What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303661 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5303661?

Compensation: Loss of use of dining…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Refusing Entry: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303661?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13745152-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303661 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5303661?

Compensation: Loss of use of dining…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Refusing Entry: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303661?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13745152-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 21, 270 Onewa Road, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303661 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303661 — net $1,350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Refusing entry	$300.00		Refusing entry
Compensation: Loss of use of dining table and bed		$150.00	Loss of use of dining table and bed
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$1,500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$300.00	$1,650.00
Net award		$1,350.00
Bond		$1,160.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,350.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303661 — net $1,350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Refusing entry	$300.00		Refusing entry
Compensation: Loss of use of dining table and bed		$150.00	Loss of use of dining table and bed
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$1,500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$300.00	$1,650.00
Net award		$1,350.00
Bond		$1,160.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,350.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $1,350.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,160.00 (BN-00051216) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The parties had attended a case management conference on 12 November 2025 and attended hearings on 15 January 2026 and 8 May 2026. 5303661, 5375030 2
The tenancy was from 14 February 2025. However, between the first and second hearing, the tenancy ended. The final date of the tenancy was 13 February 2026.
The tenants applied for work orders for: a. The landlord to make enquiries to the Body Corporate about the fire testing schedule for the building and any fire safety protocols and escape plans/procedures for the building and provide this information to the tenants; b. The landlord to engage a registered plumber to investigate the cause of very low water pressure in the kitchen and have this issue remediated in accordance with the recommendation of the plumber; c. The landlord to have the front door bottom gap assessed and remediated to stop any draughts and to have the lock looked at as well; and d. The bedroom window to be fixed to stop any draughts to come in and to stop condensation from building up.
The tenants also sought compensation, general damages and exemplary damages for: a. Failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy. b. Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, specifically: i. Faulty front door lock; ii. Bedroom window-broken latch, and damaged window frame; iii. Low water pressure in the kitchen; iv. Broken furniture provided by the landlord and reimbursement of $500.00 the tenants paid to return the broken furniture to the landlord at his request; and v. Black water damage from fire sprinkler incident – issues over reimbursement of accommodation costs to 21 September 2025 and loss of furniture and personal belongings; c. Failure to provide the mailbox key for months; d. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”), specifically: i. Ventilation; ii. Insulation; iii. Draught stopping; and iv. Heating standard; 5303661, 5375030 3 e. Breach of quiet enjoyment and privacy: i. Landlord came to the house and berated the tenants in relation to a lack of bond acknowledgement letter and other things; ii. Landlord engaging in threatening conduct and yelling at the tenants; iii. Landlord looking through the windows; iv. Landlord refusing to deal with the male tenant when the landlord found that he was not employed; v. Landlord interrogating tenants about their relationship; vi. Harassment over payments the landlord thought were late but were not; vii. Landlord insisting on an inspection straight after black water incident and unreasonably refusing to reschedule it; viii. Opening fridge door and bathroom draws during property inspections; ix. Not being told about maintenance for the building when it will impact the tenants (window washing causing the tenant’s car to be blocked in); x. Trying to take the carpark; and xi. Threatening not to renew the tenancy agreement because the tenants were trying to enforce their rights; f. Retaliatory notice or unlawful notice; g. Landlord acting to terminate tenancy without grounds; h. Unlawful entry by the landlord: i. During the fire safety inspection; and ii. When contractors come in; i. Tenancy agreement content related breaches: i. No signed Healthy Homes compliance certificate; ii. No smoke alarm information; iii. No insurance information; and iv. No HHS details; j. No completed and signed final copy of the tenancy agreement provided before the tenancy commenced; k. Bond not lodged within the required timeframe; l. Refund of the filing fee. 5303661, 5375030 4
The landlord opposed the tenant’s claims stating that he had taken steps to address the tenant’s concerns when raised.
The landlord made a cross-application for the following: a. Failure to allow entry in circumstances when the landlord had the right to enter the premises, refusing landlord to carry out routine inspection, obstructing the landlord from carrying out inspections once inside the premises, obstructing contractors from carrying out repair and maintenance work, and costs incurred for resulting repeated visits for contractors; b. Water rates arrears; c. Damaged dining table stand; and d. Refund of the filing fee.
The tenant opposed the landlord’s claims.
I deal with the tenant’s claims first. Tenant’s claims
At the first substantive hearing, the Tribunal was able to hear the claims relating to work orders at paragraph 3 above. The preliminary findings and orders were outlined in the Tribunal order on 2 February 2026.
The emergency procedure was clarified for the parties. The tenant would call 111 for any emergency and to let the landlord know that 111 had been called. The landlord was to then attend urgently.
The landlord was ordered to arrange a registered plumber to check if there were any issues with the kitchen faucet water pressure and for it to be remediated as required within a reasonable timeframe.
No orders were made to address any draught issues as the tenant did not have any HHS report to substantiate the existence of any draughts. The tenant was to provide an updated HHS report if the HHS-related claims were to be pursued.
As the tenancy ended before the second hearing, the focus at the second hearing was on compensation and exemplary damages only. This decision also focuses on compensation and exemplary damages only. Failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy
The tenant claimed that the premises was not provided reasonably clean and tidy at the beginning of the tenancy and had provided a video showing what had been collected in the dustpan during the move-in cleaning.
However, the video does not show what was in the dustpan before. 5303661, 5375030 5
When the video was viewed, I found that the shower looked clean as well as the shower water drain looking very clean. Other than some yellowing in the silicon mould around the bathtub, everything looked reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant did not raise any issue with the cleanliness of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. As a result, the landlord was not given any opportunity to rectify any cleaning issues if they existed at all.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven this claim to the required standard. This claim is dismissed. Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
The tenant raised issues about the faulty front door locks on 24 June 2025. The landlord attended to this and had it fixed on 7 July 2025. The entire lock was replaced. I find that was done in a timely manner.
Regarding the bedroom, the broken latch and damaged window also had timely responses by the landlord when notified by the tenant. Although it was not completely fixed by the time of the first hearing, I found that the landlord responded in a timely manner.
Although the landlord was ordered to arrange a registered plumber to check the kitchen faucet issue after the first substantive hearing, the tenant had called a plumber for the kitchen water pressure issue. The cause of the low pressure turned out to be a rubber ring that had been installed wrongly when it should not have been installed at all in the first place. The plumber removed this and fixed the issue immediately. The plumber charged the tenant $150.00. The landlord had already reimbursed this prior to the second hearing of this matter.
The tenant was provided with a dining table and a bed that were broken. The tenant could not use them, but the tenant did not inform the landlord of this fact adequately at the time. The tenant’s email to the landlord reads as if the tenant was not wanting to use the items as a change of heart rather than the items being broken and unusable.
The landlord said if he was told of them having been broken, that he could have fixed them or replaced them.
The tenant had to pay $300.00 to have them moved from the premises to the landlord (instead of $500.00 originally claimed).
Any furnishings provided by the landlord for the tenant to use must be in a reasonable condition. The video evidence provided by the tenant proves that they were not provided in a reasonable condition. However, the tenant also did not discharge their duty to inform the landlord as such.
Acknowledging that the rent included the use of the dining table and the bed, and that the rent was not adjusted to reflect their removal, I order a one-off 5303661, 5375030 6 compensation of $150.00 to be payable by the landlord to the tenant. I do not order for any reimbursement of the moving costs.
There was black water damage suffered by the tenant due to a fire sprinkler issue which was caused by another unit. The tenant’s insurance covered the tenant’s damaged chattels and accommodation costs during that period. The landlord’s insurance assessor had given the landlord clearance for the tenants to move back in from 11 September 2025.
The tenant said that the premises smelt too bad to move in even after 11 September 2025 and they had lived elsewhere until 21 September 2025.
The tenant claimed for accommodation costs between 14 and 21 September 2025 which was not covered by the tenant’s insurance. The tenant claimed that they rented a room from an ex-colleague for that period.
The landlord was never told about the tenants having lived elsewhere between 14 to 21 September 2025 at the time. As a result, the landlord never got the opportunity to check the smell or discuss the matter with the landlord’s own insurance assessor.
The tenant was given an opportunity between the first and second hearing to provide evidence of the accommodation costs incurred between 14 and 21 September 2025. At the second hearing, the tenant confirmed that they did not wish to pursue this particular claim any further. Therefore, this claim is not considered as part of this order.
Under section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Under section 40(1)(d) RTA, the tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs.
Under section 49 RTA, where one party breaches any provisions of the tenancy agreement or the RTA, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach. This is called the duty to mitigate loss.
I find that the landlord has acted promptly whenever the tenant has raised any issues with maintenance. I do not find that the premises was not provided or maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
Other than the one-off $150.00 fee for the loss of use of the bed and the dining table, I dismiss the claims relating to maintenance. Failure to provide the mailbox key for months 5303661, 5375030 7
The tenant claimed that they had no access to the mailbox or access card to the mailroom. The landlord believed that he had provided a copy of the mailbox key to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy, but it turned out to be the wrong one. The tenant believed that the tenant did not receive any key at all at the beginning of the tenancy.
When the tenant raised this issue, the landlord requested a copy of the key from the Body Corporate, and it was promptly provided.
The tenant also requested a copy of the access card for the main building to access a safe area for courier delivery. The landlord said that he requested a copy of the access card for the tenants, but that request was denied by the Body Corporate as the tenants had no right to access the main building. The landlord could not find a copy of the email correspondence between him and the Body Corporate but maintained that was the conversation that had taken place.
The tenant claimed that they needed the access card so couriers could be delivered to a safe place inside. Also, access was required when there were issues getting the correct ICP number from the main power board for the water meter.
However, access into the main building mail room was not something that was listed on the tenancy agreement. I accept that the Body Corporate has declined the request for an access card for the tenant. I do not find there was any failings by the landlord. This claim is dismissed. Breach of the HHS
The tenant claimed that the premises was not compliant with HHS.
The landlord had an HHS compliance report from Trust Property Services dated 13 February 2025 to rebut the tenant’s claims.
The tenant was given an opportunity between the first hearing and the second hearing to provide a new HHS report to substantiate the tenant’s claims. However, the tenant was unable to provide any new HHS report to rebut the landlord’s HHS compliance report.
Accordingly, the claim against the breach of the HHS is dismissed. Breach of the quiet enjoyment and privacy
Under section 38 RTA, the tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord. The 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. Breaching this in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is an unlawful act. 5303661, 5375030 8
If the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord has committed this unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may, after having regard to the intent of the landlord, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant and the public interest, order exemplary damages against the landlord.
The maximum exemplary damages awardable for this unlawful act is $3,000.00. See Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant claimed that the landlord came to the house and berated the tenants in relation to a lack of bond acknowledgement letter and other things. This happened on 10 April 2025. Council staff came for their inspection, and the landlord did his inspection as well. The tenant said that the landlord started yelling and misbehaving which shocked the tenant. The tenant had been notified about the Council inspection beforehand. The landlord knocked on the door, and the tenant let the Council inspector and the landlord into the house. The tenant provided a video of the interaction where the tenant said that the landlord had spoken to him as if he was a “child”.
The tenant stated that the landlord engaged in threatening conduct and yelled at the tenants. This first started on 24 February 2025. The landlord had originally thought the tenants were a couple, but it turned out that it was not the case. The landlord demanded to know about their relationship, thinking there was some fraud with how the relationship had been portrayed initially to secure the tenancy. The landlord kept wanting to have one person to be the point of contact for the tenants. The landlord said that the tenancy could be terminated if they were not in a relationship and not paying from a single account. From questioning the landlord on this point, it became clear that the landlord did not know how joint and several liability worked. That is why he wanted the income earner to be listed.
The tenants emailed the landlord on 25 February 2025 explaining the relationship in an effort to calm the landlord down. I note that there is no requirement for any two named tenants to be a couple. Even if their relationship was misrepresented, there are no issues under the RTA. The landlord has no right to demand clarification of the relationship status of tenants.
On 29 September 2025, the landlord inspected the premises post the leak from upstairs. The tenant produced a 9-minute video which showed bad attitude generally from the landlord. The landlord was saying “your house?” when the tenant used the words “my house”. The video showed that the premises was kept very clean, yet the landlord went on to open the fridge, all drawers and told the tenants to “get a house” in a rather demeaning, disparaging way. There was no yelling by the landlord. The landlord said that he acted that way because he felt threatened by the way the tenant was talking to him. 5303661, 5375030 9
Also, after the sprinkler incident, while one of the workers were working on the sprinklers, the landlord and looked through the window into the lounge checking up on the lounge. He said that he peeked in but did not think it was a big deal.
The tenant provided a text message from 11 April 2025 where the landlord was refusing to deal with the male tenant because he was unemployed. The landlord said that he was just trying to protect himself from late rent payments. The landlord also said that the tenant was refusing to deal with him unless there was a professional property manager.
The tenant said that the landlord harassed the tenant over payments that were not even late. The rent was paid by automatic payment. The rent was usually processed on Thursdays but there had been 3 times when the payments went through on Fridays. The last time this happened was on Friday 16 January 2026. At 6:43 pm on that day, the landlord sent the tenant 10 text messages as well as an email stating that it was the “final notice”. The payment showed up later on the same day.
On Thursday 10 April 2026, the landlord contacted the tenant by phone calls and text messages. There were between 15 to 20 text messages, emails and phone calls regarding “late rent”.
However, the more concerning aspect to this was that the rent period was meant to be from Saturday to Friday. The landlord demanded the payments be made on Thursdays for the following week’s rent. The landlord started texting from the morning of Thursdays if rent had not been received. The tenant had explained that it was via automatic payments on Thursdays and that the tenant would manually pay if the payment had not been received by the following day. Despite this, the landlord was demanding for “rent arrears” via text messages and emails when technically the rent was not even in arrears.
The tenant raised issues with the landlord insisting on an inspection straight after the black water incident and unreasonably refusing to reschedule it. However, I note that this was an inspection done with proper notice. There is no issue with this.
The tenant said that they did not receive any notice of the window washing done by the Body Corporate on 30 June 2025. This impacted the tenant as he could not get his car out all day due to the driveway being blocked.
The landlord said that he did not receive any notice from the Body Corporate regarding the 30 June 2025 window washing. The landlord could not forward anything on beforehand. The landlord did forward a notice from the Body Corporate from 2 July 2025 for cleaning on 4 July 2025. I do not find that the tenant can prove that the landlord intentionally omitted to tell the tenant about the window washing on 30 June 2025. 5303661, 5375030 10
In relation to the carpark dispute, the tenant did not want to take a carpark at $25.00 per week at the beginning of the tenancy. However, the tenant later wanted a carpark, and the tenant had to arrange their carpark with the Body Corporate directly. During a disagreement between the parties for an unrelated matter, the landlord told the tenant that he will tell the Body Corporate to cancel the tenant’s carpark and take the carpark back. The landlord explained that he thought he was responsible for anything to do with the Body Corporate because he was the landlord. There was a dispute between the parties as to whether this particular conversation took place towards the beginning or end of the tenancy. The landlord was not entitled to say this to the tenant.
The tenant said that the landlord threatened to not renew the tenancy agreement because the tenants were trying to enforce their rights. This was in relation to the emails from February where the landlord said that the tenancy cannot continue or be renewed if the tenants were not in a relationship that the landlord had originally thought that they were in. However, on the very next day the landlord emailed back saying that he will leave the tenancy agreement as it was for now.
The landlord could be seen in the 9-minute inspection video saying “you know the termination end date right?” The landlord had given notice not to renew the tenancy but the landlord did not give any “termination notice” as such.
After having reviewed the text messages, emails, video evidence as well as hearing from both parties, I find that the conduct of the landlord amounted to harassment of the tenants. The landlord seemed to believe that there was nothing wrong with the way that he was acting. Hopefully, this judgment will be the opportunity he needs to reflect on his attitude and actions towards tenants.
I find that the words and actions used by the landlord were deliberate. It had caused unnecessary stress for the tenants. The tenants were unable to have quiet enjoyment of the premises. There is public interest in denouncing this sort of behaviour from the landlord.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,500.00 as exemplary damages. Retaliatory notice or unlawful notice
Although this had been raised by the tenants originally, as the landlord never gave any termination notice, this claim was withdrawn. Landlord acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds
This related to the same issue raised above in relation to the breach of quiet enjoyment. This claim was also withdrawn by the tenant. 5303661, 5375030 11 Unlawful entry by the landlord
The tenant said that the landlord entered the premises without the tenant’s permission. This claim was in relation to two dates – both were when there were other workers attending the premises.
The first relates to when the Council inspector was there. The tenant opened the door for the inspector and the landlord. Afterwards they both left but the tenant had left the door open. The landlord came back inside the premises and stood inside. The tenant started recording and this was captured by video. They both talked about rent arrears and bond acknowledgment. The landlord said that he was there to finish off the conversation from before and came in because the door was left open. He asked whether an inspection could take place there given he was there. The tenant said no and no inspection took place. The tenant never told him he could not “re-enter” the premises and I find that the landlord genuinely mistook the open door as continued permission.
The second time was when a contractor came for the sprinkler incident. This happened on the first week of September. The tenant was home and the contractor was allowed in, but the tenant was not told that the landlord was coming as well. The landlord came in together and checked the ceiling, spoke with the contractor and left.
Both instances, there was minimal intrusion if any. Ideally, any conversations between the landlord and the tenant should have taken place with the landlord standing outside. However, in these circumstances, there is no public interest in any exemplary damages. This claim is dismissed. Tenancy agreement content related breaches
The tenant raised issues with tenancy agreement not complying with section 13A RTA. There was no HHS compliance certificate, no smoke alarm information, no insurance information and the completed signed copy was only provided to the tenant in October 2025, some 8 months after the tenancy began.
The tenancy was a 7-page tenancy agreement. The landlord said that he had paid a professional for it. The HHS information was provided to the tenant at some stage during the tenancy.
Although I find that the landlord has breached the requirements under section 13A, I accept that the landlord had relied on the form provided by a “professional”. The landlord has been warned about this wrong form. The landlord should use the publicly available, legally compliant tenancy agreement template provided by the Tenancy Services online.
I do not order for any exemplary damages in the circumstances. 5303661, 5375030 12 Bond not lodged within the required timeframe
Despite the tenant’s original claims, there was evidence that the bond had been lodged with the Bond Centre within the legal required time frame. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Landlord’s claims
I now consider the landlord’s claims. Failure to allow entry and obstructing inspection
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not allow the landlord to carry out routine property inspections on 25 September 2025 and obstructed the landlord from carrying out inspections once he was inside.
However, the landlord was never denied entry for the 3 inspections, but he took objection to the tenant recording the inspection and the tenant telling him to “get out”.
In relation to the claim that the landlord had incurred extra costs for repeated by the contractors, the landlord said that a handyman who attended the premises in relation to fixing the broken glass was told by the tenant “to make things as difficult for the landlord as possible.”
On 2 September 2025, the landlord issued a 24-hour’s notice of entry to fix the window. However, the tenant replied back saying “given the ongoing disputes and the comments made by your contractor, I will not be engaging further where my rights are being disrespected or where tradespeople make inappropriate personal remarks. As previously stated, I will not be dealing directly with [contractor’s name] or other contractors… As this matter is already before the Tenancy Tribunal, no further access will be granted until the Tribunal has made a decision. We will, of course, comply fully with whatever outcome the Tribunal directs.” As a result of this response, the landlord did not end up sending the contractor to do the final repairs.
It is unlawful for the tenant, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises when the landlord is entitled to enter. The landlord was entitled to enter with 24 hours’ notice to carry out necessary repairs to the premises.
The tenant’s refusal to allow entry as the matter was before the Tenancy Tribunal is not a reasonable excuse to refuse entry.
Although I acknowledge the ongoing issues between the parties, I find that the tenant was in the wrong to refuse entry. There is public interest in allowing the landlord to enter to carry out necessary repairs to the premises. 5303661, 5375030 13
I order the tenant to pay the landlord $300.00 as exemplary damages for the unlawful act. Water rates arrears
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that any water rates arrears had already been sorted. Therefore, this was not pursued at the hearing. Damaged dining table stand
The landlord sought $200.00 and claimed that the dining table stand was damaged by the tenant.
The tenant had provided a video to prove that it was not the tenant’s fault. The dining table had been poorly assembled without all the screws which caused the dining tabletop to topple.
I do not find that the damage was caused by the tenant. I dismiss this claim. Filing fee reimbursement
I do not find that either party can be properly described as having wholly or substantially succeeded with their own application.
Therefore, I do not order for any refund of the filing fees. Name suppression
I do not find there is any public interest in suppressing the details of this order.
Therefore, no suppression order applies to this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303661 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 21, 270 Onewa Road, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303661 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 21, 270 Onewa Road, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions