What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282823 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 5282823?

Compensation: Unlawful residential p…: $4,814.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Overpayment Of Rent For Part Of The…: $839.14 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282823?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12431330-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282823 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 5282823?

Compensation: Unlawful residential p…: $4,814.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Overpayment Of Rent For Part Of The…: $839.14 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282823?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12431330-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5282823 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5282823 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5282823 — net $5,680.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Unlawful residential premise	$4,814.00	Unlawful residential premise
Overpayment of rent for part of the period rent was waived at the end of the tenancy	$839.14	Overpayment of rent for part of the period rent was waived at the end of the tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,680.14
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,680.14

Claims and awards for application 5282823 — net $5,680.14 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Unlawful residential premise

Amount: $4,814.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Unlawful residential premise

Overpayment of rent for part of the period rent was waived at the end of the tenancy

Amount: $839.14
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Overpayment of rent for part of the period rent was waived at the end of the tenancy

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $5,680.14

Bond

Tenant $2,320.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $5,680.14

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord] must pay [The tenants] $5,680.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 September 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for reimbursement of overpayment of rent, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Section 36 of the RTA states “the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes”.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA states
The tenant claimed that the premises are unlawful residential premises as the property is held under Cross-Lease Title [suppressed], governed by Memorandum of Lease [suppressed], Clause 22 of the lease states: “The Lessee shall not without the prior consent in writing of the Lessors or a majority of the Lessors first had and obtained for that purpose on every occasion sublet or grant or in like manner part with the possession or occupation of the Flat...”.
The tenants gave evidence that since January 2024, they were subjected to ongoing interference and harassment by the adjoining owner, Mr Graeme Jujunovich [Flat number suppressed]. They say he repeatedly told them in person and through others that they were not supposed to be renting the property, and that the owners of [Flat number suppressed] were in breach of the cross-lease terms as he had not provided written consent to their tenancy.
The tenants produced several text messages from Mr Jujunovich challenging the legality of their tenancy on 5 January 2025 and the property manager confirmed he had a discussion about this with the female tenant in either late January or early February 2025.
The property manager says he assured the tenants that he had gained Mr Jujunovich’s consent to the tenancy, but when asked for proof of that consent he could not provide it as it had been given orally.
The tenants expressed concerns that after 18 months of telling the tenants their tenancy was unlawful, in May 2025, Mr Jujunovich signed a letter for the owners that confirms he was aware of the Tribunal proceeding, that he had brought up the sub-letting clause with the Property Manager in late 2023, not long after the tenancy commenced in September 2023, that he may have misread Memorandum of Lease [suppressed]. Clause 22 and he has had legal advice and he had been reading the lessee subletting clause incorrectly. The tenants say this letter was written well after the tenancy commenced and only after the tenants had vacated the property. Further, that it is contradictory to what Mr Jujunovich had been saying to the tenants since January 2024 and is inconsistent with Mr Jujunovich earlier conduct toward the tenants. The tenants say he was asked to change his stance by the owners and to prepare this letter in response to the tenants Tribunal claim.
The landlord says there were three tenancies before this one and that Mr Jujunovich has agreed to [Flat number suppressed] being rented. The property manager met with Mr Jujunovich before he started managing the property and Mr Jujunovich expressed that he does not want young people renting the unit and that he wants to be able to sign off on who the flat is rented to. There has been no issues with renting [Flat number suppressed] prior to this tenancy. Mr Jujunovich knew these tenants before they started renting [Flat number suppressed] as they had lived in the area, and he had no objection to either tenants or their cat.
The current owners purchased the property in May 2020. Mr Jujunovich notified them that the prior tenants were about to move out and the prior owners had owned the property for a long time. After purchase, the owners did some renovations and informed Mr Jujunovich that they intended to use it as a rental property. The owners told him that they had a reputable property management company managing the property and he did not object. The owners took that as being tacit consent from Mr Jujunovich. Additionally, Mr Jujunovich never asked for there to be written consent for [Flat number suppressed] to be rented out.
The owners read out a text message to the male owner from Mr Jujunovich dated 24 April 2025. In this text message, Mr Jujunovich acknowledges that he understands he cannot unreasonably object to [Flat number suppressed] being tenanted. It does not give consent to these tenants renting the premise. I note that the tenancy had ended on 13 April 2025.
The documents provided to the Tribunal confirmed that written consent from Mr Jujunovich was required to make the renting of [Flat number suppressed] lawful and there is no such written consent of any sort. These documents were provided to the owners when they purchased the property but were not highlighted to the owner in her solicitor’s report despite having been told that the owners intended to rent the premise.
A landlord is obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes (section 36 RTA).
The tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities the landlord has never sought written consent from Mr Jujunovich that would have given the tenants assurance they had the legal right to occupy the flat they were paying to rent.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven that more likely than not the premise they rent is an unlawful residential premise and that on the balance of probabilities the landlord knew this, but decided to take Mr Jujunovich’s alleged verbal consent and never required him to commit this to writing as is required by Memorandum of Lease [suppressed] Clause 22. Amount of rent to be refunded
Pursuant to section 78A (4) of the RTA where premises are found to be unlawful the Tribunal can consider reimbursing rent paid. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenants, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. See section 78A(4)(ii) RTA. A proportionate return of rent may be considered.
The Tribunal has considered the following special circumstances of this case.
The landlord claimed that the tenants had the benefit of living in the premises for just over 19 months, at an affordable rent and there is no persuasive evidence the tenants’ raised concerns about the tenancy being an unlawful residential tenancy until at earliest, 5 January 2025.
The Tribunal is obliged to take a strict approach when an unlawful premises is rented out, because of the risks involved. In this situation, the premise itself is not an unlawful residential premise because it does not comply with the building code or any other statutory requirements. It is an unlawful residential premise because the owner and the property manager failed to get written consent from Mr Jujunovich confirming that he consented to the landlord renting [Flat number suppressed] to the tenants, in accordance with clause 22 of the Memorandum of Lease [suppressed].
The owners confirmed they knew about this requirement and did not take steps to comply with it. They stated that they obtained verbal consent from Mr Jujunovich generally to renting out Flat after they purchased it The Property Manager also confirmed he was aware of this requirement and stated he also had obtained verbal consent from Mr Jujunovich to these specific tenants renting the premise out before he confirmed their tenancy.
Section 36 of the RTA is clear, “the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes”. Neither the owners nor the property manager has proven they took all reasonable steps to comply with the requirement clearly set out at clause 22 of the Memorandum of Lease [suppressed], that they must obtain Mr Jujunovich’s written consent to each separate tenancy.
It is of note that Mr Jujunovich has not given any evidence that he had consented to these tenants’ tenancy. His evidence does confirm that he has harassed the tenants from near the start of the tenancy about their tenancy being unlawful and that he raised the issue with the property manager in late 2023, not long after the tenancy commenced. Even after the tenants showed the property manager the text messages they received from Mr Jujunovich on 5 January 2025, the property manager and the owners took no steps to ensure their compliance with clause 22 of the Memorandum of Lease [suppressed].
The parties confirmed the tenants have paid $48,140.00 rent from the 2 September 2023 to 31 March 2025 and that the tenants were given rent relief for the last three weeks of their tenancy in recognition of the stress and inconvenience they had suffered at the hands of Mr Jujunovich.
Having carefully considered the special circumstances of this case the Tribunal orders a refund to the tenant of ten percent of the rent in the sum of $4,814.00. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment.
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) 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.
The tenants say that from January 2024, they were subjected to ongoing interference and harassment by the adjoining owner, Mr Graeme Jujunovich (owner and resident of [Flat number suppressed]). The gave evidence he repeatedly told them in person and through others that they were not supposed to be renting the property, and that the owners of [Flat number suppressed] were in breach of the cross-lease terms. This behaviour caused the tenants and their family significant stress and anxiety throughout the tenancy. The female tenant was looking after an ill parent and found Mr Jujunovich’s ongoing bullying and harassment particular difficult.
The examples the tenants gave of Mr Jujunovich’s behaviour was: dictating what time they could mow the lawns, what times they could access their garage, following them around the property making them feel they were under constant scrutiny, coming over to the property uninvited (both when the tenants were at home and not at home) and threatening that he was going to get them removed from the property as they had no consent from him to live there.
The tenants claim they took baking to Mr Jujunovich and took him to the hospital and to the chemist. They say these supports were normal things for them to in respect of their elders, but unfortunately, they endured continuous bullying from Mr Jujunovich that has shocked and distressed them and disturbed their privacy and quiet enjoyment.
The landlord says that it has asked Mr Jujunovich to talk to the tenants directly about minor issues but did not expect him to engage in the type of conduct that the tenants have complained of. The property manager says a fence got built in October 2023, and that cuts off Mr Jujunovich’s yard from the tenants’ yard. The property manager says that most of the issues Mr Jujunovich had he went to the property manager about. For example, the oil stain on the driveway, the grass dying underneath the garden furniture, the noise from the female tenant’s birthday party, entry to the garage under his flat and his preferred times for the tenants to mow their lawns. The property manager says he had spoken to the tenants about these concerns and asked them to comply with Mr Jujunovich’s preferences for times to enter the garage, mow the lawns and for them not to make loud noises by talking outside in late evening or early morning.
The tenants say they did not access the garage or mow the lawns at unreasonable times and had friends over for drinks once during their tenancy, just before Christmas 2024 for the female tenant’s birthday.
The tenants say they first raised this interference and rudeness by Mr Jujunovich with the property manager in October 2023 during a property inspection. The property manager denies this.
In January 2024 and March 2024 during two property inspections, the tenants say they raised the issue again with the property manager as Mr Jujunovich was escalating and engaging in threatening conduct. They say he was watching them, commenting on their visitors, dictating times of quietness and challenging their legal right to have possession of the premise. The property manager denies ever being made aware of this escalating conduct and says the tenants did not raise this at the property inspections. Further, the property manager says that when he asked the tenants how things were going with the neighbours, including Mr Jujunovich, the tenants said everything was alright.
The tenants says that in April to December 2024 Mr Jujunovich continued to question the legality of the tenants’ tenancy and kept harassing them by telling them they had no right to rent the premise. The tenants say they raised this issue again at each property inspection. The property manager denies this.
The tenants were issued a 90-day notice on 11 February 2025 to vacate the premise by 11 May 2025. The tenants asked for the termination date to be brought forward to 21 April 2025, due to the stress caused by Mr Jujunovich’s intimidation, bullying and harassment. The landlord accepted the early termination date and the landlord’s lawyer conveyed that the landlord would waive the last three weeks rent to ensure the tenants had a peaceful exit.
On 28 February 2025, the tenants issued a letter to Mr Jujunovich requesting he cease harassment and unwarranted interference as he was watching them all the time, confronting them about their outdoor spaces, watching and following them. The parties confirmed the property manager was notified of this letter the same day by email and that the tenants had told the property manager that they had scrubbed the driveway, removed the oil, laid the grass seed on their part of the property and they expected not to be harassed any further. The landlord says this was the first time the property manager was made aware of Mr Jujunovich’s bullying and harassment. He says that Mr Jujunovich started raising issues about repair and maintenance issues from January 2025 and then the issue about the oil stains outside [Flat number suppressed] garage and the loud noise just before Christmas when the tenants had guests over.
The property manager forwarded the notice to Mr Jujunovich and told him to stop harassing the tenants. The property manager did not follow up with the tenants to establish whether he has stopped harassing the tenants, but says Mr Jujunovich confirmed he would stop the conduct complained of.
The tenants say Mr Jujunovich did not stop harassing them. At this stage the tenants sought legal advice but did not inform the property manager the conduct had continued. At this time the tenants decided to move earlier than the date on the 90-day notice.
I find the evidence proves that Mr Jujunovich did bully and harass the tenants for the majority of their tenancy, but there is insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants raised this issue with the landlord prior to issuing Mr Jujunovich the 28 February 2025 letter asking him to cease and desist with his harassment of them. Due to the lack of evidence to prove this claim, the claim is dismissed. Overpayment of rent
The tenants claim the landlord agreed in writing to waive 3 weeks of rent from 1 April to 21 April 2024, a total of $1,800.00. This was also provided to the tenants in writing from the owners Lawyers, Loo & Koo.
The tenants paid full rent for this period, but only $960.86 of this rent was refunded to the tenants and they stated that the landlord has unlawfully withheld the remaining $839.14.
The landlord says the main property manager was away and so the owner had to deal with another property manager, who arranged for the owner to transfer the funds into the property management company’s trust account. When the main property manager returned to work, he found that there were damages he considered the tenants were responsible for. Therefore, the remaining rent was held until the insurance claims were processed and the damage claims were settled with the tenants. Emotional harm
The tenants have sought $6,000.00 compensation for the emotional harm they have suffered because of the harassment they have been subject to by the owner of the neighbouring [Flat number suppressed] and the cross lease owner of the land at [address suppressed].
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the landlord has identified, from which this claim can be based. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to award compensation or general damages because of the stress and inconvenience a party has suffered because of a specific breach of a provision set out in the tenancy agreement and/or of a statutory provision that relates to the tenancy. Therefore, this claim will be considered as part of the fact matrix of the claims the tenants have made for breach of quite enjoyment, unlawful and residential premises.
Because I cannot make any orders around any emotional harm suffered as a separate and distinct head of claim, this claim must be dismissed. Moving costs
The tenants have sought $4,000.00 compensation for their moving costs as they would not have moved but for the landlord’s breaches.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the landlord has identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders for moving cost, this claim must be dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Are the tenants’ responsible for the damage to the premises?
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord states the following damage was caused by the tenants during the tenancy: a. Damage to the timber floors in the lounge and in front of both bedrooms; b. Damage to the walls in the living area and some parts of the walls in two- bedroom .
The landlord has withdrawn its claim for damage to the lawn.
The landlord confirmed the house was renovated in 2020. Therefore, the paint and floor varnish is 5 years old.
The landlord also confirmed its insurance company has charged it three excess fees of $500.00 each for the three areas of floor damage and three excesses for the walls in the three rooms.
The landlord says there were no deep scratches on the floors at the start of the tenancy, only some light scratches. The landlord produced close up photographs of the scratches after the tenancy, but the entry photographs are too far away for me to see the condition of the floor. The photographs taken at a distance after the tenancy ended also do not clearly show the scratches complained of and look similar to the entry photographs produced.
The tenants deny damaging the floors intentionally or carelessly and say their movers had pads under the feet of the couch and under other heavy pieces of furniture.
I cannot be satisfied that the floor damage occurred during the tenancy or that the tenants should be held liable the three insurance excesses for repairing the floor scratches. These three excess claims are dismissed for lack of evidence to prove the losses on the balance of probabilities.
The parties agreed the marks on the walls were from fair wear and tear, but the tenants touched these marks up without consent and used a darker brown paint than what was on the walls. Therefore, the entire walls required repainting to get the colour uniform.
The tenants claimed the damage to the walls from them painting over scuff marks or pin holes was also not careless or intentional damage. I disagree. The tenants painted the walls with a colour that did not match the walls and left the walls with dark patches in the two bedrooms and the lounge. The landlord has had to have these walls sanded back and fully repainted as a result. This damage is classified as intentional damage, as the tenants intentionally made these blotches of dark paint on the wall intentionally and without the landlord’s consent.
Although the landlord has proven its claim for three excess fees of $500.00 each for the three rooms that required repainting, section 78A(3)(a)(ii) of the RTA states that unless the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it would be unjust not to make the order, the Tribunal must not order the tenant to pay to the landlord any other sum by way of damages or compensation. Therefore, the insurance excess claims for the wall repairs must be dismissed.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claims so its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct.
The tenants’ application for non-publication is ordered.
The landlord also applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings, but I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
The landlord’s application for non-publication is ordered.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5282823 — net $5,680.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Unlawful residential premise	$4,814.00	Unlawful residential premise
Overpayment of rent for part of the period rent was waived at the end of the tenancy	$839.14	Overpayment of rent for part of the period rent was waived at the end of the tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,680.14
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,680.14

Claims and awards for application 5282823 — net $5,680.14 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Unlawful residential premise

Amount: $4,814.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Unlawful residential premise

Overpayment of rent for part of the period rent was waived at the end of the tenancy

Amount: $839.14
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Overpayment of rent for part of the period rent was waived at the end of the tenancy

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $5,680.14

Bond

Tenant $2,320.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $5,680.14

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord] must pay [The tenants] $5,680.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 September 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for reimbursement of overpayment of rent, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Section 36 of the RTA states “the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes”.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA states
The tenant claimed that the premises are unlawful residential premises as the property is held under Cross-Lease Title [suppressed], governed by Memorandum of Lease [suppressed], Clause 22 of the lease states: “The Lessee shall not without the prior consent in writing of the Lessors or a majority of the Lessors first had and obtained for that purpose on every occasion sublet or grant or in like manner part with the possession or occupation of the Flat...”.
The tenants gave evidence that since January 2024, they were subjected to ongoing interference and harassment by the adjoining owner, Mr Graeme Jujunovich [Flat number suppressed]. They say he repeatedly told them in person and through others that they were not supposed to be renting the property, and that the owners of [Flat number suppressed] were in breach of the cross-lease terms as he had not provided written consent to their tenancy.
The tenants produced several text messages from Mr Jujunovich challenging the legality of their tenancy on 5 January 2025 and the property manager confirmed he had a discussion about this with the female tenant in either late January or early February 2025.
The property manager says he assured the tenants that he had gained Mr Jujunovich’s consent to the tenancy, but when asked for proof of that consent he could not provide it as it had been given orally.
The tenants expressed concerns that after 18 months of telling the tenants their tenancy was unlawful, in May 2025, Mr Jujunovich signed a letter for the owners that confirms he was aware of the Tribunal proceeding, that he had brought up the sub-letting clause with the Property Manager in late 2023, not long after the tenancy commenced in September 2023, that he may have misread Memorandum of Lease [suppressed]. Clause 22 and he has had legal advice and he had been reading the lessee subletting clause incorrectly. The tenants say this letter was written well after the tenancy commenced and only after the tenants had vacated the property. Further, that it is contradictory to what Mr Jujunovich had been saying to the tenants since January 2024 and is inconsistent with Mr Jujunovich earlier conduct toward the tenants. The tenants say he was asked to change his stance by the owners and to prepare this letter in response to the tenants Tribunal claim.
The landlord says there were three tenancies before this one and that Mr Jujunovich has agreed to [Flat number suppressed] being rented. The property manager met with Mr Jujunovich before he started managing the property and Mr Jujunovich expressed that he does not want young people renting the unit and that he wants to be able to sign off on who the flat is rented to. There has been no issues with renting [Flat number suppressed] prior to this tenancy. Mr Jujunovich knew these tenants before they started renting [Flat number suppressed] as they had lived in the area, and he had no objection to either tenants or their cat.
The current owners purchased the property in May 2020. Mr Jujunovich notified them that the prior tenants were about to move out and the prior owners had owned the property for a long time. After purchase, the owners did some renovations and informed Mr Jujunovich that they intended to use it as a rental property. The owners told him that they had a reputable property management company managing the property and he did not object. The owners took that as being tacit consent from Mr Jujunovich. Additionally, Mr Jujunovich never asked for there to be written consent for [Flat number suppressed] to be rented out.
The owners read out a text message to the male owner from Mr Jujunovich dated 24 April 2025. In this text message, Mr Jujunovich acknowledges that he understands he cannot unreasonably object to [Flat number suppressed] being tenanted. It does not give consent to these tenants renting the premise. I note that the tenancy had ended on 13 April 2025.
The documents provided to the Tribunal confirmed that written consent from Mr Jujunovich was required to make the renting of [Flat number suppressed] lawful and there is no such written consent of any sort. These documents were provided to the owners when they purchased the property but were not highlighted to the owner in her solicitor’s report despite having been told that the owners intended to rent the premise.
A landlord is obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes (section 36 RTA).
The tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities the landlord has never sought written consent from Mr Jujunovich that would have given the tenants assurance they had the legal right to occupy the flat they were paying to rent.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven that more likely than not the premise they rent is an unlawful residential premise and that on the balance of probabilities the landlord knew this, but decided to take Mr Jujunovich’s alleged verbal consent and never required him to commit this to writing as is required by Memorandum of Lease [suppressed] Clause 22. Amount of rent to be refunded
Pursuant to section 78A (4) of the RTA where premises are found to be unlawful the Tribunal can consider reimbursing rent paid. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenants, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. See section 78A(4)(ii) RTA. A proportionate return of rent may be considered.
The Tribunal has considered the following special circumstances of this case.
The landlord claimed that the tenants had the benefit of living in the premises for just over 19 months, at an affordable rent and there is no persuasive evidence the tenants’ raised concerns about the tenancy being an unlawful residential tenancy until at earliest, 5 January 2025.
The Tribunal is obliged to take a strict approach when an unlawful premises is rented out, because of the risks involved. In this situation, the premise itself is not an unlawful residential premise because it does not comply with the building code or any other statutory requirements. It is an unlawful residential premise because the owner and the property manager failed to get written consent from Mr Jujunovich confirming that he consented to the landlord renting [Flat number suppressed] to the tenants, in accordance with clause 22 of the Memorandum of Lease [suppressed].
The owners confirmed they knew about this requirement and did not take steps to comply with it. They stated that they obtained verbal consent from Mr Jujunovich generally to renting out Flat after they purchased it The Property Manager also confirmed he was aware of this requirement and stated he also had obtained verbal consent from Mr Jujunovich to these specific tenants renting the premise out before he confirmed their tenancy.
Section 36 of the RTA is clear, “the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes”. Neither the owners nor the property manager has proven they took all reasonable steps to comply with the requirement clearly set out at clause 22 of the Memorandum of Lease [suppressed], that they must obtain Mr Jujunovich’s written consent to each separate tenancy.
It is of note that Mr Jujunovich has not given any evidence that he had consented to these tenants’ tenancy. His evidence does confirm that he has harassed the tenants from near the start of the tenancy about their tenancy being unlawful and that he raised the issue with the property manager in late 2023, not long after the tenancy commenced. Even after the tenants showed the property manager the text messages they received from Mr Jujunovich on 5 January 2025, the property manager and the owners took no steps to ensure their compliance with clause 22 of the Memorandum of Lease [suppressed].
The parties confirmed the tenants have paid $48,140.00 rent from the 2 September 2023 to 31 March 2025 and that the tenants were given rent relief for the last three weeks of their tenancy in recognition of the stress and inconvenience they had suffered at the hands of Mr Jujunovich.
Having carefully considered the special circumstances of this case the Tribunal orders a refund to the tenant of ten percent of the rent in the sum of $4,814.00. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment.
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) 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.
The tenants say that from January 2024, they were subjected to ongoing interference and harassment by the adjoining owner, Mr Graeme Jujunovich (owner and resident of [Flat number suppressed]). The gave evidence he repeatedly told them in person and through others that they were not supposed to be renting the property, and that the owners of [Flat number suppressed] were in breach of the cross-lease terms. This behaviour caused the tenants and their family significant stress and anxiety throughout the tenancy. The female tenant was looking after an ill parent and found Mr Jujunovich’s ongoing bullying and harassment particular difficult.
The examples the tenants gave of Mr Jujunovich’s behaviour was: dictating what time they could mow the lawns, what times they could access their garage, following them around the property making them feel they were under constant scrutiny, coming over to the property uninvited (both when the tenants were at home and not at home) and threatening that he was going to get them removed from the property as they had no consent from him to live there.
The tenants claim they took baking to Mr Jujunovich and took him to the hospital and to the chemist. They say these supports were normal things for them to in respect of their elders, but unfortunately, they endured continuous bullying from Mr Jujunovich that has shocked and distressed them and disturbed their privacy and quiet enjoyment.
The landlord says that it has asked Mr Jujunovich to talk to the tenants directly about minor issues but did not expect him to engage in the type of conduct that the tenants have complained of. The property manager says a fence got built in October 2023, and that cuts off Mr Jujunovich’s yard from the tenants’ yard. The property manager says that most of the issues Mr Jujunovich had he went to the property manager about. For example, the oil stain on the driveway, the grass dying underneath the garden furniture, the noise from the female tenant’s birthday party, entry to the garage under his flat and his preferred times for the tenants to mow their lawns. The property manager says he had spoken to the tenants about these concerns and asked them to comply with Mr Jujunovich’s preferences for times to enter the garage, mow the lawns and for them not to make loud noises by talking outside in late evening or early morning.
The tenants say they did not access the garage or mow the lawns at unreasonable times and had friends over for drinks once during their tenancy, just before Christmas 2024 for the female tenant’s birthday.
The tenants say they first raised this interference and rudeness by Mr Jujunovich with the property manager in October 2023 during a property inspection. The property manager denies this.
In January 2024 and March 2024 during two property inspections, the tenants say they raised the issue again with the property manager as Mr Jujunovich was escalating and engaging in threatening conduct. They say he was watching them, commenting on their visitors, dictating times of quietness and challenging their legal right to have possession of the premise. The property manager denies ever being made aware of this escalating conduct and says the tenants did not raise this at the property inspections. Further, the property manager says that when he asked the tenants how things were going with the neighbours, including Mr Jujunovich, the tenants said everything was alright.
The tenants says that in April to December 2024 Mr Jujunovich continued to question the legality of the tenants’ tenancy and kept harassing them by telling them they had no right to rent the premise. The tenants say they raised this issue again at each property inspection. The property manager denies this.
The tenants were issued a 90-day notice on 11 February 2025 to vacate the premise by 11 May 2025. The tenants asked for the termination date to be brought forward to 21 April 2025, due to the stress caused by Mr Jujunovich’s intimidation, bullying and harassment. The landlord accepted the early termination date and the landlord’s lawyer conveyed that the landlord would waive the last three weeks rent to ensure the tenants had a peaceful exit.
On 28 February 2025, the tenants issued a letter to Mr Jujunovich requesting he cease harassment and unwarranted interference as he was watching them all the time, confronting them about their outdoor spaces, watching and following them. The parties confirmed the property manager was notified of this letter the same day by email and that the tenants had told the property manager that they had scrubbed the driveway, removed the oil, laid the grass seed on their part of the property and they expected not to be harassed any further. The landlord says this was the first time the property manager was made aware of Mr Jujunovich’s bullying and harassment. He says that Mr Jujunovich started raising issues about repair and maintenance issues from January 2025 and then the issue about the oil stains outside [Flat number suppressed] garage and the loud noise just before Christmas when the tenants had guests over.
The property manager forwarded the notice to Mr Jujunovich and told him to stop harassing the tenants. The property manager did not follow up with the tenants to establish whether he has stopped harassing the tenants, but says Mr Jujunovich confirmed he would stop the conduct complained of.
The tenants say Mr Jujunovich did not stop harassing them. At this stage the tenants sought legal advice but did not inform the property manager the conduct had continued. At this time the tenants decided to move earlier than the date on the 90-day notice.
I find the evidence proves that Mr Jujunovich did bully and harass the tenants for the majority of their tenancy, but there is insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants raised this issue with the landlord prior to issuing Mr Jujunovich the 28 February 2025 letter asking him to cease and desist with his harassment of them. Due to the lack of evidence to prove this claim, the claim is dismissed. Overpayment of rent
The tenants claim the landlord agreed in writing to waive 3 weeks of rent from 1 April to 21 April 2024, a total of $1,800.00. This was also provided to the tenants in writing from the owners Lawyers, Loo & Koo.
The tenants paid full rent for this period, but only $960.86 of this rent was refunded to the tenants and they stated that the landlord has unlawfully withheld the remaining $839.14.
The landlord says the main property manager was away and so the owner had to deal with another property manager, who arranged for the owner to transfer the funds into the property management company’s trust account. When the main property manager returned to work, he found that there were damages he considered the tenants were responsible for. Therefore, the remaining rent was held until the insurance claims were processed and the damage claims were settled with the tenants. Emotional harm
The tenants have sought $6,000.00 compensation for the emotional harm they have suffered because of the harassment they have been subject to by the owner of the neighbouring [Flat number suppressed] and the cross lease owner of the land at [address suppressed].
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the landlord has identified, from which this claim can be based. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to award compensation or general damages because of the stress and inconvenience a party has suffered because of a specific breach of a provision set out in the tenancy agreement and/or of a statutory provision that relates to the tenancy. Therefore, this claim will be considered as part of the fact matrix of the claims the tenants have made for breach of quite enjoyment, unlawful and residential premises.
Because I cannot make any orders around any emotional harm suffered as a separate and distinct head of claim, this claim must be dismissed. Moving costs
The tenants have sought $4,000.00 compensation for their moving costs as they would not have moved but for the landlord’s breaches.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the landlord has identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders for moving cost, this claim must be dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Are the tenants’ responsible for the damage to the premises?
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord states the following damage was caused by the tenants during the tenancy: a. Damage to the timber floors in the lounge and in front of both bedrooms; b. Damage to the walls in the living area and some parts of the walls in two- bedroom .
The landlord has withdrawn its claim for damage to the lawn.
The landlord confirmed the house was renovated in 2020. Therefore, the paint and floor varnish is 5 years old.
The landlord also confirmed its insurance company has charged it three excess fees of $500.00 each for the three areas of floor damage and three excesses for the walls in the three rooms.
The landlord says there were no deep scratches on the floors at the start of the tenancy, only some light scratches. The landlord produced close up photographs of the scratches after the tenancy, but the entry photographs are too far away for me to see the condition of the floor. The photographs taken at a distance after the tenancy ended also do not clearly show the scratches complained of and look similar to the entry photographs produced.
The tenants deny damaging the floors intentionally or carelessly and say their movers had pads under the feet of the couch and under other heavy pieces of furniture.
I cannot be satisfied that the floor damage occurred during the tenancy or that the tenants should be held liable the three insurance excesses for repairing the floor scratches. These three excess claims are dismissed for lack of evidence to prove the losses on the balance of probabilities.
The parties agreed the marks on the walls were from fair wear and tear, but the tenants touched these marks up without consent and used a darker brown paint than what was on the walls. Therefore, the entire walls required repainting to get the colour uniform.
The tenants claimed the damage to the walls from them painting over scuff marks or pin holes was also not careless or intentional damage. I disagree. The tenants painted the walls with a colour that did not match the walls and left the walls with dark patches in the two bedrooms and the lounge. The landlord has had to have these walls sanded back and fully repainted as a result. This damage is classified as intentional damage, as the tenants intentionally made these blotches of dark paint on the wall intentionally and without the landlord’s consent.
Although the landlord has proven its claim for three excess fees of $500.00 each for the three rooms that required repainting, section 78A(3)(a)(ii) of the RTA states that unless the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it would be unjust not to make the order, the Tribunal must not order the tenant to pay to the landlord any other sum by way of damages or compensation. Therefore, the insurance excess claims for the wall repairs must be dismissed.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claims so its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct.
The tenants’ application for non-publication is ordered.
The landlord also applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings, but I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
The landlord’s application for non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282823 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282823 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions