What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313041 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 5313041?

Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313041?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12481515-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313041 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 5313041?

Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313041?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12481515-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 1 Melview Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313041 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313041 — net $378.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: unlawful entry	$250.00	32. The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s unlawful entry.
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$100.00	failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$378.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$378.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313041 — net $378.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: unlawful entry	$250.00	32. The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s unlawful entry.
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$100.00	failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$378.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$378.00

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 Tribunal has jurisdiction.
The tenancy agreement is varied to record the start date for the tenancy as being 25 March 2025.
Xiaoxu Li must pay [The tenant/s] $378.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 September 2025.
Xiaoxu Li rents the entire premises and has flatmates to help pay the rent. The Residential Tenancies At 1986 (RTA) does not usually apply to flatmates however, the applicant claims the Tribunal has jurisdiction, because the parties signed a tenancy agreement. The applicant also claims Ms Li entered their bedroom unlawfully, failed to lodge the bond and terminated the tenancy without grounds. They seek compensation and exemplary damages. The issues I must determine are: a. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction? b. Did the landlord enter the tenant’s bedroom unlawfully? c. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond? d. Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds? Standard of proof
The landlord must prove the facts upon which they contend the RTA does not apply. 1 The tenant must prove the relevant facts for all of the other claims.
The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. This means that each party must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 10. Compensation and exemplary damages: the law generally
The Tribunal may award compensation for losses arising from a proven breach by a landlord or tenant of the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 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 from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines an unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in 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 committed; and d. The public interest.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The facts of this case would usually fall within section 5(1)(n) RTA to exclude the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Section 5(1)(n) states that the RTA does not apply “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.” In this case, Ms Li rents the entire premises and has flatmates to help her pay the rent. Each occupant has their own room and shares common facilities such as, the dining/living area, lounge, kitchen, laundry and bathroom. Ms Li does not live anywhere else and the tenancy address is her main home. By all accounts, this is a typical flatmate situation and the parties signed a flat/house sharing agreement on 24 March 2025. Complicating matters, however, is the fact that on 25 March 2025, they signed a residential tenancy agreement.
Section 8(1) RTA states that parties to excluded tenancies may agree in writing that all or any of the provisions of the RTA shall apply in respect of the tenancy. By signing a residential tenancy agreement, the parties seem to have done this.
The landlord claims the tenancy agreement does not apply, because it records the start date for the tenancy as being “25 March 2026”, which is in the future. The tenant claims this is a mistake.
The parties signed the tenancy agreement on 25 March 2025. It seems more likely than not that they intended the start date for the tenancy to be this date. It would be unusual to sign a tenancy agreement one year prior to the start of the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the recording of “25 March 2026” is a mistake. The tenancy agreement is varied to record the start date for the tenancy as being 25 March 2025. 2
The landlord also claims that the flat/house sharing agreement represents the true agreement between the parties, not the tenancy agreement. The landlord claims the only reason the parties signed the tenancy agreement was because the tenant needed to show it to the bank to verify their address.
The Tribunal may set aside any agreement induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. It may also set aside any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties if it is satisfied that the writing does not accord with the parties’ true agreement. 3
The tenant accepts that the bank requested a residential tenancy agreement as proof of their address but claims this was not the only reason they signed the tenancy agreement. The tenant claims that they wanted a more formal agreement that clearly set out the rights and obligations of the parties. The tenant believed a tenancy agreement would provide them with more protection. In particular, the tenant claims they wanted their bond to be secure.
The landlord submitted a copy of a conversation with the tenant, including a voice message, about the tenancy agreement. The parties discuss filling in the tenancy agreement and the landlord states that the tenant can keep a copy and use it later on to apply to open bank accounts. Nothing is specifically mentioned about the parties’ intention that the tenancy agreement will not apply.
The landlord bares the onus of proving the facts upon which they claim the RTA does not apply. The tenant claims they wanted the tenancy agreement to help 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 78(1)(g). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 78(1)(g). them open a bank account, but also because they believed it to be a more formal agreement with extra protections for them. This seems reasonably plausible and the landlord has not submitted any supporting evidence to contradict this. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenancy agreement was induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that it does not accord with the parties’ true agreement.
The parties signed two agreements. The flat/house sharing agreement on 24 March 2025 and the tenancy agreement on 25 March 2025. The tenancy agreement prevails because it is the most recent in time. Whilst the facts of this case would usually fall under the exception in section 5(1)(n) RTA, by signing a tenancy agreement, the parties contracted back into the RTA under section 8(1). The landlord has not proven the facts upon which it claims the RTA does not apply and therefore, I find the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Did the landlord enter the tenant’s bedroom unlawfully? The law
A landlord must not enter the premises during the tenancy unless: 4 a. They have the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry; or b. Any of the circumstances described in section 48(2) – (3) RTA apply.
The circumstances in section 48(2) – (3) are varied and include situations such as, where there is an emergency, the landlord wants to inspect the premises, the landlord believes the tenant has abandoned the premises or the landlord needs to carry out work to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The most common exception used by landlords is section 48(2)(b). This section states that a landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of inspecting the premises between 8:00am and 7:00pm on a day specified in a notice given to the tenant 48hours – 14 days prior, provided the previous inspection has not occurred within the last 4 weeks.
Section 48(3) also allows a landlord to enter the premises at any reasonable time with the prior consent of the tenant, for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord entered their bedroom numerous times without permission and without giving any notice. The tenant claims their Chinese 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 48(1). household registration booklet went missing along with $800.00 cash. The tenant reported the matter to the Police, but no charges were laid.
The landlord accepts that the entered the tenant’s bedroom twice, but claims they gave the tenant verbal notice. The first time was to prepare the premises for an inspection by the head landlord. The second was to show prospective tenants the bedroom. The landlord claims the bedroom the prospective tenants were considering renting was directly above the tenant’s bedroom and the landlord wanted to warn the prospective tenants to be mindful of any noise. The landlord strongly rejects the claim they stole anything from the tenant’s bedroom. Analysis
Given the landlord’s admission, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord entered the tenant’s bedroom twice. The tenant claims it was more than this, but no additional evidence was submitted to support this. The tenant submitted a recording of a conversation with the landlord, but the landlord only refers to going into the tenant’s bedroom to inspect it in anticipation of the head landlord’s visit. Nothing is mentioned about any other times the landlord entered the bedroom.
The landlord claims that the first time they entered the bedroom was to inspect it before the head landlord’s visit. The landlord claims they wanted to check it was clean and tidy, and cleaned the toilet. Section 48(2)(b) RTA allows a landlord to enter the premises for the purpose of completing an inspection however, written notice must first be given to the tenant 48hours – 14 days prior. No such notice was given in this case and therefore, I find the landlord unlawfully entered the tenant’s bedroom on this occasion.
The landlord claims the second time they entered the tenant’s bedroom was when they were showing prospective tenants around the premises. Section 48(3) RTA allows a landlord to enter the premises to show the premises to prospective tenants, provided they have the consent of the tenant. The landlord claims they verbally notified the tenant beforehand however, the tenant claims this is not true and the landlord did not have their permission to show prospective tenants their bedroom. No supporting evidence was submitted to confirm the landlord’s version of events and therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord had the consent of the tenant. For this reason, I find the landlord unlawfully entered the tenant’s bedroom on this occasion as well.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s unlawful entry. I find $250.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have had regard to the following factors: a. The tenant’s privacy was breached by the unlawful entries. b. The tenant has only proven the landlord unlawfully entered their bedroom twice. c. The extent of the intrusion appears to have been towards the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness. The landlord accepts that they cleaned the tenant’s toilet on the first occasion however, other than this, no evidence was submitted about the landlord disturbing the tenant’s belongings or carrying out extensive work in their bedroom. I am far from convinced the landlord is responsible for taking any personal belongings from the tenant’s bedroom. Insufficient evidence was submitted to prove this and the Police declined to lay charges for the same reason.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Entering the premises otherwise than as permitted in sections 48(1) – (3) RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be ordered. 5
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted intentionally when entering the tenant’s bedroom unlawfully. The fact that the landlord might not have appreciated their legal responsibilities does not mean they did not act intentionally. Landlords who sign tenancy agreements have an obligation to educate themselves as to their rights and responsibilities. The act of entering the tenant’s bedroom without giving written notice or obtaining the tenant’s consent was done on purpose.
Notwithstanding my finding that the landlord acted intentionally, I decline to order exemplary damages. This is because I do not find it just for the following reasons: a. The circumstances of this case are unusual in the sense that this was a flatmate situation that would usually be excluded from the RTA. The fact that the landlord did not appreciate that they were required to give written notice 48hours – 14 days prior to entering the tenant’s bedroom is more understandable in this case than in others. b. Most instances of unlawful entry relate to a landlord breaching the tenant’s privacy in respect of the whole premises, whereas this case only concerns a bedroom. c. The amount of compensation already ordered is sufficient to address the punitive purpose of exemplary damages. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

The law

A landlord must lodge a bond and bond lodgement form with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of payment being made. 6 Failure to do so is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be ordered. 7 Analysis
The landlord accepts they did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, but claims they returned the bond to the tenant immediately at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts this was the case.
I find the landlord did not lodge with the bond within 23 working days after payment was made. I am satisfied that they acted intentionally in failing to do so. The fact that the landlord might not have appreciated their legal responsibilities does not mean they did not act intentionally. Landlords who sign tenancy agreements have an obligation to educate themselves as to their rights and responsibilities. The act of receiving the bond and not lodging it was done on purpose.
I consider it just to order exemplary damages, because there is a strong public interest in ensuring landlord’s lodge bonds with the Bond Centre. In saying that, the following mitigating factors mean I find it appropriate to constrain the amount of exemplary damages: a. The circumstances of this case are unusual in the sense that this was a flatmate situation that would usually be excluded from the RTA. The fact that the landlord did not appreciate that they were required to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre is more understandable in this case than in others. b. The tenancy was only three months long. c. The tenant immediately received their bond back in full at the end of the tenancy.
Considering the above factors, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $100.00 in exemplary damages. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 19(1)(b). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 19(2) and Schedule 1A.

Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The law

A landlord must not give or purport to give a notice terminating a tenancy knowing they are not entitled under the RTA to do so. This constitutes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00 may be ordered. 8 Evidence and submissions of the parties
On 18 June 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a message advising that the tenancy would end in September, because their family were moving into the premises and needed to occupy the tenant’s bedroom.
The tenant left the premises two days later on 20 June 2025. The tenant claims the landlord asked to speak with them about a matter at lunchtime, which the tenant refused. The tenant claims the landlord then threatened them and told them to leave immediately, which the tenant did.
The landlord claims there was a disagreement with the tenant on 20 June 2025 regarding a washing machine, which the tenant had turned on with no washing in it. The landlord wanted to speak with the tenant about this, but the tenant refused. Whilst the landlord accepts that they were frustrated by the washing machine incident, they deny that they threatened the tenant and told them to leave immediately. Analysis
The tenant submitted a recording of a conversation they had with the landlord on 20 June 2025. It was muffled and quite difficult to hear, but the landlord can be heard as saying something along the lines of “you guys need to look for somewhere else as soon as possible.”
The landlord claims they said the above when discussing the washing machine incident with the tenant. The landlord claims that they sent the tenant a voice message apologising shortly thereafter. The landlord submitted the voice message, in which they can be heard saying that despite the fact they cannot reach an agreement with the tenant, the tenant can make themselves at home until they find a new property.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that any threat was made to the tenant by the landlord. No evidence of an actual threat was submitted. The fact that the landlord might have said the tenant needed to look for another 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 60AA and Schedule 1A. property as soon as possible is not a threat. It would only be a threat if it were followed by a promise by the landlord to do something to the tenant if the tenant did not look for somewhere else to live.
I am also not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord told the tenant they needed to leave immediately. Whilst the landlord stated that the tenant needed to look for somewhere else to live as soon as possible, they did not actually state that the tenant needed to leave. The tenant still had until September 2025 to vacate the premises.
For these reasons, I am not convinced that the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant decided to leave the premises on 20 June 2025 because their relationship with the landlord had disintegrated to the point that the tenant felt unable to continue living in the same premises as them.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must also grant their request for name suppression.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313041 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 1 Melview Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313041 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 1 Melview Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions