What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341342 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 5341342?

After Hours Locksmith: $184.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,314.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341342?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12520453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341342 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 5341342?

After Hours Locksmith: $184.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,314.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341342?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12520453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 103A St Lukes Road, Sandringham, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341342 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341342 — net $1,130.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27/09/25	$2,314.29		Rent arrears to 27/09/25
Exemplary Damages		$1,000.00	Exemplary Damages
After Hours locksmith		$184.00	After Hours locksmith
Total award	$2,314.29	$1,184.00
Net award	$1,130.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,130.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341342 — net $1,130.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27/09/25	$2,314.29		Rent arrears to 27/09/25
Exemplary Damages		$1,000.00	Exemplary Damages
After Hours locksmith		$184.00	After Hours locksmith
Total award	$2,314.29	$1,184.00
Net award	$1,130.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,130.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. a) $0.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to A Grade Rental Homes As Agent For Wilma Fan b) $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s]
This tenancy commenced on 22 August 2025. However, the tenant received the keys from the landlord’s agent on 20 August 2025. On that date, the tenant visited the property, collected the keys, and identified certain areas that required remediation, which she reported to the landlord’s agent. The landlord accepted the tenants’ requests.
On 22 August 2025, the tenant began moving her belongings into the property. On the same day, a contractor engaged by the landlord attended the premises to carry out the repairs requested by the tenant. The contractor requested a key from the tenant and stated that they would return it to the key pot.
On 23 August 2025, the tenant returned to continue moving her belongings into the property. Upon attempting to enter, she discovered that her key would not open the front door. She then identified that the door had two locks. The lower lock was the one for which she had been provided a key by the landlord’s agent. The upper lock was a deadlock for which she had not been given any key. That deadlock was now engaged.
The manner in which the deadlock became engaged is unclear. However, it was stated by the applicant and accepted by the respondent that the last person to have been present at the property on 22 August 2025, before the lock became engaged, was the landlord’s contractor.
When the tenant contacted the landlord’s agent, the agent stated that all keys had been provided and that the handover was complete, asserting that the matter was therefore the tenant’s responsibility. It appears the landlord’s agent didn’t actually understand the issue that was being reported, and the tenant says that because it was Saturday morning, they sounded frustrated having been woken up. The tenant attempted to gain entry through the back door but was also unable to do so, as that lock was defective and no key had been supplied for it.
During a series of phone calls on 23 August 2025, the tenant states that the landlord emphasised that the matter was the tenant’s responsibility and insisted that she find her own solution. The tenant consequently arranged for a locksmith to attend the property. According to the tenant, the locksmith advised that the deadlock was old and may have engaged simply upon the door being closed.
Nevertheless, on the balance of probabilities, I accept that the deadlock was engaged by the landlord’s contractor, being the last person in attendance at the premises on 22 August 2025.
A second issue identified during the hearing concerned the back door, which serves as the secondary access point to the property. The tenant discovered this defect on Saturday, 23 August 2025, when the lockout issues arose.
The lock installed on the back door is a patio bolt. Patio bolts are not generally intended to serve as primary locks. Rather, they are typically installed as a supplementary security measure. Common uses include: a) securing a sliding door in addition to its primary lock, or b) securing the secondary door of a set of French doors that is not ordinarily used for ingress or egress.
Patio bolts function by means of a movable bolt that extends into a recess, usually drilled into the door frame, and installed vertically to hold the door in place. They are designed to be operated only from the inside of the property and cannot be unlocked externally. The type of patio bolt used here was attached to the surface of the door and not into a recess within the door, as is more common for locking mechanisms on doors that interface between the interior and exterior of a home. The effect of this is that the lock is likely to dislodge if force is applied to it.
In this instance, the landlord has used the patio bolt as the sole locking mechanism for the back door. The bolt has been fitted vertically, in the position where a standard doorknob and lock would ordinarily be located. Directly beneath the patio bolt is a conventional, dated door handle and lock, but it is non-functional and redundant. Accordingly, the only mechanism securing the back door is the patio bolt, which cannot be unlocked from the outside and is not fit for purpose as a primary lock.
On 23 August 2025, upon discovering that the back door could not be unlocked externally due to the patio bolt and that the front door deadlock had engaged, and after speaking to the landlord’s agent about it, who rebuffed her concerns, the tenant convened a meeting with her family to consider the situation.
The tenant stated that she felt unsafe and insecure remaining in the property, particularly given that she was responsible for young children. Her concerns, she stated, were exacerbated by the landlord’s position that they refuted any obligation in relation to the locks and that any defects or upgrades were the tenant’s responsibility. What the landlord is asking me to do:
At the hearing, the landlord’s agent, who was not the same agent involved in the events of 20–23 August 2025, did not contest the facts as presented by the tenant. She accepted the tenant’s account of the events as they were described.
However, the landlord’s agent submitted that a previous tenant had occupied the property for a period of six years and had been satisfied with the condition of the premises, including the locks. On that basis, she argued that the locks were sufficient for residential occupation.
The landlord’s agent further contended that, had the tenant raised her concerns formally and allowed the landlord an opportunity to rectify the locks, the landlord would have done so. She also stated that the landlord acted in accordance with section 49 of the Act by taking steps to mitigate losses following the tenant’s departure.
The agent therefore submitted that the issue for determination is whether rent arrears should be awarded for the period 29 August to 27 September 2025, as the property was subsequently re-tenanted with a new tenancy commencing on 28 September 2025. What the tenant is asking me to do:
The tenant submits that the landlord breached their obligations under section 46 of the Act, which requires a landlord to provide and maintain such locks and other devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
She argues that the use of an internal-only patio bolt as the primary lock for the back door, together with the deadlock on the front door for which no key was provided, rendered the property insecure. She states that when the landlord’s agent communicated to her that the condition of the locks was her own responsibility, she did not believe this to be correct and, in light of her family circumstances, felt she had no choice but to vacate the property immediately.
The tenant maintains that she should not be held liable for rent for the period until the premises were re-tenanted. She also seeks an award of compensation and exemplary damages, on the basis that the alleged failure to meet the obligation under section 46 constitutes an unlawful act.
During the hearing, the tenant disclosed that she had safety concerns relating to previous partners she felt at risk from, and also disclosed ongoing anxiety and related issues. This disposition was evident during the hearing. She says that she was very concerned for her and her children’s safety, and she quickly asked her previous landlord if she could rescind her notice and move back. When they agreed, she took the steps she did to ensure herself and her children were safe.
I accept that, given her personal disposition and circumstances, she would have experienced the events of 22–23 August in a particularly heightened and distressing manner. While this has not impacted my decision, it does provide me with context as to why the tenant conducted herself in the manner that she did.

Is the tenant liable for the rent arrears till the time the property was re-tenanted?

When a tenant enters into a fixed-term tenancy agreement, both the tenant and the landlord acquire a measure of security. The agreement is binding on both parties and may be relied upon as such.
I am satisfied on the evidence, that the landlord and the tenant entered into a valid fixed-term tenancy agreement. When the tenant gave notice on 24 August 2025, this notice was of no legal effect. The tenant, therefore, remained liable under the tenancy agreement until the property was retenanted.
The landlord, in reliance on the tenancy agreement, but being aware that the tenant was no longer in occupation, acted in accordance with their obligations under section 49 of the Act to mitigate both their own losses and the tenant’s. The property was re-advertised, and a new tenant was secured on 16 September 2025, with the new tenancy commencing on 28 September 2025.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the rent records produced by the landlord are accurate. The tenant remains liable for rent until 27 September 2025, resulting in arrears of $2,314.29.

Is the landlord liable for the locksmith callout?

When the tenant found herself locked out of the property on 23 August 2025, I accept that the cause was the engagement of the deadlock for which no key had been provided to her. It is not clear from the evidence whether the deadlock was engaged intentionally or inadvertently by the landlord’s contractor when they departed the premises on 22 August 2025.
In any event, the lockout arose from circumstances outside the tenant’s control, being either the act of the landlord’s contractor or a failure by the landlord to provide and maintain appropriate means of access which resulted in a commissioned lock engaging and preventing access to the home. In both scenarios, responsibility rests with the landlord.
Accordingly, I find that the locksmith callout was necessary and I award the cost of this callout to the tenant. Was the landlord in breach of their obligations under section 46 to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure:
The question of whether the landlord was in breach of their obligations under section 46 of the Act to provide and maintain such locks and other devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure is one of reasonableness, assessed against the expectations of an ordinary tenant.
Different locks serve different purposes. Generally, egress routes for residential premises require locks that provide not absolute security, but a level of safety and peace of mind such that it would be reasonably difficult for an intruder to gain access. A determined intruder may be able to breach many forms of locks, but the statutory obligation is concerned with reasonable security and the tenant’s ability to both enter and exit safely using appropriate keys.
In this case, the front door was fitted with a primary lock which, based on the photographic evidence, appeared to be a fit-for-purpose exterior lock. The deadlock above it was not functional for the tenant because no key had been provided.
The most likely explanation for how the deadlock engaged is that it did so because of the impact of closing the door by the landlord’s contractor. This suggests the lock was redundant and should have been removed or replaced. Section 46 requires the landlord to keep the locks maintained, and failure to do so here prevented the tenant from accessing her home. The landlord then compounded the issue by refusing to remedy this failure and asserting it was the tenants responsibility.
Regarding the back door, the lock provided was a patio bolt. Such bolts are not ordinarily used as a primary means of securing an access door. Their usual purpose is to hold in place the secondary leaf of a French door or to provide supplementary restraint to a sliding door. They are not designed to be relied upon as the sole locking mechanism for a main entrance or exit point. The tenant further described the bolt as loose, which is consistent with the nature of these devices and their limited purpose. In my view, a tenant would reasonably have felt that the back door was inadequately secured.
The landlord’s agent, a professional property manager, argued that the previous tenant had occupied the premises for six years without complaint and that the incoming tenant did not identify the issue during her initial inspection on 20 August 2025, thereby accepting the property in its existing condition.
I do not accept that submission. In TMT NZ Ltd v Sweeney & Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, the Court rejected the argument that tenant acceptance of the condition of the premises establishes compliance by the landlord. It found it unreasonable for a landlord, particularly one acting through a professional property manager, to rely on prior tenant satisfaction or the silence of an incoming tenant, rather than properly assessing whether the premises met the statutory standard. The Court noted that a professional property manager should be aware of their responsibilities and ensure compliance accordingly.
I consider the present circumstances to be analogous. Here, too, the landlord, through their professional agent, ought to have assessed the state of the locks on their own merits rather than relying on the absence of complaint from a previous tenant. I therefore find that the use of a patio bolt as the sole means of securing the back door was a failure to provide and maintain the locks under section 46 and, by extension, an unlawful act.

Having established the breach are exemplary damages appropriate?

Given the tenant’s personal circumstances, including her role as a parent of young children and her heightened vulnerability, the distress she experienced was genuine and compounded by the insecurity of the premises. While this context is informative, it is not in itself sufficient to justify an award of compensation. What is significant is that the landlord’s agent made no effort to understand the issue and instead immediately denied liability, asserting that it was the tenant’s responsibility. The effect of this was to compound the distress and deny the tenant access to her home. With hindsight, the agent acknowledged at this hearing that this was the responsibility of the landlord and that they would have remedied the problem had they properly understood it. However, that was not the position presented at the time, and I am told that the agent involved has since left the company.
For completeness, I also note that I do not find the landlord’s breach justified the tenant’s decision to immediately attempt to terminate the contract. That is a separate matter, which I have already addressed in relation to rent arrears.
In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] 1 NZLR 732, Cooke P described the purpose of exemplary damages in these terms: they are “exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others” and “punitive because they are meant to punish.” He likened them to a fine, “though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.”
The Residential Tenancies Act designates certain breaches as unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded. This reflects a deliberate policy choice to uphold and enforce minimum standards within the residential tenancy market. Where an intentional breach is established, an award of exemplary damages is appropriate to give effect to that policy objective.
As outlined above, I have found that the landlord failed in their obligations under section 46 of the Act to provide and maintain locks necessary to ensure that the premises were reasonably secure.
Where a professional property manager fails to carry out inspections that their role objectively requires, and where such an inspection would have revealed a breach, the omission can properly be characterised as intentional. This is because the agent, acting with professional responsibility, either knew or ought to have known that the lock was not reasonably secure and that a failure to maintain dated locks may result in access issues. Their failure to take steps to remedy it amounts to an intentional breach of statutory obligations, and thus an intentional unlawful act within the meaning of the Act.
The tenant experienced the breach in a heightened and distressing way and was effectively denied access to her home. The maximum exemplary damages available for this breach are $1,500. Taking into account the nature of the breach, I consider an award of $1,000.00 in exemplary damages to be appropriate. Suppression:
During the hearing, the tenant applied for a suppression order under s 95A(4), on the basis that her interests outweigh the public interest. I have already addressed her mental health in my

Reasons

above, and for those same reasons, I consider it appropriate to grant the tenant suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341342 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 103A St Lukes Road, Sandringham,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341342 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 103A St Lukes Road, Sandringham,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the tenant liable for the rent arrears till the time the property was re-tenanted?

Is the landlord liable for the locksmith callout?

Having established the breach are exemplary damages appropriate?

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the tenant liable for the rent arrears till the time the property was re-tenanted?

Is the landlord liable for the locksmith callout?

Having established the breach are exemplary damages appropriate?

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions