What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287703 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the prior Order dated 17 March 2026. This Order corrects the

How much money was awarded in case 5287703?

Compensation: Breach of s21A of the…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide the…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Contact Deatils Not Sent To Bind Cen…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Days (30/11/2024 To 26/12/2024: $148.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287703?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287703?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13303811-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287703 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the prior Order dated 17 March 2026. This Order corrects the

How much money was awarded in case 5287703?

Compensation: Breach of s21A of the…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide the…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Contact Deatils Not Sent To Bind Cen…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Days (30/11/2024 To 26/12/2024: $148.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287703?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287703?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13303811-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287703 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287703 — net $1,478.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
days (30/11/2024 to 26/12/2024	$148.57		days (30/11/2024 to 26/12/2024
Compensation: Failure to provide the tenant withe		$200.00	Failure to provide the tenant withe
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$500.00	67. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages(one sixth of the maximum penalty available) because: a.
Compensation: Breach of s21A of the RTA- agents		$400.00	Breach of s21A of the RTA- agents
contact deatils not sent to Bind Centre within 10		$500.00	67. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages(one sixth of the maximum penalty available) because: a.
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$148.57	$1,627.00
Net award		$1,478.43
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,478.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287703 — net $1,478.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
days (30/11/2024 to 26/12/2024	$148.57		days (30/11/2024 to 26/12/2024
Compensation: Failure to provide the tenant withe		$200.00	Failure to provide the tenant withe
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$500.00	67. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages(one sixth of the maximum penalty available) because: a.
Compensation: Breach of s21A of the RTA- agents		$400.00	Breach of s21A of the RTA- agents
contact deatils not sent to Bind Centre within 10		$500.00	67. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages(one sixth of the maximum penalty available) because: a.
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$148.57	$1,627.00
Net award		$1,478.43
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,478.43

Order

This order replaces the prior Order dated 17 March 2026. This Order corrects the duplicate amounts awarded in that Order by removing the incorrect and duplicate award in Order 3. 1 All other details remain the same
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Young Access Investment Limited must pay [The tenants] $1,478.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord was represented by Mr Qian (the owner’s son) and Mr Zhou.
[Male tenant] represented the tenants.
The tenant made an application on 1 April 2025 for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, work orders, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross application on 16 June 2025 for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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. Some evidence referred to may be summarised or paraphrased. 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. Section 109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. Background
The tenancy commenced on 17 January 2020. At this time Shijin Yang owned the property and appointed Rentex Ltd as property manager. Rentex Ltd entered into a fixed term tenancy agreement with the tenants for a 12-month period, ended on 16 January 2021.
On 16 January 2022, the agreement was converted to a periodic tenancy. Barfoot and Thompson Ltd was the landlord’s agent at this time.
On 31 March 2022, Young Access Investment Ltd purchased the property. Jing Qian is the sole director and shareholder of this company.
Ms Qian resides in China. Pursuant to s16A of the RTA, Ms Qian has to ensure the company has a New Zealand based agent appointed to act on the company’s behalf. Initially, the company retained Barfoot and Thompson Ltd as its agent.
On 1 October 2023, Ms Qian appointed her friend, Michelle Li, as the company’s New Zealand based agent. Neither Ms Li, Ms Qian or the company informed the tenants of the change in agent. However, Barfoot and Thompson notified the tenants it no longer has the agency for the management of the property. It did not have the contact details for the newly appointed agent.
The tenancy relationship began to unravel a year after Ms Li’s appointment as agent, because the tenants had no confirmed contact details for her from Ms Qian, the company or Ms Li. The tenants tried to locate the landlord by going to the address listed as its address for service in the New Zealand Companies office records and Barfoot and Thompson tried to obtain contact details for the new agent.
The evidence shows the tenants tried extensively to communicate with Ms Li in mid to late 2024 but she did not respond until they sent her a text message on 12 November 2024.
The evidence also proves the lack of/poor communication between the landlord’s chosen agent and the tenants led to the issues that brought both parties to the Tribunal today.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord claims the tenants did not ever give it formal notice ending the tenancy and therefore the tenants are liable for full rent from 15 November 2024 to 28 April 2025, when the new tenant’s commenced their tenancy.
The landlord claims $680.00 per week from 15 November 2024 to 6 May 2025 (24 weeks), being $16,320.00.
There are a few issues with this claim, which are as follows: a. 15 November 2024 to 6 May 2025 is in fact 24 weeks and 4 days; b. The tenants have proven they paid full rent on 15 November 2024, which paid their rent to 29 November 2024; c. The Ray White ledger proves the new tenants moved into the premise on 29 April 2025, so the landlord is overclaiming the amount of rent arrears that may have been incurred by it; d. The tenants paid $40.00 per week for rental of the shed and surrounding land from 27 December 2024 to 21 August 2025, and this income has not been deducted from the amount the landlord claims is owed; e. The landlord has not produced any rent records to support its claim; f. The landlord produced an email from the property owner dated 10 March 2025 that confirms the owners understanding the tenancy ended on 29 November 2024 and gives the tenant until 15 March 2025 to remove his belongings from the shed and surrounding land; g. The owner’ new property management company, Ray White, sent the tenant a 90-day notice, on 22 May 2025, terminating the tenants lease of the shed and surrounding area on 21 August 2025; and. h. The tenants vacated the shed and surrounding land by 21 August 2025, as confirmed in an email to the new property manager on 26 August 2025.
I am satisfied the tenancy for the house, shed and land combined ended on 29 November 2024, as recorded in the owner’s 10 March 2025 email. I am also satisfied that the tenant varied the agreement by proposing her rent the shed and surrounding land for $40.00 per week, from 30 November 2024 to 21 August 2025, and that he had the implied consent of the landlord because there was no evidence provided by the landlord that proves the landlord expressly informed the tenants they could not continue to use the shed and surrounding land after the 29 November 2024. Instead, the landlord remained silent and accepted the $40:00 per week rent for the shed and surrounding area (while it and the tenants tried to find new tenants for the property) until it wanted to start the reletting process and required vacant possession of the entire property.
Formal and lawful notice was given by Ray White on 22 May 2025, well after the new tenant had moved in on 29 April 2025. Ray White did so, because the new tenant was paying rent for the entire property, including the shed and surrounding land and the landlord’s prior methods of removing the tenants from occupation of the shed had not worked.
I find the tenancy ended on 29 April 2025 and the lease of the shed and surrounding land ended on 21 August 2025.
The landlord has failed to provide rent records which should prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant has produced bank records that rove full rent was paid until 29 November 2024 and $40.00 per week was paid for the lease of the shed and surrounding land from 27 December 2024 to 21 August 2025. The tenants have confirmed they continued to occupy the shed and surrounding land from 30 November 2024 to 26 December 2024 but did not pay the $40.00 per week for that period. I am satisfied that the tenants owe the landlord $148.57 rent arrears for that three week and 5-day period.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears beyond the $148.57 awarded is dismissed for the landlord’s failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenants?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 2
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 3 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 4 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 5 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 6 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching either of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premise
The tenants gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The tenants claimed the landlord failed to address the following repair and maintenance issues during the entire tenancy: a. Rotten walls and floors; b. Rotten roof structure; and 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 3 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 5 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. c. Weeds growing up through the floor.
The tenants stated they had never raised these issues with the new owner and could not produce any evidence to support these claims, so I dismiss them accordingly. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes’ standards?
[The tenants] claim the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 17 January 2020. The landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with all the healthy homes standards. The tenancy ended on 29 November 2024, well before compliance date. The tenants withdrew this claim during the hearing accordingly.

Did the landlord enter the premise unlawfully?

