Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5299379 — Smoke alarms at 104 Otara Road, Otara, RD 1, Opotiki 3197
Published 17 March 2026 · Application 5299379
Tenant favoured
- Smoke alarms
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Opotiki
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
N Bradley
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,728.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $2,728.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemplary damages: Smoke alarms s 45 RTA | $1,500.00 | Smoke alarms s 45 RTA | |
| Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry s 48 RTA | $200.00 | Unlawful entry s 48 RTA | |
| Compensation: Failure to serve termination notice in accordance with RTA | $1,000.00 | Failure to serve termination notice in accordance with RTA | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,728.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $2,728.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5299379 — net $2,728.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Exemplary damages: Smoke alarms s 45 RTA
- Amount
- $1,500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Smoke alarms s 45 RTA
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry s 48 RTA
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Unlawful entry s 48 RTA
Compensation: Failure to serve termination notice in accordance with RTA
- Amount
- $1,000.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Failure to serve termination notice in accordance with RTA
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $2,728.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $2,728.00
Dismissed claims
- A Breach Of Quiet Enjoyment And Hara… — FILING FEE / SUPPRESSION 102.Because the tenant has been partly successful with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. 42 42 See section 102 (4)(b…
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- George Teddy and Rosalie Teddy must pay Kayser Shirley Brown $2,728.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below -
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The matter was first heard on 29 August 2025 however shortly before that hearing the tenant applied for an adjournment and the hearing was converted to a case conference. The hearing proceeded on 6 March 2026.
- Both landlords, Mr and Mrs Teddy, attended the hearing in person.
- The tenant attended the hearing in person and had a support person.
- No witnesses gave evidence, however both parties have filed witness statements. This dispute relates to a tenancy on the outskirts of Opotiki. For approximately 7 years the tenant lived on a small cottage situated on the landlord’s lifestyle block. There was no written tenancy agreement between the parties. Following a dispute about a matter unrelated to the tenancy the landlord gave the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant now claims the landlord has breached a number of obligations.
- For ease of reference, I will refer to the landlords in the singular at times in this decision.
ISSUES
- The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord fail to comply with their obligations with respect to smoke alarms? b. Did the landlord fail to meet their responsibilities by not providing an oven? c. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s supply of gas? d. Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises? e. In respect of the termination notice: i. Did the landlord fail to properly serve the tenant with the termination notice? ii. Was the termination notice retaliatory? iii. Was the termination notice without lawful grounds? f. Did the landlord cause or permit interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in her use of the premises, and if so, did this amount to harassment g. If any breaches are proven, should compensation and/or exemplary damages be ordered? h. Should the tenant be reimbursed the filing fee?
RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 1 , 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. Exemplary damages
- Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 2 the Court of Appeal said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.”
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest, and whether it is just to make the award. 3
- Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately under the same provision of the RTA. 4 The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 5
- A party may not apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act or no later than 12 months after the termination of the tenancy if the breach relates to the landlord’s obligations in respect of the bond and record keeping. 6 Compensation
- The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 3 Section 109 of the RTA. 4 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583 5 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 6 Section 109 (2) RTA. under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 7 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach when deciding to award compensation.
SMOKE ALARMS
- Landlords must comply with all regulations in relation to smoke alarms made under section 138A of the RTA. 8 The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (SAI Regulations). The SAI Regulations set out the following requirements: a. Landlords must ensure qualifying smoke alarms are installed and operational. b. Smoke alarms must be installed in every sleeping space, or within 3 metres of the entrance to the sleeping space, and in each level of a multi-level dwelling. c. All new smoke alarms must be photoelectric, have a battery life of at least eight years or be hard-wired, be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, meet international standards, be in full working order, and have their expiry date displayed. d. Existing smoke alarms do not need to be replaced if they are in full working order and have not passed their expiry date.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7200.00. 9
- The tenant has said that the landlord did not ensure qualifying smoke alarms were installed. The tenant says the smoke alarm at the commencement of the tenancy was sitting on the fridge. In respect of this claim, she seeks exemplary damages.
- The landlord said they recall the property had a smoke alarm at the commencement of the tenancy. They were able to show me on the video recording submitted by the tenant where they recalled the smoke alarm was at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The landlord says in 2023 they purchased a new smoke alarm and provided it to the tenant who said she would install it. The tenant says a new smoke alarm was provided but says she would never have offered to install it. 7 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 8 RTA, s 45 (1)(ba). 9 See section 45 (1A) RTA and Schedule 1A RTA.
- There is a lack of documentary evidence as to the lack of smoke alarms prior to 2023 however I consider that by providing a replacement smoke alarm and not installing it themselves, the landlord has failed to comply with their obligations with respect to smoke alarms. The tenant seeks exemplary damages. I consider the following matters are relevant.
- Intent - I consider the landlord should have been aware of their obligations in respect of installing smoke alarms. The landlord intended for the tenant to install the smoke alarm, however, should have attended to this themselves (and ideally taken a date stamped photograph of the smoke alarm installed).
- Effect - There was no direct impact on, or harm caused to the tenant and no evidence of the tenant having raised with the landlord a concern about the absence of smoke alarms until well after the tenancy had ended. However, the noncompliance did mean the tenant lived in an unsafe home
- Interests of the tenant - It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for unlawful acts committed against her.
- Public interest - It is a fundamental obligation on the landlord to install smoke alarms. The public interest requires that landlords be encouraged to take such important safety responsibilities seriously.
- Justice - There is a degree of mitigation because a smoke alarm was provided, and the landlord clearly believed the tenant would install it. I consider it likely the tenant did not advise the landlord that she did not know how to install the smoke alarm (as I consider it unlikely the landlord would purchase a smoke alarm only for it to not be installed).
- Having regards to the above factors I consider an award of $1,500 exemplary damages is appropriate and is ordered.
MEANS TO PREPARE FOOD
- The tenant says she did not have an oven. The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for the premises having no oven.
- A landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 10 The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) 11 provides that every kitchen or kitchenette must have adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and baking.
- The tenant says there was no oven in the premises, and she was limited in what she could cook. She says she had a microwave, and a cook top has been provided. 10 RTA, s 45 (1)(c). 11 HIR, regulation 7.
- The landlord said a benchtop type oven/microwave was provided to the tenant but she asked for it to be removed so her own microwave could be put in place
- Food cannot be baked on a cooktop or microwave. The landlord is therefore in breach of s 45(1)(c) of the RTA and HIR by not having an oven in the premises. However, there is a process in place so that tenants do not have to put up with this type of failure. The process is to give a 14-day notice to the landlord to remedy the breach and then apply to the Tribunal if the issue is not rectified. I also note where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. This means that the tenant must limit their compensation claims by promptly addressing issues as outlined above. 12
- In this case I consider that it is likely the tenant did ask for the landlord to remove the microwave/oven, because the landlord provided evidence of purchasing one for the cottage. If I am wrong in that finding I consider the tenant has failed to mitigate her loss by not serving the landlord with a 14-day notice to obtain an oven or filing a claim in the Tribunal. I consider the tenant has not proven she has suffered a loss for which she should be compensated for.
- I consider that the landlord likely did provide not an oven at the tenant’s request. I consider the effect on the tenant of this breach would be minimal. The tenant said the impact on her was that she could not bake for events when she had to take a plate. While the public interest would be to discourage such a breach, overall, it would be unjust to award exemplary damages. The claim in respect of the cooking facilities/ lack of oven is dismissed.
GAS SUPPLY
- The landlord must not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telephone services, or other services to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. 13 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 14
- In Ross v Miller 15 the Tribunal provided useful guidance on the meaning of the term “interfere with” and said: 12 RTA, s 49. 13 RTA, S 45 (2). 14 RTA, s s 45 (2) (A) and Schedule 1A RTA. 15 Ross v Miller (TT 15/01233, Tauranga, 15 April 2016) at para 56. The Act does not define “interfere with”. In the Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition, its meanings include “get in the way of, impede, hamper” and “intrude, interrupt, barge in, pry, meddle”. Section 45(2) does not use the words “cut off”, “stop”, or “end” the service. The meaning of interfere is clearly wider than that. I conclude that Mr Miller's actions in changing the nature of the plan “got in the way of” or “meddled with” the supply of internet services to Ms Ross, albeit she still had a supply of up to 5G per month. An unlawful act has therefore been committed.
- The tenant says that approximately every 9 -12 months her gas tank would run out and she would ask the landlord to refill it, which was done with a small tank which would be replaced by a large tank when the gas delivery was in Opotiki. She says if the gas tank ran out during the day the landlord would promptly refill it but she says 3-4 times during the tenancy the landlord delayed refilling her gas bottle immediately (for example if it ran out at night it would be replaced the next day), which meant she had no gas for her showers.
- The landlord says that the tenant would never be out of gas for more than 12 hours through the night and acknowledged on an occasion the tenant informed them late in the evening that the gas had run out but Mr Teddy was asleep and Ms Teddy did not want to wake him to connect the small gas tank.
- The tenant says at the beginning of April 2025 she had run out of gas and because she didn’t feel safe informing the landlord about this, she says she replaced her gas cylinder herself after dark. The tenant says near the end of the tenancy Mr Teddy said he would not have replaced the gas tank in any event.
- The landlord said that they would have replaced the gas tank if the tenant had asked. Mr Teddy denies saying he would not have replaced the gas tank, but said he would only replace it with a smaller one
- On reviewing the evidence, I consider the landlord promptly attended to the refilling of the gas when it ran out and the tenant informed the landlord that gas was required. She accepted the arrangements in place for the landlord to replace her gas tank when it was empty for the duration of the tenancy. There is no documentary evidence that the tenant had to chase up the landlord to provide gas. I consider the landlord has not impeded the gas supply but was earnest in ensuring the tenant had gas and even paid for the tenant’s usage, which the RTA provides the tenant would generally be responsible for.
- The burden of proving this claim is on the tenant. The tenant must provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that it is more likely than not that the landlord has interfered with the supply of her gas. I am not persuaded that the tenant has met the standard required and the claim is dismissed. If I am wrong in that assessment, then I am not satisfied the tenant has proven a loss in terms of a negative effect on her arising from any claimed breach in respect of the gas.
UNLAWFUL ENTRY
- The tenant claims 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. 16 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 17 The issue in this case was whether the landlord had consent to enter the premises. Consent of the tenant must be freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry. 18
- The tenant says on 22 July 2023 Mrs Teddy entered the premises to air out the tenant’s home. Mrs Teddy text the tenant beforehand to confirm she would do this. The tenant did not object. The tenant provided the text message, and this entry was not disputed by Mrs Teddy. The tenant says on 23 July 2023 Mrs Teddy left a snack, some baking, in the tenant’s fridge and advised her by text message that she had put it there afterwards. The tenant provided the text message, and this entry was not disputed. I consider these breaches to be outside of the 12 months prior to the tenant filing her claim and do not take into account these breach in awarding exemplary damages, which I address further below. 19
- On 7 January 2025 Mrs Teddy entered the tenant’s premises to show her family member a pair of shoes the tenant was selling. The tenant provided a text message confirming that Mrs Teddy had entered the premises. Mrs Teddy could not recall doing so but accepted she likely did. There is no evidence she had consent to do so. I therefore find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by entering the tenant’s premises without consent or proper notice or grounds.
- I consider the breach warrants an award of exemplary damages. In having regard to the factors to be considered when determining to make an order for exemplary damages I note the following matters are relevant.
- Intent – I find that the landlord intentionally entered the premises.
- Effect – The tenant was unable to explain any negative effect on her arising from the breach. I note that the tenant did not bring a claim promptly on the breach occurring and only raised the claim after the first hearing of this matter. I therefore consider the overall effect on the tenant was likely minimal. 16 See section 48(1) and (2) RTA. 17 See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA. 18 See s 48 (1)(a) RTA. 19 Section 109 (2) RTA.
- Tenant’s interests - It is in the interest of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against her.
- Public interest - There is a public interest in deterring landlord’s from breaching their obligations with respect to entry to tenant’s homes.
- Justice - I consider it is just to award exemplary damages however I consider that should be below a third as the breach is mitigated by Mrs Teddy’s view that she was helping the tenant by trying to sell the shoes she had for sale, the limited negative effect on the tenant, the delay in bringing the claim.
- I consider $200 exemplary damages is appropriate in the circumstances and that is the amount ordered. UNLAWFUL TERMINATION AND/OR RETALIATORY TERMINATION
- The tenant claims the termination notice served on 26 May 2025 was a retaliatory termination notice, that the termination did not comply with the technical requirements for a termination notice and the termination was unlawful, that is it was without grounds.
- The landlord says they served the tenant with a valid 90-day termination notice on 6 March 2025. I understand the subsequent notice was a follow up notice to the first notice. Section 51 – Technical requirements of a termination notice
- Every notice to terminate a tenancy must be in writing; identify the premises to which it relates; specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and if the landlord gives less than 90 days’ notice, set out the reasons for the termination; be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent. 20 However, In a notice to terminate a tenancy, no special form of words shall be required; and no such notice shall be held invalid for any failure to comply strictly with the above requirements so long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non-compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient. 21 Where a termination notice does not comply with the above requirements, the remedy is generally that it is unenforceable. Service of documents
- The tenant says the termination notice was not served on her. Section 136 of the RTA relates to service of documents and says: 136Service of documents 20 RTA, s 51 (3). 21 RTA, s 51 (4). (1) Where any notice or other document is required or authorised by this Act to be given to or served on a landlord or a tenant, it shall be sufficient if it is given or served in any of the following ways: (a) it may be given to or served on the landlord or the tenant personally: (b) it may be sent by post addressed to the landlord or the tenant at the address or the Post Office box given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service in accordance with this Act:... ... (c) it may be delivered to the premises to which any address for service relates, and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position:...(emphasis added) ,,,(d) it may be transmitted to the electronic address given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service. (2) Without limiting the provisions of subsection (1), any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be given to or served upon any tenant may be served on a tenant: (a) at the premises to which the tenancy agreement relates, if the tenant resides at those premises, as follows: (i) by posting it addressed to the tenant at those premises; or (ii) by delivering it to those premises and either placing it in the mailbox or attaching it to the door of those premises in a prominent position; or (emphasis added) (iii) by giving it to any person appearing to have attained the age of 16 years and to be residing at those premises; or (b) at any other place of residence of the tenant, by giving it to any person appearing to have attained the age of 16 years and to be residing at those premises and who confirms that the tenant resides at the premises; or (c) at the premises to which any address for service given by the tenant relates, by giving it to any person appearing to have attained the age of 16 years and to be residing at those premises; or (d) by giving it to the person who ordinarily pays the rent under the tenancy agreement; or (e) by giving it to any solicitor or other agent of the tenant duly authorised by the tenant to receive the same...
- An address for service means an address given by a party as an address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted by or on behalf of that party. 22 The Law – Retaliatory termination notice:
- For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any relevant Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. 23
- The notice given by the landlord terminating the tenancy must also comply with the requirements of s 51 of the RTA. 24 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. 25 The Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. 26 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. 27
- The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint. The Tribunal in Easton v Marks 28 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the landlord was not incited or impelled by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal in that case noted that: “It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that the tenants gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.”
- A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 29 The Law – Unlawful termination 22 RTA, s 13 AB (1). 23 See section 54(1) – (2) RTA 24 See section 54(1) RTA 25 Section 54 (3) RTA 26 See section 54 (5) RTA 27 See section 54(2), (6) and Schedule 1A RTA. 28 Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987 29 Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988
- A landlord must not give notice to terminate a tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. 30 A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case (that is without reasons) by giving at least 90 days’ notice. A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 42 days’ notice in certain circumstances, for example where the owner (or their family) intends to live in the home, the home is being sold or the home will be used for employees or contractors. 31 A landlord must therefore not terminate a tenancy with less than the required notice and particularly where the notice is for less than 90 days and does not provide reasons. 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 $6500.00. 32 The time for deciding if there was an intention by the landlord to give notice knowing they are not entitled to do so is when the notice was given. This case
- The tenant says on 6 March 2025 Mr Teddy confronted her about a complaint she had mentioned to Mrs Teddy three days prior, regarding a vehicle repair that had not been done properly. The tenant says she asked Mr Teddy if he had heard about her complaint about her vehicle repairs. She says they then had a heated exchange about her plants, her kennel and the landlord’s caravan (the tenant appearing to suggest the landlord hardly used their caravan and suggesting it takes up more room then her belongings) and Mr Teddy told her to leave by saying in the heat of the exchange “... you can f*** off too.” The tenant says she began to worry about where she would live and was unclear about how much notice she was being given.
- The landlord says that following the exchange between Mr Teddy and the tenant they wrote the tenant a 90-day termination notice and delivered it to her door. The landlord provided a copy of the termination notice. The tenant says she never received the notice.
- The tenant says that she asked Mrs Teddy about why she was being “kicked out” and Ms Teddy said it was because of the what the tenant has said about the caravan.
- The tenant says on 26 May 2025 she found a typed note taped to her front door instructing her to vacate by 8 June 2025. She says the notice was not signed or dated correctly, did not provide her 90 days notice and she says it was unlawfully served and retaliatory. She says it references a prior termination notice dated 6 February 2025 that she had not received. 30 See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA. 31 See s 51 (1) – (2) RTA 32 See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The tenant says she vacated on 16 June 2025, and she has been house sitting since that time while she waits for her tiny home to be built. Findings Service of termination notice
- The landlord’s struck me as genuine and honest in their evidence, and they corroborated their evidence with documentary evidence. They acknowledged mistakes that they had made, for example with respect to incorrectly recording the date on the second notice to the tenant. I have no reason to find that they did not place the termination notice at the tenant’s front door (that they provided a copy of) on the 6 March 2025.
- Service of documents, such as a termination notice, must be served in accordance with the provisions in s 136 of the RTA above. The termination notice could have been delivered to the mailbox or attached in a prominent position to the front door. The notice was not taped to the front door, and I accept the tenant may not have received it for whatever reason. It was not properly served on her. 33 The tenant says she was unclear about when her tenancy would end and was stressed by this, although it is clear that she knew her tenancy was to end from the verbal exchange between herself and Mr Teddy and subsequent correspondence.
- For these reasons I am not satisfied that the 90-day notice was validly served. In any event, the tenant has vacated shortly after the 90-day period from when she was given verbal notice by the landlord. Retaliatory termination notice
- Whether or not the tenant had received the first termination notice or only the second, neither complied with the technical requirements of the RTA. To determine whether a termination notice is retaliatory it must be properly served, and in this case it was not.
- However, I will note that had either notice complied with the RTA I would not have found the termination notices to be retaliatory. The tenant’s own evidence is that the landlord has terminated the tenancy due to a non-tenancy related dispute. For a termination notice to be retaliatory it must have been motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any relevant Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. Relying on the tenant’s evidence that she considers the tenancy ended due to a non-tenancy related dispute (that is the non-tenancy related matters discussed on 6 March 2025) I find the tenant has not proven that the 33 RTA, s 136 termination was likely retaliatory. The claim that the termination notice is retaliatory is dismissed. Termination without grounds
- In this case I consider that the landlord was likely unaware that the tenant had not received the 90-day termination notice and their second reminder notice of 26 May 2026 was not intended as a termination notice. The termination notice was not served in accordance with the RTA. That in itself is not an unlawful act.
- I do not consider the parties communicated well about the termination notice of 6 March 2025. I consider the landlord clearly and genuinely considered they had served the tenant with a 90-day termination notice. Because I consider the landlord believed they had served a lawful termination notice by leaving it at the tenancy address on 6 March 2026 I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord has terminated the tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so. Compensation for breach of service requirements
- The landlord allowed more than 90 days from the 6 March 2025 when they first gave the tenant notice and I accept they would have accommodated her for longer if they believed she needed more time to find a new home, however the tenant said that was not required.
- The tenant claims compensation for the stress she has been put under due to the unlawful termination. The Tribunal has the authority to award damages for stress and inconvenience. 34 Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove a breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.
- I consider it would be foreseeable that the tenant would suffer stress in the circumstances where the landlord has advised the tenant that the tenancy is terminated, however she has not been properly served with written notice of the same. Stress is intangible loss, making it difficult to value.
- Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens 35 provided bands to apply when making awards for emotional harm. Those amounts have been increased in the 2022 Tribunal case A v Singh 36 to take into account inflation. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00 may be appropriate. Where due to the breach the party has endured more 34 See section 77 (2) (n) of the RTA. 35 Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775 36 A v Singh [2022] NZTT Auckland 4315225 inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 may be appropriate. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards may be considered appropriate.
- The tenant says she has suffered stress due to the uncertainty about her living situation. The tenant appears to own a home in Auckland which she stayed on and worked for a few weeks during the lead up to her vacate date. She did not explain why this accommodation was not available to her on an ongoing basis. Adopting the formula in A v Singh, I find that compensation of $1000 is reasonable in the circumstances to reflect the failure to comply with the RTA notice requirements in respect of the termination notice. I accept this breach would have caused some worry and stress. The balance of the claim for compensation, including for loss of income, which the tenant did not pursue at the hearing, is dismissed.
BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
- The tenant claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment to a level that amounts to harassment. The Law – breach of quiet enjoyment
- A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 37 Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agent. 38 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. 39
- 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 40 , 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 37 See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 38 Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at [6]. 39 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA. 40 MacDonald v Dodds CIV-2009-019-1524, (District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010 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 41 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.” Breach of quiet enjoyment – this case
- The tenant says over the course of her tenancy she has had a polite courteous relationship with the landlords. Asking if she has anywhere to move to
- The tenant says after the 6 March 2025 Mr Teddy “repeatedly” asked if she had found anywhere to move to.
- The tenant says that on one occasion Mr Teddy has asked if she had found anywhere to live yet, and she said he needed to give her 90 days’ notice in writing and that he replied that he did not need to. The tenant says she printed off the relevant sections of the RTA for the landlord. It appears both parties accept this occurred on or about 25 May 2025.
- The tenant says Mr T attended at her door on 5 June 2025 asking when she was going and asked if she had packed yet. The landlord acknowledged speaking with the tenant on 5 June 2025 when the tenant was moving and says he was checking to see if she needed further time.
- The evidence establishes that Mr Teddy did speak to the tenant about her moving plans twice. In respect of the later event I accept that near the end of the tenancy the landlord likely wanted to see if the tenant needed more time to move.
- Given the landlord understood they had served the tenant with a 90-day termination notice on 6 March 2025 I consider the first exchange was a reasonable enquiry as to whether the tenant has found a new home, if they thought that the 5 June 2025 was her final day of the tenancy and if they needed to know if she required more time. 41 Whatiura v Shoulder Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987.
- I do not consider these two exchanges amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. Mr Teddy was enquiring about the tenant’s plans to vacate, and I consider he was likely enquiring near the vacate date to ascertain if the tenant required further time. I do not consider Mr Teddy to have made repeated or persistent enquiries of the tenant’s plans, as she has suggested. I find the tenant has not proven a breach of quiet enjoyment regarding the landlord’s two enquiries about her vacating the premises. Text messages about rental properties
- The tenant says Mrs Teddy messaged her several times about other rental properties, contributing to her stress. She has provided text messages dated 27 March 2025, 28 April 2025 and 5 May 2025 as evidence of this. The tenant did not respond asking the landlord to not send such messages.
- Ms Teddy says she was trying to help the tenant.
- I consider that the evidence establishes that Mrs Teddy did contact the tenant on occasions to suggest new homes. I accept that Ms Teddy was attempting to help the tenant find alternative accommodation, which was reflective of their otherwise friendly and cooperative relationship. I do not consider this amounts to a breach of quiet enjoyment. Mr Teddy lingering outside premises
- The tenant says Mr Teddy would linger outside her cottage, which caused her intense anxiety. She provided one photograph of Mr Teddy outside. The tenant says she stopped working and avoided leaving the house alone until Mr Teddy had gone to do his school bus run.
- The landlord says Mr Teddy often worked on the property and his presence on the property was not out of the ordinary.
- I note here that the tenant was in Auckland from approximately 8 May 2025 until 21 May 2025 (although the text message exchange referred to below suggests it may have been longer) preparing her own home for sale. I therefore consider she exaggerated her evidence about Mr Teddy repeatedly confronting her over the weeks and months after 6 March 2025. One of the text message exchanges between the tenant and Ms Teddy dated 23 May 2025 appears to be friendly (discussing the tenant working on her house) and gives no indication that the landlord was causing her any worry.
- The tenant has provided one undated photograph of Mr Teddy outside her cottage. He is looking down to the ground, it looks like he is doing something in the garden. In taking into account the oral evidence, the lack of specific information about days and times that the tenant says the landlord lingered outside her home, I find the tenant has not proven a breach of quiet enjoyment in regard to the landlord’s lingering outside her cottage. Moving plants and belongings
- The tenant says Mr Teddy began removing her plants, moving her plants and personal property, she provided video footage of her vegetable garden and plants having been removed.
- The landlord’s accepted removing some plants from a garden that appears largely to have been used by both parties but maintained by the tenant, although there was no evidence that the parties had specifically defined shared and exclusive spaces of the garden.
- The landlord denies moving all of the tenants’ plants, and said there was little left in the garden that they cleared, said some pot plants were rotting on the deck so had to be moved.
- I accept that the landlord may have removed some of the tenant’s plants, however there is insufficient evidence, in terms of days and times, for me to find that was this was a persistent or significant issue. It appears one garden was cleared shortly before the tenancy ending. I am unclear about the extent to which the landlord moved any plants, because the parties disputed this matter, and the tenant did not provide sufficient photographic evidence of what plants were present and what might have been missing.
- I find that the tenant has not proven that the moving of her plants or the landlords’ actions significantly impaired her enjoyment of the tenancy. I consider any acts by the landlord in respect of the plants were minor and reflects the parties shared use of the garden. Outcome – breach of quiet enjoyment
- The evidence does not establish that the landlord has likely harassed the tenant or breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises. The claim for a breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment is dismissed. FILING FEE / SUPPRESSION
- Because the tenant has been partly successful with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. 42 42 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA.
- Neither party sought name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s10, s102, s109, s13, s136, s138A, s15, s1947, s20, s2016, s28, s3, s35, s38(2), s38(3), s40, s45, s45(1), s45(2), s48, s48(1), s49, s51, s54, s54(1), s54(2), s55, s60AA, s7, s72, s74, s77, s8, s89, s92, s96
Key findings
- Dispute theme: smoke alarms
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5299379?
The tribunal order states: George Teddy and Rosalie Teddy must pay Kayser Shirley Brown $2,728.00
How much money was awarded in case 5299379?
Compensation: Failure to serve termi…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299379?
The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299379?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13296362-Tribunal_Order.pdf.