Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5296774 — Property damage at 250 Riverbank Road, Wanaka, Wanaka 9382
Decided 18 May 2026 · Published 18 May 2026 · Application 5296774
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The tenants have been successful with claims brought and the Tribunal Orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. 1
- Home & Co Property Management Limited and Lacotson Investments Limited must pay immediately, calculated below
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. 1 S.95A RTA
- The tenants were represented by [the tenant’s representative]. The owner was represented by Mr Laming, a director. The agent was represented by Ms Topping from Home & Co Property Management Limited The Proceedings
- An Order was made in these proceedings dated 12 November 2025. That Order dismissed the tenants’ claim the at the termination notice ending the tenancy on 28 September 2025 was retaliatory.
- The remaining claims were adjourned and were heard today.
- Those claims were identified in the November Order as: • Compensation for the landlord’s use of tenant electricity. • Failure to maintain. • Unlawful entry. • Breach of quiet enjoyment. • Exemplary damages. • Loss of amenity. Preliminary
- The tenancy began on 6 January 2024 and ended on 28 September 2025.
- Though previously at issue, the parties confirm that matters relating to the tenants’ end of tenancy obligations are resolved and the bond has been refunded to the tenants.
- The premises are in a rural area near Wanaka. It is a large house situated on a 2,028 square metre section.
- In one corner of the property is a container based structure in which a business was conducted by a 3 rd party, making platters from old wine barrels (“the container business”).
- The tenancy agreement contains additional terms and conditions that: a. “The area with the container is rented separately and is not part of the tenancy.” 2 ; and b. “Only the fenced section forms part of the tenancy, not the surrounding land” 3
- The “area with the container” is not defined. At the start of the hearing I asked the parties to help with a site plan. The area drawn by Mr Laming as comprising the 2 Special condition 4 3 Special condition 11 excluded area is considerably larger than the area drawn by [The tenant’s representative].
- It is the landlord’s responsibility to document the agreement. 4 The landlord should provide evidence to resolve any uncertainty about its’ terms that could have been avoided eg. by including a plan. Approach to deciding the claims
- The first thing the Tribunal has to do is determine whether the landlord breached its obligations in the ways claimed.
- These are the tenants’ claims so as applicants they are required to provide evidence that proves the facts on which the claims are based, on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not).
- If breaches of the landlords’ obligations are proved, the Tribunal must then assess whether loss has been caused. That loss may be in terms of financial loss or loss of amenity in the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises. If loss is proved the tenants would generally be entitled to compensation for that loss. In some circumstances, where a breach has caused harm that is difficult to quantify, the Tribunal can award general damages.
- If the breach is of a type which the RTA classes as an unlawful act, the Tribunal then needs to consider whether it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages. The purpose of exemplary damages is not to compensate for loss but to punish unlawful behaviour. Exemplary damages may be awarded in addition to compensation, up to the maximum amount specified in Schedule 1A RTA.
- In deciding whether to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the breach was intentional, which means that what was done, was done consciously. It does not require that the landlord intended to act unlawfully. 5
- The Tribunal then needs to consider the intent behind the breach, the effect of the breach, the interests of the tenants and the public interest. 6 Electricity Supply
- Some 15 months into the agreement, the tenants became aware that the container business was being supplied with electricity from the premises, which 4 S.13 and 13A RTA 5 See for example TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at para [37] 6 S.109(3) RTA the tenants were paying for. They were told at the start of the tenancy that there was a separate switchboard for that business. 7
- The landlord accepted that the tenants should be compensated, but the parties could not agree on the amount.
- In an e-mail to the property manager on 5 June 2025 the tenants requested compensation of $3,085.34, being 33% of the power charges from the start of the tenancy to the end of May.
- The landlord considered that request unreasonable.
- Due to the impasse reached, the tenants disconnected the electricity supply to the container business, then reinstated it.
- A read meter for the supply to the container business was installed on 6 June 2025 but the landlord was not able to access the premises to read it until the tenancy ended.
- The power to the container business was disconnected by the tenants on 4 July 2025.
- Both parties invite me to make inferences about what a normal electricity cost would be for the tenants, without the electricity used by the container business, given the nature of the premises and of the tenants’ occupation of it. That would be pure speculation.
- What the Tribunal needs to assess, as best it can, is the loss actually caused to the tenants, by the landlord’s failure to provide electrical reticulation ensuring that the tenants were only required to pay for electricity used by them, 8 ie. what was the cost of the electricity used by the container business.
- Because it is the landlord’s breach that caused the issue, uncertainty in that assessment should be exercised in favour of the tenants.
- The only evidence about how much electricity the container business used, is from a short snapshot of use shown by the read meter, taken after the tenancy ended in September 2025. There are uncertainties about: a. whether the business operation and its power consumption was the same then as during the tenancy; b. whether additional power consumption for heating over colder months should be allowed for; c. whether there was an additional draw on the power from the container business to a sales showroom for part of the tenancy period; 7 E-mail from Home & Co dated 5 January 2024 8 See s.39 RTA d. power usage for the landlord’s benefit by tradespeople working on external plastering and repair of the pool.
- Evidence provided by the landlord today suggests that the container business’ measured usage, shown from that snapshot, would represent a daily cost of $5.00.
- Measured over that same period (start of the tenancy to 4 July 2025) the cost of electricity used by the container business that rate would be $2,725.00 (545 days x $5.00 daily).
- The tenants say that they no longer believe 33% of the total charges would be fair compensation. However, I would be inclined to give more weight to their assessment of fair compensation made at the time, than to an assessment coloured by months of later argument.
- Allowing $650.00 for usage during June 2025 (by comparison to usage for the winter months of 2024) gives a total cost of $10,000.00 for electricity from the start of the tenancy to when supply to the container business was stopped.
- To allow for the uncertainties noted in paragraph 30 I assess $3,500.00, (a little under $6.50 per day and 35% of total cost) as fair compensation. Breach of right to quiet enjoyment
- The landlord arranged for exterior plastering work to be done at the property.
- There is a dispute over whether the tenants were informed that work was planned by it is clear that no specific notice was given to the tenants until 9:12pm on Sunday 28 April 2025, before work started the next day.
- The parties do not agree either about when the work was finished.
- The landlord has provided an invoice sent by the contractors after completion of the work (from their point of view) dated 26 May 2025. The landlord cannot provide evidence that the work was finished before then. The tenants cannot provide evidence (apart from some cleanup up work addressed below) that the substantive work continued after then.
- I find that it more likely than not that the work continued for the 4 weeks between those dates.
- The tenants’ evidence is that the work was intrusive, involving all the windows being masked, significant noise during the day when some tenants were working from home and living amid significant work site mess.
- The tenants agree that all interior spaces and amenities remained fully available.
- The landlord’s position is that it is entitled to carry out maintenance work and that because the tenant had continued access to and use of the premises, no compensation is due.
- The landlord is correct that it has the right to carry out maintenance work.
- The landlord’s exercise of that right needs to take onto account that: a. the tenants are entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or its agents; and that b. a landlord can’t allow any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenants in the tenants’ use of the premises. 9
- The evidence refers to some tenants working from home or recording music there. I do not accept the landlord’s assertion that the tenants were in breach of their obligations by using the premises to conduct a commercial business. The tenants were entitled to be at their home during the day when the work was carried out.
- I am satisfied that the exterior plastering did create a significant intrusion into the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises, by work that was done for the landlord’s sole benefit in preparing the property for sale.
- I assess $1,500.00 (25% of the rent paid for the 4 weeks the work took), as reasonable compensation.
- The tenants claim additional breaches by the contractors having left a mess which the tenants had to live around, requiring them to chase the landlord to have it cleaned up. The landlord acted on that request but I find it proved that there was an additional but more minor intrusion on the tenants use and enjoyment of the premises after the 4 weeks when the substantive plastering work was done, until the clean up was complete. A modest award of compensation ($500.00) would be fair. Loss of amenity – swimming pool
- This claim arises because the pool developed a leak in early January 2025.
- The tenants notified the maintenance staff who drained the pool and applied a patch. That patch failed and in the course of further repairs, the liner tore, pulling out the filtration fitting, requiring a major repair job.
- The landlord, with some difficulty, arranged quotes for the repair but the pool remained unusable through to the end of the tenancy. Photos show it to be partly full of water and partly covered. It is undoubtedly very unsightly. 9 S.38 RTA
- The landlord emphasises, and the evidence shows, that upon being made aware of the problem, the landlord did all it could to repair the pool and to arrange the major repairs that became necessary. When the tenants raised concerns about the safety of the pool when the fence was initially removed, steps were taken to immediately reinstate it.
- It is nevertheless the case that from early January 2025 to the end of September 2025, though no fault of theirs, the tenants were paying rent for a property with a pool that could not be used and was a negative feature rather than an asset. They are entitled to compensation for that.
- The real question is how to fairly assess that compensation. There is no doubt that a rental property with a swimming pool, especially where, as here, it is maintained at the landlord’s cost, would carry a significant rent premium. The landlord has saved the cost of “regular servicing of the swimming pool” during that period. 10
- There are few rental properties in Queenstown with pools, to provide comparative evidence.
- I have assessed compensation at: a. $150.00 per week for the 10 remaining summer weeks the tenants may otherwise have had the regular use of the pool; and b. $50.00 per week for the remainder of the tenancy where it could not be used and its condition detracted from the amenity of the premises. Car parking
- Another component of the tenants’ claim for compensation is about use of part of the property as vehicle storage for a car ferrying business.
- The landlord says that the vehicles were parked within the “area of the container” excluded from the tenancy. The tenants say they were not and that the landlord wrongly allowed that business to use of part of the premises they were paying rent for. They say that lessened their use and enjoyment of the premises from the increased traffic and the unauthorised installation of a security camera (albeit assurances are given that it was not able to record activities at the house).
- As noted, uncertainty about what or was not included in the tenancy should be read in the tenant’s favour. Video footage provided by the tenants tends to support their evidence that the vehicles were parked some way from the container. I find it more likely than not that the vehicles were parked within the area included in the tenancy. 10 Agreement special condition 24
- In my view it was not appropriate to for the landlord to unilaterally decide where that boundary was and give other parties permission to use that part of the property without consulting the tenants.
- There is no clear evidence of quantifiable loss. The tenants are however entitled to recognition of their right to use of the whole of the property they were paying rent for. They are entitled to feel aggrieved that those rights were not respected.
- In such circumstances it is appropriate for the Tribunal to consider making an award of general damages, the purpose of which is not to compensate for a quantifiable loss but to compensate for pain or suffering or emotional distress” 11
- In terms of quantifying general damages, in Tenant v Ezy Rentals 12 the Tribunal said: “By reference to Otautahi, I consider the bands that might usefully inform the Tribunal’s decision in this case are: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.”
- Those are only very broad considerations and each case must be considered on its merits. Here, no severe consequences for the tenants are proved. Their grievance, though not insignificant is in the nature of annoyance, frustration and disrespect at the lack of any discussion. A modest award of general damages is made. Unlawful Entry
- In early July the tenants refused Mr Laming entry to the premises to read a power meter, on the basis that reading the meter was not a reason giving the landlord a right to enter the premises. That was a lawful exercise of their rights.
- On 30 July 2025 the property manager gave the tenants notice that a routine inspection would be done on 7 August, “to report to the owner any maintenance that may be required”.
- Mr Laming accompanied the property managers to the inspection.
- The tenants say that was an unlawful entry because: 11 See Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 (at para [35]) 12 Tenant v Ezy Rentals [2022] NZTT 4323927 a. it was not authorised by the inspection notice b. it occurred without the tenants’ consent; and c. it involved a person not listed in the notice.
- A landlord has a right to enter premises after giving 48 hours’ notice, to inspect the premises. 13 While it is best and usual practice for a landlord to agree a suitable time with the tenant, tenants’ consent is not required.
- In the context of the dispute that had arisen between the parties, it would have been considerate to let the tenants know that Mr Laming would be attending. The tenants were entitled to assume he would not be, from the notice saying the purpose of the inspection was so the property managers could report to him.
- Nevertheless, I do not find that the entry was unlawful. As noted, a landlord has that right of entry after giving due notice. Mr Laming was and was known to be, a proper representative of the landlord.
- That claim is dismissed. Exemplary Damages
- I have found that the landlord breached its obligations in the ways noted.
- In the case of the unsatisfactory electrical reticulation and swimming pool failure. Those breaches were not intentional.
- Breach of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment is only an unlawful act in circumstances that amount to harassment. 14 The evidence does not show that here.
- There is accordingly no basis for an award of exemplary damages to be considered. Filing fee The tenants have had claims upheld and I reimburse the filing fee.