[The tenants] claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The definition of premise, in relation to the s48 of the RTA access provisions expressly excludes “land or facilities” (Refer to s48(7) of the RTA).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants claim on 6 April 2025, the landlord came on to the land surrounding the shed and took videos of the male tenant and his son starting to clear his belongings out of the shed to take to a storage facility. He claims that this constituted an unlawful entry by the owner.
The owner was permitted to enter the land and shed facility without notice or consent as it was exempt from the definition of premise by s48(7) of the RTA.
This claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premise?
[The tenants] claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be 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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined 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.
From these definitions, it seems that 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 (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) 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.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was: a. Issuing a 4-day termination notice the landlord issued to the tenant on 10 March 2023 to vacate the shed and surrounding land by 15 March 2025 and thereafter sending threatening communications about disposing of the tenants’ vehicles and other stored belongings if not removed by 15 March 2025; b. The landlord entering the land surrounding the shed on 23 March 2024, taking down a do not enter sign the tenants placed on the gate to the driveway that led to the shed and surrounding land and removing the gate altogether; and c. The incident on 6 April 2025 when the landlord entered the premise, issued the male tenant with two trespass notices, trespassing him and his wife from the property, taking videos and photographs of the male tenant and his son.
It is already established the tenancy ended on 29 April 2025 and that the tenants continued occupation of the shed and surrounding land was based on the landlord’s lack of communication about the tenants’ proposal they remain leasing the shed and surrounding land for $40:00 per week. The landlord’s representatives stated the landlord had communicated its firm disagreement with the proposal by email on 27 November 2024. The landlord could not produce this email and the tenants claim it does not exist.
The tenants proved they texted the landlord on 30 December 2024 and confirmed their understanding of the parties agreement they continue to lease the shed and surrounding area for 4$0:00 per week. The landlord never responded to this text message. This indicated tacit acceptance of the offer when combined with the landlord accepting payment of $40.00 per week from the tenants after the date it confirms the tenancy agreement ended by consent.
The tenants were entitled to be able to enjoy the use of the premise, but were no longer living in the premise post 5 October 2024 and the tenancy ended by consent on 29 November 2024. They had the right to occupy the shed and surrounding area from 30 November 2024 to 21 August 2025, when lawful notice was served. In this claim the word premise means the shed and surrounding land.
Section 2 of the RTA: premises includes (other than in relation to a boarding house tenancy, in which case the definition in section 66B applies)— (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land
Therefore, the tenants had the right to quiet enjoyment of the land and shed facility they were leasing from the landlord for $40:00 per week from the date of tacit acceptance of the offer to the date the lease was ended lawfully by the issuance of a 90-day termination notice.
The tenants have produced video, photographic and other documentary evidence that proves the landlord engaged in acts that fall into the definition of harassment. Specifically, when the director was videoing and harassing the tenants on 6 April 2025 and issuing unlawful and incomplete trespass notices, the ongoing threats of removal of the tenants belongings they were paying to store and the entering of the land surrounding the shed on 23 March 2024, taking down a do not enter sign the tenants placed on the gate to the driveway that led to the shed and surrounding land and removing the gate altogether removing any security the tenants had for their belongings.
I find the landlord has committed a series of unlawful acts.
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 section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages(one sixth of the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlord engaged in a pattern of behaviour it knew was causing the tenants trouble, worry and distress and that they were becoming worn down by the constant threats of eviction, trespass and disposal of their belongings; b. The tenants suffered distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise they were paying to safely store and enjoy their belongings, because of the landlord’s continual harassment of them ; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the distress, fear, worry, loss of amenity and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise they were paying to enjoy; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their quiet enjoyment obligations. Did the landlord breach its obligations to provide the tenants with the contact details of the new property manager?
[The tenants] claim the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
The landlord’s representatives confirmed the landlord’s sole director and shareholder is frequently out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days and as such has always had an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) RTA.
Section 16A(4) of the RTA confirms that a landlord who appoints an agent under this section must, immediately after appointing the agent,— (a) notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address, and address for service; and (b) if a bond is held in respect of the tenancy, notify the chief executive in the approved form of those particulars. (4A)For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), the following must be notified with the agent’s contact address: (a) the agent’s contact mobile telephone number (if any): (b) the agent’s contact email address (if any). (5)An agent appointed under this section has, as against the tenant, all the rights and obligations of the landlord.
The tenants have provided compelling evidence the landlord did not provide them with any of the contact information required by s16A(4), (4A) or (5) of the RTA and that its failure to do so caused them significant stress and inconvenience and an inability to sort out the issues that have led to the claims heard by me today.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $200.00 compensation to the tenants for the stress and inconvenience caused by them not knowing who the agent was and how to contact them for tenancy related matters from 1 October 2023 to when Ray White took over the management of the property around May 2025. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre and/or fail to notify the

Bond centre of its change of agent in October 2023?

[The tenants] the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence proves that the first property management company did the lodge the bond with the Band Centre within the required 23 working days and that when Barfoot and Thompson took over the property management of the premise, it ensured the Bond Centre was informed that it was acting as the landlord’s agent and was authorised to make claims on the bond or consent to the bond being returned to the tenants where appropriate.
The evidence also proves that when Michelle Li took over managing the property, as the landlord’s agent, and did not inform the Bond Centre of the change in agent. Therefore, the bond is still held by the Bond Centre in the names of the tenants and Barfoot and Thompson. Barfoot and Thompson have no legal ability to make a claim on the bond on behalf of the landlord or consent to the release of the bond to the tenants.
Section 21A of the RTA states: (1)Where a bond is being held in the Residential Tenancies Trust Account in respect of a tenancy agreement and the landlord or tenant changes his or her name or contact address or address for service, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, shall, within 10 working days thereafter, cause notice of the new particulars to be sent to the chief executive. (2)Where a bond is being held in the Residential Tenancies Trust Account in respect of a tenancy agreement and the landlord’s or the tenant’s interest under the tenancy agreement passes to some other person, that other person shall, within 10 working days thereafter, cause notice of the new particulars to be sent to the chief executive.
The tenants have proven the landlord failed to comply with its s21A of the RTA obligations. This is not a breach that attracts any exemplary damages in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, I find the landlord suffered stress and inconvenience because of the landlord and its agent’s intentional breach from 1 October 2023 to 22 May 2025. I find it fair to award the tenants $400.00 compensation for the stress and convenience they suffered as a result of not being able to contact the landlord’s agent for 85 weeks and 4 days for tenancy related issues that ultimately led to the issues that brought both parties before the Tribunal today.

Did the landlord attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence produced proves the tenants secured a periodic lease of the shed and surrounding land through negotiations with the landlord in which the landlord tacitly accepted the proposal by not providing rejection of the tenants’ proposal in writing and then accepting $40.00 per week rent from 27 December 2024 to 21 August 2025.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act when it: a. Issued a 4-day termination notice on 10 March 2023 requiring the tenants to vacate the shed and surrounding land by 15 March 2025; and b. Issuing trespass notices to the tenants on 6 April 2025.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $500.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally issued a trespass notices to the tenants on 6 April 2025 when it knew it had not lawful right to do so; b. The tenants are entitled to the security afforded to them by the law to protect them from having their lease of the shed and surrounding grounds terminated lawfully, as happened on 22 May 2025 when a new agent was appointed that was familiar with and complied with the RTA; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to the tenants not to terminate their tenancy without lawful grounds so as to protect tenant’s interests.
The first breach occurred more than 12 months before the tenants 1 April 2025 application to the Tribunal, so the Tribunal is barred by s109(2)(b) of the RTA from awarding exemplary damages for this breach. Reimbursement of the filing fees
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because the landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claims, I dismiss its application for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants and the landlord applied 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 these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s names and identifying details is ordered.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in its claims in these proceedings. I consider publication of the landlord’s name to be in the public interest and justified because of the landlords conduct from the date Michelle Li was appointed its agent and the circumstances of the case that relate to her period as agent for the landlord. Her and the landlord’s breaches of their obligations under the RTA were significant and caused stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity to the tenants.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287703 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287703 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord enter the premise unlawfully?

Bond centre of its change of agent in October 2023?

Did the landlord attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord enter the premise unlawfully?

Bond centre of its change of agent in October 2023?

Did the landlord attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions