What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272780 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 5272780?

Property Damage: $2,166.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,571.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272780?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12669248-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272780 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 5272780?

Property Damage: $2,166.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,571.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272780?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12669248-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

263 Maraetai Drive, Maraetai, Auckland 2018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5272780 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272780 — net $405.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 May 2025	$2,571.43		Rent arrears to 8 May 2025
Exemplary damages: Landlord acting to terminate		$2,166.00	Landlord acting to terminate
Total award	$2,571.43	$2,166.00
Net award	$405.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$405.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $405.43 immediately, as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
An earlier hearing was held on 29 August 2025 where the tenant attended by telephone as he had requested. The landlord was to attend in person at the [Event location suppressed] but did not do so. The hearing proceeded in the landlord’s absence.
On 2 September 2025 the landlord filed an application for rehearing on the grounds that he mistakenly believed that the court would advise if the hearing was to proceed following a request for adjournment from the tenant.
The application for rehearing was granted on the papers. The matter was reheard on 5 November 2025.
The landlord applied for rent arrears and compensation for a letting fee of $1,408.75.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages for the landlord giving notice to terminate the tenancy knowing he was not entitled to and for the landlord entering the premises without notice.
The tenancy commenced on 17 March 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 17 December 2025.
On 7 April 2025 the tenant, [The tenant/s], suffered a heart attack. He was in hospital for a period of six weeks. As a result of his health issue the tenant had difficulty paying his rent.
The tenant produced a text message from the landlord dated Thursday 10 April 2025. That messaged talked about unpaid rent and stated; “It is our granddaughters 1 st birthday on Saturday. We are having it at [redacted] and will be using the property to host our family. No money has been transferred to our account as I have just checked by happy to transfer back any money owed.”
At the hearing the landlord said that at the time that this text was sent they were trying to get the tenant out of the property. They did not fully understand the process required at that stage. According to the rent summary produced by the landlord, on that date the tenant had no rent arrears owing but had not paid the bond to the landlord.
The tenant took the message sent on 10 April 2025 to be 24 hours’ notice to vacate the premises. At the time the tenant was in hospital. After hearing from the landlord, it appears that the message was intended as notice for the tenant to leave.
The landlord produced a document recording communication (although not verbatim) between the parties and I note that the document records the following in relation to communication on 10 April 2025; “13.54pm = Sent message to [The tenant/s], stopped calling since Sunday the 6 th as the communication hasn’t been great since the move in date etc long message.
58pm = Received message from [The tenant/s], regarding family over from [overseas], needing more time to move.”
At the hearing the landlord said that the parties had a meeting on 20 April 2025 where it was agreed that the tenancy would end early, and the tenant had 30 days to vacate.
The landlord referred to an email sent on 23 April 2025 following the meeting. In that email it states; “When we spoke, we mutually agreed – and I really appreciated your openness – that it would be best for everyone if you and your family vacated the property. You mentioned needing 30 days to arrange this, and I was happy to support that timeline.”
At the same time the landlord served the tenant with a 14-day notice to remedy pursuant to section 56 in respect of the rent arrears owed. However, by 23 April 2025 the tenant had paid $5,000.00 for rent since the beginning of the tenancy (5 weeks earlier). On that date the tenant was only $428.57 in rent arrears. The notice served by the landlord stated the tenant was two weeks ($2,000.00) in arrears which was incorrect. The Act provides 1 that notice must accurately describe the breach.
The landlord sent a further text message to the tenant dated 6 May 2025 which states: “I’m just letting you know that I have emailed you both a copy of an email I sent today regarding the termination of your tenancy agreement, (we have submitted an application to the Tribunal) which you have till the 8 th of May to make payment for to avoid having to pay for additional cost, a default listed on your credit files and difficult obtaining future rental accommodation.”
The tenant said at the earlier hearing that the text message was followed by a phone call where the landlord advised that the tenant had until 8 May 2025 to vacate the premises.
The tenant claims the landlord has breached their obligations under s 60AA.
Under section 60AA a landlord must not give 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 $6,500.00. See s 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord gave the tenant 24 hours’ notice to vacate on 10 April 2025 and the communication was intended to get the tenant out of the property. Also, on 6 May 2025 the landlord suggested that an application for termination had been filed with the Tenancy Tribunal. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
While the parties had a meeting on 20 April 2025 and agreed in principle to end the fixed term tenancy early, no end date was specified other than in 30 days’ time. Although the actual end date was not stated, the agreement is sufficiently certain, as the end date can be calculated as 30 days from the date the agreement was made.
However, the tenant took the text message sent on 6 May 2025 to be a notice to terminate the tenancy. The landlord had given the tenant a 14-day breach notice on 23 April 2025 (which was not accurate) and said that the tenant had 1 Section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 not remedied the breach by 5 May 2025. The email sent on 6 May 2025 said that the tenant had until 8 May 2025 to make full payment which is not correct procedure.
The landlord served a 14-day notice for rent arrears. As the tenant did not pay within the 14 days the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for termination. Because the notice dated 23 April 2025 was not accurate in relation to the amount of arrears owed the Tribunal would have likely consider whether the tenant was misled or prejudiced by the error.
The landlord was not able to provide the tenant with two days’ notice to pay the outstanding rent arrears which he did in the email dated 6 May 2025. A 14-day notice had been served and not complied with so it was then that the landlord could apply to the Tribunal rather than require payment within two days.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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.
On the evidence produced I am satisfied that the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds. The landlord had not applied to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy and as this was a fixed term tenancy he could not give notice to end the tenancy, especially with 24 hours’ notice, regardless of how much rent was owed.
I accept that the parties had agreed to end the tenancy early but the communication from the landlord before the agreed end of the tenancy contained inaccuracies (in relation to rent arrears) and was constantly threatening applications to the Tribunal without any being submitted.
The tenant had moved to Auckland for family reasons. He was aware that he owed rent and had planned to access KiwiSaver or help from family members to pay the rent due to his health issues, which the landlord was aware of. The landlord acted to terminate the tenancy and therefore the tenant moved out on 8 May 2025.
As a result of the landlord acting to terminate the tenancy, which only lasted 7 weeks and 4 days, the tenant has moved away from Auckland and the family he had moved to be close to. He is still recovering from his health issues.
I am satisfied that the landlord had intended to give notice to the tenant for the tenancy to terminate knowing that this was a fixed term tenancy. This has had a significant impact on the tenant during a period when his health has not been optimal. It is in the public interest that landlords do not act in such ways even if rent arrears is owed. The correct way to deal with this was for the landlord to apply to the Tribunal for termination, which he did not do.
After taking account of the circumstances and the interests of the parties I consider that exemplary damages of $2,166.00 (1/3 of the maximum award) is reasonable.
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord attended at the premises on the morning of Sunday 6 April 2025 without notice to the tenant. This was the day before the tenant suffered a heart attack. The tenant had been at work on night shift and was in bed. The landlord knocked on the door, which was answered by the tenant’s nine-year-old daughter. The landlord wanted to talk with the tenant but was told that the tenant was asleep. At the time the tenant said he was also not feeling well.
The landlord should have given notice to the tenant that he was attending at the premises.
While the landlord attended at the premises, he did not enter. Therefore, the landlord did not commit an unlawful act and an award of exemplary damages is not available. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord applied for rent arrears. The tenant vacated the premises on 8 May 2025 believing that he was required to vacate the premises by that date. As this is the date that the tenant left the premises, I consider that it is reasonable for this to be the last date of the tenancy. The rent arrears are awarded to that date.
The landlord applied for compensation of $1,408.75 which is the letting fee paid by the landlord. I note that the Act 2 provides that no letting agent or other person may require a tenant to pay a letting fee”. While the landlord may be entitled to recover reasonable expenses in a situation where a tenant has asked to vacate a tenancy early, this situation was one where the parties agreed for the tenancy to end early. There is no evidence that when agreement was reached the parties also agreed to the landlord receiving compensation.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed. 2 Section 17A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had some success with their application I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties sought an order for name suppression and are entitled to an order as successful parties 3 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272780 — net $405.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 May 2025	$2,571.43		Rent arrears to 8 May 2025
Exemplary damages: Landlord acting to terminate		$2,166.00	Landlord acting to terminate
Total award	$2,571.43	$2,166.00
Net award	$405.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$405.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $405.43 immediately, as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
An earlier hearing was held on 29 August 2025 where the tenant attended by telephone as he had requested. The landlord was to attend in person at the [Event location suppressed] but did not do so. The hearing proceeded in the landlord’s absence.
On 2 September 2025 the landlord filed an application for rehearing on the grounds that he mistakenly believed that the court would advise if the hearing was to proceed following a request for adjournment from the tenant.
The application for rehearing was granted on the papers. The matter was reheard on 5 November 2025.
The landlord applied for rent arrears and compensation for a letting fee of $1,408.75.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages for the landlord giving notice to terminate the tenancy knowing he was not entitled to and for the landlord entering the premises without notice.
The tenancy commenced on 17 March 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 17 December 2025.
On 7 April 2025 the tenant, [The tenant/s], suffered a heart attack. He was in hospital for a period of six weeks. As a result of his health issue the tenant had difficulty paying his rent.
The tenant produced a text message from the landlord dated Thursday 10 April 2025. That messaged talked about unpaid rent and stated; “It is our granddaughters 1 st birthday on Saturday. We are having it at [redacted] and will be using the property to host our family. No money has been transferred to our account as I have just checked by happy to transfer back any money owed.”
At the hearing the landlord said that at the time that this text was sent they were trying to get the tenant out of the property. They did not fully understand the process required at that stage. According to the rent summary produced by the landlord, on that date the tenant had no rent arrears owing but had not paid the bond to the landlord.
The tenant took the message sent on 10 April 2025 to be 24 hours’ notice to vacate the premises. At the time the tenant was in hospital. After hearing from the landlord, it appears that the message was intended as notice for the tenant to leave.
The landlord produced a document recording communication (although not verbatim) between the parties and I note that the document records the following in relation to communication on 10 April 2025; “13.54pm = Sent message to [The tenant/s], stopped calling since Sunday the 6 th as the communication hasn’t been great since the move in date etc long message.
58pm = Received message from [The tenant/s], regarding family over from [overseas], needing more time to move.”
At the hearing the landlord said that the parties had a meeting on 20 April 2025 where it was agreed that the tenancy would end early, and the tenant had 30 days to vacate.
The landlord referred to an email sent on 23 April 2025 following the meeting. In that email it states; “When we spoke, we mutually agreed – and I really appreciated your openness – that it would be best for everyone if you and your family vacated the property. You mentioned needing 30 days to arrange this, and I was happy to support that timeline.”
At the same time the landlord served the tenant with a 14-day notice to remedy pursuant to section 56 in respect of the rent arrears owed. However, by 23 April 2025 the tenant had paid $5,000.00 for rent since the beginning of the tenancy (5 weeks earlier). On that date the tenant was only $428.57 in rent arrears. The notice served by the landlord stated the tenant was two weeks ($2,000.00) in arrears which was incorrect. The Act provides 1 that notice must accurately describe the breach.
The landlord sent a further text message to the tenant dated 6 May 2025 which states: “I’m just letting you know that I have emailed you both a copy of an email I sent today regarding the termination of your tenancy agreement, (we have submitted an application to the Tribunal) which you have till the 8 th of May to make payment for to avoid having to pay for additional cost, a default listed on your credit files and difficult obtaining future rental accommodation.”
The tenant said at the earlier hearing that the text message was followed by a phone call where the landlord advised that the tenant had until 8 May 2025 to vacate the premises.
The tenant claims the landlord has breached their obligations under s 60AA.
Under section 60AA a landlord must not give 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 $6,500.00. See s 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord gave the tenant 24 hours’ notice to vacate on 10 April 2025 and the communication was intended to get the tenant out of the property. Also, on 6 May 2025 the landlord suggested that an application for termination had been filed with the Tenancy Tribunal. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
While the parties had a meeting on 20 April 2025 and agreed in principle to end the fixed term tenancy early, no end date was specified other than in 30 days’ time. Although the actual end date was not stated, the agreement is sufficiently certain, as the end date can be calculated as 30 days from the date the agreement was made.
However, the tenant took the text message sent on 6 May 2025 to be a notice to terminate the tenancy. The landlord had given the tenant a 14-day breach notice on 23 April 2025 (which was not accurate) and said that the tenant had 1 Section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 not remedied the breach by 5 May 2025. The email sent on 6 May 2025 said that the tenant had until 8 May 2025 to make full payment which is not correct procedure.
The landlord served a 14-day notice for rent arrears. As the tenant did not pay within the 14 days the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for termination. Because the notice dated 23 April 2025 was not accurate in relation to the amount of arrears owed the Tribunal would have likely consider whether the tenant was misled or prejudiced by the error.
The landlord was not able to provide the tenant with two days’ notice to pay the outstanding rent arrears which he did in the email dated 6 May 2025. A 14-day notice had been served and not complied with so it was then that the landlord could apply to the Tribunal rather than require payment within two days.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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.
On the evidence produced I am satisfied that the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds. The landlord had not applied to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy and as this was a fixed term tenancy he could not give notice to end the tenancy, especially with 24 hours’ notice, regardless of how much rent was owed.
I accept that the parties had agreed to end the tenancy early but the communication from the landlord before the agreed end of the tenancy contained inaccuracies (in relation to rent arrears) and was constantly threatening applications to the Tribunal without any being submitted.
The tenant had moved to Auckland for family reasons. He was aware that he owed rent and had planned to access KiwiSaver or help from family members to pay the rent due to his health issues, which the landlord was aware of. The landlord acted to terminate the tenancy and therefore the tenant moved out on 8 May 2025.
As a result of the landlord acting to terminate the tenancy, which only lasted 7 weeks and 4 days, the tenant has moved away from Auckland and the family he had moved to be close to. He is still recovering from his health issues.
I am satisfied that the landlord had intended to give notice to the tenant for the tenancy to terminate knowing that this was a fixed term tenancy. This has had a significant impact on the tenant during a period when his health has not been optimal. It is in the public interest that landlords do not act in such ways even if rent arrears is owed. The correct way to deal with this was for the landlord to apply to the Tribunal for termination, which he did not do.
After taking account of the circumstances and the interests of the parties I consider that exemplary damages of $2,166.00 (1/3 of the maximum award) is reasonable.
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord attended at the premises on the morning of Sunday 6 April 2025 without notice to the tenant. This was the day before the tenant suffered a heart attack. The tenant had been at work on night shift and was in bed. The landlord knocked on the door, which was answered by the tenant’s nine-year-old daughter. The landlord wanted to talk with the tenant but was told that the tenant was asleep. At the time the tenant said he was also not feeling well.
The landlord should have given notice to the tenant that he was attending at the premises.
While the landlord attended at the premises, he did not enter. Therefore, the landlord did not commit an unlawful act and an award of exemplary damages is not available. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord applied for rent arrears. The tenant vacated the premises on 8 May 2025 believing that he was required to vacate the premises by that date. As this is the date that the tenant left the premises, I consider that it is reasonable for this to be the last date of the tenancy. The rent arrears are awarded to that date.
The landlord applied for compensation of $1,408.75 which is the letting fee paid by the landlord. I note that the Act 2 provides that no letting agent or other person may require a tenant to pay a letting fee”. While the landlord may be entitled to recover reasonable expenses in a situation where a tenant has asked to vacate a tenancy early, this situation was one where the parties agreed for the tenancy to end early. There is no evidence that when agreement was reached the parties also agreed to the landlord receiving compensation.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed. 2 Section 17A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had some success with their application I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties sought an order for name suppression and are entitled to an order as successful parties 3 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272780 — Rent arrears at 263 Maraetai Drive, Maraetai, Auckland 2018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272780 — Rent arrears at 263 Maraetai Drive, Maraetai, Auckland 2018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions