What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282545 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 5282545?

Breaches: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Consent: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Harassment: $2,640.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,418.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282545?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282545?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13679793-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282545 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 5282545?

Breaches: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Consent: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Harassment: $2,640.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,418.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282545?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282545?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13679793-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5282545 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5282545 — net $2,821.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 June 2025	$8,418.57		Rent arrears to 13 June 2025
consent		$600.00	consent
Exemplary damages section 13A		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages section 13A
breaches		$6,000.00	breaches
Exemplary damages section 38		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages section 38
harassment		$2,640.00	harassment
Total award	$8,418.57	$11,240.00
Net award		$2,821.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,821.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5282545 — net $2,821.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 June 2025	$8,418.57		Rent arrears to 13 June 2025
consent		$600.00	consent
Exemplary damages section 13A		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages section 13A
breaches		$6,000.00	breaches
Exemplary damages section 38		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages section 38
harassment		$2,640.00	harassment
Total award	$8,418.57	$11,240.00
Net award		$2,821.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,821.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Stephen Chiman Bhana and Jasu Mati Bhana as trustees of Ranolf Trust must pay [the tenant/s] $2,821.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application to recover 25% of collection agency recovery costs is withdrawn.
The landlord’s application for exemplary damages for harassment by the tenant is withdrawn.
The landlord’s application for compensation for painting work done by the tenant is withdrawn.
The landlord’s application to have another person declared a tenant is dismissed as is the application for a declaration that the tenant sub-let the premises.
The landlord’s application for exemplary damages for a failure to allow entry and for subletting is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged breach of section 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held in [Event location suppressed] on 2 April 2026. I heard 2 separate applications involving the same landlord but different tenants over 2 days.
I adjourned this application for the landlord to provide written submissions in reply. While I heard the application in full, I had to leave to catch a flight, and the landlord wanted to make further submissions. I issued a directions order on 4 April 2025 to allow the landlord more time to address the issue of an alleged failure to maintain the premises and to undertake repairs.
My directions stated that the landlord was to provide submissions by 17 April, the tenant’s counsel’s reply submissions by 24 April 2026. The hearing concluded on receipt of those submissions. I note here that the landlord was given approval to provide further submissions, not further evidence.
This application was referred back to the Tribunal for rehearing by Bergseng DCJ by consent 1 . Both landlords attended as did the tenant (by phone). Ms Herbert, counsel, represented the tenant.
For convenience, I will refer to the parties in the singular. Background
This tenancy began on 10 January 2025 and ended on 13 June 2025, so it lasted just 5 months.
Mr Bhana and his sister are trustees of the Ranolf Trust and are experienced landlords with multiple properties.
The landlord’s application was filed first. It was an application for termination, rent arrears and the bond. By the time of the hearing, the tenancy had ended so termination and possession orders were no longer sought.
The landlord raised other issues, some of which were withdrawn at the hearing and one of which I dismissed orally. That issue was whether another person was a tenant by virtue of him living at the premises as alleged by the landlord.
As there was no evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that another person was in fact a tenant, and no variation of the tenancy agreement, I explained why the landlord’s application to have him declared a tenant could not succeed.
Shortly before the tenancy ended, the tenant lodged her application. She seeks compensation and/or exemplary damages from the landlord for alleged breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities.
I have considered all the evidence placed before the Tribunal including the documentary and video evidence, even if I do not specifically refer to it and I have carefully considered the submissions of both parties. Issues
As I have noted, the landlord withdrew some claims. The remaining issues the Tribunal must determine are these: 1 See Ranolf Trust v XX (case citation suppressed) On the landlord’s application •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Was there another tenant who should be included as a party? Did the tenant sub-let the premises? •Did the tenant deny entry to the landlord for an inspection? On the tenant’s application •Did the landlord breach the requirements on section 13 RTA? •Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment? •Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises? •Did the landlord fail to maintain the locks? •Has the tenant proved claims for breaches of the landlord’s statutory responsibilities that amount to unlawful acts? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation and/or exemplary damages? Relevant statute law
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises, and a landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Section 13A RTA sets out what must be contained in a tenancy agreement.
Section 46 RTA provides that a landlord must provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Compensation and exemplary damages
In my order on the other application I heard involving this landlord I set out the legal considerations that apply when considering an award of compensation and exemplary damages.
I will set them out again, since this application concerns a different tenant.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
When there are multiple breaches of statutory responsibilities under the same section of the RTA only one award of exemplary damages can be made. For example, it the tenant proves breaches by the landlord failing to maintain the premises and failing to comply with the HHS (both of which are breaches of a landlord’s responsibilities under section 45 RTA) only one award of exemplary damages may be made, not separate awards for component breaches. The same applies for proven breaches of a landlord’s section 13A responsibilities. 2 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rent arrears of $8,418.57. I allow that claim by consent. Was there another tenant who should be included as a party? Did the tenant sub-let the premises?
I will address these issues together since they are inter-related.
The landlord alleges, but has not proved, that there was another tenant at the tenancy premises. A tenant is allowed to have people stay. There was no variation of the tenancy agreement, nor were any breach notices issued from which I might infer that another person became a tenant. There is no evidence that the tenant received any payments of rent from her sister and her sister’s partner nor from the person who did work for her. The tenant’s explanation that these people stayed from time to time is not sufficient to establish a tenancy with any of them.
This claim fails for lack of proof.

Did the tenant deny entry to the landlord for an inspection?

The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not turn up to a notified inspection on 6 June 2025 or to an inspection ordered by the Tribunal on 13 June 2025.
The tenant gave evidence that she arrived on time for the inspection. When the landlord did not turn up, she located Ms Bhana next door and tried to give her the keys. A verbal altercation ensured. I was able to view the video of the landlord’s behaviour towards a third party who intervened due to concerns about what was happening.
As there were safety concerns, the tenant (on advice) arranged for the keys to be returned to the landlord by a security firm. The landlord accepts the keys were returned on 13 June 2025 by the security contractor.
This claim fails for lack of proof. A disagreement about the return of keys does not constitute a refusal to allow entry for an inspection.
A landlord has a right to conduct an inspection provided proper notice is given. That does not require the tenant’s consent.
There is no proven breach by the tenant for the Tribunal to remedy or compensate. Has the tenant proved claims for breaches of the landlord’s statutory responsibilities that amount to unlawful acts?
The tenant’s documentary and oral evidence proves that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) – breaches of their section 45 RTA responsibilities.
Counsel provided a table setting out the repair issues and the duration of time they lasted for. Most of the repairs were not completed for the term of the tenancy. The issues are these: •There were electrical faults with power points in bedrooms and the laundry •There was mould due to leaking in the bathroom preventing the proper use of the shower. •The carpets were soiled and had an offensive odour •The lock on the sliding door was broken and could only lock from the outside. The back door top hinge was missing •There were missing or broken locks and handles on some of the windows •The kitchen cupboards and sink were not properly attached; there was a hole in the wall above the kitchen sink; the laundry taps were leaking •There were missing door handles on several internal doors •There were holes in ceilings, one in the lounge and one in the bathroom •There was significant rubbish outside, only some of which was removed in April 2026 •There was mould on the windows, in the shower, and in the bathroom •The gutters were blocked causing rain to overflow •The heat pump was dirty and did not work properly •The windows did not lock properly.
The tenant described the effects of these repair issues on her. The premises were mouldy, cold and damp, difficult to heat, and were horrible to live in. The children had to sleep in the lounge and could not play outside. The premises could not be properly secured.
Each breach identified by counsel has been referenced to the evidence relied on including text messages and photos.
The landlord’s main defence was that they attended to all repairs notified to them and that the tenant’s claims were made up, a bid to obtain compensation and to avoid paying rent.
The landlord has used the same defence in several cases before the Tribunal, each time rejected by the Tribunal 3 .
I do not accept the landlord’s defence at all. In my decision on the other tenant’s application which I heard the day before this one, I said: What I observed from the landlord’s behaviour (especially Mr Bhana, less so his sister) was a rambling attempt in almost forensic detail to avoid responsibility (or liability) that flew in the face of the evidence, photographic and documentary, before the Tribunal.
I regret to say that I did not find aspects of the landlord’s evidence credible or reliable. Mr Bhana said he completed some electrical and other repairs. I doubt that he did.
I find that the landlord failed to comply with their section 45 RTA responsibilities and to a significant extent.
The section 13A RTA breaches are also proved. The tenancy agreement is woefully inadequate. The agreement did not contain the information required by section 13A RTA such as a properly compliant HHS statement (section 13A(1CA) RTA) or an insurance statement (section 13A(2) RTA).
A general statement of compliance is not sufficient; each of the standards must be addressed.
The landlord insisted that the premises were HHS compliant. From the evidence the tenant produced I can conclude that the premises were not HHS compliant. They were draughty due to insecure window fittings. They were cold and damp. The gutters were blocked.
Because the tenancy agreement does not contain the necessary HHS information, I find it probable that the premises were not fully compliant with the HHS.
The tenant has proved that not all the window latches were secure. Section 46 RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain such locks ‘and other similar devices’ as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
The purpose of a lock it to ensure that premises are secure. Window latches are similar devices, designed to ensure that windows close securely.
The landlord’s failure to ensure that the window latches (being similar devices to a lock) were secure was a breach of their section 46 RTA responsibilities.
I also find that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment to an extent that amounted to harassment. The landlord (Jasu Bhana) filmed the tenant and her visitors and made a comment to the effect that she believed the 3 See Skipper and Tawhi v Bhana [2017] NZTT 4058492; Kaki v Bhana and Ranolf Trust [2017] NZTT 4081239; and Munro v Ranolf Trust [2017] NZTT 4071822/4065306 tenant had a gun. That was made on 31 May 2025 (so during the tenancy, which is relevant to a section 38 RTA breach). I was able to observe her behaviour and hear her comment from the video evidence.
The tenant was so concerned about the allegation that she made a police complaint (which I understand was after the first Tribunal hearing).
Ms Bhana said in evidence that she did not back away from her allegation; she still believed that the tenant had a firearm. She conceded she had no proof of that. Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation and/or exemplary damages?
The landlord’s section 13A, section 45, and section 46 RTA breaches are defined unlawful acts. I find that the landlord acted with intent. Previous Tribunal orders on other tenancies have set out clearly the nature of these breaches; the landlord was well aware of their statutory responsibilities and chose to continue to ignore them.
The landlord’s actions had an effect of the tenant; they were against the tenant’s interests; and, being non-compliant with statutory responsibilities, they were against the public interest.
As I earlier noted, multiple breaches of the same section of the Act do not attract multiple awards of exemplary damages.
I award the tenant exemplary damages at the higher end in this case. This is because the landlord knows from the many past Tribunal orders what their responsibilities are. There is a pattern of behaviour that is difficult to fathom. The Tribunal cannot restrain people from being landlords. But it can punish them for repeated or serious non-compliance.
The maximum amount for the section 45 RTA breaches is $7,200.00. I award the tenant $6,000.00. The maximum awards for the section 13A RTA breaches are between $750.00 and $900.00. I award the tenant $600.00 for these breaches. The maximum award for the section 46 RTA breach is $1,500.00. I award the tenant $1,000.00.
These awards mirror the awards I made to the other tenant where the same breaches were proved.
I addition I award the tenant exemplary damages for the landlord’s behaviour accusing her in public of having a firearm (Ms Bhana) and for the landlord’s threatening behaviour around the return of the key (Mr Bhana). Both events were recorded on video. For the unlawful act of harassment, I award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,000.00.
Unlike exemplary damages which are awarded to punish and to deter, compensation recognises loss. The tenant’s enjoyment of the tenancy was greatly affected by the landlord’s breaches. The premises were cold, draughty and mouldy; repairs were not done or not done promptly; and the tenant felt anxious and worried due to the unrepaired window latches which compromised her safety.
I am not attracted to a rent abatement as a form of compensation. Rent can only abate when premises are destroyed in whole or in part so as to become uninhabitable. That was not the case here.
Nor do I consider the application as filed to be an application for a market rent determination.
I believe that compensation should be awarded without reference to rent. Having regard to the factors outlined in Birch, I award the tenant compensation of $2,640.00 for her loss of enjoyment of the tenancy. This equates to about $120.00 compensation per week for the 22 weeks of the tenancy Filing fee reimbursement
I make no order reimbursing the filing fees the parties paid. Each has been successful. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenant.
After the deduction of the accepted amount of rent arrears from the amounts awarded to the tenant, the landlord will pay the tenant $2,821.43. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as her application is fully successful. The landlord might qualify for name suppression given their successful claim for rent arrears. However, section 95A RTA provides the Tribunal with a discretion not to grant name suppression when it considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct.
As I stated in my decision on the application by the other tenant against this landlord, I consider that it is in the public interest that the landlord be named. This is because of the past orders of the Tribunal addressing the same breaches as have been the subject of orders in this case, and other breaches.
This landlord continues to breach their responsibilities under the RTA with considerable detriment to tenants. Future tenants should be aware of this landlord’s behaviour and continuing non-compliance. Comment
I have delayed issuing this decision. The reason for that was to ensure that I gave the application independent and thorough consideration, separate from the other application I heard involving this landlord on which I issued a decision some weeks ago.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282545 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282545 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Did the tenant deny entry to the landlord for an inspection?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Did the tenant deny entry to the landlord for an inspection?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions