What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341858 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 5341858?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Misleading Healthy Hom…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Printing Costs: $189.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341858?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12874921-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341858 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 5341858?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Misleading Healthy Hom…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Printing Costs: $189.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341858?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12874921-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

101 Goldfield Heights, Queenstown, Queenstown 9300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341858 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341858 — net $6,517.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Misleading Healthy Homes statement	$300.00	Misleading Healthy Homes statement
Exemplary damages: s.45 breaches	$3,000.00	s.45 breaches
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$1,000.00	Retaliatory notice
Compensation: General damages	$2,000.00	General damages
Printing costs	$189.50	Printing costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,517.50
Bond	$2,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,517.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341858 — net $6,517.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Misleading Healthy Homes statement	$300.00	Misleading Healthy Homes statement
Exemplary damages: s.45 breaches	$3,000.00	s.45 breaches
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$1,000.00	Retaliatory notice
Compensation: General damages	$2,000.00	General damages
Printing costs	$189.50	Printing costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,517.50
Bond	$2,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,517.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name only.
The Accommodation Centre 2019 Limited As Agent For Peacehaven Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $6,517.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 December 2025.
The tenancy of the premises commenced on 8 February 2022 and ended on 17 November 2025.
The premises consist of a semi-detached home over three levels. The evidence provided indicates that the premises were in poor condition with substantial maintenance being required.
The tenant filed her application with Tenancy Services on 26 September 2025. The Law
The relevant law applying to this matter is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant (in this case the tenant), 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 more likely than not. This obligation carried by the tenant 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 (DC) TT 233/02, in practical terms this means that; “Like 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.”
The parties provided extensive documentation to the Tribunal. Not all of that evidence is referred to in this decision; however, the parties are assured that all evidence has been considered. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal held; “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of the conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors set out in s.109 RTA; A. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. B. The effect of the unlawful act. C. The interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. D. The public interest. E. Whether it is just to make an award.
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, confusion, lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law is no defence.
A party is deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every separate breach under the same provision of the RTA. (see MBIE v Hills Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583). This is of particular relevance in this case where the tenant refers to multiple breaches by the landlord. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A RTA.
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one-third of the maximum available unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors to be considered (Wellington Property Management Limited v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281.
I record that even if the Tribunal finds an act to be an unlawful act, but decides not to award exemplary damages, the District Court has found that it can still award compensation for the breach (Cavanagh v Kainga Ora [NZDC] 7033).
Section 109(2)(b) RTA provides that a tenant may not apply for an award of exemplary damages more than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act. This limit may not apply where the breach is of an ongoing nature. The claims Did the landlord fail to comply with their obligations under the Healthy Homes

Standards?

The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”). The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. Private rentals which commenced between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022, must comply with 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy. This tenancy commenced on 8 February 2022. It was required to comply with the HHS by no later than 9 May 2022.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more “qualifying heaters” with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purposes of the HHS. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An online calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of capacity is required for any particular premises. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The insulation standard requires the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, in the floor, if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered a qualifying insulation, the insulation must meet a minimum R value. That value varies depending on the area that the premises fall within New Zealand. The HHS does provide an exemption to the requirement for insulation in specific circumstances, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or the floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that can be opened. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have an extractor fan installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to occur. The HHS Does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain stormwater, surface water and groundwater, and that includes gutters, down pipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed sub floor space. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. HHS claims Heating
A copy of a healthy homes evaluation report obtained by the landlord and dated 12 August 2020 (“the landlord’s HHS report”) was provided to the Tribunal. The report indicates that as of the date that it was prepared, the premises were non- compliant in certain specific areas.
The landlord’s HHS report shows that the premises had a wood burner installed. The report states that the heater was “non compliant due to not being able to determine the kW rating of the fixed device due to lack of labelling. Evidence required to determine labelling.”
The landlord provided a copy of an entry condition report for the premises dated 8 February 2022. That report refers to there being a Daiken Heat Pump and a “wall mounted Celsius heater in the lounge.” The burden of proving that the premises did not comply with the relevant heating standard is on the tenant. I do not consider that the tenant has proven that the premises did not comply with the heating standard as of 9 May 2022. The claim is dismissed. Insulation
The evidence provided shows that the insulation standard has been met by the landlord at the required date. The claim is dismissed. Draught Stopping
The landlord’s HHS report states that the premises did not comply with the HHS standards at that date, as the entry door was not sealed adequately.
On 27 March 2022, the tenant advised the landlord that the front door was unable to be closed and appeared to have become warped. Contractors were instructed to repair the door. A temporary fix was carried out.
In June 2022, the landlord explained to the tenant that the door would need to be replaced. The door was replaced.
The tenant obtained her own HHS report in September 2025 (“the tenant’s HHS report”). The writer of that report records that the front door did not comply with the required standard as “an unnecessary gap was observed under the front door entrance door ....” The report went on to say that falling window sealers were observed on multiple window sashes throughout the property. Photos of the sealers were provided.
I find that it is more likely than not that the front door did comply with the HHS draught requirement at the commencement of the tenancy, but that subsequent repairs have resulted in an unreasonable gap being left under the front door. The tenant has proven that the premises did not comply with the HHS as to draught stopping, as of the date of her HHS report. The front door did not comply with the HHS requirements. The tenant’s claim is proven. It is not clear to me whether the failing window draught sealers actually resulted in unreasonable gaps. That claim is dismissed is dismissed for lack of evidence Ventilation
The landlord’s HHS pre tenancy report states that the premises were non- compliant as to the obligations relating to ventilation. That report states that the premises were “Non- compliant due to not having an extractor fan that vents to the outside.” The exemption to the HHS requirement for extractor fans installed prior to 1 July 2019, is that they must be in good working order and ventilate to the outside.
Correspondence dated 19 January 2025 from a contractor, records that the contractor had been asked to install an extractor fan in one of the bathrooms. Photos provided by the tenant show that one of the bathrooms at the premises did not have an extractor fan of any type. That is a breach of the HHS requirements. That part of the claim is proven. I accept that the other rooms where ventilation was required, were covered by the exemption, and that they were vented to the outside and did work, although only when lights in the room were turned on. Moisture and ingress
The landlord’s HHS pre tenancy report refers to the premises being non – compliant” due to down pipe not connected adequately.” The reference in the report is to the “exterior right” of the building. The tenant did not think that this issue related to the area she had complained of at the front of the house and may have been fixed prior to the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant’s HHS report records that the premises were non- compliant.” A stormwater outlet located above the front porch entrance is discharging onto the paved patio area causing unnecessary water ponding. Storm water outlets should discharge into appropriate stormwater connections or approved soak pits to comply....”
Photos provided to the Tribunal indicate that this stormwater outlet was non- compliant through most of the tenancy and had been overlooked in the landlord’s HHS report.
Work to repair the problem was carried out in January 2025. It was only at this point that the stormwater outlet became compliant, having otherwise been non- compliant since 9 My 2022. The landlord has failed to comply with their obligations under s.45(1)(c) RTA. The claim is proven.
I have found the landlord to be in breach of s.45(1) RTA as to the HHS standards relating to draughts, ventilation, moisture and ingress. Providing a false or misleading HHS statement.
Section 13A RTA requires a landlord to provide a statement in the tenancy agreement which sets out details of the premises compliance with the HHS. The specific requirements are set out in Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
It is a breach of s.13A (1F)(b) RTA for a landlord to provide a statement that it knows to be false or misleading.
The tenant says that the landlord’s HHS statement in the tenancy agreement provides false or misleading information, that the landlord knew to be false. In particular, the tenants says that the statement as to ventilation, heating and draughts were misleading.
The landlord’s statement provides that the premises comply with the HHS in all relevant respects.
I have already raised the issue of heating. I consider that the compliance issue raised in the landlord’s HHS report was attended to prior to the commencement of the tenancy. That claim is dismissed as the statement as to heating was neither false nor misleading.
The landlord’s HHS report makes it clear that a further extractor fan was required. Despite that specific knowledge, the landlord’s HHS statement in the tenancy agreement says that the extractor fans had been installed and that the premises complied in this aspect.
I consider that the front door draft problem had been resolved in part by the time that the statement was prepared. The subsequent draught resulted from work carried out at a later date. The claim is therefore dismissed.
The drainage issue raised at a later date by the tenant was not referred to in the landlord’s HHS report. The problems referred to in that report were in another area. The claim is therefore dismissed as the landlord did not know that the statement was false or misleading.
The Tribunal is left with the extractor fan problem. The tenant is required to show that the landlord made the statement knowing it to be false. In light of the information in the landlords HHS report relating to the fan in that bathroom, I accept that the landlord did know that the statement was false.
I move onto the effect on the tenant. It can only be said to be limited.
The maximum level of exemplary damages available under Schedule 1 RTA is $900.00.
Section 109(2) RTA only allows for an award of exemplary damages where the application is made within 12 months of the date of the commission of the unlawful act. The act occurred more than 12 months ago and was not an ongoing breach. Exemplary damages cannot be awarded. The Tribunal may award compensation where exemplary damages are unavailable, and I consider that to be an appropriate course. There do not appear to be any particularly aggravating or particularly mitigating factors, other than the nature of the breach itself to be considered. In those circumstances, an award of compensation of $300.00 the tenant is made Failure to maintain.
A landlord is obliged to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. That obligation is not absolute. A landlord is not required to foresee latent and unobservable defects. A tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage and the need for repair.
Upon being advised of the damage, the landlord must complete repairs within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. That timeframe will depend on the gravity of the problem and the objective evidence of the of attempts made by the landlord to investigate and correct the problem.
A tenant may issue a 14-day breach notice to the landlord. In those circumstances, the landlord is still entitled to a reasonable period of time to complete the repairs. There will be occasions where a part or tradesperson necessary to complete the repairs is unavailable.
For the purposes of this hearing, it is important for me to record that the landlord’s financial ability to pay for repairs is not a reasonable ground for failing to repair.
Schedule 1 RTA provides a maximum award of exemplary damages of 7,200.00. An award of exemplary damages can only be made in regard to the commission of an unlawful act within 12 months of the application being made to the Tribunal unless the breach is of an ongoing nature. Compensation is otherwise available.
The tenant impressed as being organised. She provided extensive evidence to support each and every claim.
A timeline of the issues raised by the tenant is set out below; 18 February 2022 Bath plug and drain causing leaks into kitchen ceiling. Lino warping. 17 March 2022 Wasp’s nests. Bathroom repairs needed Wall hook repair. Laundry wall damage Broken cat door panel. 27 March 2022 Front door unable to be closed. 22 April 2022 Fireplace bricks Sliding door glass Showers 18 June 2022 Loose toilet cistern 23 June 2022 Missing doorstep Toilet leaking 4 October 2022 Dishwasher 14 November 2022 Ceiling paint peeling Laundry room holes in wall. Broken doorknob Leaking kitchen tap handle Faulty door and window latches. 13 March 2023 Chimney sweep Broken upstairs window latch 17 April 2024 Oven not turning off Faulty closet door 23 May 2024 Birds’ nests Water from drains and gutters 27 May 2024 Wardrobe fault 24 December 2024 Significant water damage Soft damp wall behind fireplace.
It would be fair to say, based on the evidence, that nearly all of the issues raised by the tenant were not dealt with by the landlord in what could be called a reasonable period of time. The addition of new property manager to manage these premises in April 2024 does seem to have resulted in an improvement to the response times.
Comments by the landlord at the hearing were telling. The landlord referred to the owner as an “absentee owner” and that they had struggled throughout the tenancy to get proper instructions. The landlord withheld rent money from the owner to try to deal with maintenance issues.
It is clear from the substantial evidence placed before the Tribunal that the tenant has made her concerns clear to the landlord throughout. All issues were recorded in writing by the tenant.
The failure to attend to the issues is an ongoing breach for which exemplary damages remain available. Breaches which have occurred within 12 months of the tenant’s application being filed are also breaches for which exemplary damages can be awarded. Exemplary damages for breaches of s.45 RTA
The failure to comply is an unlawful act (see s.45(1A) RTA). Schedule 1A RTA provides for a maximum award of exemplary damages of $7,200.00.
The landlord is deemed to know the law, and therefore any failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional.
The effect of the proven breaches on the tenant has been ongoing through nearly all of the tenancy.
It is in the interests of this tenant and of tenants generally for landlords to comply with their obligations under the HHS.
In setting the appropriate level of compensation, I take into account that damages should be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every separate breach under the same provision of the RTA.
The quantity of breaches and the time taken to attend to them (where that has been done) is an aggravating factor. I do not consider the inability of the owner to afford repairs or any difficulty which the property manager may have had in obtaining instructions from their client to be relevant. Having considered the relevant factors, I consider that an award of exemplary damages for all breaches of s.45 RTA of $3,000.00 is appropriate. Retaliatory notice.
If a tenant wants an order declaring a notice to terminate their tenancy to be of no effect, they must file their application with the Tribunal within 28 working days of receiving the notice in question. The tenant’s application was filed within the required time period and is therefore a valid application to the Tribunal.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right. The notice must be given in direct response to the tenant asserting some right.
Section 54 RTA provides that the tenant must prove that the landlord in giving the notice was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority or remedy.
The tenant has now left the premises and as a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Tribunal to direct that the termination notice is invalid and should be rescinded. The award of exemplary damages for an unlawful act remains a live issue.
The right on which the tenant bases this application is her 14-day breach notice. The notice is dated 29 May 2025. It required the landlord to carry out maintenance on the premises within a 14-day period.
Subsequent correspondence between the parties shows an attempt to try to settle the ongoing dispute. Those attempts were unsuccessful.
On 29 August 2025, the landlord served a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy on the tenant.
An amendment to the termination rights of landlords was enacted at the commencement of 2025. A landlord is entitled to give a tenant a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy without providing any reason.
The Tribunal must look at what is often circumstantial evidence to try to discover what a party’s motivation and thinking may be. Where a termination notice is served a day or so after the tenants proposed assertion of right, that may be good circumstantial evidence of the landlord’s motivation. In this case, substantially more time has passed between the service of the 14-day breach notice and the notice to terminate the tenancy.
Section 54 RTA requires a tenant to prove that a landlord was at least partly motivated by her assertion of a right. To “motivate” has been considered by the Tribunal to be “to furnish with a motive or motives: to give impetus to; to insight or impel. I consider based on the evidence, that the main motivator for the landlord in giving the notice was to carry out maintenance to the property and that the maintenance was of such magnitude that it would not be appropriate to have the tenant reside there whilst the work was conducted. The tenant in correspondence with the landlord also accepts that the premises required maintenance.
The landlord’s submissions include reference to an email from the tenant where she states that she accepts that the premises need to be renovated.
The issue for the Tribunal to consider is whether the landlord was in part motivated by an action of the tenant. I consider the following factors to be relevant in considering whether the landlord has been partly motivated by the tenant’s assertion of a right: o There has been a long history of the tenant raising maintenance issues in this tenancy. o The tenant has served a 14-day breach notice on the landlord. o The party’s settlement negotiations were unsuccessful. o The landlord must have been aware of the need to carry out extensive renovations. o The landlord has expressed on a number of occasions that the owner cannot afford the costs of renovations.
Having considered each of these factors I consider that the landlord was at least in part motivated by the tenant’s actions.
The effect of the termination of the tenancy on the tenant has been substantial. She has incurred costs in shifting and has had to find alternative accommodation within a reasonably brief time frame. It is in the best interest of this tenant and tenants generally to not have landlord’s issue retaliatory termination notices.
Schedule 1 RTA allows for a maximum award of exemplary damages of $6,200.00
Having reviewed the evidence, and in particular that the landlord was only partly motivated by the tenants’ actions, I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $1,000.00 to be appropriate. Failure to provide and maintain locks
Section 46 RTA requires a landlord to provide such locks as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. It is a question of fact in each case whether premises are reasonably secure. All that is generally required, are locks which are secure against the use of reasonable force. A landlord is not required to provide locks and devices that would prevent an intruder from entering by force. The term “secure” in my view relates to exterior security of the premises. I do not consider that the obligation extends to providing locks or keys for interior doors.
The tenant’s complaint relates to interior bedrooms which had locks but no keys. That request is beyond the landlord’s obligations under s.46 RTA and the claim is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Section 38 RTA provides that a tenant is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord. A breach of that section in circumstances which amount to harassment, is an unlawful act.
The landlord wished to conduct an inspection of the premises. The tenant asked to have a support person present. The landlord said that this made her feel uncomfortable and suggested that the tenant possibly not be present at the inspection.
The tenant and her guests are entitled to be at the premises. The landlord is similarly entitled to conduct an inspection. The inspection was subsequently carried out with both the tenant and her support person present.
I indicated at the hearing that my preliminary view was that I could not see how this could amount to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. My view has not changed. In Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 the Tribunal held that “...one must bear in mind that landlord/ tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for breach of this type.”
Both parties were within their rights. The landlord was entitled to conduct an inspection and the tenant was entitled to be present with or without a support person. No breach has occurred. The claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry
Section 48 RTA provides a landlord with rights of entry to the premises in limited circumstances. A landlord (or their agent) may enter the premises with the consent of the tenant or on giving 24 hours’ notice for maintenance work, where that work is to be carried out between 8 am and 7 pm.
The tenant says that on 17 March 2022, a plumber instructed by the landlord arrived at the premises to conduct maintenance work, without the tenant having been given notice. The tenant notified the landlord of this in an email dated the same day. The landlord replied on the same day apologising. For the reasons given previously, the time since this incident occurred is such that an award of exemplary damages is time barred. It was not an ongoing breach.
In deciding whether an award of compensation is appropriate, I have considered whether the breach has resulted in a loss of amenity to the tenant? Very reasonably, the tenant did not try to suggest in her evidence that this incident was of great moment, but put it forward as further evidence of a general tardiness by the landlord in their dealings with the tenant. For those reasons, I do not consider that an award of compensation is required. General compensation and damages
In May 2022, the landlord advised the tenant that maintenance would need to be carried out and that this would result in some inconvenience to the tenant. The work was anticipated to take 7 days. The landlord said that they would give the tenant a 50% discount on the rent for each day where work was being conducted.
In an email dated 21 May 2025, the landlord accepted that this was correct. The landlord calculated that the work took a total of 35 days and that the compensation should be calculated at $1,725.00. Payment was made and the matter is dismissed.
The tenant has incurred costs in moving. The tenant has provided evidence of the costs incurred. As exemplary damages have already been awarded for the retaliatory notice and consideration was given to the effect of the notice on the tenant in receiving that notice, I consider that any further ward of compensation would essentially be to penalise the landlord twice for the same action.
The District Court in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZDC 17667 confirmed that the Tribunal had the authority to award general damages.
The tenant seeks general damages for stress and emotional harm.
The tenant gave evidence of the effect of the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises throughout the tenancy and the manner in which the tenancy was brought to an end. She explained the difficulty that she had experienced in finding alternative appropriate accommodation once the notice was received. The tenant expressed how upset the matter had made her.
The landlord, to their credit expressed a degree of sympathy for the tenant and had made efforts to find alternative accommodation for her.
The Tribunal in Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 held when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors set: o The nature of the breach. o The duration of the breach; and o the effect of the breach on the party.
In Tenant v Ezy Rentals NZ Ltd TT 4323927 The tribunal reviewed the bands which might usefully inform the Tribunals decisions in applications for general damages the bands are set out below; A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment; An award of $200.00 to $2,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety; an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear; an award of over $3,000.00.
I accept that the tenant was upset by ongoing maintenance issues and the landlord cancelling the tenancy. The tenant suffered inconvenience, worry, stress and anxiety. I consider that the tenant’s emotional harm falls within band B. In all of the circumstances, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $2,000.00 for her emotional harm.
The tenant having been successful in this hearing, I consider that the tenant should have her costs, which on this occasion are printing costs of $189.50 reimbursed to her by the landlord.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name only.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341858 — Exemplary damages at 101 Goldfield Heights, Queenstown, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341858 — Exemplary damages at 101 Goldfield Heights, Queenstown, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions