What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297024 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 5297024?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297024?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297024?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13177517-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297024 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 5297024?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297024?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297024?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13177517-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5297024 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297024 — net $1,928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,000.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$900.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,928.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,928.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297024 — net $1,928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,000.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$900.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,928.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,928.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Rory McDougall and Hilke Bruns must pay [the applicants] $1,928.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video conference. All parties attended.
The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches by the landlords of their obligations. They also claim repayment of rent due to the premises being unlawful for residential occupation. Background
The premises consist of a stand-alone house situated in bush. It was built in 1994, and the landlords and their family lived there until 2005.
In 2005 they moved into a newly built house close by.
The landlords renovated the premises in 2021, and it was then used by a family member and as Airbnb accommodation.
The tenants moved into the premises in April 2024, and they lived there until June 2025. They paid $350 rent per week. They were the first tenants of the premises.
The landlords provided the tenants with firewood, and they would work together to cut and split the logs. There were some issues along the way, but they were resolved. They all got along well, and the tenants enjoyed living there.
This changed on 8 June 2025 when there was an incident over chicken droppings on the deck of the premises. There had been concern from the landlords about the state of the deck from the droppings from the tenants’ chickens. The tenants had been away for a few days and the deck was covered in droppings. One of the tenants was cleaning the deck when Mr McDougall accosted her about the state of the deck.
He asked, more than once, why the deck was in that state. The tenant described being bailed up on the deck and the landlord standing very close to her and speaking loudly and angrily at her. She retreated into the premises.
The tenant was recovering from a concussion which she had suffered in traumatic circumstances. She had been diagnosed with PTSD. The landlords knew about the concussion but not the PTSD.
The tenants reported the incident to the police three days later. On 21 June they gave the landlords notice that were terminating their tenancy on 28 June citing the incident as the reason. By then they had been to Christchurch and found alternative accommodation there.
The tenants wrote to the landlords and proposed an apportionment of the $700 bond. The landlords accepted their proposal and the landlords paid out the tenants’ share.
The tenants filed their application to this Tribunal on 6 July. Claims Unlawful Residential Premises
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 (reasonable steps to ensure premises can be lawfully occupied) or 45(1)(c) (premises must comply with legislative requirements) of the Act.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful the Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so.
The situation is unusual in that the premises were built in 1994 and lived in by the landlords for nine years. The Council file contains no evidence of resource consent being granted for them. But the Council was fully aware of the premises and the landlords were close to getting a Code of Compliance Certificate (CCC) for them. On that basis, I would not have been minded to find that they were unlawful or, if technically they were, that any consequences should arise from that.
But the tenants submitted that the consent for the new house is very clear that the premises must not be used for residential occupation. It is not clear to me what the consequences would be if the Council chose to act on that prohibition. Would the premises be unlawful, or would it be the new house? Because the prohibition is a condition attaching to the consent for the new house, it seems more likely that it is occupation of the new house that would in jeopardy.
The only thing that has changed since the new house was built is that the premises have been renovated. That is improved.
It seems to me that treating the premises as unlawful would require a very technical approach. If they do meet the definition for unlawfulness, I would be reluctant to impose any penalty on the landlords. The tenants were happy in the premises and the reason they left had nothing to do with the legality of them. They have made claims relating to the condition of the premises and, in my view, that is what the Tribunal should focus on.
Following the hearing, the landlords contacted the Tribunal and said that having considered the Council file more carefully, they noticed that the condition appeared in an internal Council document, but it was not mentioned in the letter they received from the Council.
I have now considered the Council file carefully myself and I agree with the landlords. There is nothing in there notifying the landlords of the relevant condition. The consent sent to the landlords states that the build can proceed in accordance with the application dated 15 December 2001. That application is not included in the file received by the Tribunal. All I can say without seeing that is that it is possible that the condition does not apply at all. But if it does, my decision remains the same. The Condition of the Premises
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply. The water must also be drinkable.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 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. Wood Burner
The tenants complain that there were holes at the back of the fire box that caused the wood to burn excessively fast. Also, there was a leak at the roof that allowed water to pool on top of the fire box.
The evidence is that when the tenants reported these things to the landlords, they remedied them within a reasonable time. The holes were covered by new fire bricks and the flashing for the flue was repaired.
It follows that there has been no breach of the landlords’ repairing obligations. Stairs
There was no handrail for the stairs between the two floors of the premises. Descending the stairs there is a wall on the right and on the left is the edge of the floor. That affords something to use for balance and support although as one descends that becomes less within reach. There would be a short section at the bottom of the flight before the return where there would be no support.
This situation did not pose any real problem for the young and fit tenants, but they said older guests fell using the stairs. Fortunately, without serious consequences.
The tenants rely on the requirements of the Building Act 1992. The Building Code at the time required handrails for stairs and on the face of it, their absence would a breach of the code when the premises were built and therefore a breach of the Act.
But on reading the Council file I can see that there is a check list for the CCC and the item for handrails, stairs and balustrades has been checked. The building inspector is in a better position than I am to determine compliance with the Building Code and so I find that there has been no breach in this respect. Range Hood
The Healthy Homes Standards applied to the premises from 26 August 2025, and they required the premises to have a range hood vented to the outside. There was a range hood and a hole in the wall for the vent but no ducting to connect the two. The range hood therefore vented back into the kitchen.
Plainly that did not comply with the regulations. The standard is intended to reduce water vapour from cooking remaining in the premises and thereby reduce dampness. There were openable windows in the kitchen to provide ventilation, but it is not practical to open them in wet or cold weather. Tenancy Agreement, Rent and Bond
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing.
A landlord must also provide certain information with the tenancy agreement such as healthy homes compliance information.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00.
There was no written tenancy agreement and no Healthy Homes statement or information that should have been provided with the agreement.
The landlords accepted rent in cash but did not give receipts as required by the Act. Nor did they keep a record of rent paid. I note that the rent was kept up to date and so as rent was paid weekly the landlords would see no need to keep a record. There was no dispute over rent at the end of the tenancy.
The landlords did not lodge the bond as required by the Act.
The landlords said that they saw the arrangement with the tenants as house sharing, not as a residential tenancy. There were some shared activities, but the tenants lived independently of the landlords. I accept that the landlords were naive regarding tenancy law and that they simply gave no thought to the possibility that they were landlords. But the situation fell squarely within the definition of the residential tenancy. Water Supply
The water supply for the premises was from the local river. There was a filter at the point where the water was drawn from the river and a filtration system was installed at the premises. The tenants pointed out that the filtration system was designed for rainwater, not river water. The landlords did not dispute that.
The landlords said that there is only one farm upstream from them and that the council tests the water 6km downstream after it has passed several farms. The tenants pointed out the council does not recommend swimming in the river.
The tenants said that when it rained the water turned brown and they didn’t drink it. They bought and consumed bottled water instead. They said that they believe that contaminated water at the premises caused them to suffer illness. The landlords said that they had never suffered illness from the water in the time that they had lived at the property. They did have a rainwater tank at the new house as well as the river water.
The tenants’ evidence of illness from drinking the water was not strong. A doctor’s letter referred to one tenant suffering gastroenteritis after she vacated the premises but from the dates it seems unlikely that it was caused by water at the premises. That water was not tested and there was no complaint about it during the tenancy.
The evidence is not enough to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the water supply at the premises did not provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water or that the water was not drinkable. There may have been occasions due to heavy rain when the water was cloudy and was not pleasant or possibly not safe to drink but, in my view, that is not enough to constitute a breach of the landlords’ obligations. This was a rural property and it should not be judged by the standards of a town water supply. Quiet Enjoyment / Unlawful Entry
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00.
I accept that Mr McDougall’s behaviour on 8 June crossed the line into interference with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment. I acknowledge that there was some background to this and that the landlords were very unhappy that the situation with the chickens was not being well managed. But coming onto the deck, which is part of the premises, and berating the tenant to her face was not the proper way of dealing with it.
There is a process under the Act for dealing with a breach of it. In this case it would be a breach of the tenants’ obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. That was not followed. The Act also holds tenants liable for any careless or intentional damage to the premises during the tenancy.
The tenants do not claim compensation for the effects of the incident due the background relating to the tenant’s vulnerability. But the tenants are entitled to compensation for the immediate hurt and upset caused by the incident.
Ms Bruns accepts that she entered the premises without permission or authority. She offered a reasonable explanation for it, and I accept that the relaxed relationship between the parties is relevant. But she could and should have contacted the tenants and obtained permission before entering the premises. It’s likely that it would have been given. Toilet
There was a leak behind the toilet of an unknown origin, but it was not reported to the landlords. It should have been because it could have caused some damage. Because the landlords were not aware of it, there has been no breach of their repairing obligations. Shower
The shower base was unfinished and there was exposed framing which the tenants said was a tripping hazard. They did not complain to the landlords about it.
I don’t find that to be a failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair considering the rustic character of the premises. Remedy
The landlords’ failures relating to the tenancy agreement, bond and rent all arise because the landlords did not see this as a tenancy situation. They were wrong to do so but they were inexperienced and there was no deliberate attempt to evade the law. But the law presumes that everyone knows the law and so not knowing the law is not a defence.
There was no obvious or significant effect on the tenant. Denying the tenants healthy homes information was the worst thing. I find that some award in needed and taking all these breaches together, an award of $500 exemplary damages is appropriate.
For the incident on 8 June and the unlawful entry an award of $1,000 compensation is appropriate. No award of exemplary damages is warranted.
For the ventilation breach I award $400 exemplary damages. Filing Fee
The tenants have had some success and so I award them the filing fee. Suppression
Because the tenants have had some success and because there is personal information in this decision, I have granted the tenants name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297024 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297024 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions