What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317886 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 5317886?

Compensation: Leak: $380.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317886?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317886?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12847037-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317886 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 5317886?

Compensation: Leak: $380.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317886?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317886?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12847037-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317886 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317886 — net $980.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice	$500.00	Retaliatory Notice
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$100.00	Failure to lodge bond
Compensation: Leak	$380.00	Leak
Net award	$980.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$980.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317886 — net $980.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice	$500.00	Retaliatory Notice
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$100.00	Failure to lodge bond
Compensation: Leak	$380.00	Leak
Net award	$980.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$980.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The third party] is removed as a party to these proceedings.
The notice to terminate the tenancy dated 17 July 2025 is declared to be retaliatory.
The tenant claim for unlawful entry is dismissed.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $980.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice $500.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond $100.00 Compensation: Leak $380.00 Total award $980.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $980.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with support people.
[The landlord/s] and [The third party] are joint owners of the tenancy premises.
[The landlord/s] and [The third party] pointed out at the hearing that although named on the tenancy agreement [The third] did not sign the agreement.
[The third party] is therefore removed as a party to the tenancy but remains as a joint owner of the premises and a person who had authority from [The landlord/s] to communicate with [The tenant/s] regarding the tenancy.
The tenant is a niece of the landlords and in April 2023 she moved into a self- contained studio unit under their house with her cat.
The tenancy ended on 17 August 2025 and the tenant has brought claims to the Tribunal.
It is acknowledged that due to the family relationships involved this tenancy has not ended well and the hearing today was very difficult for all parties.
The first question that the Tribunal must determine is whether this is a tenancy covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Is this tenancy excluded pursuant to section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies

Act 1986?

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants in relation to a residential dispute that comes within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord claims that this was an informal family relationship. The tenant claims that this was a landlord/tenant relationship.
It is agreed that the tenant is a niece of the landlord and that she became aware that the self-contained studio unit below her aunt and uncle’s home was becoming vacant through her mother. She was grateful to be able to move into the unit as she was able to have her cat with her.
The RTA does not apply if the premises continue to be used principally as a place of residence by any member of the landlord’s family. See section 5(1)(n) RTA. However, there is an exception to this if the parties choose to contract in to the Act.
The parties are not excluded from the RTA if they agree in writing that the provisions of the Act apply. See section 8 of the RTA.
The tenant claims this is a tenancy as the parties signed a tenancy agreement, she paid regular rent, she was referred to as a tenant by her uncle and aunt, and she lived in a self-contained unit.
The parties entered into a tenancy agreement in the Tenancy Services standard form. The agreement was printed by [The landlord/s] and the details filled in and signed and sent to [The tenant/s].
[The tenant/s] completed her details, signed the agreement, and scanned and returned it to [The landlord/s] by email dated 24 March 2023. The agreement recorded that the tenancy commenced on 12 April 2023 and recorded a weekly rent of $320.00 and bond of $640.00.
The agreement is titled Residential Tenancy Agreement and the first line in bold states “This is a legally binding contract”.
At paragraph 8 of page 1 it states “The rights and obligations set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are implied in every residential tenancy agreement (see pages 2,3 and 4 of this agreement for a brief outline of some of the key provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).”
The landlord claims that this was always intended to be a family arrangement, and the agreement does not reflect what was intended. The landlord points to the agreement not being fully completed as although the tenancy details are included the extra pages are only partially completed.
I have considered the evidence and find that, although there is a family relationship between the parties; the RTA applies for the following reasons: (a)By entering into a Residential Tenancy Agreement that records the rights and obligations of the RTA the parties have agreed in writing that the Act applies. (b)Although not all of the extra pages of the agreement are completed it contains sufficient details to confirm the terms of the tenancy and the parties’ details and is signed by [The landlord/s] as landlord and [The tenant/s] as tenant. (c)Both parties had a copy of the agreement. (d)The landlord issued a 90-day notice following the terms of the RTA when seeking to end the tenancy.
Therefore, there is jurisdiction for the Tribunal to consider the claims.

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

On 17 July 2025, the tenant was given a 90-day notice ending the tenancy on 17 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.
On 11 July 2025 the tenant sent [The third party] a text stating that she was away but her sister had discovered there had been another leak at the premises. The text ends with “This has been an ongoing issue for 2 years now, can you please tell me when this is going to be fixed?”.
[The third party] replied with a text regarding the ongoing difficulties with the leak over years and ended with “Can we have a chat next time you are up?”.
After further texting the parties agreed on a meeting date of 17 July 2025.
On 17 July 2025 [The third party] came to the tenant’s door and handed the tenant a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord denied that the notice was retaliatory and stated that they did not need to give a reason for ending the tenancy.
It was evident from both parties’ evidence that the family relationships were strained but the Tribunal must look objectively and consider whether this notice to terminate was wholly or even partly motivated by the tenant’s request for the leak issue to be addressed.
There may also have been additional reasons contributing to the notice to terminate. However, having considered the short time that elapsed after the tenant’s message about the leak and the delivery of the 90-day notice on the same day a meeting to discuss the leak was scheduled, I find it is more probable than not that the landlord was partly motivated by the complaint about the leak issue. The tenant was entitled to exercise their right to request that the leak issue be addressed.
The landlord issued a retaliatory notice to terminate. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that it is just to award exemplary damages for the following reasons: (a)The effect of the notice was to place pressure on the tenant to find alternate accommodation. The tenant stated that after being given notice she felt uncomfortable to remain in the premises and shortly afterwards gave 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy and she has not been able to take her cat to her new accommodation. (b)It is in the public interest that tenants do not fear their tenancy being ended if they exercise their rights to request maintenance.
In considering the amount of exemplary damages to order I have taken in to account the effect on the tenant but also that this is the first breach of this nature that I am aware of in relation to this landlord. I have also taken into account that I have found the termination was partly motivated by the tenant exercising her rights and that there may have been other factors also. I find that that an award at the low end of the scale is appropriate and order the landlord to pay the sum of $500.00.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises unlawfully.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord entered the premises on 11 and 12 July 2025.
The tenant texted the landlord on 11 July 2025 stating “Hi [The third party]. I’ve had [redacted] pop around to put my wonky box away and she’s walked into a leak again, small puddles ect. She’s done her best to put towels down, but I’m away and I’m not there to deal with it, and I’m concerned what I’ll walk back into when I get home next week. This has been an ongoing issue for 2 years now, can you please tell me when this is going to be fixed?”.
[The landlord/s] responded on 12 July 2025 by saying that they had gone into the premises and moved as much as they could away from the dripping window and that [The landlord/s] had gone in and moved the bed.
The tenant claims that these 2 entries were unlawful but stated that she felt uncomfortable to say anything to the landlord at the time.
The landlord claimed that they entered in response to the tenant’s message because it was an emergency and they wished to mop up the water and seek to protect the tenant’s goods. They stated that it was raining heavily and there were also leaks in their house.
Having considered the evidence I find that the tenant has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that this was an unlawful entry for the following reasons: (a)I accept the landlords’ evidence that they genuinely believed this to be an emergency as the tenant had messaged them, there was water coming into the premises, the rain was continuing, and the tenant was away. (b)This was a family relationship, and the text messages provided reveal previous communication where the parties had helped each other out. I accept that the landlords believed they had consent to enter to seek to protect the tenant’s goods.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 agreed that the bond was not lodged. 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord stated that he overlooked lodging the bond. He acknowledged that it was labelled bond when it was lodged. The landlord was aware of it as he stated that he did not include it as his income for tax purposes but also did not lodge it with the bond centre as he had not registered as a landlord. I find that this failure to lodge the bond was intentional as no attempt was made to lodge this bond.
The bond was refunded in full to the tenant on 28 July 2025 before the tenancy ended, therefore the effect on the tenant was minimal.
It is in the public interest that landlords understand lodgement of a bond at the Bond Centre is a serious responsibility. Some landlords who do not lodge bonds use the money to pay their debts and the money is not available at the end of the tenancy. Others insist on keeping some bond money at the end or none will be refunded. There are very good reasons that the bond should be held by a neutral body during the tenancy.
Also, the interest on bond money helps to pay for the tenancy advice and dispute resolution services. The fewer bonds that are lodged, the more the taxpayer must then contribute.
In considering the amount of exemplary damages to order I have taken in to account that this is the first breach of this nature that I am aware of and that the bond was refunded to the tenant in full prior to the end of the tenancy. I find that a small amount of exemplary damages is appropriate and order the landlord to pay the sum of $100.00.

Did the landlord breach their obligations under section 45 of the RTA?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and must comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to maintain and failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The landlord provided the premises with a leak. There was a leak from upstairs which ran down the front door and the window when the rain came from a Northerly direction. The landlord stated that they had told the tenant about the leak prior to the tenancy commencing and the rent was lower to reflect this. The tenant denied knowing of the leak from the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant first messaged the landlord about the leak in May 2023 after a rainfall shortly after the tenancy began and sent photographs of the leak. The tenant stated that there was no response from the landlord. The landlord stated that when notified they sent the photographs to a plumbing company who advised that the internal guttering needed replacement with continuous spouting and they arranged for this to take place. The tenant reported a further leak in September 2023. The guttering replacement was completed by October 2023. The landlord stated that the tenant was aware the guttering was replaced as contractors were at work at the premises.
The tenant notified the landlord again on 4 April 2025 of another leak as water was running down the window and the front door frame. Again, on 27 June 2025 the tenant notified of water coming in again in another storm. On 3 July 2025 the tenant notified the landlord of a leak and again on 11 July 2025.
There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action to have contractors investigate the leaks until after the tenancy ended and a quote from Edwards and Hardy was obtained.
The landlord explained that this has been an ongoing problem which they hoped would be resolved by the guttering replacement but appears to be connected to the upstairs deck above the unit.
Having considered the evidence the Tribunal finds that the landlord failed in their responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and address moisture ingress issues for the following reasons: (a) The landlord was aware of the leak issue prior to the tenancy commencing. Even if the tenant was told about the leak this does not remove the landlord responsibility to address the issue. Landlords have a responsibility to address moisture ingress issues. (b) The landlord did attempt to address the issue when notified in 2023 and I accept that following the guttering replacement believed that the moisture issues had been addressed. However, when notified of further leaks in April, June and July 2025 the landlord failed to arrange a contractor to investigate and remedy. (c) The ongoing leak issues caused inconvenience and dampness issues for the tenant and affected her enjoyment and use of the premises.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act. The Tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience and effects of living in a property with leaks. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act: Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993.
The tenant stated that the breach caused her stress due to the dampness issues each time the premises leaked which resulted in the need to use buckets and towels to collect up water and dry out the premises, mould developing and the loss of enjoyment of her home environment. The tenant also referred to the uncertainty and anxiety of not knowing the condition in which she would find her home in after heavy rain.
Awards of compensation are generally modest and I have taken in to account all factors including but not limited to the rent charged and the effects of the leaks. I find that the delay in responding to the tenant reporting the reoccurrence of leaks from 4 April 2025 to the end of the tenancy has affected the tenant’s use of and enjoyment of the premises and award an amount of $20 per week in compensation for the 19 weeks, being $380.00 in compensation. Suppression/Filing fee
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. [The tenant/s] has applied for suppression. Although [The tenant/s] has not been wholly successful with her claims I have considered the factors in this case, in particular the family relationships involved and find that the interests of the parties outweigh any public interest in the identities of the parties. The Tribunal orders suppression of all party identifying details in any publication of this order.
Because [The tenant/s] has not wholly succeeded with the claim I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317886 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317886 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Act 1986?

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord breach their obligations under section 45 of the RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Act 1986?

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord breach their obligations under section 45 of the RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions