What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310919 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 5310919?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310919?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310919?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13061991-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310919 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 5310919?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310919?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310919?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13061991-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 32 Sanders Avenue, Takapuna, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310919 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310919 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986	$2,500.00	Compensation for breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310919 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986	$2,500.00	Compensation for breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The application for a refund of 50% of the spa pool repair cost, payment of 90 days’ rent equivalent, and removal costs is dismissed.
Clifford Taylor must pay [The tenant/s] $2,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Each gave evidence and made submissions. I also heard evidence from a witness for the landlord. I mean no disrespect by saying I will not record the witness evidence. It did not address the issues before the Tribunal. Nor will I address the evidence that the tenant was involved in sexual activity of which the landlord did not approve. Again, that evidence is not directly relevant and as well it is speculative. Background
The tenancy started on or about 5 November 2022 and ended on 9 July 2025. There was no written tenancy agreement, and no bond was paid.
The premises were the ground floor studio, about 20m², with the landlord residing in the two storeys above.
The tenant wanted the spa pool to be repaired so it could be used. The parties agreed to share the cost of that equally in March 2024. The tenant’s share was about $873.00. The intention was that they would each use the spa pool.
Around May 2025 the landlord expressed dissatisfaction that the tenant was always at home. He wanted him to share 50% of the cost of power, water rates, and Council rates. The landlord suggested a considerable rent increase and suggested that he would give the tenant 10 days’ notice to leave the tenancy.
Things escalated from there. The tenant raised compliance failures with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and repair and maintenance issues. In response the landlord suggested he leave as soon as possible. He sent the tenant suggestions of places he could rent. He sent him a copy of the rates invoice and required the tenant to pay one half because he believed he was running a commercial business from the premises.
On 27 May 2025 the landlord served a written notice terminating the tenancy on 42-days’ notice. He gave 2 reasons: he wanted to do repairs, and he wanted the premises for his family.
The tenant decided to leave the tenancy although he believed he should have been given 90 days to vacate. The decision to leave coincided with his recovery from surgery. He believed that the notice to terminate the tenancy was in retaliation for him wanting to mediate the dispute that had arisen between him and the landlord by then.
About 2 weeks after he vacated the tenancy, the tenant made his application to the Tribunal. He seeks compensation and exemplary damages from the landlord for several alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Issues
The issue for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS? •Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? •Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy? Was the notice to terminate the tenancy a retaliatory notice? •Did the landlord harass the tenant? Relevant law
Section 38 RTA provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall 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. A breach or breaches of a tenant’s quiet enjoyment that amounts to harassment is a defined unlawful act.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). A breach of these landlord responsibilities is a defined unlawful act.
Section 51 RTA sets out the provisions and time frames that apply to a notice to terminate a tenancy. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

The tenancy started on or about 5 November 2022. The landlord had 120 days from that date to comply with the HHS. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
In evidence, the landlord said he thought he had until 1 July 2025 to comply, that being the final date for compliance.
The tenant’s oral, photographic, and video evidence establishes that the draught standard at least of the HHS was not met within the required time frame.
The landlord said he was a first-time landlord, and he did not know of the earlier timeframe for compliance. This was his only tenancy.
The failure to comply with the HHS was an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 can be awarded. For the Tribunal to award exemplary damages, it must be satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act with intent.
Ignorance of the law is generally no defence. But, having heard the landlord’s evidence I am satisfied that he acted negligently, rather than intentionally. In terms of the Court’s analysis in Birch he did not ‘turn his mind to the unlawful act and deliberately set about to commit it’. A negligent act is not sufficient to attract an award of exemplary damages.
I therefore decline to award exemplary damages against the landlord though I will award the tenant compensation for this breach, which I will address later. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
The tenant gave evidence that the sliding door had a gap and would stick at times and the frame of the other door was corroded and would not open from the inside. A window was cracked and remained unrepaired for about 4 months. It was not replaced but was ‘glued’ together. Latches on another window did not work but were repaired. And the electronic gate device malfunctioned so he had to manually push the gate which remained insecure for over a year and was not repaired by the time he vacated.
The landlord said the repairs required were awkward and the joinery being over 50 years of age was difficult to repair. He said the gate lock malfunctioned because the tenant has planted a hibiscus which prevented it closing. With the plant gone, the gate now worked again.
The landlord’s failures to repair the items the tenant referred to are not intentional acts; he was negligent by not ensuring prompt and proper repairs. These failures are ones that attract compensation. Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy? Was the notice to terminate the tenancy a retaliatory notice?
A landlord can terminate a tenancy on 42-days’ notice if the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family. 2
The landlord gave evidence that his two sisters were visiting from overseas. He required the premises for them, though they only stayed there for 3 weeks. After that his sons separately used the premises after he had redecorated them. One of his sons remained living there.
The tenant believes that the premises have been rented as Airbnb, though he produced no evidence of that.
The tenant also believed, with good reason, that the landlord had acted in retaliation for him raising issues (the HHS issues and repair and maintenance issues) and for wanting to have someone mediate for them and that is why he terminated the tenancy.
The landlord did not assist his position in the evidence he gave. He said he ‘had had enough of the tenant’, he believed that he ‘spoke absolute rubbish’ was dishonest and was probably ‘on a benefit’. He also raised issues about his lifestyle. He then said the real reason why he terminated the tenancy was because the tenant was bringing prostitutes to the premises and using the spa pool (something the tenant denied) which meant his grandchildren could not use it.
It would be open to the Tribunal to find both that the landlord unlawfully terminated the tenancy and that he acted in retaliation. However, my assessment of the landlord was that while there were other reasons why he wanted the tenancy to end, he did want the premises for his sisters initially, then for his sons to use. While the tenancy could not be terminated for his sisters to use the premises for 3 weeks only, it could be terminated for the long-term use by one of his sons. So, the reasons for ending the tenancy ran in tandem. The landlord was frustrated with the tenant, but he also had a legitimate reason for ending the tenancy.
That said, he should have given 90 days to terminate the tenancy, since his sisters’ use of the premises was not for at least 90 days as their principal place of residence. The use by a family member for the required duration was later, after his sisters left when first one, then the other son, helped him with repairs, after he had painted the interior.
This matter too is one best addressed by compensation. 2 See section 51(2)(a) RTA

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

This claim is based on emails the landlord sent the tenant asking him to vacate as soon as possible; suggesting another tenancy for him to move to; accusing him of running a business and stating that he must pay 50% of all outgoings; and sending him a copy of the rates invoice for payment.
The tenant also referred to the landlord swearing at him in an abusive way from the landlord’s part of the premises.
Again, the landlord did not assist himself when he gave evidence. He confirmed his belief that the tenant was either running a business, or ‘on a benefit’. He described the tenant as always exaggerating and thinking he was ‘above everyone else’.
The landlord’s behaviour was inappropriate, but it does not amount to harassment. It was certainly a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment though for which he should receive compensation.

What is the appropriate remedy?

The Tribunal, having assessed the landlord’s evidence, has not awarded exemplary damages. The landlord was negligent, but he did not act with intent, turning his mind to the various alleged unlawful acts and deliberately setting about to commit them.
Rather, as a first-time landlord, he was woefully unaware of his statutory responsibilities. That was very apparent to the Tribunal. He gave evidence candidly, but it did not assist him, which reinforced the Tribunal’s observation of his lack of knowledge of what the law required of him as a landlord.
The tenant suffered a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy because of the landlord’s lack of knowledge of his statutory responsibilities. He lived in premises that did not comply with the draught standard of the HHS (at least); repairs were delayed or not properly completed; and he was given multiple reasons for the landlord ending the tenancy which was confusing and resulted in him deciding to vacate the premises after receiving the 42-day termination notice.
I have decided to award compensation on a global basis in this case. For the tenant’s overall loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the landlord’s breaches, I award him compensation of $2,500.00.
The landlord should understand that the Tribunal has taken a lenient approach in this case. Should he become a landlord again he will need to become fully compliant with the responsibilities the RTA places upon landlords. Other matters
The tenant sought a refund of the repair bill for the spa pool of which he paid 50%. There was no written tenancy agreement recording that the spa pool was included for use in the tenancy. The Tribunal regards this as an agreement the parties reached between themselves for their mutual benefit.
The tenant sought 90 days’ rent equivalent. There is no basis in law for this. The Tribunal has assessed compensation on a global basis in the context of this particular tenancy.
The tenant sought a refund of his removal costs. The Tribunal makes no award for these costs. Whenever the tenancy ended, he would have faced the same removal costs as he faced when he vacated. He elected to leave. He could have refused to vacate the tenancy and challenge the legality of the landlord’s termination notice without moving. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant compensation of $2,500.00 for the breaches of his responsibilities as landlord that affected the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in the use of the premises. The landlord will also pay the tenant’s filing fee.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant’s claim for additional costs – the 50% share of the spa pool repair bill; 90-days rent; and moving expenses – is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant sought and is entitled to name suppression as his application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as his defence to the application is not wholly or mostly successful 3

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310919 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 32 Sanders Avenue, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310919 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 32 Sanders Avenue, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

What is the appropriate remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

What is the appropriate remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions