What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5285339 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 5285339?

Compensation: Breach of s137- carpar…: $1,680.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Keys - Carpark 9: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Moving Costs: $203.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5285339?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5285339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12273397-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5285339 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 5285339?

Compensation: Breach of s137- carpar…: $1,680.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Keys - Carpark 9: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Moving Costs: $203.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5285339?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5285339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12273397-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5285339 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5285339 — Exemplary damages | 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 5285339 — net $4,380.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS and insurance statement	$250.00	Failure to provide HHS and insurance statement
Compensation: Breach of s137- carparks	$1,680.00	Breach of s137- carparks
Exemplary damages: Breach of s137	$500.00	Breach of s137
moving costs	$203.00	moving costs
Compensation: keys - carpark 9	$720.00	keys - carpark 9
Exemplary damages: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment	$1,000.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,380.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,380.00

Claims and awards for application 5285339 — net $4,380.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS and insurance statement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide HHS and insurance statement

Compensation: Breach of s137- carparks

Amount: $1,680.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s137- carparks

Exemplary damages: Breach of s137

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s137

moving costs

Amount: $203.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: moving costs

Compensation: keys - carpark 9

Amount: $720.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: keys - carpark 9

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Cathy Johnson must pay [The tenant/s] $4,380.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenant’s claims for retaliatory notice and breach of s48 RTA are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 13 August 2025.
Ms Johnson confirmed at the beginning of the hearing that she was the landlord trading as Smart Property Solutions. The owner of the property Mr Bowles also attended the hearing.
The tenant has claimed: a. That the landlord failed to include Healthy Homes Statements and Insurance Statements in the tenancy agreement. b. That the tenancy agreement includes clauses that contravene, evade or contradict the provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) c. That the landlord breached an agreement to pay compensation for the lift being inaccessible at the beginning of the tenancy. d. That the landlord breached s48 RTA by failing to give proper notice of inspections. e. That the landlord breached s38 RTA by breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. f. That the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy given on the 11 June 2025 was retaliatory.
The tenant is claimed compensation and exemplary damages where appropriate.
The tenancy premises is a modern 2-bedroom, executive level apartment. It is on the fourth level (which is up 10 flights of steps). There is one lift in building. The tenancy premises comes with two carparks in a Japanese stacker. Each carpark is unlocked with its own key that only opens that carpark.
The tenant found the property after it was advertised online. The tenant says that the property was attractive to her particularly because of its location, the two carparks, security and ‘luxury’ fit out.
The tenant met Ms Johnson and viewed the apartment on at least one occasion before being accepted as the tenant.
Ms Johnson is the property manager for the owner, as the agency was not disclosed on the agreement, then Ms Johnson is the landlord. Ms Johnson confirmed at the hearing that if any order is made it should be made against her personally. She also confirmed that she trades as Smart Property Solutions.
The tenancy began on the 5 August 2024 and was fixed until 2 September this year. Did the landlord fail to include Healthy Homes Statements and Insurance

Statements in the tenancy agreement?

The tenancy agreement was sent to the tenant by the landlord on the 5 July 2024 for signing. The tenant signed the document that day and returned it to the landlord. The tenant says she never received a full tenancy agreement that was signed by the landlord or that contained the Healthy Homes Statements or Insurance Statements.
The landlord says that she signed the tenancy agreement once she got the tenant’s signed copy back from her on the 5 July 2024. The landlord says that at that stage she had not completed the Healthy Homes Statement because she was unsure what information she had to put in it and then she was waiting on information from the owner and body corporate. However, in the email providing the tenancy agreement, Ms Johnson states that the apartment is compliant.
Ms Johnson provided the Tribunal with a copy of the signature page of the tenancy agreement which shows her signature signed and dated as at 5 July 2024. Ms Johnson did not provide the full tenancy agreement. She did however provide another two page document - the front page is headed Tenancy Services Healthy Homes standards -current level of compliance and the second page is a Healthy Homes compliance certificate based on the apartment...(address redacted). The first page simply records that Ms Johnson agreed that the property is compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and that Ms Johnson will continue to ensure that it is compliant. The date of compliance is recorded as 2 August 2024.
The second page says that the Healthy Homes certificate was completed on the 15 July 2024.
The landlord’s written submissions says that she gave the Healthy Homes statement to the tenant on the 7 August and gave the full copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant on the 7 October 2024. The tenant disputes receiving either of these documents.
The landlord accepts that she did not complete an insurance statement.
Under s 13A(1CA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations. Under s13A (2) landlords must advise the tenant if the property is insured and what the excess is.
Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a healthy homes statement, or insurance statement in the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750.00 for failure to provide those statements.
Having heard the evidence I consider it more than likely that the landlord did not provide the tenant with the Healthy Homes Statement and the signed full tenancy agreement, I say this for reasons that include: a. The landlord was inconsistent in her evidence about the dates and times that she provided certain documents and the keys to the tenant. The landlord also accepted that she was relying on her memory of what had taken place, as there were no written records of when documents had been given to the tenant. I consider it more likely that the landlord has not provided the tenant with the documents, she thought she had. b. The tenant raised these issues some months ago when she filed her application, but it was not until the hearing that the landlord said she had given the tenant these documents on those dates. I consider that if the landlord had given the tenant the documents on those dates, the landlord would have submitted this information to the tribunal earlier. c. The landlord accepts that the insurance statement was not part of the tenancy agreement.
I award $250 exemplary damages for this breach, this level reflects that there two breaches (HHS and insurance) and that had the tenant had information about the body corporate insurance, it may have made resolution of the problems with the lift and the damaged light fitting easier to resolve. Did the tenancy agreement include clauses that the contravene or evade, or defeat the provisions in the RTA?
The tenant claims that the landlord included clauses in the addendum to the tenancy agreement that sought to evade defeat or contravened the provisions of the RTA.
Section 137 RTA provides: (1) No person shall— (a) enter into any transaction, or make any contract or arrangement, purporting to do, whether presently or at some future time or upon the happening of any event or contingency, anything that contravenes or will contravene any of the provisions of this Act; or (b) enter into any transaction or make any contract or arrangement, whether orally or in writing, or do anything, for the purpose of or having the effect of, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of this Act. (2) Requiring any person to enter into any transaction, or to make any contract or arrangement, in contravention of subsection (1) is hereby declared to be an unlawful act.
The tenant claims that the following provisions were a breach of s137: a. A clause in both the tenancy agreement and the addendum requiring the tenant to clean the carpets at the end of her tenancy. b. A clause requiring the tenant to allow a minimum of two viewings per week for prospective purchasers or new tenants, one of those viewings to be after hours. c. A clause requiring the tenant to pay all of the water rates. A clause restricting the use of the tenant’s carparks.
The Tribunal has previously determined that clauses that require a tenant to professionally clean carpets at the end of the tenancy are a breach of section 137 because they require the tenant to do more than the obligation in s40 (1)(e) RTA which is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Safer Home Limited v Rewai TT4292331,4294725, 28 April 2021. I am satisfied that the clause in the addendum required the tenant to professionally clean the carpets and that this was a breach of s137 RTA.
I am also satisfied that the clause requiring the tenant not to allow her guests to use the carpark was also a breach of s137. I say this because the tenant was paying for exclusive possession of two carparks. The carparks are part of the premises. Section 37 of the RTA requires landlords to give tenants vacant possession of premises (which include part of the premises). Section 38 RTA restricts the landlord from interfering with the tenant’s use or enjoyment of the premises. I consider that the clause that restricts the tenant’s guests from parking in a carpark that she is paying rent for is a contravention of both of those sections in the RTA.
I do not consider that the clauses regarding the water rates and the clauses about the viewings to be a contravention or restriction of the tenant’s rights under the RTA. The tenant has not been asked to pay for water, and s39 RTA provides that tenants pay for the water that they use. The tenant objected to the use of the word ‘all’ in the clause, but I do not consider that a contravention, because it could be interpreted as the tenant is liable for all the water that they use, and this is consistent with the RTA.
Likewise, s48 RTA requires the tenant to allow viewings at the end of the tenancy, the restriction being that these must be reasonable. I do not see any issue with the landlord and tenant agreeing at the beginning of the tenancy, as to what would be considered reasonable.
Having found that the landlord breached s 137 RTA, I award the tenant $1680 in compensation, being $80 per week for 21 weeks 1 for the tenant not being able to use the carparks for her guests. In coming to this amount, I have taken into account that the tenant would not have had a guest every day of every week,. I record that I have taken into account the award made later in this decision regarding the tenant’s lack of access to one carpark because she had no keys.
I also award the tenant $500.00 in exemplary damages for these two breaches. In awarding this amount I have taken into account that the Tribunal has determined that it is a serious matter to mislead tenants about their obligations and lead them to spend more of their income than they are required to. It is in the public interest that landlords do not pressure tenants to exceed their obligations.
The landlord said that this addendum was a standard form. The landlord is a professional property manager, this was a premier apartment, it was reasonable to expect that the landlord would review the addendum to make sure that the clauses were appropriate for this tenancy and complied with the RTA. Did the landlord breach an agreement to pay the tenant’s extra moving costs?
When the tenant notified the landlord about the lifts being out of service on the move in day, she also sent a text saying, “I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask the mover to go up 5 stairs plus that’s a substantial moving cost” to which the landlord replied “Hi [xxx] any extra charge movers to go up the stairs we will pay.” On the 6 August 2024 the landlord sent an email saying “I understand that there is additional costs for your movers to cart all your furniture up the stairs and I stand [by] my offer that the additional will be paid by the owner. Would you please send me your original cost estimate and the total cost so we can estimate the cost of the inconvenience and make payment to you.” Shortly after the tenant replied by email sending the landlord a copy of the email from her movers dated 16 July (setting out the prices and estimated length of time), and also a copy of the invoice. 1 52 weeks less 9 weeks with only one carpark (Compensated elsewhere in this decision) = 41 weeks so allow half or 21 weeks.
Despite sending these documents as requested the landlord did make payment for the movers as agreed. On the 21 August the landlord sent the tenant a response from the owners (this was not provided to the Tribunal), the landlord also said “you are not to compensate yourself with not paying rent”. On the 2 September the tenant asked if there was any update on the reimbursement for the lifts not working. By December it appeared that the landlord was now saying that it was the tenant’s movers that had broken the lift and a light fitting. When the tenant received the CCTV footage, she advised the landlord that those were not her movers and noted that the footage was dated the day before she moved in. The owner now accepts it was his movers that damaged the lifts on 1 August not the tenants. The owner says that there is still an ongoing dispute about whether the tenant’s movers broke a light fitting.
The landlord has now (in the last few days) paid $1795.00 to the tenant towards the moving cost. This is the cost of 5 extra men plus the stair costs plus GST, extrapolated from the total of moving invoice of the $3,536.25.
The tenant had claimed $1998.00. The tenant still wants payment of the extra $203.00 which she says is for the extra time for the two men that she originally paid for, which is recorded in a separate line in that invoice. The tenant accepts that she had paid for two men and a truck but says that it should have only taken 3-4 hours as highlighted in the estimate dated 16 July.
I am satisfied that Ms Johnson agreed to pay the tenant’s extra costs for moving on the 5 and 6 August. I consider that she was liable for the payments that she has now made to the tenant. I am satisfied that the two moving persons that the tenant had contracted had to work longer than was anticipated and this was as a result of the lift being out of order. I therefore award the tenant $203.00 as claimed. The keys.
It was accepted at the hearing that the tenant had no key to carpark 9 from the beginning of the tenancy until the 7 October 2025. There was confusion as to how this issue had arisen, but everyone agreed at the hearing that it appears that the tenant was only given a key to carpark 6 and not a key to carpark 9 at the beginning of the tenancy. This meant that the tenant could not use that carpark for that time.
A landlord is required to provide the tenant with keys to all areas that the tenant rents, and also must ensure that there is no impediment to the tenant taking possession of the property that she pays for.
I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of its obligations to provide keys to carpark 9 from the beginning of the tenancy to 7 October 2024
The tenant says that the value of the carpark is $100.00 per week as this was the amount her neighbours offered her to use the carpark later in the tenancy. The tenant says that on street parking outside the building can be purchased at $28 per day for 5 days (Saturday and Sunday are not charged), but notes that that parking is not secure.
The owner says that the parking is probably worth 30-40 per week. The landlord says it is probably about $70 per week.
I consider that the parking is an important part of this inner-city tenancy. The property is in an area where parking is very much in demand. I award the tenant $720.00 being $80 per week from the 5 August to the 6 October (9 weeks) for the lack of the access to the parking space.

Did the landlord breach s48 RTA by failing to give notice?

The tenant says that the landlord failed to give notice to conduct inspections. The tenant says that the landlord came to supervise an installation of a blind in the property on or about the 14 March 2025. The tenant says that whilst the landlord was there, she said that she would do an inspection.
The landlord disputes this, she says that whilst discussing matters with the tenant about the light and heating in the property, she realised that the heat pump filters may have not been changed. She says she went to change them and in doing so went to climb on the tenant’s dining room table. The tenant was upset and asked the landlord to leave which she did.
The tenant has not proven that the landlord failed to give notice to conduct inspections. The landlord was entitled to be at the premises with the tenant’s consent, there was no other evidence that shows that the landlord undertook an unplanned inspection that day. When the landlord went to look at the heat pump the tenant became upset and asked the landlord to leave which she did. This matter is addressed below as a breach of quiet enjoyment. Did the landlord beach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
In order to establish a breach of quiet enjoyment it must be more than a disagreement or a clash of personalities. In the case of Smith & Olmstead v Floris [1994] NZTT Auckland 1404/93 it was said: Quiet enjoyment effectively means the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Balanced against that however, one must bear in mind that the landlord/tenant relationship is between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type.
When the landlord and tenant relationship breaks down there is bound to be some upset and a sense of grievance on both sides. Quiet enjoyment is the breach by the landlord by doing something overt to interfere with the way the tenant uses or enjoys the premises.
The tenant says that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment by: a. asking the tenant for the names of her guests that stayed at her premises while she was away and then saying she would need to do ‘reference checks’ on the guests who stayed more than 7 days or add them to the tenancy. b. Making her sign an agreement that did not allow her guests or family to use the second carpark. c. Conducting inspections more regularly that every three months as she had stated in writing. d. Making unjustified allegations against the tenant, that she had broken the lift. e. Standing on a table whilst trying to look at a heat pump. f. Belittling the tenant. g. Reneging on payment she had agreed to (lifts). h. Taking more than 24 hours to respond to issues. i. Waiting six months to get a window cover in the lounge for safety and privacy.
I have already considered claims regarding the lifts, the second carpark and therefore I do not need to consider them as breaches of quiet enjoyment.
Having heard from both parties on all these claims, I am satisfied that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by: a. Attempting to stand on the tenant’s table on or about the 14 March when Ms Johnson was at the property for a property inspection. The tenant told me that Ms Johnson stood on her table, Ms Johnson said she went to stand on the able and the tenant stopped her. I consider it more likely that Ms Johnson ‘went to stand on the table rather than actually standing on the table, because in the tenant’s email to the landlord on the 14 March it records “To ask to stand at [on] my table as a Māori and in my tradition is an absolute sign of disrespect.” This email was written shortly after the event and records in the tenant’s words that the landlord asked to stand on the table not that the landlord stood on the table. I consider that this was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment as the landlord was only in the apartment to supervise the blind installation. The landlord admits that she took it upon herself to check the heat pump filters. In going to check the filters she went to stand on the table. The tenant is Māori, it is a breach of tikanga and respect to put your feet or other body parts on a table when food served. The tenant was upset and disrespected by the landlord trying to get up on the table. b. Requiring the tenant to provide names of anyone that was staying at the tenant’s apartment for over 7 days or when the tenant was away and then telling the tenant that they would need to be added to the tenancy agreement and that the landlord would need to conduct a reference check on them. The landlord says that this was necessary because the tenant was away from the apartment for periods of 7 days or more with her work, sometimes this work took the tenant out of the country. During these periods the tenant would have a family member or close friend stay at the property to look after her dog. The tenant is extremely private and safety conscious and as such there are only about 3-4 people, she would trust to do this. The tenant felt aggrieved having to give out these details, she says she was paying for a premier apartment and felt that she was not even allowed guests in her home without first running it past her landlord. Whilst I understand that in a body corporate it is desirable to know who is living in the apartment, I am satisfied that the landlord took this too far and breached the tenant’s comfort and privacy. I could understand if the landlord wanted to know the names of people, and maybe a contact phone number if the tenant was away, but there was no need for them to be added to the tenancy or for reference checks to be undertaken. c. Making accusations against the tenant which had no foundation or should have been checked beforehand. The owner’s movers broke the lifts on the 1 August 2024, yet in December 2024 the landlord accused the tenant of her movers breaking the lifts. A simple check of the date of the CCTV footage would have confirmed whose movers had broken the lifts.
I do not consider that the following were breaches of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. a. The tone of the emails. I consider that this was a communication style issue rather than a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. I also note that the landlord described the tenant as a very good tenant and a superstar in some of her correspondence. b. The lack of blinds- because the property did not have blinds when the tenant agrees to take the property. In other words, the tenant accepted the condition of the property, including the chattels in the property at the beginning of the tenancy. The privacy issue arose when the tenant’s friend who works in an adjacent building told the tenant that the workers of his builder could see directly into the tenant’s and other occupant’s homes. This was of concern to the tenant who values her privacy and security. Whilst the landlord installed the blinds after some time, I accept that the owner had to first consult with the Body Corporate and then get a contractor. I also do not consider that the glare was a breach of the quiet enjoyment, again because the blinds were not in the property at the beginning of the tenancy. c. The length of time that the landlord took to deal with each issue. This is because the length of time taken for the landlord to remedy a problem is part of the consideration as to whether there has been any breach at all.
Breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment 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 s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 s 109(3) 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.
I do not consider that the breaches of going to stand on the table and the accusations of breaking the lift to be harassment; but I do consider the landlord’s behaviour in seeking to know the names of the tenant’s guests so they could be added to the tenancy and so reference checks could be completed to be harassment where exemplary damages could and should be awarded.
The landlord has been a property manager for several years. She tells me that she manages many properties, and yet she could not give me a compelling reason as to why she would have to add the tenant’s guests to the tenancy agreement and complete reference checks on them. The landlord tells me that she needed to know the names of the guests because she needed to “thoroughly check any tenant or people staying there.”
The tenant tells me that she felt that she was paying for an executive level apartment, that she had explained to the landlord that she valued her privacy and security. The tenant says she that she believed that there was racist and class undertone to the requests (which was strenuously denied by the landlord) especially when the landlord had met her brother who is tattooed. The tenant said it was only after the landlord had actually met her brother and father, that the landlord said that she wanted to conduct reference checks on them and other guests, even though the landlord had been told by the tenant before the tenancy began that she travelled for work.
I award the tenant $1000.00 for this breach. I consider that this was a real imposition on the tenant’s privacy. When tenants are paying rent, it is their home, landlords should not seek to control who can or cannot visit the home or stay at the tenant’s home. A tenant is liable for the actions of their guests and therefore if the tenant invites someone to their home who then breaches the RTA then the tenant is liable. There is a public interest that property managers acting as landlords do not have unfettered power to screen who is or is not allowed to visit tenants or stay in their homes.
I also award the tenant $250 compensation for the breaches of her quiet enjoyment by the landlord going to stand on the tenant’s table. I consider that the landlord simply did not think rather than was acting with any nefarious intent in this instance. The landlord tells me that she was unaware that to offer to stand on a table was disrespectful to Māori. I accept that the landlord was genuine in her lack of awareness, but this does not excuse it. It is important that property managers have an understanding of how different cultures live in their home, so they can treat the tenant’s homes and belongings respectfully, but especially so with what is appropriate in tikanga Māori.

Was the notice given on the 11 June 2025 retaliatory?

On the 10 June that landlord wrote to the tenant to give notice of an inspection on the 23 July and to offer another 12-month term. The tenant replied and said that she would like to go on a periodic tenancy, and that due to the previous issue -standing on the table, the tenant would like to be present at the next inspection. The tenant then also asked when she was going to be paid for the extra moving costs she incurred because the lifts were broken.
The following day the landlord sent an email saying: “Just letting you know that I don’t think a periodic tenancy is being offered so I will work toward ending your tenancy at the end of September. Please consider this notice for your tenancy to end at the end of your fixed term.” (Own emphasis) The landlord then discusses the upcoming inspection and then mentions the incident where the landlord offered to clean the heat pump by standing on the table. The tenant immediately replied as said “Why is my tenancy being ended? I never said I wanted to end it?” (sic) The landlord replied: “I don’t have to give you a reason to end your tenancy at the end of your fixed term and I don’t need your permission to complete my inspection with or without you here.”
Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: (1) This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U). (2) The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a) that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b) that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. (3) If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. (4) If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in subsection (2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under subsection (3), of no effect.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00 (see s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenant claims that the notice was given to her after she raised complaints about the landlord going to stand on her table, and asking when she would be paid the additional moving costs that the landlord had agreed to pay.
The first element that the tribunal must be satisfied of when considering if a notice is retaliatory is does the notice comply with s51 RTA? Section 51 RTA only relates to termination notices given to periodic tenancies not to fixed term tenancies. Section 60A is the relevant provision relating to terminating fixed term tenancies. Section 51 sets out when landlords can give notice to tenants in periodic tenancies and the requirements of such notices (see s51(3) RTA).
As section 54 requires retaliatory notices to comply with section 51 then there is no ability for the Tribunal to declare notices to end fixed term tenancies given pursuant to s60A retaliatory, and therefore the tenant’s claim that the notice to end the tenancy given by the landlord on the 11 June was retaliatory must fail because the notice does not comply with section 51 RTA.
The tenant’s claim that the notice was retaliatory is not proven and is dismissed.
I record that this appears to be a gap in the legislation that effectively allows landlords to end a fixed term tenancy during the effective period under s60A as result of the tenant raising a legitimate complaint.
I consider that the landlord in this case was at least partly motivated by the tenant’s legitimate complaints in her email of the 10 June because the in the landlord’s preceding email the landlord had stated that the tenant was a good tenant, who paid the rent and looked after the apartment and he ‘agrees to offer you a fixed term tenancy” I accept that the landlord may have not wanted to offer a periodic tenancy as requested by the tenant, but the tenant could have been told that that was not on offer, not that the tenancy had ended. I consider on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenant’s email of the 10 June which raised questions about the inspection and when she was going to be paid the extra moving costs that prompted the landlord to terminate the tenancy. As I found that both of the issues raised in the tenant’s email of the 10 June 2025 were genuine complaints about breaches of the RTA or contract, had this been a periodic tenancy I would have found the landlord’s notice retaliatory. End of the tenancy.
The tenant confirmed at hearing that she has lost trust in the landlord and the owner, and therefore will be leaving this tenancy at the end of the fixed term on the 2 September 2025.
The tenant told the landlord that she will hand back the keys at 5pm on the 2 September.
The landlord wanted me to record that the tenant was a very good tenant who paid her rent on time and kept the property in a very good condition. The landlord says that she believes that the tenancy got off to a bad start with the lifts being broken and that this has lead to mistrust and a breakdown in communication. Name suppression and filing fee .
The tenant requests name suppression, as she has been successful in a lot of her claims, I grant her name suppression, and suppress the address of the premises. The tenant may provide this decision to any new landlords to explain her situation.
As the tenant has been partly successful, I also award the tenant the filing fee.

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 5285339 — net $4,380.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS and insurance statement	$250.00	Failure to provide HHS and insurance statement
Compensation: Breach of s137- carparks	$1,680.00	Breach of s137- carparks
Exemplary damages: Breach of s137	$500.00	Breach of s137
moving costs	$203.00	moving costs
Compensation: keys - carpark 9	$720.00	keys - carpark 9
Exemplary damages: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment	$1,000.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,380.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,380.00

Claims and awards for application 5285339 — net $4,380.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS and insurance statement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to provide HHS and insurance statement

Compensation: Breach of s137- carparks

Amount: $1,680.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s137- carparks

Exemplary damages: Breach of s137

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s137

moving costs

Amount: $203.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: moving costs

Compensation: keys - carpark 9

Amount: $720.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: keys - carpark 9

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Cathy Johnson must pay [The tenant/s] $4,380.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenant’s claims for retaliatory notice and breach of s48 RTA are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 13 August 2025.
Ms Johnson confirmed at the beginning of the hearing that she was the landlord trading as Smart Property Solutions. The owner of the property Mr Bowles also attended the hearing.
The tenant has claimed: a. That the landlord failed to include Healthy Homes Statements and Insurance Statements in the tenancy agreement. b. That the tenancy agreement includes clauses that contravene, evade or contradict the provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) c. That the landlord breached an agreement to pay compensation for the lift being inaccessible at the beginning of the tenancy. d. That the landlord breached s48 RTA by failing to give proper notice of inspections. e. That the landlord breached s38 RTA by breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. f. That the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy given on the 11 June 2025 was retaliatory.
The tenant is claimed compensation and exemplary damages where appropriate.
The tenancy premises is a modern 2-bedroom, executive level apartment. It is on the fourth level (which is up 10 flights of steps). There is one lift in building. The tenancy premises comes with two carparks in a Japanese stacker. Each carpark is unlocked with its own key that only opens that carpark.
The tenant found the property after it was advertised online. The tenant says that the property was attractive to her particularly because of its location, the two carparks, security and ‘luxury’ fit out.
The tenant met Ms Johnson and viewed the apartment on at least one occasion before being accepted as the tenant.
Ms Johnson is the property manager for the owner, as the agency was not disclosed on the agreement, then Ms Johnson is the landlord. Ms Johnson confirmed at the hearing that if any order is made it should be made against her personally. She also confirmed that she trades as Smart Property Solutions.
The tenancy began on the 5 August 2024 and was fixed until 2 September this year. Did the landlord fail to include Healthy Homes Statements and Insurance

Statements in the tenancy agreement?

The tenancy agreement was sent to the tenant by the landlord on the 5 July 2024 for signing. The tenant signed the document that day and returned it to the landlord. The tenant says she never received a full tenancy agreement that was signed by the landlord or that contained the Healthy Homes Statements or Insurance Statements.
The landlord says that she signed the tenancy agreement once she got the tenant’s signed copy back from her on the 5 July 2024. The landlord says that at that stage she had not completed the Healthy Homes Statement because she was unsure what information she had to put in it and then she was waiting on information from the owner and body corporate. However, in the email providing the tenancy agreement, Ms Johnson states that the apartment is compliant.
Ms Johnson provided the Tribunal with a copy of the signature page of the tenancy agreement which shows her signature signed and dated as at 5 July 2024. Ms Johnson did not provide the full tenancy agreement. She did however provide another two page document - the front page is headed Tenancy Services Healthy Homes standards -current level of compliance and the second page is a Healthy Homes compliance certificate based on the apartment...(address redacted). The first page simply records that Ms Johnson agreed that the property is compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and that Ms Johnson will continue to ensure that it is compliant. The date of compliance is recorded as 2 August 2024.
The second page says that the Healthy Homes certificate was completed on the 15 July 2024.
The landlord’s written submissions says that she gave the Healthy Homes statement to the tenant on the 7 August and gave the full copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant on the 7 October 2024. The tenant disputes receiving either of these documents.
The landlord accepts that she did not complete an insurance statement.
Under s 13A(1CA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations. Under s13A (2) landlords must advise the tenant if the property is insured and what the excess is.
Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a healthy homes statement, or insurance statement in the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750.00 for failure to provide those statements.
Having heard the evidence I consider it more than likely that the landlord did not provide the tenant with the Healthy Homes Statement and the signed full tenancy agreement, I say this for reasons that include: a. The landlord was inconsistent in her evidence about the dates and times that she provided certain documents and the keys to the tenant. The landlord also accepted that she was relying on her memory of what had taken place, as there were no written records of when documents had been given to the tenant. I consider it more likely that the landlord has not provided the tenant with the documents, she thought she had. b. The tenant raised these issues some months ago when she filed her application, but it was not until the hearing that the landlord said she had given the tenant these documents on those dates. I consider that if the landlord had given the tenant the documents on those dates, the landlord would have submitted this information to the tribunal earlier. c. The landlord accepts that the insurance statement was not part of the tenancy agreement.
I award $250 exemplary damages for this breach, this level reflects that there two breaches (HHS and insurance) and that had the tenant had information about the body corporate insurance, it may have made resolution of the problems with the lift and the damaged light fitting easier to resolve. Did the tenancy agreement include clauses that the contravene or evade, or defeat the provisions in the RTA?
The tenant claims that the landlord included clauses in the addendum to the tenancy agreement that sought to evade defeat or contravened the provisions of the RTA.
Section 137 RTA provides: (1) No person shall— (a) enter into any transaction, or make any contract or arrangement, purporting to do, whether presently or at some future time or upon the happening of any event or contingency, anything that contravenes or will contravene any of the provisions of this Act; or (b) enter into any transaction or make any contract or arrangement, whether orally or in writing, or do anything, for the purpose of or having the effect of, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of this Act. (2) Requiring any person to enter into any transaction, or to make any contract or arrangement, in contravention of subsection (1) is hereby declared to be an unlawful act.
The tenant claims that the following provisions were a breach of s137: a. A clause in both the tenancy agreement and the addendum requiring the tenant to clean the carpets at the end of her tenancy. b. A clause requiring the tenant to allow a minimum of two viewings per week for prospective purchasers or new tenants, one of those viewings to be after hours. c. A clause requiring the tenant to pay all of the water rates. A clause restricting the use of the tenant’s carparks.
The Tribunal has previously determined that clauses that require a tenant to professionally clean carpets at the end of the tenancy are a breach of section 137 because they require the tenant to do more than the obligation in s40 (1)(e) RTA which is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Safer Home Limited v Rewai TT4292331,4294725, 28 April 2021. I am satisfied that the clause in the addendum required the tenant to professionally clean the carpets and that this was a breach of s137 RTA.
I am also satisfied that the clause requiring the tenant not to allow her guests to use the carpark was also a breach of s137. I say this because the tenant was paying for exclusive possession of two carparks. The carparks are part of the premises. Section 37 of the RTA requires landlords to give tenants vacant possession of premises (which include part of the premises). Section 38 RTA restricts the landlord from interfering with the tenant’s use or enjoyment of the premises. I consider that the clause that restricts the tenant’s guests from parking in a carpark that she is paying rent for is a contravention of both of those sections in the RTA.
I do not consider that the clauses regarding the water rates and the clauses about the viewings to be a contravention or restriction of the tenant’s rights under the RTA. The tenant has not been asked to pay for water, and s39 RTA provides that tenants pay for the water that they use. The tenant objected to the use of the word ‘all’ in the clause, but I do not consider that a contravention, because it could be interpreted as the tenant is liable for all the water that they use, and this is consistent with the RTA.
Likewise, s48 RTA requires the tenant to allow viewings at the end of the tenancy, the restriction being that these must be reasonable. I do not see any issue with the landlord and tenant agreeing at the beginning of the tenancy, as to what would be considered reasonable.
Having found that the landlord breached s 137 RTA, I award the tenant $1680 in compensation, being $80 per week for 21 weeks 1 for the tenant not being able to use the carparks for her guests. In coming to this amount, I have taken into account that the tenant would not have had a guest every day of every week,. I record that I have taken into account the award made later in this decision regarding the tenant’s lack of access to one carpark because she had no keys.
I also award the tenant $500.00 in exemplary damages for these two breaches. In awarding this amount I have taken into account that the Tribunal has determined that it is a serious matter to mislead tenants about their obligations and lead them to spend more of their income than they are required to. It is in the public interest that landlords do not pressure tenants to exceed their obligations.
The landlord said that this addendum was a standard form. The landlord is a professional property manager, this was a premier apartment, it was reasonable to expect that the landlord would review the addendum to make sure that the clauses were appropriate for this tenancy and complied with the RTA. Did the landlord breach an agreement to pay the tenant’s extra moving costs?
When the tenant notified the landlord about the lifts being out of service on the move in day, she also sent a text saying, “I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask the mover to go up 5 stairs plus that’s a substantial moving cost” to which the landlord replied “Hi [xxx] any extra charge movers to go up the stairs we will pay.” On the 6 August 2024 the landlord sent an email saying “I understand that there is additional costs for your movers to cart all your furniture up the stairs and I stand [by] my offer that the additional will be paid by the owner. Would you please send me your original cost estimate and the total cost so we can estimate the cost of the inconvenience and make payment to you.” Shortly after the tenant replied by email sending the landlord a copy of the email from her movers dated 16 July (setting out the prices and estimated length of time), and also a copy of the invoice. 1 52 weeks less 9 weeks with only one carpark (Compensated elsewhere in this decision) = 41 weeks so allow half or 21 weeks.
Despite sending these documents as requested the landlord did make payment for the movers as agreed. On the 21 August the landlord sent the tenant a response from the owners (this was not provided to the Tribunal), the landlord also said “you are not to compensate yourself with not paying rent”. On the 2 September the tenant asked if there was any update on the reimbursement for the lifts not working. By December it appeared that the landlord was now saying that it was the tenant’s movers that had broken the lift and a light fitting. When the tenant received the CCTV footage, she advised the landlord that those were not her movers and noted that the footage was dated the day before she moved in. The owner now accepts it was his movers that damaged the lifts on 1 August not the tenants. The owner says that there is still an ongoing dispute about whether the tenant’s movers broke a light fitting.
The landlord has now (in the last few days) paid $1795.00 to the tenant towards the moving cost. This is the cost of 5 extra men plus the stair costs plus GST, extrapolated from the total of moving invoice of the $3,536.25.
The tenant had claimed $1998.00. The tenant still wants payment of the extra $203.00 which she says is for the extra time for the two men that she originally paid for, which is recorded in a separate line in that invoice. The tenant accepts that she had paid for two men and a truck but says that it should have only taken 3-4 hours as highlighted in the estimate dated 16 July.
I am satisfied that Ms Johnson agreed to pay the tenant’s extra costs for moving on the 5 and 6 August. I consider that she was liable for the payments that she has now made to the tenant. I am satisfied that the two moving persons that the tenant had contracted had to work longer than was anticipated and this was as a result of the lift being out of order. I therefore award the tenant $203.00 as claimed. The keys.
It was accepted at the hearing that the tenant had no key to carpark 9 from the beginning of the tenancy until the 7 October 2025. There was confusion as to how this issue had arisen, but everyone agreed at the hearing that it appears that the tenant was only given a key to carpark 6 and not a key to carpark 9 at the beginning of the tenancy. This meant that the tenant could not use that carpark for that time.
A landlord is required to provide the tenant with keys to all areas that the tenant rents, and also must ensure that there is no impediment to the tenant taking possession of the property that she pays for.
I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of its obligations to provide keys to carpark 9 from the beginning of the tenancy to 7 October 2024
The tenant says that the value of the carpark is $100.00 per week as this was the amount her neighbours offered her to use the carpark later in the tenancy. The tenant says that on street parking outside the building can be purchased at $28 per day for 5 days (Saturday and Sunday are not charged), but notes that that parking is not secure.
The owner says that the parking is probably worth 30-40 per week. The landlord says it is probably about $70 per week.
I consider that the parking is an important part of this inner-city tenancy. The property is in an area where parking is very much in demand. I award the tenant $720.00 being $80 per week from the 5 August to the 6 October (9 weeks) for the lack of the access to the parking space.

Did the landlord breach s48 RTA by failing to give notice?

The tenant says that the landlord failed to give notice to conduct inspections. The tenant says that the landlord came to supervise an installation of a blind in the property on or about the 14 March 2025. The tenant says that whilst the landlord was there, she said that she would do an inspection.
The landlord disputes this, she says that whilst discussing matters with the tenant about the light and heating in the property, she realised that the heat pump filters may have not been changed. She says she went to change them and in doing so went to climb on the tenant’s dining room table. The tenant was upset and asked the landlord to leave which she did.
The tenant has not proven that the landlord failed to give notice to conduct inspections. The landlord was entitled to be at the premises with the tenant’s consent, there was no other evidence that shows that the landlord undertook an unplanned inspection that day. When the landlord went to look at the heat pump the tenant became upset and asked the landlord to leave which she did. This matter is addressed below as a breach of quiet enjoyment. Did the landlord beach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
In order to establish a breach of quiet enjoyment it must be more than a disagreement or a clash of personalities. In the case of Smith & Olmstead v Floris [1994] NZTT Auckland 1404/93 it was said: Quiet enjoyment effectively means the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Balanced against that however, one must bear in mind that the landlord/tenant relationship is between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type.
When the landlord and tenant relationship breaks down there is bound to be some upset and a sense of grievance on both sides. Quiet enjoyment is the breach by the landlord by doing something overt to interfere with the way the tenant uses or enjoys the premises.
The tenant says that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment by: a. asking the tenant for the names of her guests that stayed at her premises while she was away and then saying she would need to do ‘reference checks’ on the guests who stayed more than 7 days or add them to the tenancy. b. Making her sign an agreement that did not allow her guests or family to use the second carpark. c. Conducting inspections more regularly that every three months as she had stated in writing. d. Making unjustified allegations against the tenant, that she had broken the lift. e. Standing on a table whilst trying to look at a heat pump. f. Belittling the tenant. g. Reneging on payment she had agreed to (lifts). h. Taking more than 24 hours to respond to issues. i. Waiting six months to get a window cover in the lounge for safety and privacy.
I have already considered claims regarding the lifts, the second carpark and therefore I do not need to consider them as breaches of quiet enjoyment.
Having heard from both parties on all these claims, I am satisfied that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by: a. Attempting to stand on the tenant’s table on or about the 14 March when Ms Johnson was at the property for a property inspection. The tenant told me that Ms Johnson stood on her table, Ms Johnson said she went to stand on the able and the tenant stopped her. I consider it more likely that Ms Johnson ‘went to stand on the table rather than actually standing on the table, because in the tenant’s email to the landlord on the 14 March it records “To ask to stand at [on] my table as a Māori and in my tradition is an absolute sign of disrespect.” This email was written shortly after the event and records in the tenant’s words that the landlord asked to stand on the table not that the landlord stood on the table. I consider that this was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment as the landlord was only in the apartment to supervise the blind installation. The landlord admits that she took it upon herself to check the heat pump filters. In going to check the filters she went to stand on the table. The tenant is Māori, it is a breach of tikanga and respect to put your feet or other body parts on a table when food served. The tenant was upset and disrespected by the landlord trying to get up on the table. b. Requiring the tenant to provide names of anyone that was staying at the tenant’s apartment for over 7 days or when the tenant was away and then telling the tenant that they would need to be added to the tenancy agreement and that the landlord would need to conduct a reference check on them. The landlord says that this was necessary because the tenant was away from the apartment for periods of 7 days or more with her work, sometimes this work took the tenant out of the country. During these periods the tenant would have a family member or close friend stay at the property to look after her dog. The tenant is extremely private and safety conscious and as such there are only about 3-4 people, she would trust to do this. The tenant felt aggrieved having to give out these details, she says she was paying for a premier apartment and felt that she was not even allowed guests in her home without first running it past her landlord. Whilst I understand that in a body corporate it is desirable to know who is living in the apartment, I am satisfied that the landlord took this too far and breached the tenant’s comfort and privacy. I could understand if the landlord wanted to know the names of people, and maybe a contact phone number if the tenant was away, but there was no need for them to be added to the tenancy or for reference checks to be undertaken. c. Making accusations against the tenant which had no foundation or should have been checked beforehand. The owner’s movers broke the lifts on the 1 August 2024, yet in December 2024 the landlord accused the tenant of her movers breaking the lifts. A simple check of the date of the CCTV footage would have confirmed whose movers had broken the lifts.
I do not consider that the following were breaches of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. a. The tone of the emails. I consider that this was a communication style issue rather than a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. I also note that the landlord described the tenant as a very good tenant and a superstar in some of her correspondence. b. The lack of blinds- because the property did not have blinds when the tenant agrees to take the property. In other words, the tenant accepted the condition of the property, including the chattels in the property at the beginning of the tenancy. The privacy issue arose when the tenant’s friend who works in an adjacent building told the tenant that the workers of his builder could see directly into the tenant’s and other occupant’s homes. This was of concern to the tenant who values her privacy and security. Whilst the landlord installed the blinds after some time, I accept that the owner had to first consult with the Body Corporate and then get a contractor. I also do not consider that the glare was a breach of the quiet enjoyment, again because the blinds were not in the property at the beginning of the tenancy. c. The length of time that the landlord took to deal with each issue. This is because the length of time taken for the landlord to remedy a problem is part of the consideration as to whether there has been any breach at all.
Breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment 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 s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 s 109(3) 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.
I do not consider that the breaches of going to stand on the table and the accusations of breaking the lift to be harassment; but I do consider the landlord’s behaviour in seeking to know the names of the tenant’s guests so they could be added to the tenancy and so reference checks could be completed to be harassment where exemplary damages could and should be awarded.
The landlord has been a property manager for several years. She tells me that she manages many properties, and yet she could not give me a compelling reason as to why she would have to add the tenant’s guests to the tenancy agreement and complete reference checks on them. The landlord tells me that she needed to know the names of the guests because she needed to “thoroughly check any tenant or people staying there.”
The tenant tells me that she felt that she was paying for an executive level apartment, that she had explained to the landlord that she valued her privacy and security. The tenant says she that she believed that there was racist and class undertone to the requests (which was strenuously denied by the landlord) especially when the landlord had met her brother who is tattooed. The tenant said it was only after the landlord had actually met her brother and father, that the landlord said that she wanted to conduct reference checks on them and other guests, even though the landlord had been told by the tenant before the tenancy began that she travelled for work.
I award the tenant $1000.00 for this breach. I consider that this was a real imposition on the tenant’s privacy. When tenants are paying rent, it is their home, landlords should not seek to control who can or cannot visit the home or stay at the tenant’s home. A tenant is liable for the actions of their guests and therefore if the tenant invites someone to their home who then breaches the RTA then the tenant is liable. There is a public interest that property managers acting as landlords do not have unfettered power to screen who is or is not allowed to visit tenants or stay in their homes.
I also award the tenant $250 compensation for the breaches of her quiet enjoyment by the landlord going to stand on the tenant’s table. I consider that the landlord simply did not think rather than was acting with any nefarious intent in this instance. The landlord tells me that she was unaware that to offer to stand on a table was disrespectful to Māori. I accept that the landlord was genuine in her lack of awareness, but this does not excuse it. It is important that property managers have an understanding of how different cultures live in their home, so they can treat the tenant’s homes and belongings respectfully, but especially so with what is appropriate in tikanga Māori.

Was the notice given on the 11 June 2025 retaliatory?

On the 10 June that landlord wrote to the tenant to give notice of an inspection on the 23 July and to offer another 12-month term. The tenant replied and said that she would like to go on a periodic tenancy, and that due to the previous issue -standing on the table, the tenant would like to be present at the next inspection. The tenant then also asked when she was going to be paid for the extra moving costs she incurred because the lifts were broken.
The following day the landlord sent an email saying: “Just letting you know that I don’t think a periodic tenancy is being offered so I will work toward ending your tenancy at the end of September. Please consider this notice for your tenancy to end at the end of your fixed term.” (Own emphasis) The landlord then discusses the upcoming inspection and then mentions the incident where the landlord offered to clean the heat pump by standing on the table. The tenant immediately replied as said “Why is my tenancy being ended? I never said I wanted to end it?” (sic) The landlord replied: “I don’t have to give you a reason to end your tenancy at the end of your fixed term and I don’t need your permission to complete my inspection with or without you here.”
Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: (1) This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U). (2) The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a) that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b) that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. (3) If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. (4) If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in subsection (2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under subsection (3), of no effect.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00 (see s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenant claims that the notice was given to her after she raised complaints about the landlord going to stand on her table, and asking when she would be paid the additional moving costs that the landlord had agreed to pay.
The first element that the tribunal must be satisfied of when considering if a notice is retaliatory is does the notice comply with s51 RTA? Section 51 RTA only relates to termination notices given to periodic tenancies not to fixed term tenancies. Section 60A is the relevant provision relating to terminating fixed term tenancies. Section 51 sets out when landlords can give notice to tenants in periodic tenancies and the requirements of such notices (see s51(3) RTA).
As section 54 requires retaliatory notices to comply with section 51 then there is no ability for the Tribunal to declare notices to end fixed term tenancies given pursuant to s60A retaliatory, and therefore the tenant’s claim that the notice to end the tenancy given by the landlord on the 11 June was retaliatory must fail because the notice does not comply with section 51 RTA.
The tenant’s claim that the notice was retaliatory is not proven and is dismissed.
I record that this appears to be a gap in the legislation that effectively allows landlords to end a fixed term tenancy during the effective period under s60A as result of the tenant raising a legitimate complaint.
I consider that the landlord in this case was at least partly motivated by the tenant’s legitimate complaints in her email of the 10 June because the in the landlord’s preceding email the landlord had stated that the tenant was a good tenant, who paid the rent and looked after the apartment and he ‘agrees to offer you a fixed term tenancy” I accept that the landlord may have not wanted to offer a periodic tenancy as requested by the tenant, but the tenant could have been told that that was not on offer, not that the tenancy had ended. I consider on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenant’s email of the 10 June which raised questions about the inspection and when she was going to be paid the extra moving costs that prompted the landlord to terminate the tenancy. As I found that both of the issues raised in the tenant’s email of the 10 June 2025 were genuine complaints about breaches of the RTA or contract, had this been a periodic tenancy I would have found the landlord’s notice retaliatory. End of the tenancy.
The tenant confirmed at hearing that she has lost trust in the landlord and the owner, and therefore will be leaving this tenancy at the end of the fixed term on the 2 September 2025.
The tenant told the landlord that she will hand back the keys at 5pm on the 2 September.
The landlord wanted me to record that the tenant was a very good tenant who paid her rent on time and kept the property in a very good condition. The landlord says that she believes that the tenancy got off to a bad start with the lifts being broken and that this has lead to mistrust and a breakdown in communication. Name suppression and filing fee .
The tenant requests name suppression, as she has been successful in a lot of her claims, I grant her name suppression, and suppress the address of the premises. The tenant may provide this decision to any new landlords to explain her situation.
As the tenant has been partly successful, I also award the tenant the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5285339 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5285339 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Statements in the tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord breach s48 RTA by failing to give notice?

Was the notice given on the 11 June 2025 retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Statements in the tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord breach s48 RTA by failing to give notice?

Was the notice given on the 11 June 2025 retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions