out through an extreme invasion of privacy. The perplexing messages and emails with reference to the tenant’s race were such that it amounted to harassment. There is public interest in denouncing the actions of the landlord.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,500.00 for exemplary damages for breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and $3,000.00 for disposing of the tenant’s goods. Reimbursement of storage costs and filing fee
Due to the behaviour of the landlord, the tenant had to move out urgently incurring storage and moving costs that could have been avoided if it was a planned move out in advance. I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant $799.75 for moving and storage costs.
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim, the landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246614 — Exemplary damages at 3 Gazelle Avenue, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246614 — Exemplary damages at 3 Gazelle Avenue, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

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