What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328967 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 5328967?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328967?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328967?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12860278-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328967 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 5328967?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328967?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328967?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12860278-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328967 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328967 — net $528.00 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
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328967 — net $528.00 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
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$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 and the tenancy address.
Violet Irwin is to pay [the tenant/s] $528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant/s], the tenant, her support person, [the tenant’s supporter], Mrs Irwin, the landlord, and her lawyer, Ms Darby, all attended the hearing in- person.
The tenant has applied for reduction of fixed-term tenancy, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, bond not lodged, quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry, breach of the tenancy agreement and reimbursement of the filing fee. During the hearing, the tenant withdrew her claims for reduction of fixed- term tenancy, breach of the tenancy agreement and refund of the bond.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 18 September 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
A party making a claim must prove their claim on a balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not that something occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 or 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.”
When the parties dispute an issue, it is up to each party to provide additional supporting evidence of their position. Bond not lodged
[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 (“RTA”).
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 parties agreed that the tenant paid the bond of $1,100.00 to the landlord on 22 May 2024 and the bond was eventually lodged around 17 October 2024. Mrs Irwin said she attempted to send in the bond lodgement form on 4 June 2024 and provided emails to this effect. She said the Bond Centre called her after her email asking for their bank account details. However, Mrs Irwin did not explain why it took until 17 October 2024, months later, for her to send in the bond for lodgement, other than there being a change of government, which is not a valid excuse for not doing so.
As the landlord did not lodge the bond within the required time frame in the RTA, 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 issue of whether an act is intentional has been considered in situations of damage caused in a tenancy. There, damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Similarly, in this situation, the landlord allowed a situation to continue for 5 months, knowing that not acting would result in the bond being lodged late. As such, I find that the landlord committed this unlawful act intentionally.
I have dealt with the intent of the landlord above. As a result of the landlord’s inaction, the bond was not lodged until 5 months after the bond was paid to her, which I find to be a significant delay in lodging it. Bonds are held in trust on the tenant’s behalf. In my view, it is in the public interest for bonds to be lodged as quickly as possible after receipt of the tenant’s money. There is also a public interest in tenants knowing their funds are safe and held in trust in a neutral Bond Centre, in the event of any disputes.
The maximum level of exemplary damages is $1,500. In this case I consider an order of one third of the maximum would be indicated. The landlord has committed an unlawful act, and I accept that there has been an impact for the tenant. I cannot see any aggravating or mitigating factors that would argue for a higher or lesser order. I therefore order exemplary damages of $500.00. Compensation
The tenant claimed compensation of $88.26 for buying products for pest control and cleaning at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant said that she told the landlord there was a wasp’s nest outside the property on the fence and that there was a ladybird infestation at the property. The tenant said she also had to carry out additional cleaning when she moved into the property, as she noticed there were walls and cupboards that needed to be cleaned before she could unpack. The tenant provided a receipt for the cleaning and pest control products she purchased.
The landlord’s lawyer pointed to the property checklist attached to the tenancy agreement indicating the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, and said the tenant had not noted any concerns about pests or cleanliness at the start of the tenancy. The landlord also provided photographs of the property at the start of the tenancy, where the property appeared to be presented in a clean and tidy condition in the photographs shown.
The tenant responded that she did not initially want to make a fuss with the landlord about the cleaning and pest control issues, so this is why she did not note these issues at the start of the tenancy on the property checklist in the tenancy agreement. The tenant said she decided to email the landlord about 5 weeks into the tenancy about these issues, but she did not receive a favourable response.
When parties dispute an issue such as cleanliness and pest control, it is up to each party to provide additional supporting evidence of their position. The landlord provided the property checklist in the tenancy agreement and photographs of the property at the start of the tenancy showing it was clean and tidy.
The tenant did not provide any additional supporting evidence to show the requirement for her to purchase the cleaning and pest control products, such as any photographs of the wasp’s nest or ladybird nests or of unclean areas around the property at the start of the tenancy.
As such, I find the tenant has provided insufficient evidence to prove her compensation claim and so dismiss this claim. Unlawful entry
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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 tenant said the landlord unlawfully entered the property on 30 June 2024. The tenant indicated she had sent the landlord an email that day setting out issues she had with the property and asking for some rectification of the issues. She reported that about 30 minutes after she sent the email, the landlord showed up at her property, banging on the back door. The tenant explained the landlord was very elevated and upset and wanted to come into the property to have a look at the issues. The tenant said she did not want to let the landlord in initially and tried to persuade the landlord to leave, re-read and digest the email and discuss things at a different time. However, the tenant said she then decided she would let the landlord come into the property to show her the ladybird nest in the curtains and other issues.
The landlord acknowledged she had gone over to the property after receiving the tenant’s email. She believed the email wording was inviting her over for a conversation, which the tenant disputed. The landlord said she was hurt and upset by the tenant’s email. The landlord did not recall whether she went inside the property during the visit on 30 June 2025.
Section 48(1)(a) RTA provides that a landlord provides that a landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry.
The parties differ in their evidence about whether the landlord was invited to the property on 30 June 2024 or not. What was clear, as confirmed by the tenant, that the landlord did not enter inside the premises until after the tenant consented to let her inside to see the ladybird nest in the curtains and other issues. Once the tenant consented to the landlord entering the premises, the landlord was inside the premises on a lawful basis. As such, I dismiss the claim that the landlord unlawfully entered the premises on 30 June 2024.
The tenant said further that the landlord unlawfully entered the premises on 4 July 2024 and on 12 September 2024 to remove gas cylinders, without providing any notice to the tenant.
The landlord acknowledged in an email she sent to the tenant that on 4 July 2024 she replaced the full gas cylinder with an empty cylinder, and said she would collect the remaining cylinder once empty. Then in an email dated 18 September 2024 that, on 12 September 2024 she collected the empty gas cylinder and delivered a replacement cylinder the day after that.
The tenant said the landlord did not provide her with notice of either of the dates she came to the property to remove the gas cylinders.
The landlord acknowledged she went to the property on those dates to collect the gas cylinders and that she did not provide notice to the tenant of these visits. The landlord’s lawyer said the landlord had gone to the property to deal with gas cylinders for other tenants without providing notice, was attempting to sort out the gas cylinder issue and had no ill-will.
The tenant said that when the landlord removed the full gas cylinder and left her with a partially full cylinder only, when she was just about to arrange for her own gas cylinders and before they had arrived, it created much anxiety for her, as she worried she would be left without gas to use. The tenant said it was a very stressful situation for her.
The tenant said the gas cylinders are kept in the carport next to the house.
Subsection 48(7) of the RTA provides that in section 48, ‘premises’ does not include land or facilities.
The definition of ‘facilities’ in section 2 of the RTA includes all facilities such as any land or buildings intended for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles.
As such, the carport area outside the house where the gas cylinders were kept are, I find, not considered ‘premises’ under the RTA and so are not subject to the notice requirements pursuant to section 48 RTA. Thus, the landlord was not required to provide notice of her visits to collect the gas cylinders from the carport and so I dismiss this claim. Quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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.
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 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.
The tenant said there was a pattern of behaviour by the landlord over a period after the end of June 2024 for the remainder of the tenancy. The tenant indicated there were times the landlord would just come onto the property to feed her stock in the next paddock, other times the landlord would linger outside the property and look at the house. The tenant said she took to drawing her curtains to ensure her privacy and dreaded hearing a car on the driveway, thinking it was the landlord again. She said she could not relax in her own home.
The tenant said there was a time when her father was visiting when they noticed the landlord was hanging around the fence area outside the property, as if trying to listen to their conversation. Another time the tenant said she had just filed her Tribunal application asking for the bond and was about to have a shower when the landlord suddenly appeared outside to feed her stock, and the tenant had to quickly draw the curtains.
The tenant said there was one incident on a Sunday morning when she was sitting outside on her deck in her dressing gown drinking coffee when she saw the landlord and another person, who she subsequently discovered was the landlord’s daughter, in a vehicle by the right of way. She reported she saw the woman who was not the landlord get out of the car, hold up her phone and rotate her phone around the property, as if she was taking a video, which included the area where the tenant was drinking her coffee.
The landlord said that the driveway to this property was a common driveway and that she made these boundaries very clear to the tenant when she moved in. The landlord said she had to use part of the common driveway to access an area from which to feed her stock, and that she did not look at the house deliberately or linger there to bother the tenant at all. The landlord provided photographs of drone images originally submitted by the tenant, with boundaries drawn on the photographs, to show the common driveway aspects. The tenant said she was not provided with these visuals of the boundaries at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord said her daughter had been with her once to take photographs of a sewer issue on a neighbouring property, copies of which were provided, and had held up her phone to get phone reception to be able to send the photographs. The landlord denied her daughter took any videos of the tenant on her deck. The tenant said it did not look like the landlord’s daughter was just trying to get phone reception.
The tenant said she emailed the landlord about the feeding of the stock issues on 30 June 2024, along with other issues, and asked the landlord to at least give her some short text notice if she intended to feed out the stock on weekends or public holidays when the tenant was likely to be at home.
The landlord said she did take notice of this request from the tenant and tried to only feed her stock on days that were not weekends or public holidays, despite her having lawful access to the common driveway.
The landlord said that, if the tenant was so worried about her, the tenant could have left the tenancy, as she had made it clear to the tenant she could do so, but that the tenant remained for a further 15 months after the email and incident on 30 June 2024, after which the landlord emailed the tenant that she was free to find another property if she wished.
The tenant said she could not financially afford to move out so soon after she had moved in but that she did move out when she could do so.
The parties dispute what occurred. The tenant has not provided any additional supporting evidence about the landlord breaching her quiet enjoyment, such as any photographs of the landlord close to or on her boundary on different occasions, witness statements, video evidence or other similar additional supporting evidence. Given this, I find the tenant has provided insufficient evidence to prove any pattern of harassment by the landlord that would constitute an unlawful act here. Thus, I dismiss this claim. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has been partly successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenant requested name suppression.
As the tenant has been successful with the claim, she is entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328967 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328967 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions