What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329895 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 5329895?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,530.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329895?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329895?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12431815-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329895 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 5329895?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,530.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329895?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329895?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12431815-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329895 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329895 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329895 — net $3,808.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$750.00	Unlawful entry
General damages: Failure to maintain- flood related damage	$1,530.00	General damages: Failure to maintain- flood related damage
Exemplary damages: Breach of s15 of the RTA- notification of agent	$750.00	Breach of s15 of the RTA- notification of agent
Exemplary damages: Breach of s13A of the RTA- contents of tenancy agreement	$750.00	Breach of s13A of the RTA- contents of tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,808.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,808.00

Claims and awards for application 5329895 — net $3,808.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Unlawful entry

General damages: Failure to maintain- flood related damage

Amount: $1,530.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: General damages: Failure to maintain- flood related damage

Exemplary damages: Breach of s15 of the RTA- notification of agent

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s15 of the RTA- notification of agent

Exemplary damages: Breach of s13A of the RTA- contents of tenancy agreement

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s13A of the RTA- contents of tenancy agreement

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord] must pay [The tenants] $3,808.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 September 2025.
The Tribunal and the parties were all assisted by a mandarin interpreter.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. 5329895 and 52943452 5329895 and 52943453

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability 5329895 and 52943454 for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Failure to maintain

[The tenants] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
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 and/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 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Breaching this s45(1) of the RTA 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. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. 5329895 and 52943455
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The parties agree that the remedial work to address the flooding damage caused loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience to the tenants.
The landlord gave the tenants a 35% reduction in their weekly rent ($595.00 to $386.75 per week) from 11 May 20205 to 20 July 2025 in recognition of the loss of amenity of around 35% of the house. This rent rebate came to a total of $2,380.00.
The tenants say that they have not been compensated for the stress and inconvenience they suffered from 19 April 2025, when the flooding occurred, and the 20 July 2025, when the tenancy ended.
The evidence also proves the flooding was significant and the tenants suffered a loss of amenity from 19 April 2025 to 20 July 2025, not just from 1 May 2025.
I find that the tenants should have received a 50% rent rebate for the period 19 April 2025 to 20 July 2025 (13 weeks and 1 day), being a total rent reduction of $3, 910.00. The difference between this amount and the rent rebate the tenants have already received is $1,530.00. I award the tenants this differential for the reasons set out above. Unlawful entry
[The tenants] claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on 30 May and 3 June 2025.
The first incident was when the tenants were in China from 13 to 31 May 2025. The landlord entered the premise on 30 May 2025 with contractors to install commercial fans to dry out downstairs, which was damp from flooding after a wet weather event. When the tenants returned from China, they found their power bill was higher than usual for the time they had been away and they say they had not given permission to the landlord to enter the premise for the purpose of installing and running dryers when they were not at home.
The landlord provided a WeChat message dated 30 May 2025 at 1:33pm that proves the tenants agreed to grant the landlord access for this purpose. The tenants accept this message shows that they did agree to the entry, but they say they felt they had no choice and didn’t know they could refuse entry. I am 5329895 and 52943456 satisfied, based on this evidence that the landlord did have the tenants’ permission to enter the premise to carry out repair and maintenance related work on 30 May 2025.
The second incident the tenants raised as concerning was on 3 June 2025, when the landlord’s builder woke the tenants up at 8am in the morning making a significant amount of noise lifting wet carpet. The tenants had not been given any notice that the builders were coming that day and were justifiably distressed and shocked to find two men they didn’t know in their home at 8am in the morning.
The landlord accepts she had given the builders a key and did not ensure the builders had given the tenants the required 48 hours’ notice.
The landlord produced a WeChat message from 2 June 2025 at 2:33pm that shows the landlord gave the tenants notice that Chem Dry was coming the next day, sometime 10am and 12noon. The tenants confirmed they had given the landlord permission for this Chem Dry follow up visit to check on the progress of drying the downstairs walls and floors but not for the builder to come at 8am to rip up wet carpet.
The landlord says she had no notice of the builders visit either and after the tenants complained she sent the builder a text message asking him to give the tenants 48 hours’ notice in future. The tenants also contacted the builder and asked for a schedule for the work and told him not to come at 8am.
I find that on the balance of probabilities the landlord gave the builders a key and did not put any firm boundaries in place about when the builders could use that key and that they needed to give the tenants no less than 48 hours’ notice that they would be at the house to carry out remedial work.
A landlord and/or its contractors 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.
I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act when she allowed her builders unfettered access to the house the tenants were paying rent to have exclusive use and possession of and that using the unfettered means of access the landlord’s builder entered the tenants home, when they were in bed asleep, without consent.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful 5329895 and 52943457 act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 5329895 and 52943458
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord knew the tenants had not given their consent for the builder to enter the premise when the builder felt like it and without giving the statutorily required notice, but gave the builder a key to enter when the builder saw fit because it was convenient while the builder was undertaking maintenance work; b. the tenants suffered the stress of knowing the builder had been in their home while they were asleep and they had also experienced a significant breach of their privacy; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress and breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their right of entry obligations.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages (half the maximum penalty available) for her breach of s48(2)(d) of the RTA. accordingly. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenants] claim the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment and harassed them.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be 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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that 5329895 and 52943459 harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was the same as the two claims above in the unlawful entry section of this Order.
Section 109E of the RTA limits the Tribunal’s ability to award two penalties for the same conduct. If conduct by a landlord constitutes an unlawful act under 2 or more provisions, proceedings may be brought against that landlord for the unlawful act under any 1 or more of the provisions, but no landlord is liable to more than 1 pecuniary penalty order for the same conduct. For this reason this claim is dismissed as the tenants have received exemplary damages under section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.

Did the landlord fail to notify the tenants of a change in agent?

The tenants claim the landlord did not meet her s15 of the RTA statutory requirements to notify them of her appointment of a property management company as agent.
Section 15 of the RTA states: (1)Where, during the term of any tenancy, the landlord’s or tenant’s interest passes to some other person, that other person shall, within 10 working days thereafter, cause the other party to the tenancy to be notified of— (a) the full name and contact address of that person; and (b) an address for service, being the address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted by or on behalf of the person. (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the following must be notified with the person’s contact address: (a) the person’s contact mobile telephone number (if any): 5329895 and 529434510 (b) the person’s contact email address (if any). (2) A landlord or tenant who fails to comply with this section commits an unlawful act.
The landlord says she Introduced Jade Property Management to the tenant, on 14 June 2025, when she went to the house to discuss the rent reduction and to engage in new tenancy negotiations as the current fixed term was expiring.
The tenants say the landlord didn’t notify them she would bring an agent with her to the meeting on 14 June 2025 and the tenants were not really told why the agent was there, who she worked for or her name.
On 17 June 2025 the tenants received an email that the property had been taken over by the agent but that email did not contain any contact details for the agent. The tenants produced the email letter from the agent, that they had requested, and it only provides a bank account number for rent to be paid into and the names of two property management companies whose names do not match. These agents are Silverfern Property Management, the letter is signed off Jade Property Management (2013) Ltd and the bank account is for Jade Property Management. This letter is headed up “Take over management notice of the tenancy at 39 Pemberton”. This letter does not contain the information required by s15 of the RTA. The landlord clarified that the agent’s administrator had included Silverfern Property Management in this letter in error as se works for both companies.
The landlord says the tenants and the property manager set up a WeChat group on 14 June 2025, so the tenants had the agent’s contact details. The tenants confirmed the agent gave them a QR code, which they scanned and that is how the group was set up. They say no contact details were visible had they wanted to know the agents name or phone number or email address.
I am satisfied the landlord, and its agent, are in breach of s15 of the RTA for the reasons set out above and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord engage an experienced property management company that knew it was require to provide the tenants the information set out in s15 of the RTA and it did not. Additionally, the landlord ought to have known she was required to give this information to the tenants or to ensure the agent did so. She did not; b. the tenants suffered the stress of not knowing who the correct agent was, when they took over from and how to get hold of them; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to ensure the tenants know who the agent is and how to get in contact with the agent. 5329895 and 529434511 5329895 and 529434512
I make an order for the landlord to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages (half the maximum penalty available) for her breach of s15 of the RTA. accordingly. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes, smoke alarm and insurance information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 13A(2) states the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a)if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b)if the premises are insured, a statement— 5329895 and 529434513 (i)setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii)informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) and/or 13A(2) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant received tenancy agreement, that did not contain a healthy homes compliance statement, any of any of the required healthy homes standards information or why such information could not be provided or any smoke alarm or insurance information. As such, the tenants had no idea when they took on the tenancy, whether the premise was fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions apply to the premise, whether there were smoke alarm(s) that were compliant with statutory requirements and whether the landlord had insurance that limited the tenant’s liability for costs associated with any careless or deliberate damages to the premise.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in 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.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, healthy homes information and smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1A),13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, or the insurance information prescribed by s13A(2) of the RTA.
I find the landlord intentionally breached 13A(1CA) and s13A(2) of the RTA and award $750.00 in exemplary damages for these breaches because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that she is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes, smoke alarm and insurance information with a written tenancy agreement b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to receive information about: i. whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements; 5329895 and 529434514 ii. whether the premise has compliant smoke alarms, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire; and iii. If the landlord has tenant insurance that covers tenant related damage to the premise, what the policy covers and the excess that applies. c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have healthy homes compliance information, smoke alarm information and insurance information given to them prior to the commencement of the tenancy so they can make an informed decision whether or not to rent a non-compliant premise.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

Did the tenants fail to allow the landlord entry to the premises ?

[The landlord] claims the tenants did not allow her or her contractors entry to the premises when she or her contractors were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy 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 without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 informing the agent .
The landlord has based this claim on a letter the tenants sent to the agent on 24 June 2025, informing the agent they would not consent to access unless it was for urgent repairs or emergencies as they wanted to have quiet enjoyment of the premise until they moved out on 20 July 2025. The landlord was not able togive me any examples of where the tenants unreasonably refused access to the landlord, the agent or the landlord’s contractors in that time. In fact the tenants proved they did co-operate with short notice access in that time.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Other miscellaneous claims
The landlord has made claims for: a. Exemplary damages of $200.00 for the tenants not cutting the grass; 5329895 and 529434515 b. Compensation of $2,000.00 for stress and anxiety, harm to health, wellbeing, doctors, medical treatment, office expenses, transport fees, and lost income from having to take sick leave; and c. The reduced rent of $2,460.75 returned for period 1/5/25 to 20/07/2025 for the tenants misleading and deceptive conduct and acting in bad faith.
There are no provisions in the RTA which I can see, nor which the landlord has identified, from which these claims can be based.
Because I do not have any jurisdiction to make any orders in relation to these claims, they must be dismissed.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Because the landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claims, her application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name Suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.
The landlord has also applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claim. However, I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 5329895 and 529434516
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329895 — net $3,808.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$750.00	Unlawful entry
General damages: Failure to maintain- flood related damage	$1,530.00	General damages: Failure to maintain- flood related damage
Exemplary damages: Breach of s15 of the RTA- notification of agent	$750.00	Breach of s15 of the RTA- notification of agent
Exemplary damages: Breach of s13A of the RTA- contents of tenancy agreement	$750.00	Breach of s13A of the RTA- contents of tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,808.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,808.00

Claims and awards for application 5329895 — net $3,808.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Unlawful entry

General damages: Failure to maintain- flood related damage

Amount: $1,530.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: General damages: Failure to maintain- flood related damage

Exemplary damages: Breach of s15 of the RTA- notification of agent

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s15 of the RTA- notification of agent

Exemplary damages: Breach of s13A of the RTA- contents of tenancy agreement

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of s13A of the RTA- contents of tenancy agreement

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord] must pay [The tenants] $3,808.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 September 2025.
The Tribunal and the parties were all assisted by a mandarin interpreter.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. 5329895 and 52943452 5329895 and 52943453

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability 5329895 and 52943454 for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Failure to maintain

[The tenants] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
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 and/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 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Breaching this s45(1) of the RTA 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. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. 5329895 and 52943455
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The parties agree that the remedial work to address the flooding damage caused loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience to the tenants.
The landlord gave the tenants a 35% reduction in their weekly rent ($595.00 to $386.75 per week) from 11 May 20205 to 20 July 2025 in recognition of the loss of amenity of around 35% of the house. This rent rebate came to a total of $2,380.00.
The tenants say that they have not been compensated for the stress and inconvenience they suffered from 19 April 2025, when the flooding occurred, and the 20 July 2025, when the tenancy ended.
The evidence also proves the flooding was significant and the tenants suffered a loss of amenity from 19 April 2025 to 20 July 2025, not just from 1 May 2025.
I find that the tenants should have received a 50% rent rebate for the period 19 April 2025 to 20 July 2025 (13 weeks and 1 day), being a total rent reduction of $3, 910.00. The difference between this amount and the rent rebate the tenants have already received is $1,530.00. I award the tenants this differential for the reasons set out above. Unlawful entry
[The tenants] claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on 30 May and 3 June 2025.
The first incident was when the tenants were in China from 13 to 31 May 2025. The landlord entered the premise on 30 May 2025 with contractors to install commercial fans to dry out downstairs, which was damp from flooding after a wet weather event. When the tenants returned from China, they found their power bill was higher than usual for the time they had been away and they say they had not given permission to the landlord to enter the premise for the purpose of installing and running dryers when they were not at home.
The landlord provided a WeChat message dated 30 May 2025 at 1:33pm that proves the tenants agreed to grant the landlord access for this purpose. The tenants accept this message shows that they did agree to the entry, but they say they felt they had no choice and didn’t know they could refuse entry. I am 5329895 and 52943456 satisfied, based on this evidence that the landlord did have the tenants’ permission to enter the premise to carry out repair and maintenance related work on 30 May 2025.
The second incident the tenants raised as concerning was on 3 June 2025, when the landlord’s builder woke the tenants up at 8am in the morning making a significant amount of noise lifting wet carpet. The tenants had not been given any notice that the builders were coming that day and were justifiably distressed and shocked to find two men they didn’t know in their home at 8am in the morning.
The landlord accepts she had given the builders a key and did not ensure the builders had given the tenants the required 48 hours’ notice.
The landlord produced a WeChat message from 2 June 2025 at 2:33pm that shows the landlord gave the tenants notice that Chem Dry was coming the next day, sometime 10am and 12noon. The tenants confirmed they had given the landlord permission for this Chem Dry follow up visit to check on the progress of drying the downstairs walls and floors but not for the builder to come at 8am to rip up wet carpet.
The landlord says she had no notice of the builders visit either and after the tenants complained she sent the builder a text message asking him to give the tenants 48 hours’ notice in future. The tenants also contacted the builder and asked for a schedule for the work and told him not to come at 8am.
I find that on the balance of probabilities the landlord gave the builders a key and did not put any firm boundaries in place about when the builders could use that key and that they needed to give the tenants no less than 48 hours’ notice that they would be at the house to carry out remedial work.
A landlord and/or its contractors 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.
I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act when she allowed her builders unfettered access to the house the tenants were paying rent to have exclusive use and possession of and that using the unfettered means of access the landlord’s builder entered the tenants home, when they were in bed asleep, without consent.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful 5329895 and 52943457 act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 5329895 and 52943458
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord knew the tenants had not given their consent for the builder to enter the premise when the builder felt like it and without giving the statutorily required notice, but gave the builder a key to enter when the builder saw fit because it was convenient while the builder was undertaking maintenance work; b. the tenants suffered the stress of knowing the builder had been in their home while they were asleep and they had also experienced a significant breach of their privacy; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress and breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their right of entry obligations.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages (half the maximum penalty available) for her breach of s48(2)(d) of the RTA. accordingly. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenants] claim the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment and harassed them.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be 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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that 5329895 and 52943459 harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was the same as the two claims above in the unlawful entry section of this Order.
Section 109E of the RTA limits the Tribunal’s ability to award two penalties for the same conduct. If conduct by a landlord constitutes an unlawful act under 2 or more provisions, proceedings may be brought against that landlord for the unlawful act under any 1 or more of the provisions, but no landlord is liable to more than 1 pecuniary penalty order for the same conduct. For this reason this claim is dismissed as the tenants have received exemplary damages under section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.

Did the landlord fail to notify the tenants of a change in agent?

The tenants claim the landlord did not meet her s15 of the RTA statutory requirements to notify them of her appointment of a property management company as agent.
Section 15 of the RTA states: (1)Where, during the term of any tenancy, the landlord’s or tenant’s interest passes to some other person, that other person shall, within 10 working days thereafter, cause the other party to the tenancy to be notified of— (a) the full name and contact address of that person; and (b) an address for service, being the address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted by or on behalf of the person. (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the following must be notified with the person’s contact address: (a) the person’s contact mobile telephone number (if any): 5329895 and 529434510 (b) the person’s contact email address (if any). (2) A landlord or tenant who fails to comply with this section commits an unlawful act.
The landlord says she Introduced Jade Property Management to the tenant, on 14 June 2025, when she went to the house to discuss the rent reduction and to engage in new tenancy negotiations as the current fixed term was expiring.
The tenants say the landlord didn’t notify them she would bring an agent with her to the meeting on 14 June 2025 and the tenants were not really told why the agent was there, who she worked for or her name.
On 17 June 2025 the tenants received an email that the property had been taken over by the agent but that email did not contain any contact details for the agent. The tenants produced the email letter from the agent, that they had requested, and it only provides a bank account number for rent to be paid into and the names of two property management companies whose names do not match. These agents are Silverfern Property Management, the letter is signed off Jade Property Management (2013) Ltd and the bank account is for Jade Property Management. This letter is headed up “Take over management notice of the tenancy at 39 Pemberton”. This letter does not contain the information required by s15 of the RTA. The landlord clarified that the agent’s administrator had included Silverfern Property Management in this letter in error as se works for both companies.
The landlord says the tenants and the property manager set up a WeChat group on 14 June 2025, so the tenants had the agent’s contact details. The tenants confirmed the agent gave them a QR code, which they scanned and that is how the group was set up. They say no contact details were visible had they wanted to know the agents name or phone number or email address.
I am satisfied the landlord, and its agent, are in breach of s15 of the RTA for the reasons set out above and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord engage an experienced property management company that knew it was require to provide the tenants the information set out in s15 of the RTA and it did not. Additionally, the landlord ought to have known she was required to give this information to the tenants or to ensure the agent did so. She did not; b. the tenants suffered the stress of not knowing who the correct agent was, when they took over from and how to get hold of them; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to ensure the tenants know who the agent is and how to get in contact with the agent. 5329895 and 529434511 5329895 and 529434512
I make an order for the landlord to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages (half the maximum penalty available) for her breach of s15 of the RTA. accordingly. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes, smoke alarm and insurance information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 13A(2) states the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a)if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b)if the premises are insured, a statement— 5329895 and 529434513 (i)setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii)informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) and/or 13A(2) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant received tenancy agreement, that did not contain a healthy homes compliance statement, any of any of the required healthy homes standards information or why such information could not be provided or any smoke alarm or insurance information. As such, the tenants had no idea when they took on the tenancy, whether the premise was fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions apply to the premise, whether there were smoke alarm(s) that were compliant with statutory requirements and whether the landlord had insurance that limited the tenant’s liability for costs associated with any careless or deliberate damages to the premise.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in 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.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, healthy homes information and smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1A),13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, or the insurance information prescribed by s13A(2) of the RTA.
I find the landlord intentionally breached 13A(1CA) and s13A(2) of the RTA and award $750.00 in exemplary damages for these breaches because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that she is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes, smoke alarm and insurance information with a written tenancy agreement b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to receive information about: i. whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements; 5329895 and 529434514 ii. whether the premise has compliant smoke alarms, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire; and iii. If the landlord has tenant insurance that covers tenant related damage to the premise, what the policy covers and the excess that applies. c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have healthy homes compliance information, smoke alarm information and insurance information given to them prior to the commencement of the tenancy so they can make an informed decision whether or not to rent a non-compliant premise.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

Did the tenants fail to allow the landlord entry to the premises ?

[The landlord] claims the tenants did not allow her or her contractors entry to the premises when she or her contractors were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy 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 without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 informing the agent .
The landlord has based this claim on a letter the tenants sent to the agent on 24 June 2025, informing the agent they would not consent to access unless it was for urgent repairs or emergencies as they wanted to have quiet enjoyment of the premise until they moved out on 20 July 2025. The landlord was not able togive me any examples of where the tenants unreasonably refused access to the landlord, the agent or the landlord’s contractors in that time. In fact the tenants proved they did co-operate with short notice access in that time.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Other miscellaneous claims
The landlord has made claims for: a. Exemplary damages of $200.00 for the tenants not cutting the grass; 5329895 and 529434515 b. Compensation of $2,000.00 for stress and anxiety, harm to health, wellbeing, doctors, medical treatment, office expenses, transport fees, and lost income from having to take sick leave; and c. The reduced rent of $2,460.75 returned for period 1/5/25 to 20/07/2025 for the tenants misleading and deceptive conduct and acting in bad faith.
There are no provisions in the RTA which I can see, nor which the landlord has identified, from which these claims can be based.
Because I do not have any jurisdiction to make any orders in relation to these claims, they must be dismissed.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Because the landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claims, her application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name Suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.
The landlord has also applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claim. However, I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 5329895 and 529434516
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329895 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329895 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to notify the tenants of a change in agent?

LANDLORD CLAIMS

Did the tenants fail to allow the landlord entry to the premises ?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to notify the tenants of a change in agent?

LANDLORD CLAIMS

Did the tenants fail to allow the landlord entry to the premises ?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions