What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300884 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 5300884?

Compensation: $1,062.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300884?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300884?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12542844-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300884 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 5300884?

Compensation: $1,062.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300884?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300884?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12542844-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14 Emmerdale Mews, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300884 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300884 — net $3,290.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,062.00	Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages Retaliatory notice	$2,200.00	Exemplary damages Retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,290.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,290.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300884 — net $3,290.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,062.00	Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages Retaliatory notice	$2,200.00	Exemplary damages Retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,290.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,290.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim for costs is dismissed.
Unique Realty Limited as Agent for Mathew Gillies must pay to [the tenants] the sum of $3,290.00 as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord represented by Ms Taiapa and Ms Seath.
This case concerns a periodic tenancy that ran between 20 September 2024 and 19 May 2025. The landlord gave 90 days’ notice on 7 April 2025, but on 28 April, the tenants then gave 21 days’ notice.
The tenants seek compensation and exemplary damages in relation to: a. Breach of quiet enjoyment b. Retaliatory notice. c. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord has cross-applied for costs, claiming the application is frivolous and vexatious.
The onus is on each party to establish their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment?
The allegations of breach of quiet enjoyment arise from some renovations that took place during the tenancy when the landlord retro-fitted some double-glazed windows and replaced the outside cladding on three walls.
Mr Y said that the first they were aware of any proposed work on the premises was when they asked for a window to be repaired and received an email from the property manager, Ms Seath, on 23 September 2024 in which she said that the owner’s father was going to contact the tenants about coming to temporarily fix the window. The next sentence reads, “The new windows will be ready in about a month”. She added that they were going to be double glazing all windows and the doors. Mr Y said that this was the first he knew of this.
Ms Seath told the Tribunal that she told Mrs Y about this plan at the time that she signed the tenancy agreement. Mr Y was not present.
Mr Y said that initial work began in October 2024 when people came to measure the premises.
Mr Y said that the project began at the beginning of November and continued to the end of December or January.
Mr Y said that each window took at least two days. The old window was removed on one day, and the new one put in the next day, meaning that they were without a window overnight. It was very disruptive as they moved their belongings about the house.
In two cases, a floor to ceiling window was replaced with a wall and window. The actual wall under the window was not replaced immediately and they were left with a temporary lining for one week underneath the window.
The tenants were affected by the cold, dust, and construction odours. Mr Y said that their newborn baby had to go to hospital because of the dust. He provided no other evidence about the link between the baby’s health and the condition of the premises.
Outside during this period there were nails, screws, old windows and new windows, interfering with the tenants’ children’s ability to play outside. He said there were injuries as a result of this.
Mr Y called his mother to give evidence. She had looked after the couple’s children 3 to 4 days a week during the period of work. She said it was “kind of chaos”, leftover dust, wood and nails. The children could not play outside.
Mr Y said that there were no notices that the builders were going to be at the property apart from three occasions when the builder texted.
Mr Y summonsed the builder, John Baird, who gave evidence over the phone. He had no exact memory of the dates of the work, but thought it began in December, stopped for 3 to 4 weeks over Christmas, and resumed in January. He thought that he had visited the property on at least 30 separate days between 9 and 3.30.
Mr Baird said that he arranged with Mrs Y when he would be there. If she was dropping children off at daycare, she would leave the door open for him and sometimes he would text to tell her not to, if he was not coming, or he was going to be late. Discussion
Section 48 sets out the notice periods that a landlord must give if they are going to enter the premises without the consent of the tenant. It also says that they may enter at any time with the consent of the tenant.
Ms Seath said that she had told Mrs Y that there was going to be some work on the property. Mrs Y did not attend the hearing and no statement from her was provided. In the absence of any statement from her, I find it is more likely than not that there was some discussion about some replacement windows at the time of signing the agreement. The extent of the work may not have been clear to Mrs Y.
In any event, there is no doubt that before the work began in November, the tenants knew that the windows and cladding were being replaced. There is no suggestion that the builders entered the premises without the tenants’ knowledge and consent. Mr Y’s contention that there was no formal notice on every occasion other than the three days that Mr Baird texted him is irrelevant. The tenants knew in advance that the work was to be done, and Mr Baird communicated with them about it.
The issue is whether there has been a breach of section 38(2) which provides that a landlord must 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.
Mr Y tried to lead evidence from his mother that the builders had used the toilet without seeking permission or had moved the children’s toilet seat. It is not necessary to make findings about the builders’ use of the toilet. As Mr Baird said, it is difficult for tradespeople to carry out work during a day if they have to go elsewhere to use the toilet, and he was adamant that he would have asked permission.
The issue is that having windows and cladding replaced over a period of weeks is disruptive. I accept that it would have been dusty and draughty and that the builder’s materials, including screws, nails and windows would have caused clutter. I accept that all of this impacted the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of their property.
The next question is whether there should be compensation for this. The tenants seek $3,400 based on $100 per week for the duration of the tenancy.
Ms Taiapa said that there had never been any complaints or any breach notices issued, that it was only after the tenancy was terminated that any issues were raised. She pointed to the fact that the tenants had given the property manager a Christmas gift as evidence that they were happy.
I do not accept that it should be inferred that the tenants were not inconvenienced by the work undertaken. It should have been obvious to the landlord that the work was causing some disruption, but in any event, it was raised by the tenants.
Although Mr Baird thought that he began the work in December, both parties said that it began in November 2024 and they agree it continued through January. By agreement there with a break over Christmas so that the tenants could enjoy the premises without the ongoing disruption.
On 22 January 2025 Ms Seash emailed the owner saying that the tenants had been in touch asking how much longer the window replacement would take, and noting that they had a 9-week-old baby in hospital with chest and breathing issues and were concerned that the work was contributing to the problems. 1 This is evidence that the tenants felt affected by the work.
In March 2025 Mr Y emailed the property manager asking for an update on the renovations. On 21 March Ms Seash replied that she had spoken to the owner about the bare walls inside and out. The plan was to get the exterior sorted and painted soon. She said that the inside would be messy and would take around three days. Out of concern for the tenants’ children, she asked if there was any chance the tenants had plans to go on holiday for a few days so they could do it when the family wasn’t there. 1 In the absence of any independent evidence of the admission to hospital or link to the renovations, no finding has been made that there was a direct link.
Mr Y replied noting that since November there had been a lot of renovations with people constantly in their space. He asked if the owners would be prepared to offer two weeks of no rent so that they could plan and fund a holiday. Alternatively, he asked for a reduction of rent during the next phase of renovations.
Ms Seash replied on 27 March that the owner was not in a position to do this right now, that the outside work would be completed and the inside would have to wait.
Given the extent of the work being done, I would have expected the landlord to offer some reduction in rent.
Ms Taiapa said that the rent was below market rent. She relied on Mr Y’s statement that he thought the rent was reasonable when the couple signed up.
No evidence was provided that the rent was below market rent or that there was agreement that the rent had been reduced in any way to account for the renovations that were to take place.
The degree of inconvenience would have varied throughout a period of approximately 12 weeks over November, December, January. I accept that some nights would have been disturbed more than others by the lack of window. Even when the place was secured, and there was a pause in the work, because the work had not been completed, there were still building materials about.
I do not find that there was a breach of quiet enjoyment for the first three months of the tenancy. The disruption started during November.
I have decided that the tenants should be compensated $1,062.00 which represents an average 15% reduction per week over a 12-week period.

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

The tenants also seek exemplary damages, saying that the landlord has harassed them.
If a landlord breaches the obligation not to not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in circumstances that amount to harassment it is 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.
“Harassment” is not defined in the Act. The District Court in MacDonald v Dodds 2 considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was appropriate in the context of s 38(3). The Court in that case adopted the 2 CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as meaning “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.
Other definitions include: “to torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation” (Concise Oxford Dictionary); and “words, conduct, or action (usually 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 (Black’s Law Dictionary).
While I accept that at times the tenants may have felt distressed or tired by the renovations, this was not a pattern of behaviour directed at the tenants. The legitimate replacement of windows and cladding does not amount to harassment. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
On 7 April the landlord gave a 90-day notice to terminate. The tenant says that this was retaliatory.
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 Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants say that the notice was given in response to them asking for a reduction in rent during the next phase of renovations.
Ms Taiapa said that the tenants had refused to allow the renovations to continue and so termination was required so that they could be completed.
I could see nothing in the evidence presented that indicated the tenants intended to prevent the completion of the sanding and painting. They had been asked if they were going on holiday and had simply asked for a two-week rent reduction if they were going to have to go away while the renovations were completed, or alternatively, a rent reduction during the process.
In this situation, some landlords might have put the tenants up in a motel for three days while the renovations were completed and/or offered some compensation for the inconvenience.
The tenant’s request for compensation was in response to being asked if they could plan a holiday so the inside work could be completed without risk of harm to their children.
Ms Taiapa said that the owners could not agree to the tenants’ request because they could not afford it, and yet, they then terminated the tenancy, which would have cut off that income completely. This approach lacks logic.
I find on the balance of probabilities the notice given in part was as a result of the tenants complaining about ongoing disruption and asking for compensation and it was retaliatory. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. Giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This notice clearly had a significant impact on the tenant who emailed and asked to stay on, agreeing to an increased rent once the renovations were completed. They had children in school and were hoping to buy in the region in the foreseeable future.
I order payment of $2,200 exemplary damages.
I have taken into account section 54(5) which says that the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the case of subsection (2)(a), 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.
For the reasons outlined above, I do not find that this was vexatious or frivolous. The request for compensation in the form of a rent reduction was in response to the landlord’s question about whether the tenants were planning a holiday, and in any event, it was a perfectly reasonable request in light of the ongoing disruption of replacement of all windows and the external cladding on three walls. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenants claim that 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). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For a 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.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The tenancy agreement contained a HHS statement. It specified that the heating capacity of the living room was 7.1kw and the heatpump was 6kw. The statement records that the 80% compliance was required and so it met the standard.
Mr Y argued that the heating should have been 90% compliant and therefore the landlord had made a misleading statement.
It was not until 20 May 2025, the day after the tenancy ended, that Mr Y made further enquiries. He contacted Energy Workshop who had completed the Healthy Homes Assessment in 2022. Mr Y obtained a copy of the heating report which set out the calculations and the regulations, noting that no top-up heater was required if there was one or more existing heaters that: a. were installed before 1 July 2019 b. each have a heating capacity greater than 2.4 kW c. meet the requirements in the standards, and d. have a total heating capacity that’s at least 90% of what you need.
On 20 May 2025 a person from the Support Team at Energy Workshop advised that given the time that has passed and updates to the Healthy Homes Standards since then, a new assessment would be necessary to accurately determine the property’s current compliance. Without a new assessment, the property would be considered non-compliant.
Mr Y did not know when the heater was installed but had ascertained that it was manufactured in March 2019.
The heating standard changed after the assessment was done.
Ms Taiapa provided an email dated 7 October 2025 from Mr Trow, the Operations Manager of Energy Workshop. He confirmed that their inspection report of 2 March 2022 indicated that the heating did not meet the required kilowatts or the 90% tolerance at the time, meaning that under the healthy homes regulations at the time, the landlord had 90 days within which to comply.
Mr Trow recorded that on 12 May 2022, the Heating Tool calculations were updated, amending the tolerance from 90% to 80%. Due to this change, the property became compliant on 12 May because only 72 days had elapsed since the report’s completion. Discussion
Mr Y has not established on the balance of probabilities that the premises were non-compliant or that the landlord has provided false information about compliance.
Even without Mr Trow’s email, the evidence was equivocal. The fact that the 2022 report was not current does not mean that the premises are not compliant. It simply means that Energy Workshop cannot certify that the premises are currently compliant without undertaking a further assessment.
The application concerning the HHS is dismissed.

Should costs be ordered against the tenants?

The landlord has lodged a cross-application seeking costs under section 102(2)(a) and (3), which provides that the Tribunal may order the reasonable costs of the other party to a claim, where in the opinion of the Tribunal, the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought.
Ms Taiapa said that the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious because: a. The application was not lodged until 6 July 2025, 7 weeks after the tenancy had ended. b. If Mr Y had come to them they could have sorted it. c. They have spent hours and hours of the case. d. It has caused a lot of stress.
In reply, Mr Y argued that the purpose of the Tribunal is so that people can bring disputes and he was entitled to bring a claim. Legal principles
A frivolous proceeding is one which trifles with the court’s processes. 3 In Deliu v Hong, 4 the High Court said: The claims by Mr Deliu and by Mr Hong are frivolous. The parties are using the pleadings to direct insults at each other. This proceeding is not being used to uphold interests which the law of torts sets out to protect. In the eyes of the law, the matters in issue in this proceeding are trivial. This proceeding lacks the seriousness required of matters for the Court’s determination. 3 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53 at [89] 4 Deliu v Hong [2011] NZAR 681 (HC)
The Labour Court in 1989 observed 5 about a frivolous case that: It is one which it is impossible to take seriously. A trivial case is one in which the plaintiff is relying on an empty technicality or can at most secure a result devoid of importance, so that it can be truly said that he or she is trifling with the Court in initiating the proceeding in the first place.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “vexatious” as “conduct without reasonable or probable cause or excuse; harassing; annoying”
A Full Bench of the High Court 6 identified features that will indicate a claim is vexatious: a. a pattern of complex, prolix, and sometimes incomprehensible pleadings; b. the proceedings showing the respondent to be an almost compulsive litigant against a widening circle of defendants; c. extravagant claims or scandalous allegations which the litigant has no prospect of substantiating or justifying; d. the frequency with which part or all of the respondent’s statements of claim have been struck out; and e. the extent to which the respondent allows their proceedings to lie dormant. Discussion
Two of the tenants’ claims have been upheld. It is therefore difficult to argue that they were either vexatious or frivolous.
With several specified exceptions, claims for exemplary damages must be made within 12 months of the event. For compensation claims, the applicants have 6 years. There was nothing untoward about the timing of the tenants’ applications.
The claim of harassment was not upheld. Like many unsuccessful applications, it was based on a misunderstanding of the application of the law.
The claim about Healthy Homes Standards had a certain air of pettiness or point-scoring after the tenancy had ended, but it does not meet the descriptions of frivolous or vexatious as described above.
While it is possible that the claim might not have needed to be made if there had been some discussion, in fairness to the tenant, his attempts to resolve the 5 New Zealand (with exceptions) Shipwrights Union v New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering and Related Trades Industrial Union of Workers 6 Attorney-General v Heenan Attorney-General v Heenan [2009] NZAR 763 (HC) at [138]; upheld on appeal in Heenan v Attorney-General [2011] NZCA 9, [2011] NZAR 200. issues of disturbance of his quiet enjoyment and extending the tenancy had met with no discussion or negotiation on the part of the landlord.
The tenant was entitled to bring his grievances to the Tribunal and seek rulings on the matters he had identified. Tribunal proceedings can be stressful and time-consuming for both parties but that does not make them vexatious or frivolous.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and there are orders for suppression of the tenants’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300884 — Exemplary damages at 14 Emmerdale Mews, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300884 — Exemplary damages at 14 Emmerdale Mews, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

Should costs be ordered against the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

Should costs be ordered against the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions