What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348738 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 5348738?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348738?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348738?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13244143-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348738 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 5348738?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348738?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348738?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13244143-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5348738 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5348738 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Thi Thuy Tien Tran must pay [The tenants] $15,553.71 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord’s representative, Dong Pham, was assisted by a Vietnamese interpreter. Dong Pham confirmed he is Thi Thuy Tien Tran’s husband and joint owner of the premise rented by the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. They were supported by the male tenant’s mother at the hearing.

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 or general damages in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation or general damages, 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 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 or general damages 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.

JURISDICTION

The landlord says the RTA does not apply because this is one big house and he and his family live in the upstairs area of the house. Therefore s5(1)(n) of the RTA excludes this tenancy.
The tenants confirmed this is one big house with two self-contained units sitting underneath the main house, that have been unlawfully converted from the two original garages. Relevant law
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants provided the dispute relates to a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies.
The onus of proving that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction falls on the party asserting that the Tribunal does not have Jurisdiction (see section10 RTA). In this case, that onus falls on the landlord party.
Section 77 and 82(1) RTA, gives the Tenancy Tribunal sole originating jurisdiction to determine in accordance with the RTA all disputes arising between landlords and tenants in relation to any tenancy to which the RTA applies.
Section 2 of the RTA sets out the following material definitions: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful Premises is defined as including: a. Any part of any premises; and b. Any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and c. Any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land. tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises;
Section 4 of the RTA provides that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
The exceptions to the RTA are contained in section 5. Section 5(1)(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
The District Court in Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994, stated that to give effect to the RTA’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly and not liberally. Separate household units
As the dwelling is a building, the requirements of the Building Act 2004 (“the Building Act”) apply to it.
One of the types of buildings categorised in the Building Act is called a “household unit”. A household unit is defined in section of 7 of the Building Act as a building: “or part of a building that is used or intended to be used only or mainly for residential purposes; and is occupied, or intended to be occupied, exclusively as the home or residence of not more than 1 household”.
The Tenancy Tribunal deals predominantly with household units (with the exception of boarding houses).
The question of whether a premises is a separate household unit arose in the recent High Court decision Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC 1265.
In that case, the landlord entered into a “flatmate/house-sharing agreement” with the tenants, which expressly recorded an acknowledgement that the premises were the primary residence of the landlord’s family and that therefore the Act did not apply (see section 5(1)(n) of the RTA exclusion).
However, the [City] Council previously confirmed to the landlord that the premises could not be tenanted as a separate household unit (e.g., no fire rated walls etc).
Analysing the actual situation, the Tribunal determined that the RTA did apply and that the building consisted of two separate and distinct household units.
The landlord appealed that finding to the District Court, which confirmed the Tribunal’s finding, and dismissed the landlord’s appeal.
The landlord then appealed to the High Court and the High Court confirmed both the District Court and Tribunal’s decision. Justice Walker in the High Court determined that: a. the natural and ordinary meaning of “premises” contemplates that there could be more than one “premises” within a larger premises; b. residential premises can include part of any premises used or intended for occupation as a place of residence; c. the Act supports a generous approach to jurisdiction for the Tribunal and conversely a strict approach to exceptions; d. the tenants did not have a right to occupy the areas used by the landlord, and there were no shared or common areas that would normally characterise a flat share. There was also no ability for the parties to enter the other parties dwelling, other than with consent.
Justice Walker concluded: “In my view, the decisive factor in this case must be the self-contained character of the granny flat, its exclusive use by the respondent occupiers and the exclusive use of the rest of the dwelling by the appellant and her family. There were no communal living or shared spaces but two separate and distinct household units within the dwelling. In these circumstances, the term “premises” cannot be interpreted as referring to the property in its entirety. The relevant premises is instead the functionally independent granny flat. That was not principally a place of residence of the appellant. It was solely occupied by the respondent. Section 5(1)(n) of the Act does not apply.”
The self-contained nature of the granny flat was decisive in Harding v Shellevis. However, even where there is some shared use of facilities, such as a toilet or shower, the RTA may still apply to a largely self-contained dwelling. This is because a tenancy agreement can include facilities provided for the non- exclusive use of the tenant. A couple of older Tribunal authorities illustrate this principle.
In Whitelock v McConway (Tenancy Tribunal Blenheim, 13 July 1995) the tenant occupied a sleepout a couple of meters from the main home occupied by the landlord. This comprised a bedroom, shower, toilet, and wash house attached to the garage. The tenant used a shared kitchen to prepare his breakfast and lunch.
Evening meals were mainly provided by the landlord. The landlord regarded the tenant as a boarder with free access to the facilities in the home.
The tenant was sharing kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities with the landlord.
The Tribunal held that the area occupied by the tenant was part of the family home, because it did not have separate cooking facilities and contained the only shower and laundry. The tenant’s room was part of the landlord’s home and was excluded from jurisdiction pursuant to section 5(1)(n) RTA.
In Barnett v Dempsey (Tenancy Tribunal Auckland, 13 June 2003, TT 790/03) the tenant lived in a room in a converted garage a few meters from house occupied by the landlord and her daughter. The tenant had a fridge and a cooktop. The tenant had to wash his dishes in the kitchen of the house. He had a key to gain access to the house to use the shower and toilet. The tenant only used the lounge in the house when invited to do so by the landlord.
The Tribunal held that, despite the sharing of facilities, the RTA was not excluded.
The tenant’s room comprised “premises” for the purpose of the RTA: “That the premises did not have their own toilet and washing facilities is not...fatal to their [sic] being “premises” because the definition of “facilities” in the Act appears to envisage a situation where other facilities are to be provided to the tenant by the landlord “for the use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise than as a part of the premises that are the subject of the agreement”, such as toilet and washing facilities...”.
These decisions were decided on their own facts. But they show that the Tribunal is sometimes required to assess whether the extent of shared facilities or spaces means the living arrangements are to be properly characterised as a tenancy, or as a flat share (or boarding) arrangement. Analysis
In this case, the landlord entered into a “residential tenancy agreement” with the female tenant initially, and more latterly agreed to the male tenant being joined to the tenancy. The tenancy agreement makes no mention of the premises being the primary residence of the landlord’s family and the RTA not applying to the tenancy (see section 5(1)(n) of the RTA exclusion).
In the circumstances of this case and the living arrangements as outlined by both parties at the hearing, I find that Thi Thuy Tien Tran meets the definition of a landlord, in that he leased residential premises to the tenants in consideration of rent.
The tenants falls within the definition of being tenants, given they are the grantee of residential premises. The tenants had the exclusive right to occupy the self- contained unit, on the basis of the payment of rent. No other person(s) occupied the self-contained unit or was entitled to occupy it from the time the tenant(s) commenced paying rent to exclusively occupy and use that area of the premise.
Although the parties intent and the type of agreement signed by them is not determinative of the nature of the relationship, it is one of the factors I can take into account when determining the true nature of the relationship. The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement. Its terms reflect an intention for the arrangement to be a residential tenancy and not a flatmate or boarder situation.
The evidence establishing a flatmate arrangement falls well short in this situation. The difference between a flatmate and a tenant is that a tenant obtains a right to occupy the premises (in this case, the unit) rented from the landlord. A flatmate resides in the premises by way of a licence from either the owner or a tenant who has a contractual relationship with the landlord. This is not a case where the tenants were only residing in the unit by way of licence. They had exclusive rights to occupy the unit.
In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore considered the definition of a flatmate. The court held that: “...the use of the word “flatmate” does not in itself define the legal relationship between flatmate and landlord. “By ‘flatmate’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
There was no evidence the tenants had access to shared or common areas (including cooking) in the main house or that the tenants had a right to occupy areas used by the main house. There was no evidence of a co-operative arrangement between the parties’ sharing facilities in this case, such that a flatting arrangement might exist. The evidence is clear that the two separate households lived independently.
As noted above, even where there is some shared use of facilities, such as a toilet or shower, the RTA may still apply to a largely self-contained dwelling. This is because a tenancy agreement can include facilities provided for the nonexclusive use of the tenant.
In Holler & Rouse v Osaki [2016] NZCA 130, the Court of Appeal stated that the RTA is “consumer protection legislation”. Where there is any uncertainty as to whether any particular arrangement falls within the scope of the RTA, consideration of this consumer protection aspect of the RTA ought to weigh in favour of bringing the arrangement under the umbrella of the Act and giving the tenant (and the landlord) access to the remedies that the Tenancy Tribunal can provide.
The next matter to consider is whether or not section 5(1)(n) RTA operates to exclude the agreement from the operation of the RTA.
The District Court in Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt, CIV- 2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, held that the correct question for the Tribunal to answer when considering section 5(1)(n) RTA is: “Is the principal use of these premises as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owners’ family.”
If the house as a whole was the relevant “premises” then I would easily conclude that section 5(1)(n) applied in this case. However, I find that is not the case, rather I consider that the self-contained unit is a separate premise to the main house and a second self-contained unit.
The Court has previously determined in Kahi v Lucus HC Auckland, 81/96, 23 September 1996 and Harding v Schellevis & Ors that there can be a separate premises within a larger premises. I note the definition of premises in section 2(1) includes “any part of any premises.” I also adopt the reasoning of the High Court in Harding v Schellevis & Ors that “premises” includes “a part of a building.”
While this was physically one building, there were three separate and distinct household units within that building. [Female tenant] and [male tenant] had their own separate premises (with its own separate entrance and exit) that was not shared with the landlord. Another separate household existed in a second unit. [Female tenant] and [male tenant] did not utilise the main areas where Thi Thuy Tien Tran, Dong Pham and their family were living. The house as a whole was not shared, and there was a clear separation of households. The tenants had their own separate living space that Thi Thuy Tien Tran, Dong Pham and their family understood they could not enter without consent. The tenants treated Thi Thuy Tien Tran, Dong Pham and their family as privately occupying the main house and did not enter this area without consent or invitation. The landlord and the tenants had two separate premises, each with exclusive possession, rather than a sharing of the house and its facilities.
I find that there was a residential tenancy of the self-contained unit to which the RTA applies. This was not a flatmate sharing arrangement. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not excluded by section 5(1)(n) RTA. TENANT’S CLAIMS

The tenants claim the Dong Pham, in the presence of his wife (Thi Thuy Tien Tran) and some of his friends/family members, entered the premise without consent or notice. Thi Thuy Tien Tran and [female tenant] videoed the incident on 20 September 2025.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants say that on 20 September 2025, the landlord and two of Mr Dong Pham’s male friends watched while her husband aggressively approached the premise and demanded that [male tenant] come out of the premise. Mr Pham wanted to end [male tenant’s] tenancy, after he had approached Mr Pham about reimbursement for the cost of a tyre on [female tenant’s] vehicle. The tyre had a large nail in it from the renovation rubbish left around the front of the premise by Mr Pham and his friends. Mr Pham stated it was an old tyre and the landlord was not responsible for reimbursing the tenants for this cost. The tenants confirmed the tyre was only a few years old and had plenty of life left in it.
Mr Pham took offensive at his wife being asked to pay for the tyre. He decided that [male tenant] was not named on the original tenancy agreement and so he could be asked to leave the premise or be trespassed. He says the New Zealand Police advised him of his right to remove [male tenant].
[Male tenant] had written confirmation from Mr Pham’s cousin (Andrew) that [male tenant] was to be added to the tenancy agreement. [Male tenant] proved he had provided the cousin (the landlord’s nominated property manager) with copies of his identification documents and the other information Andrew said was required to add [male tenant] to the tenancy agreement.
Mr Pham confirmed Andrew had managed the property and had written the tenancy agreement. It was after Andrew left [City] and Mr Pham commenced managing the tenancy that issues arose.
On 20 September 20205, Mr Pham sought to make [male tenant] leave the premise immediately by force. The video evidence produced at the hearing showed him aggressively demanding that [female tenant] move out of the front entrance to the premise so that Mr Pham could reach in and drag [male tenant] outside, where his friends were waiting to assault him. [Female tenant] refused to move and so Mr Pham can be seen putting his hands and feet just inside the doorway. He managed to drag [male tenant] outside where Mr Pham and his two friends handled him roughly until the Police attended the premise. [Male tenant] gave evidence that they shoved him repeatedly, hit his head and his cheek bone. The landlord’s video shows [female tenant] being very distraught and [male tenant] calling the Police from outside the premise while surrounded by Mr Pham and his friends.
I am satisfied that the husband of the landlord, in her presence, more likely than not entered the premise on 20 September 2025 in an attempt to try to remove [male tenant] from the premise. Mr Pham stated during the hearing “I was only trying to get the man out as there was nothing to do with the girl” and “the Police told me I could ask him to leave and trespass him from the premise as he was not on the tenancy agreement”.
I find the evidence above proves on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has committed an unlawful act and that this act was intentional.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord ought reasonably to have known that [male and female tenants] had written confirmation from the landlord’s nominated property manager (Andrew) that they were both tenants with exclusive right to occupy the premise under a periodic tenancy, and that landlord access had to be in accordance with the landlord’s s48 of the RTA access rights; b. The tenants felt scared, intimidated and harassed and that the landlord and her husband had been disrespectful of their privacy when Mr Pham had put his hands and feet inside the door frame to allow him to grab [male tenant], without the tenants’ consent; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful entry; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to enter a tenant’s home without notice or consent or for purposes other than the purpose for which they were granted consent.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $7500.00 in exemplary damages, half of the maximum available, for the landlord’s breach of s48(4)(a) of the RTA. accordingly. Did the landlords breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and/or privacy?
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment and privacy.
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 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 tenants stated that just prior to and after the 20 September 2025 incident, from when [male tenant] raised the tyre issue with Mr Pham, Mr Pham and his friends engaged in intimidation tactics and made things frightening for the tenants. The tenants say they were too afraid to have any doors or windows open, despite having dampness and mould in the premise from the leaks that had occurred in May 2025 soaking the carpet. [Female tenant] provided photographic and message-based evidence that proves she was constantly blocked in so she could not get out in time to attend her evening job and that the landlord was uncooperative at moving the obstructions.
Additionally, the tenants also provided evidence that proved the landlord, her husband and his friends were undertaking renovations to the main house just above the entrance way to the unit. The tenants photographic evidence proves that the renovations caused dust, dirt and noise that disturbed their quiet enjoyment of the unit and that the renovation rubbish was left in shared spaces and the space allocated for the female tenant to park her car. The amount of renovation rubbish, including big rusty nails and screws left on the driveway, caused the tyre on [female tenant] car to be so damaged it could not be repaired.
The tenants had recordings of the landlord’s children running around the house late at night, uncontrolled, making noise that was disruptive to the tenants in the unit below. When approached about this regular disruptive behaviour, the renovation noise and mess and the damaged tyre, Mr Pham became agitated and then started a campaign to intimidate [male tenant] into ending his tenancy and never setting foot on the premise again. His evidence suggests he was not worried about [female tenant] for undisclosed reasons.
I find the proven pattern of landlord and the landlord’s agent’s intimidatory conduct, proves the landlord has intentionally committed a series of unlawful acts.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord and or her agent has engaged in a pattern of behaviour Mr Pham and his wife knew was causing the tenants trouble, worry and distress and that they were becoming worn down by the aggressive conduct and disturbances and had an inability to raise and resolve any issues without Mr Pham’s conduct becoming aggressive or combative. They were terrified after the 20 September 2025 unlawful entry and the post incident more subtle intimidation tactics; b. The tenants suffered distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise they were both paying to have as a safe haven from duress because of the landlord’s agent’s continual harassment of [male tenant]; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise they were paying to have as a safe haven from duress; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their quiet enjoyment obligations. e. I make an order for the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available) for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA accordingly.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has proven the landlord never lodged the bond, either during the tenancy or as at the date of today’s hearing. The landlord’s representative stated that he and his wife were new to New Zealand, wanted some financial assistance with the mortgage and so let the two units out. They were not familiar with New Zealand residential tenancy law.
In New Zealand, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaching it. It is a fundamental pillar of the legal system, which has been codified in Section 25 of the Crimes Act 1961, which states that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for any offence. This principle, ignorantia juris non excusat, exists to maintain public order, ensure legal certainty, and prevent individuals from avoiding liability for breaches of the law simply by claiming they did not know the rules. The Government provides a free educational, advisory and resource-based service to landlords and tenants to assist them to educate themselves on their rights and responsibilities. Tenancy Services has a help line as well as vast array of online resources. Therefore, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s agent claimed ignorance of the law but was informed by the tenants that he needed to lodge the bond when they called the Bond Centre (after lodging their Tribunal application on 20 September 2025) and found that he had not done so. As at the date of the hearing Mr Pham and his wife had still not done so. Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants and to comply with their legal obligations. I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after their receipt of it.
The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally did not ensure that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre, even after the tenants brought the breach to the landlord’s attention in their application to the Tribunal (20 September 2025). Further, the landlord had still had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre at the date of the hearing, being 4 March 2026; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting their bond money that should have been placed in it on trust for the tenants’ benefit, unless it is proven the tenants owed the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenants’ money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 46 weeks 3 days, and it should have been. The landlord retained the bond without the tenant’s knowledge of who held their bond. The tenants only became aware of the breach when they called the Bond Centre to find out how to have the bond released near the end of their tenancy. That was the first, they knew that the bond had never been lodged; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; and d. It is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
I find it fair to set the quantum of exemplary damages at the maximum amount for this category of breach because, the landlord failed to lodge the bond for 46 weeks 3 days and did not lodge it as soon as the tenants brought the breach to their attention. Failure to provide healthy homes standards information and a healthy homes compliance statement.
The tenants claim the landlord has breached her obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the RTA.
Under section 13A(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.
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.
The landlord failing to comply with their s13A(1CA) and/or the s13A(2) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
The tenancy agreement provided to and signed by the tenant does not include information about any of the required healthy homes standards or a signed compliance statement. As such, [female tenant] had no idea when she took on the tenancy, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions apply to the premises.
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.
The parties both gave evidence that the tenants did not raise any issues or concerns about the landlord’s failure to provide the required healthy homes statements/information in the tenancy agreement, until these proceedings were filed in the Tribunal.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenants with the required completed and signed healthy homes statement and information, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA), and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA. The landlord’s agent claimed again the landlord was not fully aware of her legislative obligation to do so. Ignorance of the law is no excuse when it comes to compliance with the RTA, but I cannot conclude that the breach was intentional.
The breach was a technical breach that the evidence shows: a. Had a negative effect on the tenant enjoyment of the premise and their health and wellbeing because the premise was found not to be healthy homes compliant; b. The tenants had informed the landlord’s agents during the tenancy that the premise did not meet the healthy homes standards. [Female tenant] stated that she would not have taken up the tenancy had she had the healthy homes information; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to provide the tenants with healthy homes compliance information; and d. It is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations provide the tenants with healthy hoes compliance information.
I find it fair to set the quantum of exemplary damages at half the maximum amount for this category of breach, being $375.00 because, the tenants did not raise concerns about this omission with the landlord until they lodged their application with the Tribunal, but after they did the landlord made no attempt to provide the information of have a healthy homes assessment done. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (ba), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenants?
The tenants claims the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(b),(ba), (bb) and (c) 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 .
Under s45(1)(ba) of the RTA the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A.
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises, including the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) that requires a rental premise to be free from dampness (refer to HIR regulation 15).
Breaching any or all of these s45(1) 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.
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 tenants 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. Leaks and mould 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].
The tenants produced a video of the premise on entry that shows mould on the window ledges, indicating the unit was already damp at the start of the tenancy. The female tenant asked for this mould to be cleaned at the start of the tenancy (on 13 April 2025), but it was not cleaned by the landlord, so she did it herself. The female tenant says there was no other evidence of a wider mould issue at the start of the tenancy.
In May 2025, the block wall leaked because it was not sealed properly, and water came flooding into the unit and soaked all the carpet in the lounge. The tenants raised this with the landlord’s agent in May and then again on 16 July 2025.
The male tenant produced a photograph dated 9 May 2025 that shows the lounge carpet being dark with the high level of moisture in it. He was unsure whether that had been sent to the landlord at the time and could not recall the exact date the tenants notified the landlord. The landlord’s husband confirmed he was notified but was also unsure of the date.
The tenants gave evidence they pulled up the wet carpet and underlay, after waiting for the landlord to address the leak and the water damage and found black mould growing in the underlay. They lived with the concrete floor after that until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s husband confirmed that, other than having a pump on the premise that he says the tenants could have used to pump out the water, he put the cover on the roof to stop more water getting into the wall, the landlord did nothing to address the water damage.
The tenants gave evidence they used a dehumidifier that was pulling out around 18 litres of water a day, and using increased levels of electricity to do so.
This breach is also a breach of s45(1)(c) of the RTA, specifically regulation 15 of the HIR, which states that all rental premises must be free of dampness. However, the Tribunal must not penalise the landlord twice for the same breach under two or more separate claims.
I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate for the period they lived with the loss of amenity from the block wall leaks and dampness and mould in the unit. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $150.00 per week for the period 9 May 2025 to 18 October 2025 (23 weeks and 1 day). being a rent rebate of $3,471.43 ordered.
I am satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The tenants have lived for 23 weeks and 1 days with a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by the leaks, dampness and resulting mould and damage to their belongings when the landlord knew of these issues and did not take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy them; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind her of her obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity for 23weeks and 1 day; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. Cockroach infestation
The tenants produced a video of the premise that shows a significant cockroach infestation but confirmed that this was never raised with the landlord or her agents. A landlord cannot address a repair and maintenance issue that it is unaware of. There was no evidence produced to suggest the landlord was aware of this issue at any stage of the tenancy.
A tenant has an obligation under s40(1)(d) of the RTA to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs or maintenance.
The tenants have failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. The claim is dismissed. Exposed fuse box
The tenants produced photographic evidence of the fuse box inside the bedroom that was not covered. The landlords husband said the tenants raised this as a health and safety issue and he didn’t do anything about it as he was too busy and did not think it was a direct danger.
I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate for the period they lived with the loss of amenity from the exposed fuse box in the bedroom that made them reluctant to sleep in the bedroom. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 13 April 2024- 18 October 2025 (26 weeks and 6 days) being a rent rebate of $805.71 ordered.
I am satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The tenants have lived for 26 weeks and 6 days with a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused by the exposed fuse box and the landlord did not take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy any risk to their health, wellbeing and safety; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind her of her obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity for 26 weeks and 6 days; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. Smoke alarms- breach of TA and breach of regulations
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenants claim the rental premise had no working smoke alarms when the tenants moved in, and none were installed during the tenancy.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premises were fitted with compliant and working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA in that the video evidence produced by the tenants, and [male tenant’s] mother, proved at the beginning and the end of the tenancy there were no compliant smoke alarm in the lounge or within 3 metres of the bedroom.
The landlord produced photographs of ceilings with something that looked like an HRV vent and a small device that did not look like a photoelectric smoke alarm. Additionally, it was difficult to identify where the photographs were taken or when or if they were taken in the rental premise. I did not find this evidence to be compelling proof of the existence of compliant smoke alarms in the tenants’ unit. I preferred the two separate sets of video evidence that proved conclusively that no compliant smoke alarms were in the unit during the tenancy.
There were no healthy homes assessment reports or property inspection reports that proved the existence of smoke alarms in the unit nor any receipts for the purchase of one or more smoke alarms for installation in the premise after the painting of it prior to the tenancy commencing.
I find that the tenants should be awarded compensation for the breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide smoking smoke alarms for the period 13 April 2025 to 18 October 2025, being 26 weeks 6 days, at $10.00 per week. I award total compensation of $268.57 for this breach.
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages as I find the breach to be intentional as the landlord and/or his agent was made aware of the breach when the tenants Tribunal application was lodged and did nothing to address it. The quantum will be addressed in the exemplary damage section at the end of the section that addresses all s45(1)of the RTA breaches below. Breach of healthy homes standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 13 April 2025. Therefore, the premise had to be healthy homes compliant by 1 July 2025.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A). A. Heating standard
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 purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
There must be one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room.
The main living room is the largest room that is used for general, everyday living – for example a lounge, family room or dining room.
Heater(s) must be fixed (not portable) and must be at least 1.5 kW in heating capacity and meet the minimum heating capacity needed for the main living room. There are several options to calculate the heating capacity required for the main living room.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants say there was no fixed heating in the premise for the duration of the tenancy. They had their own small heater and say they were not provided with any heating at all. They also had to seal the gaps around the living space doors and windows as it has hard to keep the unit warm.
On 19 September 2025, the tenants issued the landlord with a 14-day notice requiring her to comply with the heating standard.
The landlord’s husband confirmed that there was no heating provided to the tenants, let alone heating that complies with the heating standard. He did not explain why but did not appear to find it an issue.
In this case I find Thi Thuy Tien Tran has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that exemplary damages for this intentional breach of the heating standard is warranted. B. Ventilation
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants claim there was an extractor fan in bathroom (in the shower) and a small wall-based extractor fan in the kitchen.
They also stated the shower was not put together properly and had gaps in it that let in draughts and that the DVS/HRV system did not work for the duration of the tenancy. Additionally, one of the windows in the lounge was painted shut and could not be opened.
The tenants did not produce any no evidence of this. The claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. C. Draught Stopping
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the draught stopping standard.
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 arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants says there were gaps in the doors and windows and that there was an exposed pipe coming through the roof in bathroom that let in draughts.
The tenants produced photographic evidence of these gaps, specifically a large gap from the lounge to bedroom door that showed the quality of the workmanship on the finishing of the doors and windows was substandard.
The landlord’s husband denied the gaps and poor workmanship but the tenants had video and photographic evidence from the start of the tenancy and after 1 July 2025 that proves there was a clear breach of this standard.
In this case I find Thi Thuy Tien Tran has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that exemplary damages for this intentional breach of the heating standard is warranted. D. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants said that wastewater was coming up though the pipes inside the house after the landlord’s husband and his friends changed the guttering and downpipes themselves.
The tenants did not produce any no evidence of this. The claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed 2 intentional breaches of s45(1)(b), 1 of s45(1)(ba), 2 of s45(1)(bb) and 1 of s45(1)c) of the RTA that resulted in the tenants living conditions that were unhealthy and that they experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenity the tenants were paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief to the tenants at these times.
I find the landlord has committed these 6 unlawful acts intentionally.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenants many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $3,600.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being one half the maximum penalty available. Did the landlord give the tenants notice to terminate the tenancy unlawfully and was that notice retaliatory?
On 20 September 2025 the landlord’s husband gave the male tenant a verbal notice ending the tenancy immediately as he dragged him out of the unit in front of the landlord and two friends and his children. The Police were called by the male tenant. The tenants claims the notice is retaliatory.
On 22 September 2025, after harassing and intimidating the tenants so they were scared to leave the unit, the landlord’s husband left a trespass notice on the door trespassing the male tenant and telling him it was unlawful for him to enter the property or the unit.
When the tenants discovered on 20 September 2025 that the landlord had not lodged their bond, they decided not to pay the last two weeks rent in case they were unable to obtain their two weeks bond back. On 7 October 2025 the landlord’s husband/agent sent the tenants a text message informing them they had to move out immediately if they did not pay the last two weeks rent.
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.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord confirmed he had told the male tenant to leave immediately during the 20 September 2025 incident and told the male tenant he would be trespassed if he did not leave immediately. In the 20 September 2025 video, the landlord can be heard saying the tenants need to leave now.
The parties both confirmed the landlord’s husband posted a trespass notice on the tenants’ door on 22 September 2025, trespassing the male tenant. A copy of the trespass notice was provided by the parties during the hearing.
The landlord’s husband says the Police told him that if the male tenant’s name was not on the tenancy agreement he could be trespassed and removed from the premise. I am not convinced the Police gave the landlord’s husband this advice. English is his second language, and he may have confused what was said.
The landlord’s husband/agent told the Tribunal that he was annoyed when the male tenant asked him to pay for the damage to the female tenant’s tyre and for raising repair and maintenance issues. He wanted him to go and actively tried to achieve that aim by engaging in an unlawful entry, attempted assault and then through the issuance of a trespass order.
The tenants provided the landlord’s husband and the Tribunal with evidence that Andrew had agreed to add the male tenant to the agreement and to him paying half the rent, after the male tenant producing a copy of his driver’s licence and all the other information Andrew had required.
I find the landlord’s husband has confirmed in his own words that he issued the male tenant with an unlawful and retaliatory notice as he wanted him gone. He was aggressive and persistent in bringing the end of the tenancy about with his unlawful conduct. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act and that the unlawful and retaliatory notice was intentional. After the tenants informed Mr Pham he had no legal right to trespass or physically evict the tenants because he did not appreciate them raising tenancy related concerns, the conduct clearly continued until they moved out on 18 October 2025, after living in fear, locked in the unit, for nearly a month.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory and unlawful 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.
I find it appropriate to award the tenants $3,250.00 in exemplary damages (half the maximum penalty available) for the unlawful and retaliatory notice issued on 20 and 22 September 2025 because: a. The tenants were subjected to stress and inconvenience and loss of amenity of their home due to the nature of the unlawful and retaliatory notice; b. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful and retaliatory notice; and c. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their termination notice obligations.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fees

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 the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee
Because Thi Thuy Tien Tran has not wholly or substantially succeeded with his claims I dismiss his claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants applies 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 these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct.
Name suppression is ordered for the tenants.
Thi Thuy Tien Tran also applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
Thi Thuy Tien Tran has not wholly or substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Thi Thuy Tien Tran must pay [The tenants] $15,553.71 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord’s representative, Dong Pham, was assisted by a Vietnamese interpreter. Dong Pham confirmed he is Thi Thuy Tien Tran’s husband and joint owner of the premise rented by the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. They were supported by the male tenant’s mother at the hearing.

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 or general damages in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation or general damages, 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 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 or general damages 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.

JURISDICTION

The landlord says the RTA does not apply because this is one big house and he and his family live in the upstairs area of the house. Therefore s5(1)(n) of the RTA excludes this tenancy.
The tenants confirmed this is one big house with two self-contained units sitting underneath the main house, that have been unlawfully converted from the two original garages. Relevant law
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants provided the dispute relates to a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies.
The onus of proving that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction falls on the party asserting that the Tribunal does not have Jurisdiction (see section10 RTA). In this case, that onus falls on the landlord party.
Section 77 and 82(1) RTA, gives the Tenancy Tribunal sole originating jurisdiction to determine in accordance with the RTA all disputes arising between landlords and tenants in relation to any tenancy to which the RTA applies.
Section 2 of the RTA sets out the following material definitions: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful Premises is defined as including: a. Any part of any premises; and b. Any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and c. Any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land. tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises;
Section 4 of the RTA provides that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
The exceptions to the RTA are contained in section 5. Section 5(1)(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
The District Court in Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994, stated that to give effect to the RTA’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly and not liberally. Separate household units
As the dwelling is a building, the requirements of the Building Act 2004 (“the Building Act”) apply to it.
One of the types of buildings categorised in the Building Act is called a “household unit”. A household unit is defined in section of 7 of the Building Act as a building: “or part of a building that is used or intended to be used only or mainly for residential purposes; and is occupied, or intended to be occupied, exclusively as the home or residence of not more than 1 household”.
The Tenancy Tribunal deals predominantly with household units (with the exception of boarding houses).
The question of whether a premises is a separate household unit arose in the recent High Court decision Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC 1265.
In that case, the landlord entered into a “flatmate/house-sharing agreement” with the tenants, which expressly recorded an acknowledgement that the premises were the primary residence of the landlord’s family and that therefore the Act did not apply (see section 5(1)(n) of the RTA exclusion).
However, the [City] Council previously confirmed to the landlord that the premises could not be tenanted as a separate household unit (e.g., no fire rated walls etc).
Analysing the actual situation, the Tribunal determined that the RTA did apply and that the building consisted of two separate and distinct household units.
The landlord appealed that finding to the District Court, which confirmed the Tribunal’s finding, and dismissed the landlord’s appeal.
The landlord then appealed to the High Court and the High Court confirmed both the District Court and Tribunal’s decision. Justice Walker in the High Court determined that: a. the natural and ordinary meaning of “premises” contemplates that there could be more than one “premises” within a larger premises; b. residential premises can include part of any premises used or intended for occupation as a place of residence; c. the Act supports a generous approach to jurisdiction for the Tribunal and conversely a strict approach to exceptions; d. the tenants did not have a right to occupy the areas used by the landlord, and there were no shared or common areas that would normally characterise a flat share. There was also no ability for the parties to enter the other parties dwelling, other than with consent.
Justice Walker concluded: “In my view, the decisive factor in this case must be the self-contained character of the granny flat, its exclusive use by the respondent occupiers and the exclusive use of the rest of the dwelling by the appellant and her family. There were no communal living or shared spaces but two separate and distinct household units within the dwelling. In these circumstances, the term “premises” cannot be interpreted as referring to the property in its entirety. The relevant premises is instead the functionally independent granny flat. That was not principally a place of residence of the appellant. It was solely occupied by the respondent. Section 5(1)(n) of the Act does not apply.”
The self-contained nature of the granny flat was decisive in Harding v Shellevis. However, even where there is some shared use of facilities, such as a toilet or shower, the RTA may still apply to a largely self-contained dwelling. This is because a tenancy agreement can include facilities provided for the non- exclusive use of the tenant. A couple of older Tribunal authorities illustrate this principle.
In Whitelock v McConway (Tenancy Tribunal Blenheim, 13 July 1995) the tenant occupied a sleepout a couple of meters from the main home occupied by the landlord. This comprised a bedroom, shower, toilet, and wash house attached to the garage. The tenant used a shared kitchen to prepare his breakfast and lunch.
Evening meals were mainly provided by the landlord. The landlord regarded the tenant as a boarder with free access to the facilities in the home.
The tenant was sharing kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities with the landlord.
The Tribunal held that the area occupied by the tenant was part of the family home, because it did not have separate cooking facilities and contained the only shower and laundry. The tenant’s room was part of the landlord’s home and was excluded from jurisdiction pursuant to section 5(1)(n) RTA.
In Barnett v Dempsey (Tenancy Tribunal Auckland, 13 June 2003, TT 790/03) the tenant lived in a room in a converted garage a few meters from house occupied by the landlord and her daughter. The tenant had a fridge and a cooktop. The tenant had to wash his dishes in the kitchen of the house. He had a key to gain access to the house to use the shower and toilet. The tenant only used the lounge in the house when invited to do so by the landlord.
The Tribunal held that, despite the sharing of facilities, the RTA was not excluded.
The tenant’s room comprised “premises” for the purpose of the RTA: “That the premises did not have their own toilet and washing facilities is not...fatal to their [sic] being “premises” because the definition of “facilities” in the Act appears to envisage a situation where other facilities are to be provided to the tenant by the landlord “for the use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise than as a part of the premises that are the subject of the agreement”, such as toilet and washing facilities...”.
These decisions were decided on their own facts. But they show that the Tribunal is sometimes required to assess whether the extent of shared facilities or spaces means the living arrangements are to be properly characterised as a tenancy, or as a flat share (or boarding) arrangement. Analysis
In this case, the landlord entered into a “residential tenancy agreement” with the female tenant initially, and more latterly agreed to the male tenant being joined to the tenancy. The tenancy agreement makes no mention of the premises being the primary residence of the landlord’s family and the RTA not applying to the tenancy (see section 5(1)(n) of the RTA exclusion).
In the circumstances of this case and the living arrangements as outlined by both parties at the hearing, I find that Thi Thuy Tien Tran meets the definition of a landlord, in that he leased residential premises to the tenants in consideration of rent.
The tenants falls within the definition of being tenants, given they are the grantee of residential premises. The tenants had the exclusive right to occupy the self- contained unit, on the basis of the payment of rent. No other person(s) occupied the self-contained unit or was entitled to occupy it from the time the tenant(s) commenced paying rent to exclusively occupy and use that area of the premise.
Although the parties intent and the type of agreement signed by them is not determinative of the nature of the relationship, it is one of the factors I can take into account when determining the true nature of the relationship. The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement. Its terms reflect an intention for the arrangement to be a residential tenancy and not a flatmate or boarder situation.
The evidence establishing a flatmate arrangement falls well short in this situation. The difference between a flatmate and a tenant is that a tenant obtains a right to occupy the premises (in this case, the unit) rented from the landlord. A flatmate resides in the premises by way of a licence from either the owner or a tenant who has a contractual relationship with the landlord. This is not a case where the tenants were only residing in the unit by way of licence. They had exclusive rights to occupy the unit.
In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore considered the definition of a flatmate. The court held that: “...the use of the word “flatmate” does not in itself define the legal relationship between flatmate and landlord. “By ‘flatmate’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
There was no evidence the tenants had access to shared or common areas (including cooking) in the main house or that the tenants had a right to occupy areas used by the main house. There was no evidence of a co-operative arrangement between the parties’ sharing facilities in this case, such that a flatting arrangement might exist. The evidence is clear that the two separate households lived independently.
As noted above, even where there is some shared use of facilities, such as a toilet or shower, the RTA may still apply to a largely self-contained dwelling. This is because a tenancy agreement can include facilities provided for the nonexclusive use of the tenant.
In Holler & Rouse v Osaki [2016] NZCA 130, the Court of Appeal stated that the RTA is “consumer protection legislation”. Where there is any uncertainty as to whether any particular arrangement falls within the scope of the RTA, consideration of this consumer protection aspect of the RTA ought to weigh in favour of bringing the arrangement under the umbrella of the Act and giving the tenant (and the landlord) access to the remedies that the Tenancy Tribunal can provide.
The next matter to consider is whether or not section 5(1)(n) RTA operates to exclude the agreement from the operation of the RTA.
The District Court in Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt, CIV- 2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, held that the correct question for the Tribunal to answer when considering section 5(1)(n) RTA is: “Is the principal use of these premises as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owners’ family.”
If the house as a whole was the relevant “premises” then I would easily conclude that section 5(1)(n) applied in this case. However, I find that is not the case, rather I consider that the self-contained unit is a separate premise to the main house and a second self-contained unit.
The Court has previously determined in Kahi v Lucus HC Auckland, 81/96, 23 September 1996 and Harding v Schellevis & Ors that there can be a separate premises within a larger premises. I note the definition of premises in section 2(1) includes “any part of any premises.” I also adopt the reasoning of the High Court in Harding v Schellevis & Ors that “premises” includes “a part of a building.”
While this was physically one building, there were three separate and distinct household units within that building. [Female tenant] and [male tenant] had their own separate premises (with its own separate entrance and exit) that was not shared with the landlord. Another separate household existed in a second unit. [Female tenant] and [male tenant] did not utilise the main areas where Thi Thuy Tien Tran, Dong Pham and their family were living. The house as a whole was not shared, and there was a clear separation of households. The tenants had their own separate living space that Thi Thuy Tien Tran, Dong Pham and their family understood they could not enter without consent. The tenants treated Thi Thuy Tien Tran, Dong Pham and their family as privately occupying the main house and did not enter this area without consent or invitation. The landlord and the tenants had two separate premises, each with exclusive possession, rather than a sharing of the house and its facilities.
I find that there was a residential tenancy of the self-contained unit to which the RTA applies. This was not a flatmate sharing arrangement. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not excluded by section 5(1)(n) RTA. TENANT’S CLAIMS

The tenants claim the Dong Pham, in the presence of his wife (Thi Thuy Tien Tran) and some of his friends/family members, entered the premise without consent or notice. Thi Thuy Tien Tran and [female tenant] videoed the incident on 20 September 2025.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants say that on 20 September 2025, the landlord and two of Mr Dong Pham’s male friends watched while her husband aggressively approached the premise and demanded that [male tenant] come out of the premise. Mr Pham wanted to end [male tenant’s] tenancy, after he had approached Mr Pham about reimbursement for the cost of a tyre on [female tenant’s] vehicle. The tyre had a large nail in it from the renovation rubbish left around the front of the premise by Mr Pham and his friends. Mr Pham stated it was an old tyre and the landlord was not responsible for reimbursing the tenants for this cost. The tenants confirmed the tyre was only a few years old and had plenty of life left in it.
Mr Pham took offensive at his wife being asked to pay for the tyre. He decided that [male tenant] was not named on the original tenancy agreement and so he could be asked to leave the premise or be trespassed. He says the New Zealand Police advised him of his right to remove [male tenant].
[Male tenant] had written confirmation from Mr Pham’s cousin (Andrew) that [male tenant] was to be added to the tenancy agreement. [Male tenant] proved he had provided the cousin (the landlord’s nominated property manager) with copies of his identification documents and the other information Andrew said was required to add [male tenant] to the tenancy agreement.
Mr Pham confirmed Andrew had managed the property and had written the tenancy agreement. It was after Andrew left [City] and Mr Pham commenced managing the tenancy that issues arose.
On 20 September 20205, Mr Pham sought to make [male tenant] leave the premise immediately by force. The video evidence produced at the hearing showed him aggressively demanding that [female tenant] move out of the front entrance to the premise so that Mr Pham could reach in and drag [male tenant] outside, where his friends were waiting to assault him. [Female tenant] refused to move and so Mr Pham can be seen putting his hands and feet just inside the doorway. He managed to drag [male tenant] outside where Mr Pham and his two friends handled him roughly until the Police attended the premise. [Male tenant] gave evidence that they shoved him repeatedly, hit his head and his cheek bone. The landlord’s video shows [female tenant] being very distraught and [male tenant] calling the Police from outside the premise while surrounded by Mr Pham and his friends.
I am satisfied that the husband of the landlord, in her presence, more likely than not entered the premise on 20 September 2025 in an attempt to try to remove [male tenant] from the premise. Mr Pham stated during the hearing “I was only trying to get the man out as there was nothing to do with the girl” and “the Police told me I could ask him to leave and trespass him from the premise as he was not on the tenancy agreement”.
I find the evidence above proves on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has committed an unlawful act and that this act was intentional.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord ought reasonably to have known that [male and female tenants] had written confirmation from the landlord’s nominated property manager (Andrew) that they were both tenants with exclusive right to occupy the premise under a periodic tenancy, and that landlord access had to be in accordance with the landlord’s s48 of the RTA access rights; b. The tenants felt scared, intimidated and harassed and that the landlord and her husband had been disrespectful of their privacy when Mr Pham had put his hands and feet inside the door frame to allow him to grab [male tenant], without the tenants’ consent; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful entry; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to enter a tenant’s home without notice or consent or for purposes other than the purpose for which they were granted consent.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $7500.00 in exemplary damages, half of the maximum available, for the landlord’s breach of s48(4)(a) of the RTA. accordingly. Did the landlords breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and/or privacy?
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment and privacy.
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 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 tenants stated that just prior to and after the 20 September 2025 incident, from when [male tenant] raised the tyre issue with Mr Pham, Mr Pham and his friends engaged in intimidation tactics and made things frightening for the tenants. The tenants say they were too afraid to have any doors or windows open, despite having dampness and mould in the premise from the leaks that had occurred in May 2025 soaking the carpet. [Female tenant] provided photographic and message-based evidence that proves she was constantly blocked in so she could not get out in time to attend her evening job and that the landlord was uncooperative at moving the obstructions.
Additionally, the tenants also provided evidence that proved the landlord, her husband and his friends were undertaking renovations to the main house just above the entrance way to the unit. The tenants photographic evidence proves that the renovations caused dust, dirt and noise that disturbed their quiet enjoyment of the unit and that the renovation rubbish was left in shared spaces and the space allocated for the female tenant to park her car. The amount of renovation rubbish, including big rusty nails and screws left on the driveway, caused the tyre on [female tenant] car to be so damaged it could not be repaired.
The tenants had recordings of the landlord’s children running around the house late at night, uncontrolled, making noise that was disruptive to the tenants in the unit below. When approached about this regular disruptive behaviour, the renovation noise and mess and the damaged tyre, Mr Pham became agitated and then started a campaign to intimidate [male tenant] into ending his tenancy and never setting foot on the premise again. His evidence suggests he was not worried about [female tenant] for undisclosed reasons.
I find the proven pattern of landlord and the landlord’s agent’s intimidatory conduct, proves the landlord has intentionally committed a series of unlawful acts.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord and or her agent has engaged in a pattern of behaviour Mr Pham and his wife knew was causing the tenants trouble, worry and distress and that they were becoming worn down by the aggressive conduct and disturbances and had an inability to raise and resolve any issues without Mr Pham’s conduct becoming aggressive or combative. They were terrified after the 20 September 2025 unlawful entry and the post incident more subtle intimidation tactics; b. The tenants suffered distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise they were both paying to have as a safe haven from duress because of the landlord’s agent’s continual harassment of [male tenant]; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise they were paying to have as a safe haven from duress; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their quiet enjoyment obligations. e. I make an order for the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available) for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA accordingly.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has proven the landlord never lodged the bond, either during the tenancy or as at the date of today’s hearing. The landlord’s representative stated that he and his wife were new to New Zealand, wanted some financial assistance with the mortgage and so let the two units out. They were not familiar with New Zealand residential tenancy law.
In New Zealand, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaching it. It is a fundamental pillar of the legal system, which has been codified in Section 25 of the Crimes Act 1961, which states that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for any offence. This principle, ignorantia juris non excusat, exists to maintain public order, ensure legal certainty, and prevent individuals from avoiding liability for breaches of the law simply by claiming they did not know the rules. The Government provides a free educational, advisory and resource-based service to landlords and tenants to assist them to educate themselves on their rights and responsibilities. Tenancy Services has a help line as well as vast array of online resources. Therefore, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s agent claimed ignorance of the law but was informed by the tenants that he needed to lodge the bond when they called the Bond Centre (after lodging their Tribunal application on 20 September 2025) and found that he had not done so. As at the date of the hearing Mr Pham and his wife had still not done so. Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants and to comply with their legal obligations. I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after their receipt of it.
The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally did not ensure that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre, even after the tenants brought the breach to the landlord’s attention in their application to the Tribunal (20 September 2025). Further, the landlord had still had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre at the date of the hearing, being 4 March 2026; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting their bond money that should have been placed in it on trust for the tenants’ benefit, unless it is proven the tenants owed the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenants’ money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 46 weeks 3 days, and it should have been. The landlord retained the bond without the tenant’s knowledge of who held their bond. The tenants only became aware of the breach when they called the Bond Centre to find out how to have the bond released near the end of their tenancy. That was the first, they knew that the bond had never been lodged; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; and d. It is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
I find it fair to set the quantum of exemplary damages at the maximum amount for this category of breach because, the landlord failed to lodge the bond for 46 weeks 3 days and did not lodge it as soon as the tenants brought the breach to their attention. Failure to provide healthy homes standards information and a healthy homes compliance statement.
The tenants claim the landlord has breached her obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the RTA.
Under section 13A(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.
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.
The landlord failing to comply with their s13A(1CA) and/or the s13A(2) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
The tenancy agreement provided to and signed by the tenant does not include information about any of the required healthy homes standards or a signed compliance statement. As such, [female tenant] had no idea when she took on the tenancy, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions apply to the premises.
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.
The parties both gave evidence that the tenants did not raise any issues or concerns about the landlord’s failure to provide the required healthy homes statements/information in the tenancy agreement, until these proceedings were filed in the Tribunal.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenants with the required completed and signed healthy homes statement and information, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA), and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA. The landlord’s agent claimed again the landlord was not fully aware of her legislative obligation to do so. Ignorance of the law is no excuse when it comes to compliance with the RTA, but I cannot conclude that the breach was intentional.
The breach was a technical breach that the evidence shows: a. Had a negative effect on the tenant enjoyment of the premise and their health and wellbeing because the premise was found not to be healthy homes compliant; b. The tenants had informed the landlord’s agents during the tenancy that the premise did not meet the healthy homes standards. [Female tenant] stated that she would not have taken up the tenancy had she had the healthy homes information; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to provide the tenants with healthy homes compliance information; and d. It is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations provide the tenants with healthy hoes compliance information.
I find it fair to set the quantum of exemplary damages at half the maximum amount for this category of breach, being $375.00 because, the tenants did not raise concerns about this omission with the landlord until they lodged their application with the Tribunal, but after they did the landlord made no attempt to provide the information of have a healthy homes assessment done. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (ba), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenants?
The tenants claims the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(b),(ba), (bb) and (c) 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 .
Under s45(1)(ba) of the RTA the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A.
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises, including the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) that requires a rental premise to be free from dampness (refer to HIR regulation 15).
Breaching any or all of these s45(1) 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.
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 tenants 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. Leaks and mould 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].
The tenants produced a video of the premise on entry that shows mould on the window ledges, indicating the unit was already damp at the start of the tenancy. The female tenant asked for this mould to be cleaned at the start of the tenancy (on 13 April 2025), but it was not cleaned by the landlord, so she did it herself. The female tenant says there was no other evidence of a wider mould issue at the start of the tenancy.
In May 2025, the block wall leaked because it was not sealed properly, and water came flooding into the unit and soaked all the carpet in the lounge. The tenants raised this with the landlord’s agent in May and then again on 16 July 2025.
The male tenant produced a photograph dated 9 May 2025 that shows the lounge carpet being dark with the high level of moisture in it. He was unsure whether that had been sent to the landlord at the time and could not recall the exact date the tenants notified the landlord. The landlord’s husband confirmed he was notified but was also unsure of the date.
The tenants gave evidence they pulled up the wet carpet and underlay, after waiting for the landlord to address the leak and the water damage and found black mould growing in the underlay. They lived with the concrete floor after that until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s husband confirmed that, other than having a pump on the premise that he says the tenants could have used to pump out the water, he put the cover on the roof to stop more water getting into the wall, the landlord did nothing to address the water damage.
The tenants gave evidence they used a dehumidifier that was pulling out around 18 litres of water a day, and using increased levels of electricity to do so.
This breach is also a breach of s45(1)(c) of the RTA, specifically regulation 15 of the HIR, which states that all rental premises must be free of dampness. However, the Tribunal must not penalise the landlord twice for the same breach under two or more separate claims.
I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate for the period they lived with the loss of amenity from the block wall leaks and dampness and mould in the unit. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $150.00 per week for the period 9 May 2025 to 18 October 2025 (23 weeks and 1 day). being a rent rebate of $3,471.43 ordered.
I am satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The tenants have lived for 23 weeks and 1 days with a loss of amenity stress and inconvenience caused by the leaks, dampness and resulting mould and damage to their belongings when the landlord knew of these issues and did not take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy them; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind her of her obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity for 23weeks and 1 day; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. Cockroach infestation
The tenants produced a video of the premise that shows a significant cockroach infestation but confirmed that this was never raised with the landlord or her agents. A landlord cannot address a repair and maintenance issue that it is unaware of. There was no evidence produced to suggest the landlord was aware of this issue at any stage of the tenancy.
A tenant has an obligation under s40(1)(d) of the RTA to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs or maintenance.
The tenants have failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. The claim is dismissed. Exposed fuse box
The tenants produced photographic evidence of the fuse box inside the bedroom that was not covered. The landlords husband said the tenants raised this as a health and safety issue and he didn’t do anything about it as he was too busy and did not think it was a direct danger.
I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate for the period they lived with the loss of amenity from the exposed fuse box in the bedroom that made them reluctant to sleep in the bedroom. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 13 April 2024- 18 October 2025 (26 weeks and 6 days) being a rent rebate of $805.71 ordered.
I am satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The tenants have lived for 26 weeks and 6 days with a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused by the exposed fuse box and the landlord did not take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy any risk to their health, wellbeing and safety; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind her of her obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity for 26 weeks and 6 days; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. Smoke alarms- breach of TA and breach of regulations
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenants claim the rental premise had no working smoke alarms when the tenants moved in, and none were installed during the tenancy.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premises were fitted with compliant and working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA in that the video evidence produced by the tenants, and [male tenant’s] mother, proved at the beginning and the end of the tenancy there were no compliant smoke alarm in the lounge or within 3 metres of the bedroom.
The landlord produced photographs of ceilings with something that looked like an HRV vent and a small device that did not look like a photoelectric smoke alarm. Additionally, it was difficult to identify where the photographs were taken or when or if they were taken in the rental premise. I did not find this evidence to be compelling proof of the existence of compliant smoke alarms in the tenants’ unit. I preferred the two separate sets of video evidence that proved conclusively that no compliant smoke alarms were in the unit during the tenancy.
There were no healthy homes assessment reports or property inspection reports that proved the existence of smoke alarms in the unit nor any receipts for the purchase of one or more smoke alarms for installation in the premise after the painting of it prior to the tenancy commencing.
I find that the tenants should be awarded compensation for the breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide smoking smoke alarms for the period 13 April 2025 to 18 October 2025, being 26 weeks 6 days, at $10.00 per week. I award total compensation of $268.57 for this breach.
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages as I find the breach to be intentional as the landlord and/or his agent was made aware of the breach when the tenants Tribunal application was lodged and did nothing to address it. The quantum will be addressed in the exemplary damage section at the end of the section that addresses all s45(1)of the RTA breaches below. Breach of healthy homes standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 13 April 2025. Therefore, the premise had to be healthy homes compliant by 1 July 2025.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A). A. Heating standard
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 purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
There must be one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room.
The main living room is the largest room that is used for general, everyday living – for example a lounge, family room or dining room.
Heater(s) must be fixed (not portable) and must be at least 1.5 kW in heating capacity and meet the minimum heating capacity needed for the main living room. There are several options to calculate the heating capacity required for the main living room.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants say there was no fixed heating in the premise for the duration of the tenancy. They had their own small heater and say they were not provided with any heating at all. They also had to seal the gaps around the living space doors and windows as it has hard to keep the unit warm.
On 19 September 2025, the tenants issued the landlord with a 14-day notice requiring her to comply with the heating standard.
The landlord’s husband confirmed that there was no heating provided to the tenants, let alone heating that complies with the heating standard. He did not explain why but did not appear to find it an issue.
In this case I find Thi Thuy Tien Tran has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that exemplary damages for this intentional breach of the heating standard is warranted. B. Ventilation
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants claim there was an extractor fan in bathroom (in the shower) and a small wall-based extractor fan in the kitchen.
They also stated the shower was not put together properly and had gaps in it that let in draughts and that the DVS/HRV system did not work for the duration of the tenancy. Additionally, one of the windows in the lounge was painted shut and could not be opened.
The tenants did not produce any no evidence of this. The claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. C. Draught Stopping
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the draught stopping standard.
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 arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants says there were gaps in the doors and windows and that there was an exposed pipe coming through the roof in bathroom that let in draughts.
The tenants produced photographic evidence of these gaps, specifically a large gap from the lounge to bedroom door that showed the quality of the workmanship on the finishing of the doors and windows was substandard.
The landlord’s husband denied the gaps and poor workmanship but the tenants had video and photographic evidence from the start of the tenancy and after 1 July 2025 that proves there was a clear breach of this standard.
In this case I find Thi Thuy Tien Tran has committed an intentional and unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that exemplary damages for this intentional breach of the heating standard is warranted. D. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants said that wastewater was coming up though the pipes inside the house after the landlord’s husband and his friends changed the guttering and downpipes themselves.
The tenants did not produce any no evidence of this. The claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed 2 intentional breaches of s45(1)(b), 1 of s45(1)(ba), 2 of s45(1)(bb) and 1 of s45(1)c) of the RTA that resulted in the tenants living conditions that were unhealthy and that they experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenity the tenants were paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief to the tenants at these times.
I find the landlord has committed these 6 unlawful acts intentionally.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenants many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $3,600.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being one half the maximum penalty available. Did the landlord give the tenants notice to terminate the tenancy unlawfully and was that notice retaliatory?
On 20 September 2025 the landlord’s husband gave the male tenant a verbal notice ending the tenancy immediately as he dragged him out of the unit in front of the landlord and two friends and his children. The Police were called by the male tenant. The tenants claims the notice is retaliatory.
On 22 September 2025, after harassing and intimidating the tenants so they were scared to leave the unit, the landlord’s husband left a trespass notice on the door trespassing the male tenant and telling him it was unlawful for him to enter the property or the unit.
When the tenants discovered on 20 September 2025 that the landlord had not lodged their bond, they decided not to pay the last two weeks rent in case they were unable to obtain their two weeks bond back. On 7 October 2025 the landlord’s husband/agent sent the tenants a text message informing them they had to move out immediately if they did not pay the last two weeks rent.
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.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord confirmed he had told the male tenant to leave immediately during the 20 September 2025 incident and told the male tenant he would be trespassed if he did not leave immediately. In the 20 September 2025 video, the landlord can be heard saying the tenants need to leave now.
The parties both confirmed the landlord’s husband posted a trespass notice on the tenants’ door on 22 September 2025, trespassing the male tenant. A copy of the trespass notice was provided by the parties during the hearing.
The landlord’s husband says the Police told him that if the male tenant’s name was not on the tenancy agreement he could be trespassed and removed from the premise. I am not convinced the Police gave the landlord’s husband this advice. English is his second language, and he may have confused what was said.
The landlord’s husband/agent told the Tribunal that he was annoyed when the male tenant asked him to pay for the damage to the female tenant’s tyre and for raising repair and maintenance issues. He wanted him to go and actively tried to achieve that aim by engaging in an unlawful entry, attempted assault and then through the issuance of a trespass order.
The tenants provided the landlord’s husband and the Tribunal with evidence that Andrew had agreed to add the male tenant to the agreement and to him paying half the rent, after the male tenant producing a copy of his driver’s licence and all the other information Andrew had required.
I find the landlord’s husband has confirmed in his own words that he issued the male tenant with an unlawful and retaliatory notice as he wanted him gone. He was aggressive and persistent in bringing the end of the tenancy about with his unlawful conduct. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act and that the unlawful and retaliatory notice was intentional. After the tenants informed Mr Pham he had no legal right to trespass or physically evict the tenants because he did not appreciate them raising tenancy related concerns, the conduct clearly continued until they moved out on 18 October 2025, after living in fear, locked in the unit, for nearly a month.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory and unlawful 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.
I find it appropriate to award the tenants $3,250.00 in exemplary damages (half the maximum penalty available) for the unlawful and retaliatory notice issued on 20 and 22 September 2025 because: a. The tenants were subjected to stress and inconvenience and loss of amenity of their home due to the nature of the unlawful and retaliatory notice; b. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful and retaliatory notice; and c. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their termination notice obligations.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fees

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 the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee
Because Thi Thuy Tien Tran has not wholly or substantially succeeded with his claims I dismiss his claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants applies 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 these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct.
Name suppression is ordered for the tenants.
Thi Thuy Tien Tran also applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
Thi Thuy Tien Tran has not wholly or substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348738 — Exemplary damages

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348738 — Exemplary damages

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

JURISDICTION

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

OTHER CLAIMS

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

JURISDICTION

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

OTHER CLAIMS

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

JURISDICTION

Did the landlords enter the premise without consent or notice?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

OTHER CLAIMS

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

JURISDICTION

Did the landlords enter the premise without consent or notice?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

OTHER CLAIMS