What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344157 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 5344157?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344157?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13309574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344157 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 5344157?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344157?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13309574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8 Burgundy Park Avenue, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5344157 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344157 — net $1,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$1,200.00	Retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Synergy Property Management Limited and Kaing Sok must pay [The tenant/s] $1,228.00 immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing held on 18 March 2026. The landlord did not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the landlord’s absence.
The tenancy commenced on 9 July 2022 and ended on 3 August 2025.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s 90-day notice dated 23 June 2025. The tenant claims that the notice was retaliatory.
The tenant states that in early June 2025 there were multiple surveyors and contractors attending the property with little to no notice. The visits appeared to be related to future development of the property or for consent purposes. The tenant cooperated and allowed access to the property.
On 5 June 2025 the tenant received a message from a builder forwarded to him by the Property Manager. That message advised that a job would start the following week, and they would need to use the water onsite. The message said that if the weather was good, they would be finished by the end of the week and they would only do the retaining wall.
Prior to this message the tenant had no idea that there were any plans for the property. He advised the Property Manager that he did not agree to the works taking place because he considered that they would be too disruptive.
On 12 June 2025 the tenant received a message from a new Property Manager stating that the contractors were running late and that the job was important, and the owners have a right to complete the job.
At that stage the tenant did not know who the new Property Manager was as he had not received any communication advising of a change. He was unsure if the new Property Manager had authority to act for the landlord and he did not know that the contractors were attending that day.
The tenant said that the new Property Manager called him and he was advised that the work was urgent and that he had no legal choice but to allow the work to proceed and that he could face action in the Tenancy Tribunal for refusing.
Soon afterward the tenant received a phone call from a person claiming to be a developer associated with the landlord. They stated that consent was running out of time and repeatedly attempted to persuade him to allow the work to proceed.
The tenant then received an email from the new Property Manager stating that the landlord could enter the grounds without notice and stated that the timeframe for completing the job (which she said was “initial” with “no construction”) would take 4 to 5 days. She said that there would be no inconvenience to the tenant.
On 22 June 2025 due to ongoing issues and a lack of information the tenant paid $105.00 to obtain the council consent documents. The council advised that the construction of retaining walls would be the start of a part of a larger development and an ongoing process.
The tenant said that he did not agree to the earthworks and construction of a large retaining wall as planned by the landlord because of the likely disruption to his use of the premises and his quiet enjoyment. The tenant considered that the work was not necessary maintenance or repairs to the property and as the work related to future development it should not be conducted during his tenanted period.
On 23 June 2025 the tenant sent an email to the landlord to propose that he could vacate at short notice by agreement if the landlord would contribute toward significant storage costs given that the tenancy provided the tenant with storage for his cars and a truck.
Two hours after this email was sent the landlord replied with a 90-day notice for the termination of the tenancy.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising his right under the Act. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord wanted to carry out earthworks (which were not urgent or maintenance), and the tenant refused entry for this work. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 1 sets out the circumstances where the landlord may enter the premises. The Property Manager made a point of stating in the communication that landlords can enter grounds without giving notice. While section 48 primarily refers to entry to the dwelling, significant works on the land outside can still affect the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the property.
Given the timeframe between the tenant sending his email on 23 June 2025 proposing a settlement after refusing entry I am satisfied that the landlord acted wholly or partly in response to the tenant exercising his right to ensure he has quiet enjoyment at the premises as provided for by the Act 2 .
While the Property Manager advised in the email that the owners no longer required any immediate work to be done at the property the tenant said that a contractor attended that same day. He remained concerned that contractors 1 Section 48(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 would continue to attend throughout the 90-day notice period. The landlord did not respond to the tenant’s request for clarification about whether further contractors would be attending.
The landlord intended to issue the 90-day notice and did so within hours of communication from the tenant and the email referred to the issue of the landlord wanting to gain access to the exterior. The effect of the notice was that the tenant had to leave the premises where he had lived for three years and where he had planned to continue to live because of its special characteristics such as providing parking for his vehicles and a large, fenced section for his dog.
The tenant ended up giving 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy earlier because of the uncertainty, ongoing issues and lack of clear communication. In addition, the 90 days’ notice would coincide with his partner’s pregnancy.
The tenant has still not secured a new tenancy and has had the significant cost involved in storing his vehicles and household effects.
I am satisfied that it is just to make an award of exemplary damages. I award $1,200.00 as exemplary damages.
While the tenant has also applied for compensation, I have decided to only award exemplary damages because it is not clear what actual financial loss was suffered by the tenant.
Because the tenant has been substantially successful with his application, I reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344157 — net $1,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$1,200.00	Retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Synergy Property Management Limited and Kaing Sok must pay [The tenant/s] $1,228.00 immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing held on 18 March 2026. The landlord did not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the landlord’s absence.
The tenancy commenced on 9 July 2022 and ended on 3 August 2025.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s 90-day notice dated 23 June 2025. The tenant claims that the notice was retaliatory.
The tenant states that in early June 2025 there were multiple surveyors and contractors attending the property with little to no notice. The visits appeared to be related to future development of the property or for consent purposes. The tenant cooperated and allowed access to the property.
On 5 June 2025 the tenant received a message from a builder forwarded to him by the Property Manager. That message advised that a job would start the following week, and they would need to use the water onsite. The message said that if the weather was good, they would be finished by the end of the week and they would only do the retaining wall.
Prior to this message the tenant had no idea that there were any plans for the property. He advised the Property Manager that he did not agree to the works taking place because he considered that they would be too disruptive.
On 12 June 2025 the tenant received a message from a new Property Manager stating that the contractors were running late and that the job was important, and the owners have a right to complete the job.
At that stage the tenant did not know who the new Property Manager was as he had not received any communication advising of a change. He was unsure if the new Property Manager had authority to act for the landlord and he did not know that the contractors were attending that day.
The tenant said that the new Property Manager called him and he was advised that the work was urgent and that he had no legal choice but to allow the work to proceed and that he could face action in the Tenancy Tribunal for refusing.
Soon afterward the tenant received a phone call from a person claiming to be a developer associated with the landlord. They stated that consent was running out of time and repeatedly attempted to persuade him to allow the work to proceed.
The tenant then received an email from the new Property Manager stating that the landlord could enter the grounds without notice and stated that the timeframe for completing the job (which she said was “initial” with “no construction”) would take 4 to 5 days. She said that there would be no inconvenience to the tenant.
On 22 June 2025 due to ongoing issues and a lack of information the tenant paid $105.00 to obtain the council consent documents. The council advised that the construction of retaining walls would be the start of a part of a larger development and an ongoing process.
The tenant said that he did not agree to the earthworks and construction of a large retaining wall as planned by the landlord because of the likely disruption to his use of the premises and his quiet enjoyment. The tenant considered that the work was not necessary maintenance or repairs to the property and as the work related to future development it should not be conducted during his tenanted period.
On 23 June 2025 the tenant sent an email to the landlord to propose that he could vacate at short notice by agreement if the landlord would contribute toward significant storage costs given that the tenancy provided the tenant with storage for his cars and a truck.
Two hours after this email was sent the landlord replied with a 90-day notice for the termination of the tenancy.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising his right under the Act. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord wanted to carry out earthworks (which were not urgent or maintenance), and the tenant refused entry for this work. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 1 sets out the circumstances where the landlord may enter the premises. The Property Manager made a point of stating in the communication that landlords can enter grounds without giving notice. While section 48 primarily refers to entry to the dwelling, significant works on the land outside can still affect the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the property.
Given the timeframe between the tenant sending his email on 23 June 2025 proposing a settlement after refusing entry I am satisfied that the landlord acted wholly or partly in response to the tenant exercising his right to ensure he has quiet enjoyment at the premises as provided for by the Act 2 .
While the Property Manager advised in the email that the owners no longer required any immediate work to be done at the property the tenant said that a contractor attended that same day. He remained concerned that contractors 1 Section 48(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 would continue to attend throughout the 90-day notice period. The landlord did not respond to the tenant’s request for clarification about whether further contractors would be attending.
The landlord intended to issue the 90-day notice and did so within hours of communication from the tenant and the email referred to the issue of the landlord wanting to gain access to the exterior. The effect of the notice was that the tenant had to leave the premises where he had lived for three years and where he had planned to continue to live because of its special characteristics such as providing parking for his vehicles and a large, fenced section for his dog.
The tenant ended up giving 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy earlier because of the uncertainty, ongoing issues and lack of clear communication. In addition, the 90 days’ notice would coincide with his partner’s pregnancy.
The tenant has still not secured a new tenancy and has had the significant cost involved in storing his vehicles and household effects.
I am satisfied that it is just to make an award of exemplary damages. I award $1,200.00 as exemplary damages.
While the tenant has also applied for compensation, I have decided to only award exemplary damages because it is not clear what actual financial loss was suffered by the tenant.
Because the tenant has been substantially successful with his application, I reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344157 — Exemplary damages at 8 Burgundy Park Avenue, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344157 — Exemplary damages at 8 Burgundy Park Avenue, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions