What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323300 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 5323300?

Compensation: Expenses reasonably in…: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain ho…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain up…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323300?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13240988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323300 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 5323300?

Compensation: Expenses reasonably in…: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain ho…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain up…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323300?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13240988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5323300 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5323300 — net $30.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Expenses reasonably incurred in	$920.00		Expenses reasonably incurred in
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$500.00	38. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain upstairs bathroom tap		$150.00	49. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Compensation: Failure to maintain hot water cylinder		$100.00	56. The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach.
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$200.00	65. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $200.00 in exemplary damages.
Total award	$920.00	$950.00
Net award		$30.00
Bond		$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$30.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5323300 — net $30.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Expenses reasonably incurred in	$920.00		Expenses reasonably incurred in
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$500.00	38. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain upstairs bathroom tap		$150.00	49. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Compensation: Failure to maintain hot water cylinder		$100.00	56. The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach.
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$200.00	65. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $200.00 in exemplary damages.
Total award	$920.00	$950.00
Net award		$30.00
Bond		$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$30.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $30.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 February 2026.
The tenancy began on 18 November 2024 and was meant to be a fixed term tenancy, expiring on 18 November 2025. There is a disagreement between the parties about whether the landlord agreed to end the tenancy earlier on 31 August 2025. The landlord claims they did not and seeks rent arrears up to 25 September 2025, which is one day before a new tenancy began. The tenant denies they owe any rent arrears and claims the landlord did not lodge the bond. They also claim that the premises were poorly maintained and did not comply with the healthy homes standards. The issues I must determine are: a. Did the parties agree to end the fixed term tenancy early on 31 August 2025? b. How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears? c. Should the tenant pay the landlord the reasonable costs incurred in ending the fixed term tenancy early? d. Did the landlord lodge the bond in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)? e. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? f. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?
Before determining each issue, I discuss some general legal principles that apply to this case.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” 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.
A lot of evidence was given at the hearing. Whilst this decision might not refer to all of it, the parties can be assured I have considered it. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
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.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • 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 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.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 2 Before an award for 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.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis, there was no intention established. Therefore, there was no basis to order exemplary damages.

Did the parties agree to end the fixed term tenancy early on 31 August 2025?

The law

Section 50(1)(d) RTA states that a tenancy ends when the tenant surrenders the tenancy or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent. 3 Analysis
On 23 July 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a text message advising that the tenancy address was not in the desired school zone for the intermediate and high school they wanted to send their child to. The tenant asked the landlord what was required to end the tenancy early. The landlord responded that they did not agree to end the tenancy early and said that if the tenant wanted to do this, then the bond would be refunded to the landlord as compensation. This response was not well received by the tenant, who sent the landlord a letter on 1 August 2025. In the letter, the tenant complained about the state of the premises. They said this was the real reason they wanted to end the tenancy early.
The landlord responded to the tenant on 3 August 2025, advising that there was nothing wrong with the premises and stating that the real reason the tenant 2 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 50(1)(d). wanted to end the tenancy was because of the school zoning issue. The landlord reiterated that there would be a cost to the tenant if they wanted to end the tenancy early, stating: ...I may charge a fee for ending the fixed-term early. These fees would be the actual and reasonable costs, such as advertise for new tenants, agent cost, vacancy cost etc, if you agree to these I will start to do so...
The tenant did not agree to pay anything and the relationship between the parties quickly deteriorated. The parties continued communicating with each other, but the tone was argumentative and tense.
Around 7 August 2025, the landlord delegated responsibility for dealing with the tenancy to her husband, [the landlord], because she was beginning to find the whole situation very stressful. [The landlord] visited the premises to see if the parties could reach an agreement. [The landlord] gave evidence that the tenant advised him that they had signed a tenancy agreement for a different premises and submitted this was the reason the tenant wanted to end the tenancy early. He also gave evidence that the tenant told him that their daughter’s eczema was very bad.
Unfortunately, the parties did not reach a full settlement on 7 August 2025 however, [the landlord] gave evidence that he told the tenant they could leave at the end of the month. This was reiterated by [the landlord] in an email sent to the tenant on 11 August 2025. In this email, [the landlord] said: Good evening [the tenant], [The landlord] has sent me your email. She’s been very busy recently, so if you have any questions in the future, please contact me directly... Now I like to answer your questions as follows: ... 2, Last Thursday, I went to see you with a smile and good intentions, but you said you didn’t want to talk to me, didn’t want to negotiate so what else could I do? I also said I would arrange to repair the cylinder leak as soon as possible and agreed to let you move out at the end of the month. 3, I deeply sympathize with your daughter’s health issues. However, I want to clarify that my smile that day was meant to express my goodwill towards you, not to convey the ‘condescending’ you described. I understand you concern for your child’s health, as I’m also a father of two. If your daughter’s eczema is severe, I agree that you can move out early. ... [emphasis added]
[The landlord] was acting as the landlord’s agent from 7 August 2025. This means that his actions bind the landlord. [The landlord] told the tenant in his email that he agreed to let them to move out at the end of the month. In doing so, I find that [the landlord] provided the tenant with written consent to surrender the tenancy or deliver up vacant possession of the premises on 31 August 2025. For this reason, I find the tenancy ended on 31 August 2025.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 31 August 2025.
The landlord claims that they only agreed to allow the tenant to leave the premises on 31 August 2025 if the tenant continued to pay rent until the date a new tenancy began. I do not accept this submission. This is not what was expressed in [the landlord’s] email dated 11 August 2025. [The landlord’s] email simply states that the tenant is allowed to leave the premises at the end of the month. The landlord also did not clearly communicate to the tenant in any previous communications that they would need to continue paying rent until the date a new tenancy began. In a text message sent to the tenant on 23 July 2025, the landlord referred generally to the bond being deducted as “compensation” for ending the fixed term tenancy early. The term “compensation” is broad and could include a range of things such as, the cost incurred in advertising the premises and finding new tenants. In their letter sent to the tenant dated 1 August 2025, the landlord refers to charging the tenant a “fee” for ending the fixed term tenancy early. The landlord states this means: “...the actual and reasonable costs, such as advertise for new tenants, agent cost, vacancy cost etc...”
The word “rent” is not mentioned. The wording of the landlord broadly mirrors the wording in section 44A RTA, which relates to reasonable expenses incurred by the landlord in allowing the tenant to end the tenancy early.
For these reasons, I am not convinced the landlord’s consent to allow the tenant to end the fixed term tenancy early was conditional upon the tenant paying rent until the date a new tenancy began.
The landlord provided written consent for the tenancy to end the tenancy on 31 August 2025. This is the date the tenant is required to pay rent up to. The landlord accepts the tenant paid their rent in full up to 31 August 2025.
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for $2,971.43 in rent arrears from 1 September 2025 – 25 September 2025, which is the period during which the premises were vacant, is dismissed. I note that even if I had found the tenant was liable to pay rent during this period, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears would have failed, because they did not submit a rent summary. Should the tenant pay the landlord the reasonable costs incurred in ending the fixed term tenancy early? The law
A landlord who consents to the early termination of a tenancy is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant, any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination. 4
A landlord who seeks to recover such expenses must first provide the tenant with an itemised account of the expenses. 5 Analysis
As a result of the fixed term tenancy ending early, the landlord engaged a property management company to help secure a new tenant. The landlord submitted an invoice from Profile Property Management Ltd for $920.00 to do this.
The tenant claims the landlord did not state that the tenant would be required to pay any associated costs with ending the fixed term tenancy early in their email sent on 11 August 2025. The requirement to pay expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord for ending the fixed term tenancy early is not dependent upon the landlord communicating this as a condition to the tenant. Section 44A(1) RTA states that where a landlord provides written consent for the tenant to end the tenancy, they are entitled to recover from the tenant any expenses reasonably incurred in respect of the termination.
The cost to hire a property management company to advertise the premises and find a new tenant is an expense reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination of the tenancy in this case.
The tenant has been provided with a copy of the invoice from Profile Property Management Ltd as part of these proceedings.
The Tribunal sees numerous cases where landlords seek to recover these kinds of expenses from tenants. The costs incurred usually fall between $500.00 - $1,000.00, depending upon whether the landlord has engaged a property management company. The invoice in this case is for $920.00, which is within 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 44A(1). 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 44A(2). this range. The tenant did not submit any evidence such as, quotes from other property management companies, of the cost usually involved to find a new tenant. There is no supporting evidence to suggest that $920.00 is an unreasonable amount.
For all of these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $920.00 to cover the costs of advertising the premises and finding a new tenant is granted in full.

Did the landlord lodge the bond in accordance with the RTA?

The law

Section 19(1)(b) RTA states that a landlord must lodge a bond with the Bond Centre withing 23 working days after payment is made. Failure to do this is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be ordered. 6 Analysis
A bond of $2,400.00 was paid by the tenant to the landlord on 1 November 2024. It was not lodged until 22 August 2025. Because the bond was lodged more than 23 working days after payment was made, I find the landlord breached section 19(1)(b) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to lodge the bond. The landlord gave evidence that the reason they forgot to lodge the bond was because the tenancy began in late 2024, which was a busy time of year for them. I accept the landlord did deliberately set about to breach their obligations however, a malicious intent is not required to find that a person has acted intentionally. What matters is that the landlord knew about their obligation to lodge the bond and failed to do so, regardless of the reason.
I find it just to order exemplary damages, considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. The landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. I accept it was distressing for the tenant to discover that their bond had not been lodged in circumstances where the relationship between the parties had significantly deteriorated. The tenant was understandably concerned about potential difficulties in getting their bond back if it was not lodged. Fortunately, the landlord did eventually 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 19(2) & Schedule 1A. lodge the bond on 22 August 2025 and the tenant received a full refund following the end of the tenancy. c. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to lodge bonds with the Bond Centre on time. The purpose of a bond is to provide security for the tenancy. Tenants can experience great difficulty in retrieving their bond in circumstances where it has not been lodged by the landlord.
Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages. I have also considered the fact that this is the first time the landlord has appeared before the Tribunal for failing to lodge the bond. I have also considered the tenant’s submission that there is a possibility that the landlord has earnt interest on the bond money by keeping it in their bank account from 1 November 2024 – 22 August 2025.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to 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 they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 7
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 8 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 9
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 10 7 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 8 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 9 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 10 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Leak in upstairs bathroom tap
The tenant claims the tap in the upstairs bathroom was leaking and they advised the landlord about this on 24 February 2025. The tenant claims the problem was not fixed until sometime between 23 – 30 July 2025.
The landlord accepts the tenant notified them about a leaking tap in the upstairs bathroom on 24 February 2025, but claims the tenant told them the problem was not urgent. The landlord claims the fact the tenant said the problem was not urgent means the leak was not a “real leak.”
The landlord accepts they did not follow up with the tenant about the issue until the tenant complained about it again on 14 July 2025. The landlord visited the premises on 21 July 2025 but could not see the leak. The landlord sent a plumber to the premises shortly thereafter and agrees that the problem was fixed sometime between 23 – 30 July 2025. Analysis
The tenant first alerted the landlord to the leaking bathroom tap in an email on 24 February 2025. The landlord immediately replied asking if the tenant needed them to address the problem or if it could remain for a little while. The tenant replied on 25 February 2025 advising the landlord that no urgent repairs were needed at the moment.
The fact that the tenant advised the landlord that no urgent repairs were needed means I am convinced the problem was only minimal at this stage. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to take some time to investigate and remedy the issue however, by waiting until 21 July 2025, which is approximately 22 weeks later, I find the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $150.00 to be reasonable having regard to the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. I find the nature of the breach to be low level. The leaking tap was a minor issue on 24 February 2025, although I accept the problem worsened in July 2025. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured for approximately 22 – 23 weeks before the problem was fixed. c. The effect of the breach on the party. I find the leaking tap is likely to have minorly detracted from the amenity of the premises at first, although I accept the loss of amenity increased as the problem worsened. I also accept the tenant’s submission that their water bill most likely increased as a result of the leak however, I find the extent of the leak to have been minor for the majority of the time. Hot water cylinder
On 26 July 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a text message advising that they had been experiencing a recurring issue in winter of waking up to a wet floor in the downstairs bathroom. The tenant told the landlord that the problem was not caused by the shower, because they did not use it at all the night prior.
The landlord’s husband, [the landlord], visited the premises on 26 July 2025 to investigate the issue. [The landlord] gave evidence that the tenant showed him the dampness on the floor however, [the landlord] could not see any leak. Therefore, [the landlord] surmised that the dampness was caused either by the shower after use or the soil underneath the house. In a text message sent to the tenant on 27 July 2025, the landlord said: [The tenant], regarding the wet moisture on the tiles of the ground bathroom, there isn’t related with the house inside condition...My husband [the landlord] has explained this to [the tenant] already. This is a common physical phenomenon. In winter, some windows might have moisture, this is due to inside and outside temperature differences, when inside temperature higher than outside, the windows will have moisture. The tiles are wet because moisture because of the underground soil temperature lower than inside room temperature, so the tiles have wet moisture. NZ winter is cold and wet, so the soil is wet and cold as well...
Suspicious of this explanation, the tenant did some investigating of their own and discovered the hot water cylinder, which is located in a cupboard in the downstairs bathroom, was leaking. This is what was causing water to accrue on the floor in the downstairs bathroom. They advised the landlord of this on 29 July 2025 and the cylinder was replaced on 13 August 2025. Analysis
[The landlord] gave evidence at the hearing that he is not a plumber. Because [the landlord] does not have the relevant expertise to investigate and diagnose the cause of leaking water, it was not appropriate for the landlord to rely on [the landlord’s] assessment of the problem. [The landlord] visited the premises on 26 July 2025 and could not find an obvious leak. The appropriate response at this point would have been for the landlord to organise a plumber to visit the premises. By failing to do this, I find the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA.
Fortunately, the tenant was able to diagnose the problem themselves and alerted the landlord to this on 29 July 2025. Thereafter, the landlord responded appropriately by sending a plumber to the premises on 6 August 2025. Due to the fact that the entire cylinder needed to be replaced, there was a slight delay. The cylinder was replaced on 13 August 2025.
The landlord’s breach only relates to failing to send an appropriately qualified professional to investigate the problem after they were unable to diagnose it themselves on 26 July 2025. Otherwise, I am satisfied the landlord acted appropriately and within a reasonable timeframe after being alerted to the actual cause of the problem on 29 July 2025.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach. I find $100.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. The breach is moderately serious. I say this because the landlord did not take steps to hire a plumber to assess the undiagnosed leak. Undiagnosed leaks are concerning, because they have the potential to develop into sometime quite serious. Fortunately in this case, the tenant was able to ascertain the cause of the leak themselves relatively quickly. b. The duration of the breach. The breach only lasted 3 – 4 days, because after being notified of the problem on 29 July 2025, the landlord organised for a plumber to visit the premises. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The landlord’s failure to hire an appropriately qualified professional in the first instance, meant the tenant had to take steps to diagnose the problem themselves. The leaking water also caused the bathmat to become very wet, as well as the area where the hot water cylinder was located. Deck
There is a small, wooden deck downstairs, which the tenant claims was in a state of disrepair. The tenant claims a lot of the planks were lifting and some of the planks bent when pressure was applied to them. The tenant submitted a video of the deck and gave evidence that their husband almost fell through the deck on one occasion. The tenant claims they liked to use the deck to hang washing but were unable to do this safely.
The landlord gave evidence that only one panel is bowing on the deck and they wanted to wait until the weather improved and the rain stopped to fix it. The landlord claims there is another deck the tenant could have used to dry their washing. Analysis
The video and photographs of the deck support the tenant’s claim that one plank was bending when pressure was applied. I am unconvinced there was anything else wrong with the deck. The deck looks somewhat old in the photographs, but multiple lifting planks are not apparent and the video submitted only shows one plank bowing.
I find the issue of the bowing plank to be relatively minor and I do not find the landlord breached their obligations by not fixing it by the end of the tenancy. The landlord was dealing with other maintenance issues at the time such as, the leaking hot water cylinder and bathroom tap. The whole issue about ending the fixed term tenancy early had also presented itself. In this context, I am not convinced the landlord waited an unreasonable length of time to fix the bowing plank on the deck.
For these reasons, the tenant has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which a maximum of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages may be ordered. 11
I find the landlord acted intentionally. This is because they knew about the leaking tap in the upstairs bathroom and delayed investigating or repairing it until the problem became urgent. They also knew about the leaking water in the downstairs bathroom and failed to send an appropriately qualified professional to investigate the cause of the problem in the first instance.
I find it just to order exemplary damages, considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraphs [49(c) and 56(c)] above. c. The public interest. There is a public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from delaying maintenance and failing to hire appropriately qualified professionals to investigate defects.
Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $200.00 in exemplary damages. In settling on this figure, I have had regard to the nature and extent of the maintenance issues. The leaking tap in the upstairs bathroom was a relatively minor issue and the duration of the breach for the leaking hot 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. water cylinder was short. It is for these reasons that the amount of exemplary damages ordered is relatively low. Filing fee & name suppression
Both parties have been substantially successful with their applications. Therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant both parties’ request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323300 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323300 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Did the parties agree to end the fixed term tenancy early on 31 August 2025?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Did the landlord lodge the bond in accordance with the RTA?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Did the parties agree to end the fixed term tenancy early on 31 August 2025?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Did the landlord lodge the bond in accordance with the RTA?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions