What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316115 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5316115?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316115?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316115?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12428967-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316115 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5316115?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316115?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316115?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12428967-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316115 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316115 — net $778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$500.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes statement	$250.00	Healthy Homes statement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$778.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$778.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant seeks the following: -Set aside notice of termination as retaliatory, and exemplary damages. -Exemplary damages for bond not lodged. -Compensation and exemplary damages for landlord failure to maintain the premises and provide a Healthy Homes statement. -Compensation and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment.

Is the notice retaliatory?

On 23 July 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 24 October 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant says an inspection was carried out by the landlord’s partner on 21 July 2025. The tenant then received an email that day asking for some cleaning to be done, asking if the beading on kitchen sink had been done, and asking that the tenant use the dehumidifier. On 22 July, the tenant replied that the cleaning had been done, the curtain rail and curtains needed to be replaced in the lounge, the sink beading needed to be remedied, and he would not be using the dehumidifier. The tenant received a 90-day notice the following day. The tenant says this was in retaliation to his complaints, and because he had refused to allow some stray cats inside.

On balance, I do not find that the notice was retaliatory. It is important to note that it is still possible for a landlord to give notice when there are complaints outstanding, so long as there is another reason which is proven to be an overriding one over and beyond the complaint.

I am satisfied the landlord was motivated to issue the 90-day notice as she requires the premises to accommodate her caregiver. The landlord explained that she had a fall recently which has exacerbated her ongoing disabilities, and she requires 24/7 care. I am satisfied the landlord has a genuine and independent reason to terminate this tenancy. The tenant confirmed that the remedial work he requested has been done, therefore I am not persuaded that this was the reason to end the tenancy; nor that this had anything to do with the issue of the stray cats.

The tenant’s claim that the notice is retaliatory is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within 23 working days?

There is no dispute that the bond was not lodged until 2 September 2025. This tenancy commenced on 1 October 2024.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord did not lodge the bond and says she did not know she was required to do so. I do not find this credible given her considerable experience as a landlord over the last 10 years. I find she has 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for an unlawful act. Landlords are expected to know their legal obligations under the RTA and related regulations.

I am concerned that the landlord has been withholding bonds for a lengthy period. After considering the factors mentioned above, I find it just to award $500.00 exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? Did they provide a Healthy Homes statement?

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the healthy homes standards.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant says the premises are not up to healthy homes standards. He says that the passageway has a clear lite roof, the exterior door is not fit for purpose, there is only partial insulation, and there is some illegal plumbing. The tenant confirmed that he did not receive any healthy homes statement with his tenancy agreement.

The landlord says that the flat is fully insulated, windows have been replaced, and they are unaware of any issues with the plumbing. They say they were not aware of the requirement for a Healthy Homes compliance statement.

The tenant has not provided any evidence in support of this part of his claim therefore he has not proved any breach.

However, I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in relation to the absence of a healthy homes compliance statement.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The public interest is high in ensuring that landlords provide adequate information about Healthy Homes to enable tenants to make informed choices. The District Court has made it clear that landlords are deemed to know the law and a failure to provide fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law. 1

I award $250.00 for the landlord failing to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment and harassed them through a series of events. The tenant says he was yelled at by the landlord’s partner, the latter moved the tenant’s boat, he removed some feeding bowls and an igloo from the garage, he turned off the water supply, the landlord allows her dogs to associate with his dog when she agreed not to, the gate was latched and the electric mechanism was disarmed, the landlord was outside the gate looking in at the tenant’s partner, and the landlord’s partner brought in his bins.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 1 TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at [37].

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment generally 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.

I do not find that any actions of the landlord or her partner amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. It follows that the claim for harassment is not made out. I find that all of the issues are minor and the usual type of incidents which occur when the parties are living as neighbours and in close proximity.

I accept the evidence from the landlord’s partner that he spoke with the tenant about rubbish being left outside. While I find it likely that he was animated and overstepped by raising his voice to the tenant, I find no evidence of a directed campaign without any legitimate purpose and causing distress, nor a pattern of unreasonable behaviour. The landlord’s partner has provided a reasonable explanation for mistakenly removing the pet feeding bowls and igloo when they were mixed up with other pet gear when he was collecting the cat. I also accept that he believed he was being neighbourly by temporarily moving the tenant’s boat which he subsequently apologised for.

I am satisfied that the gate has to be latched because of horses in the paddock, the landlord’s partner was being neighbourly by collecting the bins, and there is no evidence of any agreement about dogs. I accept the evidence of the landlord that they were unaware the tap had been connected to the tenant’s water supply and this was immediately turned back on as soon as the tenant notified them. I also agree that it was unavoidable for the landlord not to look in the direction of the premises as she had to go past on the gravel to use her wheelchair. There is no evidence of any intimidating or harassing type behaviour in any event.

This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee

As the tenant has partly succeeded with the claim, the landlord must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

The tenant has requested name suppression on his application form.

Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.

The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published (section 95A(4) RTA)

The tenant has been partly successful in the claims and the landlord has been partly successful in their defence. Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, on balance I find that in the particular circumstances of this case, both tenant and landlord considerations outweigh other considerations.

I grant name suppression to the tenant as requested, and extend the same consideration to the landlord.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316115 — net $778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$500.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes statement	$250.00	Healthy Homes statement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$778.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$778.00