What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5306339 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5306339?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Amenity: FTM, Insulation: $14,702.15 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5306339?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5306339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13680889-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5306339 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5306339?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Amenity: FTM, Insulation: $14,702.15 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5306339?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5306339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13680889-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11 Rosedale Avenue, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5306339 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5306339 — net $23,380.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 June 2025	$1,050.00		Rent arrears to 6 June 2025
Loss of amenity: FTM, insulation		$14,702.15	Loss of amenity: FTM, insulation
Exemplary damages: failing to repair and maintain		$4,800.00	failing to repair and maintain
Compensation for interference with quiet enjoyment		$500.00	Compensation for interference with quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: insurance; and HHS information		$400.00	insurance; and HHS information
Compensation: tenant repairs – labour and materials		$4,000.00	tenant repairs – labour and materials
Filing fee		$28.00	Filing fee
Total award	$1,050.00	$24,430.15
Net award		$23,380.15
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$23,380.15

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5306339 — net $23,380.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 June 2025	$1,050.00		Rent arrears to 6 June 2025
Loss of amenity: FTM, insulation		$14,702.15	Loss of amenity: FTM, insulation
Exemplary damages: failing to repair and maintain		$4,800.00	failing to repair and maintain
Compensation for interference with quiet enjoyment		$500.00	Compensation for interference with quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: insurance; and HHS information		$400.00	insurance; and HHS information
Compensation: tenant repairs – labour and materials		$4,000.00	tenant repairs – labour and materials
Filing fee		$28.00	Filing fee
Total award	$1,050.00	$24,430.15
Net award		$23,380.15
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$23,380.15

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
Tamaki Real Estate Limited Stephen John Dennis Hall must pay [the tenant] $19,475.14 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below.
The tenant’s claims are allowed as set out below. All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

I heard this matter at the Auckland District Court on 5 May 2025.
The tenant attended the hearing with [flatmate’s name] who has lived at the premises since about 30 October 2020.
Stephen Hall attended for Tamaki Real Estate Limited. Background and issues for determination
The tenancy began on about 9 January 2015 and continued until 6 June 2025. The tenant lived in the premises from early on but did not formally became a tenant until about 14 December. Since then, the tenant has managed the tenancy as the sole head tenant and has shared the property with various flatmates who have contributed to the rent.
Tamaki Real Estate is a boutique property management company in the sense it is a small operator with only seven clients. Mr Hall, who runs the company, also dedicates his time to other endeavours including transporting children with disabilities.
The weekly rent for the tenancy was originally $650.00 and had increased to $800.00 during the tenancy.
The house is a 1930s’ bungalow on a full site. It has three bedrooms, a bathroom, and one bedroom has an ensuite. It has been added to and renovated over the years, but the character and structure of the original house appears to be largely intact. The alterations to the house include construction of a downstairs area some decades ago.
Naturally, also over the 10 years of the tenancy, the house incurred further wear and tear. The exterior paint got stained and flaked off, the interior paintwork and wall coverings became increasingly dirty and mouldy in parts, the kitchen cupboards’ paintwork wore away, the interior window frames and sills’ paint peeled away and moulded in the damp areas, and many of the front balcony’s planks rotted through.
Early in the tenancy, the tenant and his flatmates used the main basement room as a bedroom. The landlord says that tenants are not meant to be use the room as a bedroom. It was available for storage or use as a games room.
The tenant alleges the landlord carried out practically no repairs or maintenance throughout the entire tenancy and that in 2022 (by which time the house was unsafe and unhealthy) the tenant emailed the landlord confirming the house’s rundown condition and asking for a rent reduction. The landlord refused the rent reduction and did nothing to address the house’s deteriorating condition.
In 2024 – the landlord still having done no repairs and maintenance - the tenant on his own initiative, with the help of his uncle carried out significant maintenance and repairs himself.
The issues for decision arise from the parties’ claims.
The landlord claims: a. For rent arrears. b. That the tenant unlawfully refused access.
The tenant claims: a. The landlord failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard of repair generally and including in respect to the deck’s rotting boards, the basement leaking, electrical wiring, the guttering being in poor repair and blocked, the dishwasher not working, the window frames being poorly maintained and in need of repair, the exterior and interior walls needing repainting, the stove malfunctioning, and the garage door not opening properly. 1 b. The landlord breached their insulation duties. 2 c.The landlord unlawfully entered the premises and harassed the tenant. 3 d. The landlord failed to provide HHS and insurance information on request. 4 e. The landlord failed to provide a written tenancy agreement. 5 f.The landlord failed to keep proper rent and bond records. 6 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 45(1)(b). 2 RTA, s 45(1)(bb); Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 3 RTA ss 48 and 38. 4 RTA ss 45(AC) and 45(2B). 5 RTA s 13. 6 RTA s 30. The landlord’s claims Rent arrears
The tenant calculated the rent arrears ordered above. Mr Hall initially claimed significantly more for rent arrears but on discussion agreed with the tenant’s calculation of a lesser amount.

Did the tenant unlawfully refuse entry?

The landlord claims the tenant refused entry and seeks exemplary damages.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance. 7
Mr Hall relied upon a “notice” he gave the tenant by way of email on Tuesday 20 May 2025. In the email, Mr Hall mentioned conducting a sales valuation appraisal and having a contractor quote for redecorating. The operative part of Mr Hall’s “notice” is framed as a question: To this end could someone be home Friday morning around 10 a.m. ?
The tenant did not reply in the affirmative. Nonetheless, Mr Hall and the contractor went to the house at about the time Mr Hall’s email requested someone to be home.
At the time Mr Hall and his contractor arrived, the tenant was bedridden due to illness. When the tenant did not answer the door, Mr Hall and the contractor further opened the tenant’s ajar bedroom window to request entry. The tenant refused entry. There was then an unpleasant exchange between the tenant and the contractor.
Under s 48(2)(b) of the RTA, the landlord may enter the premises: (b) for the purpose of inspecting the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on a day specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry.
The words “in a notice” mean that the landlord must clearly state that the landlord will enter the premises in reliance upon the landlord’s relevant power to do so. A notice that does not state the landlord will enter is bad for not engaging the section’s terms. 7 RTA s 48(1) and (2).
The landlord’s claim for refusing access cannot succeed because the “notice” is not a notice; it is a request.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant claims the landlord fundamentally failed to repair and maintain the premises over the entire tenancy. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair such known defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. The author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 8 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 9 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord of damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair promptly after they discover the damage or disrepair. 10 Notwithstanding the 8 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 9 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 10 RTA, s 40(1)(d). tenant’s duty to notify, Landlords have an independent obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 11 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation...
If a landlord breaches their duty to maintain the premises, the Tribunal may order compensation; and if the failure is intentional, exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 12 The facts
Mr Hall denies the landlord failed to repair and maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair.
The tenancy began two years before Mr Hall took over the management of the tenancy. Before Mr Hall arrived on the scene, on 4 February 2015, one of the original tenants emailed the then property manager complaining that, “In general the property was in a fairly dirty and run-down condition and I am quite unhappy that my concerns have not been treated with any urgency”. The tenant then listed items (in addition to a list that they had already given to the property manager’s builder) requiring repair or maintenance, including: a. The dishwasher – bottom drawer was not working. b. The deck had rotting and loose boards. “[T]his is a safety issue as someone could very easily be injured here”. c.The garage door “is damaged and needs fixing”.
On 28 February 2017, the tenant and an existing tenant, David, emailed Mr Hall requesting that the landlord accept the current tenant as the sole tenant by way of a tenancy agreement variation. They also referred to “serious maintenance issues”. It is not clear what steps the then (previous) property manager took to address the issues referred to. However, when Mr Hall took over the management of the premises in 2017, his initial (and apparently only written inspection report) one-page property inspection report dated 22 July 2017 recorded several items needing repair, including: 11 See n 8. 12 RTA s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. a. Exterior Paint: “old, stained”. b. “Decking timber rotting in parts”. c.“Dishwasher not working”. d. “Slight mould to ceiling”. e. “Spouting & downpipes 1 missing joint”.
Earlier in the proceedings, to clarify what repairs and maintenance the current property management company had done during the tenancy, the Tribunal directed the landlord to provide: a. Any photographs taken during the tenancy. b. All inspection reports. c. All work orders and invoices for repairs, any other work at the premises, and any other payments made in respect to the premises. d. Any documents relating to the tenancy including all communications whether by email, text, or otherwise. e. All business records for the tenancy including the property manager’s file.
In response to the Tribunal’s direction, at the hearing Mr Hall provided 14 pages of documents, which included documents showing repairs and maintenance as follows: a. Repairing and reconnecting a downpipe to the spouting – invoice 19 October 2017, $97.75. b. Removing trees – invoice 21 January 2019, $5,060.00. c.Removing a garden shed, repairing fences, cutting back trees and shrubs, and garden work – invoice 11 July 2019, $8,323.70. d. Repairing a broken water main – invoice 2 January 2025, $425.00.
Of the five items needing repair that Mr Hall recorded in his inspection report of 22 July 2017, the landlord’s invoices show the landlord fixed only the spouting. That left unaddressed from his brief report: a. “Exterior Paint: old, stained”. b. “Decking timber rotting in parts”. c.“Dishwasher not working”. d. “Slight mould to ceiling”.
The tenant called a former flatmate Kieran [surname suppressed] to give evidence. He deposed he lived at the premises until the end of 2019. His bedroom was in the basement, which he said was “very damp, dark, cold, and unhealthy.” His statement to the Tribunal states: Mr Hall again came to the property unannounced while Frasier was not at home. I let him into the property. I showed him the leaks and water issues on the far side of the basement bedroom. I also showed him the laundry room door near the basement bedroom, which had an over one-inch gap causing a significant draft.
Mr Hall denied meeting Kieran. The tenant says Mr Hall has previously admitted the visit. The visit was seven years ago, so everyone’s memories have faded. I am not persuaded on the balance of the probabilities that Mr Hall himself made this visit. I accept someone representing the landlord did visit the premises and spoke to Kieran. However, in context, the evidence is not particularly crucial. This visit would have confirmed the obvious and what the landlord already knew: that the premises was in a significantly poor and worsening state of disrepair.
Mr Hall submitted that the basement was not intended to be used as bedroom. It was suitable for storage or for a table tennis table. I accept Mr Hall’s evidence on this point.
The tenant says that by 2022, despite verbally informing Mr Hall of the continuing issues, the landlord had done virtually nothing to maintain or repair the premises. He was becoming increasingly affected by the state of the premises and disenchanted with the landlord’s inaction. He says he repeatedly mentioned the problems to Mr Hall verbally and eventually emailed Mr Hall on 3 July 2022 pointing out the house’s disrepair, the consequent difficulty retaining flatmates, and asking for a rent reduction: No maintenance of the interior of the property has been conducted over the past 7 years other than the repair to the outlet pipe in the laundry, smoke alarms and insulation top up. ...Over the years since then, I have been renting the rooms out to flatmates and it has become increasingly more difficult over time with all the issues that were mentioned at the beginning of the tenancy becoming gradually worse as well as just general wear and tear of the property overtime. ...At this stage all my flatmates are now looking for somewhere else to live and could give me two weeks notice any day. This is because they all believe it is too expensive for a run down old house with faulty wiring, no healthy homes compliance and a deck you fear using because it’s so rotted that you could fall through it. ...the basement room is unliveable as a bedroom and instead I live in the living room and the basement is the living room.
After prompting, on 25 July 2022, Mr Hall pithily responded: Owner says no to rent reduction.
The owner was similarly unresponsive to the tenant’s report of the house’s disrepair: he did nothing.
The tenant could not have been surprised by the landlord’s inaction because the owner had been aware of the situation for years and sat on his hands. By 2024, the house was in poor condition in many respects. The tenant’s photographs, videos, oral evidence and the evidence of his handyperson uncle, Charlie [surname suppressed] demonstrate: a. The front deck had many badly rotting boards making much of the deck unsafe to walk on. b. The exterior house’s weatherboards, balcony structural elements, and window joinery were dirty, their paint was peeling off and showing signs of deterioration in areas. c.The paintwork on the kitchen drawers was badly chipped and flaking off. d. Many of the interior wall and ceiling surfaces were worn and stained by mould, and the wallpaper was torn or peeling off in places. e. Two of the bedrooms’ walls and ceilings needed mould treatment, maintenance, and repainting or re-wallpapering. f.The interior window frames had areas of damp and mould and were well overdue for sanding and repainting. g. The bathroom walls needed repainting. h. The ensuite bathroom’s ceiling was flaking off. i.The basement rooms were regularly leaking from above when it rained, and large parts of the ceilings were mould stained. j.The guttering needed cleaning out and maintenance. k.The dishwasher was still not working. l.The garage door was not operating properly. It could only be opened with difficulty.
The tenant’s uncle gave evidence under promise in the Tribunal and stated in his written statement:
Over my working life I have seen many rental properties, including ones in poor condition. In my experience, the condition of this property was among the worst I have seen for a long-term rental, and I have rarely seen a tenant put I as much effort as my nephew did to try and make the house drier, healthier, and more liveable despite the landlord’s lack of proper maintenance.
The tenant together with his uncle addressed some of the house’s problems in 2024 by: a. Boarding over the rotting deck boards with Dura sheets to make the deck safe. b. Clearing the gutters. c.Washing down the exterior and repainting some of the weatherboards. d. Removing the inoperable dishwasher. e. Repairing and repainting the kitchen cupboard doors. f.Removing the inoperable dishwasher from the kitchen. g. Cleaning and sanding the ceilings, walls, and window frames and repainting them with the correct quality of paint. h. Disconnecting the garage door’s spring so that the door could be opened and closed manually.
The tenant and his uncle carried the work between about February to July 2024. Afterwards, the premises were much improved but still not completely repaired. They did not for instance do anything to the basement rooms. Findings
I am satisfied the landlord failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair from when the tenant formally became a tenant on about 14 December 2018. Money claims are limited by the Limitation Act 2010 to six years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based. Therefore, the Act limits the tenant’s claim to the six years prior to the date the tenant filed his application on 17 July 2025, which is 17 July 2019.
The landlord was aware of the premises’ disrepair. Mr Hall’s report recorded some of the items needing repair and although he seldom inspected the premises, he did inspect it occasionally. The premises’ need for repair would have been obvious. Moreover, the tenant emailed Mr Hall on 3 July 2022, putting the issue of knowledge beyond any doubt.
I find the landlord intentionally failed to repair and maintain the premises and committed an unlawful act in that regard. Remedies
The landlord’s actions being intentional, exemplary damages are an available remedy. The Tribunal will also consider damages to compensate the tenant for loss of amenity and the tenant’s repair costs and labour.
I deal with those remedies below.

Did the landlord fail to properly insulate the house?

Towards the end of the tenancy, the tenant investigated under the house. He entered an area under the house that was walled off but accessible through a simple hatch and discovered about 50m 2 of the underfloor of the house was uninsulated.
From 1 July 2019, landlords must insulate their premises to a minimum standard. 13 Where the landlord has insulated the premises before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 14
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it insulating is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the floor that the landlord would otherwise have to insulate.
In this case, the landlord instructed an insulation contractor to install insulation as the law required in 2019. The contractor installed insulation in the readily visible underfloor area but did not access a sizeable portion of the underfloor. At this distance in time, seven years after the event, it is not clear why the contractor did not do better. It is not 13 RTA s 45(1)(bb) and the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. 14 RTA s 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A. evident to me that the landlord knew that the contractor had failed to fully insulate the premises. That being so, exemplary damages are not an available remedy.
However, damages for loss of amenity - for the house being colder in winter and warmer in summer than it otherwise would have been - is an available remedy that I discuss below now. Remedies: failing to maintain, breach of insulation duties Compensation – loss of amenity failing to maintain and inadequate insulation
For the landlord’s failure to maintain and to insulate, I order compensation for loss of amenity at the rate of $30.00 for the first year of the tenancy from 17 July 2019; for the second year from 17 July 2020 at the increased rate of $37.50 due to worsening conditions; $45.00 per week from 2021; $52.50 per week from 2022; and $60.00 from 2023. In 2024, the tenant’s repairs largely improved the premises’ condition but not to a reasonable state of repair in all respects. For the 2024 year, I assess the rate for loss of amenity as $30.00 per week.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to pay the tenant $14,702.15 compensation for loss of amenity. Compensation – materials and labour
Under s 49 of the RTA “where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach”. Section 85 of the RTA required the Tribunal to determine disputes according to “the substantial merits and justice of the case”. The substantial merits and justice call for the Tribunal to order the landlord to compensate the tenant for the work he did to repair the premises. The tenant provided invoices proving the cost of materials. The amounts sought for labour are modest. I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $4,000.00 for the tenant’s maintenance and repair work. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) 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 available at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has intentionally committed a defined unlawful act. If the applicant proves that, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it finds it just to do so having regard to: a. the intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. the effect of the unlawful act. c.the interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committee; and d. the public interest.
The applicable maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act. For these breaches, the maximum is $7,200.00.
The landlord’s intent was to maximise income from the property by maintaining the house to a minimal standard. An owner may have a commercial motive in purchasing real estate for residential tenancies, but it must ensure that home remains habitable to a minimum of societal expectation.
The effect of the breach was that the tenant lived in substandard conditions, culminating in the tenant having to carry out work that the landlord ought to have done.
It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages that vindicate their harm.
It is in the public interest to order exemplary damages at a level that deters landlords from failing to maintain their premises to a reasonable standard.
It is just to order exemplary damages.
The landlord’s omission to repair and maintain persisted for six years. It was wilful neglect. The harm to the tenant was significant. The public interest calls for an order that is commensurate with the landlord’s deliberate ongoing neglect in this case.
It is apposite to set exemplary damages at about two-thirds of the maximum in this case.
The Tribunal orders exemplary damages of $4,800.00. Did the landlord unlawfully enter or interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace?
The tenant claims that Mr Hall’s visit to the property on 23 May 2025 and that the landlord and the contractor which included an unpleasant interchange. Three days later, the tenant filed an online complaint to Police stating: On 23 May 2025 at about 10:05 a.m., property manager Stephen John Dennis Hall of Tamaki Real Estate Limited arrived at my home, 11 Rosedale Avenue, Mount Eden, with two other men. Hall had emailed on 20 May asking if someone could be home at 10 a.m. for a decorator; I replied that I was unwell from mould, damp and cold-related issues in the house, and that I did not consent to access at this time. Despite this, Hall came to the property accompanied by a young man who waited in the driveway and by a contractor who identified himself as Les. I was in bed completely naked when Les fully slid open my partially opened bedroom window, pulled the curtains aside, laughed at me. I wrapped a towel around myself, began filming, confronted Hall and Les on the deck, and told them to leave immediately, stating they were attempting to break in. They refused to go; Hall’s contractor mocked me and shouted over my attempts to call Police on 111, saying words to the effect of “go on, call the Police, see what help they give you” ... After about seven minutes of persistent yelling from Les, along with verbal abuse "look at you in a towel,' both men finally left.
Mr Hall’s documents also include a contemporaneous record in the form of an email to the owner dated 23 May 2026 reporting: We have had a most bizarre situation and the property this morning. I had arranged with the tenant that I would be accompanying our sub-contractor to view instruction the house to provide a quote for re-decorating. The agreed time was 10 a.m. When we arrived the tenant refused to allow us entry and became quite hostile and he our subbies exchanged insults. It tried to reason with him and he responded by calling the police ! ...I don’t know hat triggered this change of attitude by the tenants as we have always got on quite well. Legal principles
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 15
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 16
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person": MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Black’s Law Dictionary 17 defines “harassment” 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.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English 18 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation
The tenant claimed the landlord unlawfully entered the premises. However, under s 48(7) of the RTA, “premises does not include land or facilities”. It follows, the claim cannot succeed because although Mr Hall and his contractor entered the premises land, they did not enter the house. Discussion
As discussed above in respect to the landlord’s (rejected) claim that the tenant failed to allow the landlord to enter the premises, the landlord did not give proper notice of the intended entry. That failure to give notice, however, did not make the landlord’s visit to the premises unlawful per se, but the lawfulness on the property of entry and the licence limited the landlord’s agent’s presence on the property to a licence to go to the door and enquire.
The landlord’s contractor’s further opening of the tenant’s window to speak with the tenant exceeded the licence. Moreover, the tenant withdrew the licence. Mr Hall and 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 38(2). 16 RTA, s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 17 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 18 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998). his contractor should have left the premises when the tenant refused entry. Moreover, the contractor’s actions, which even on Mr Hall’s version, involved “exchanged insults” amounted to an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace. Mr Hall should have immediately intervened to halt his contractor’s ill-tempered comments and left the premises with the contractor.
The landlord’s actions amounted to an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
While the incident was unpleasant and, with the benefit of hindsight, Mr Hall could have done more to prevent what occurred, it was a single isolated and unexpected incident. Mr Hall was not the main protagonist. Mr Hall’s contractor (who was also the landlord’s agent) was. I am not satisfied the landlord’s interference with the tenant’s privacy was at a level to warrant a finding that the interference amounted to harassment. It remains however, the landlord’s actions led to a serious interference with the tenant’s peace and privacy.
The tenant was unwell in bed, and Mr Hall and his contractor subjected him to an unwelcome intrusion into his peace, privacy, and comfort by way of an uninvited visit, poking of heads outside his bedroom window, and an intemperate and unwarranted barrage of insults. The landlord’s agent insulted, derogated, and humiliated the tenant in his own home. I order general damages for emotional harm of $500.00. 19

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with HHS and insurance information?

On 14 May 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord requesting HHS compliance documents and insurance information for the premises.
Under s 45(1AC) of the RTA, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request. Breaching this obligation 19 See for example Sun v Kang [2023] NZDC 24786, Birch v Otautahi Community Housing [2020] NZDC 17667. Compare, for example, the Human Rights Review Tribunal where damages for emotional harm have been summarised as: Band 1 - up to $10,000.00; Band 2 - up to $50,000.00; and Band 3 - over $50,000.00. See Hammond v Credit Union Baywide [2015] HRRT 6 at [176]. $98,000.00 for emotional harm was ordered in that case. without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 20
Similarly, under s 45(2B) a tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises, in which case, the landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. 21
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. 22
The landlord failed to provide the information requested and has not proved a reasonable excuse for the failures. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
The landlord’s failure was intentional.
Having regard to the statutory factors just mentioned, I set exemplary damages at $400.00.

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement?

The tenant claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement was in writing and did not provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and provide a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. 23
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00.
The original property management company created the tenancy agreement in 2015. It is not clear whether the then property manager provided a copy of the tenancy agreement to the original tenants prior to the tenancy commencing. 20 RTA s 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A. 21 RTA s See s 45(2B) and (2C). 22 RTA s 45(2D) and Schedule 1A. 23 RTA s 13.
Under s 109(2) of the RTA, the Tribunal can only award exemplary damages for unlawful acts where the applicant files their claim within 12 months of the date the unlawful act was committed.
If the landlord did breach its obligations in this regard, the tenant filed his application more than 12 months after the unlawful act. There being so, the Tribunal does not have the power to order exemplary damages if the alleged unlawful act occurred.
There being no appropriate remedy available, I do not consider the claim further.

Did the landlord fail to keep records of rent and bond?

The tenant claims the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. 24
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00.
Mr Hall recently encountered problems with the software he was using for rent payments. Consequently, he could not provide an electronic version of the tenant’s rent history. Nonetheless, Mr Hall’s records were sufficient for him to accept the tenant’s outstanding rent at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that at the time of hearing, Mr Hall did not have the proper business records. However, the breach was not intentional and exemplary damages are not available.
I make no order in the circumstances. Filing fee
The landlord must reimburse the tenant for his filing fee. Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of his name and identifying details. 24 RTA s 30.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest nor justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal therefore grants the tenant’s request for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5306339 — Exemplary damages at 11 Rosedale Avenue, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5306339 — Exemplary damages at 11 Rosedale Avenue, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant unlawfully refuse entry?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord fail to properly insulate the house?

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with HHS and insurance information?

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord fail to keep records of rent and bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant unlawfully refuse entry?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord fail to properly insulate the house?

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with HHS and insurance information?

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord fail to keep records of rent and bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions