What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356744 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names.

How much money was awarded in case 5356744?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Landlord threatening u…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Possession Of The Premises Without A…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $34,050.00 awarded to landlord; Tenancy Tribunal – Breach Of Section…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $2,593.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356744?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12964864-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356744 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names.

How much money was awarded in case 5356744?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Landlord threatening u…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Possession Of The Premises Without A…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $34,050.00 awarded to landlord; Tenancy Tribunal – Breach Of Section…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $2,593.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356744?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12964864-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356744 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356744 — net $28,615.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$34,050.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$2,593.73		Water rates
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment - section 38		$1,500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment - section 38
Compensation: Landlord threatening unlawful taking of		$1,500.00	Landlord threatening unlawful taking of
possession of the premises without an order of the		$500.00	possession of the premises without an order of the
Tenancy Tribunal – Breach of section 63		$3,000.00	Tenancy Tribunal – Breach of section 63
Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge Bond – section		$1,500.00	Failure to Lodge Bond – section
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$36,643.73	$8,028.00
Net award	$28,615.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28,615.73

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names.
[The tenant/s] must pay Stephen Butory $28,615.73 by 5pm on Tuesday 20 January 2026, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy commenced on 3 October 2023. The weekly rent was $750.00. A bond of $2,250.00 was paid at the start of the tenancy. The tenants are [the tenant/s]. The landlord is Stephen Butory.
On 20 February 2025, the tenants filed an application alleging serious breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), including unlawful entry, harassment, threats of eviction, breach of quiet enjoyment, failure to lodge the bond, and non-compliance with Healthy Homes obligations. The tenants alleged an incident on 17 February 2025 involving unlawful entry and physical confrontation.
The tenancy ended after the tenants vacated the premises on 26 February 2025
On 21 July 2025, the Tribunal issued an order in the tenants’ favour awarding compensation and exemplary damages totalling $12,777.00.
On 22 July 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing. On 13 August 2025, the Tribunal granted a rehearing under section 105 RTA on the basis that the landlord had not received notice of the original hearing and a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. A different Adjudicator was directed to hear the matter.
On 1 October 2025, the landlord filed a cross-application seeking rent arrears of $34,050.00, water charges of $2,593.73, compensation for damage and rubbish of $5,500.00, loss of rent of $3,000.00, and exemplary damages against the tenants.
This decision determines the parties’ claims following rehearing. The Parties’ Positions The Tenants’ Position
The tenants alleged that on 17 February 2025 the landlord entered the premises without notice or consent, demanded immediate payment of rent and immediate vacation of the premises, and physically assaulted the tenant in front of her children.
The tenants relied on contemporaneous text messages showing escalating aggression from the landlord, a police report made on the day of the incident, and medical reports dated 19 February 2025 recording finger and hand sprains sustained during the incident.
The tenants said they left the premises in fear and urgency, leaving belongings behind. They alleged breaches of quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry, harassment, unlawful taking or attempted taking of possession, failure to lodge the bond, and Healthy Homes breaches. The Landlord’s Position
The landlord denied the alleged incident on 17 February 2025 and all claims of unlawful entry, harassment, and assault. He said the tenants were persistently in rent arrears, dishonest, and difficult to deal with. He accepted he was frustrated by the arrears situation.
The landlord asserted that the property was Healthy Homes compliant and that smoke alarms were working. He said the bond was recorded in the tenancy agreement but was used for rent rather than lodged.
The landlord pursued his cross-application for rent arrears, water charges, property damage, rubbish removal, loss of rent, and exemplary damages. Relevant Law
A landlord who receives a bond must lodge it with Tenancy Services within 23 working days. Failure to do so is an unlawful act. See section 19 RTA.
A tenant is responsible for water charges incurred during the tenancy on the basis of consumption. See section 39(4)(c) RTA.
Tenants must pay rent when it falls due. Proven rent arrears are recoverable. See section 40 RTA.
Landlords are required to ensure that the rental premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards prescribed under the RTA. These standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping. See sections 45(1)(ba) and 45(1)(bb) RTA. Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards is an unlawful act. The Tribunal may award compensation and, where the breach is intentional, exemplary damages, subject to the statutory maximums in Schedule 1A.
A landlord may enter the premises only with the tenant’s consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice. Section 48 applies.
A landlord must not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. Harassment constitutes an unlawful act. Section 38 applies. Harassment has been defined as conduct that troubles, worries, or distresses another and may arise from a pattern of behaviour or a single act of sufficient seriousness. See MacDonald v Dodds CIV-2009-019-001524 (DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010) and Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
A landlord must not take possession of residential premises except with the tenant’s consent or pursuant to a possession order duly enforced in accordance with section 106. Landlords have no right of self-help eviction. Section 63 applies. The statutory scheme was emphasised in Tie v Ashik Homes [2023] NZTT 4548053.
The Tribunal may award exemplary damages for intentional unlawful acts, having regard to the factors in section 109(3), including intent, effect, the interests of the parties, and the public interest. Maximum amounts are prescribed in Schedule 1A.
The onus of proof lies on the party asserting a claim. Allegations must be proven on the balance of probabilities. Analysis and Findings Rent Arrears
The tenant conceded rent arrears of $34,050.00. This admission is sufficient to establish the landlord’s claim. The landlord is entitled to recover this amount. Water Charges
The landlord claimed water charges of $2,593.73 and provided Veolia invoices. I am satisfied this claim is proven. Bond Lodgement
From the landlord’s own bank records, I find a bond of $2,250.00 was paid and not lodged. The landlord’s assertion that the bond was used for rent does not excuse non-lodgement. The obligation to lodge the bond is mandatory and independent of any rent issues. In the absence of any lawful explanation, I find that the failure to lodge the bond was intentional and constitutes an unlawful act under section 19. Unlawful Entry, Harassment, and Attempted Possession
The tenants provided contemporaneous txt messages, a police report made on the day of the incident, and medical evidence consistent with their account of the events of 17 February 2025. The landlord denied the incident but produced no independent evidence, including no police report, to rebut the tenants’ account.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that on 17 February 2025 the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice, threatened immediate eviction, and attempted to compel the tenants to vacate without any without any application to the Tribunal or enforcement under section 106. This conduct strikes at the core protections of the Act. Rent arrears do not justify such conduct. The landlord knew or ought to have known that eviction requires a Tribunal order and lawful enforcement. Landlords have no right of self-help re-entry, and the prohibition in section 63 is clear and fundamental. The conduct was intentional, serious, and contrary to the public interest. It occurred despite the availability of lawful remedies through the Tribunal
This conduct breached sections 48, 38, and 63 of the Act and amounted to harassment. The conduct was intentional, serious, and contrary to the statutory scheme and public interest.
Compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment under section 38 is awarded in the amount of $1,500.00.
Compensation for the landlord threatening unlawful taking of possession of the premises without an order of the Tenancy Tribunal, in breach of section 63, is awarded in the amount of $1,500.00. Healthy Homes Claims
The tenants alleged multiple breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord asserted compliance and relied on the compliance statement and inspection record in the tenancy agreement. The tenants’ allegations were broad and not supported by expert evidence. Given the conflicting accounts and limited evidential foundation, I am not satisfied that the tenants have discharged the onus of proof. These claims are dismissed. Damage, Rubbish, and Loss of Rent
The landlord claimed compensation for damage, rubbish, and loss of rent but provided no photographs, invoices, inspection reports during or from the end of the tenancy, or other objective evidence. Assertions alone are insufficient to establish liability. These claims are dismissed. Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages may be awarded only where an unlawful act is committed intentionally, and only where the Tribunal is satisfied it is just to do so, having regard to the matters set out in section 109(3) RTA, including the intent of the party committing the unlawful act, the effect of the act on the other party, the interests of the parties, and the public interest.
The maximum amounts for exemplary damages are prescribed in Schedule 1A. Awards must be made within the relevant statutory bands and must reflect the relative seriousness of each unlawful act, avoiding duplication for the same conduct. Failure to Lodge Bond – section 19(2) (Maximum $1,500)
Failure to lodge the bond within 23 working days is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to $1,500.
The landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond for the duration of the tenancy, depriving the tenants of statutory protection. The landlord’s explanation that the bond was “used for rent” does not relieve the statutory obligation to lodge it. The failure was deliberate, persisted for the duration of the tenancy, and deprived the tenants of the statutory protections of the Bond Centre.
Having regard to the landlord’s intent, the prolonged nature of the breach, the effect on the tenants, and the public interest in deterring non-lodgement of bonds, exemplary damages are warranted at the top of the Schedule 1A band. I award $500.00. Unlawful Entry – section 48(4)(a) (Maximum $1,500)
Entering the premises without consent or the required notice is an unlawful act attracting exemplary damages up to $1,500.
I am satisfied that on 17 February 2025 the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice. The entry was intentional and occurred in the context of rent arrears and escalating threats. This was not a technical or inadvertent breach.
Given the seriousness of the entry, the vulnerability of the tenants at the time, and the need to deter landlords from disregarding the statutory entry regime, exemplary damages are justified at the upper end of the band. I award $1,500.00. Harassment / Breach of Quiet Enjoyment – section 38(3) (Maximum $3,000)
Harassment is an unlawful act where a landlord interferes with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in circumstances amounting to harassment. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to $3,000.
The evidence establishes a pattern of aggressive and threatening communications culminating in the incident of 17 February 2025. The conduct was directed, intentional, and serious, and caused significant distress to the tenants and their children. The Tribunal is satisfied that the conduct meets the statutory and case-law threshold for harassment, including the principles articulated in MacDonald v Dodds and Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, recognising that a single act of sufficient seriousness may amount to harassment.
Given the sustained nature of the conduct, the impact on the tenants, and the strong public interest in deterring harassment as a means of enforcing rent, exemplary damages are warranted at the maximum of the Schedule 1A band. I award $3,000.00. Avoidance of Double Counting
Each award above relates to a distinct unlawful act with a separate statutory basis and maximum under Schedule 1A. The awards do not duplicate the same conduct but reflect different protected interests: bond protection, lawful entry, freedom from harassment, and security of tenure. Exemplary Damages Against the Tenants
The landlord identified no unlawful act by the tenants under the RTA. This claim is dismissed. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
As the tenants have been substantially successful in their application, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee and name suppression. See sections 102(4) and 95A(3) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356744 — net $28,615.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$34,050.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$2,593.73		Water rates
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment - section 38		$1,500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment - section 38
Compensation: Landlord threatening unlawful taking of		$1,500.00	Landlord threatening unlawful taking of
possession of the premises without an order of the		$500.00	possession of the premises without an order of the
Tenancy Tribunal – Breach of section 63		$3,000.00	Tenancy Tribunal – Breach of section 63
Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge Bond – section		$1,500.00	Failure to Lodge Bond – section
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$36,643.73	$8,028.00
Net award	$28,615.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28,615.73

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names.
[The tenant/s] must pay Stephen Butory $28,615.73 by 5pm on Tuesday 20 January 2026, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy commenced on 3 October 2023. The weekly rent was $750.00. A bond of $2,250.00 was paid at the start of the tenancy. The tenants are [the tenant/s]. The landlord is Stephen Butory.
On 20 February 2025, the tenants filed an application alleging serious breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), including unlawful entry, harassment, threats of eviction, breach of quiet enjoyment, failure to lodge the bond, and non-compliance with Healthy Homes obligations. The tenants alleged an incident on 17 February 2025 involving unlawful entry and physical confrontation.
The tenancy ended after the tenants vacated the premises on 26 February 2025
On 21 July 2025, the Tribunal issued an order in the tenants’ favour awarding compensation and exemplary damages totalling $12,777.00.
On 22 July 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing. On 13 August 2025, the Tribunal granted a rehearing under section 105 RTA on the basis that the landlord had not received notice of the original hearing and a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. A different Adjudicator was directed to hear the matter.
On 1 October 2025, the landlord filed a cross-application seeking rent arrears of $34,050.00, water charges of $2,593.73, compensation for damage and rubbish of $5,500.00, loss of rent of $3,000.00, and exemplary damages against the tenants.
This decision determines the parties’ claims following rehearing. The Parties’ Positions The Tenants’ Position
The tenants alleged that on 17 February 2025 the landlord entered the premises without notice or consent, demanded immediate payment of rent and immediate vacation of the premises, and physically assaulted the tenant in front of her children.
The tenants relied on contemporaneous text messages showing escalating aggression from the landlord, a police report made on the day of the incident, and medical reports dated 19 February 2025 recording finger and hand sprains sustained during the incident.
The tenants said they left the premises in fear and urgency, leaving belongings behind. They alleged breaches of quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry, harassment, unlawful taking or attempted taking of possession, failure to lodge the bond, and Healthy Homes breaches. The Landlord’s Position
The landlord denied the alleged incident on 17 February 2025 and all claims of unlawful entry, harassment, and assault. He said the tenants were persistently in rent arrears, dishonest, and difficult to deal with. He accepted he was frustrated by the arrears situation.
The landlord asserted that the property was Healthy Homes compliant and that smoke alarms were working. He said the bond was recorded in the tenancy agreement but was used for rent rather than lodged.
The landlord pursued his cross-application for rent arrears, water charges, property damage, rubbish removal, loss of rent, and exemplary damages. Relevant Law
A landlord who receives a bond must lodge it with Tenancy Services within 23 working days. Failure to do so is an unlawful act. See section 19 RTA.
A tenant is responsible for water charges incurred during the tenancy on the basis of consumption. See section 39(4)(c) RTA.
Tenants must pay rent when it falls due. Proven rent arrears are recoverable. See section 40 RTA.
Landlords are required to ensure that the rental premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards prescribed under the RTA. These standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping. See sections 45(1)(ba) and 45(1)(bb) RTA. Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards is an unlawful act. The Tribunal may award compensation and, where the breach is intentional, exemplary damages, subject to the statutory maximums in Schedule 1A.
A landlord may enter the premises only with the tenant’s consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice. Section 48 applies.
A landlord must not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. Harassment constitutes an unlawful act. Section 38 applies. Harassment has been defined as conduct that troubles, worries, or distresses another and may arise from a pattern of behaviour or a single act of sufficient seriousness. See MacDonald v Dodds CIV-2009-019-001524 (DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010) and Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
A landlord must not take possession of residential premises except with the tenant’s consent or pursuant to a possession order duly enforced in accordance with section 106. Landlords have no right of self-help eviction. Section 63 applies. The statutory scheme was emphasised in Tie v Ashik Homes [2023] NZTT 4548053.
The Tribunal may award exemplary damages for intentional unlawful acts, having regard to the factors in section 109(3), including intent, effect, the interests of the parties, and the public interest. Maximum amounts are prescribed in Schedule 1A.
The onus of proof lies on the party asserting a claim. Allegations must be proven on the balance of probabilities. Analysis and Findings Rent Arrears
The tenant conceded rent arrears of $34,050.00. This admission is sufficient to establish the landlord’s claim. The landlord is entitled to recover this amount. Water Charges
The landlord claimed water charges of $2,593.73 and provided Veolia invoices. I am satisfied this claim is proven. Bond Lodgement
From the landlord’s own bank records, I find a bond of $2,250.00 was paid and not lodged. The landlord’s assertion that the bond was used for rent does not excuse non-lodgement. The obligation to lodge the bond is mandatory and independent of any rent issues. In the absence of any lawful explanation, I find that the failure to lodge the bond was intentional and constitutes an unlawful act under section 19. Unlawful Entry, Harassment, and Attempted Possession
The tenants provided contemporaneous txt messages, a police report made on the day of the incident, and medical evidence consistent with their account of the events of 17 February 2025. The landlord denied the incident but produced no independent evidence, including no police report, to rebut the tenants’ account.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that on 17 February 2025 the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice, threatened immediate eviction, and attempted to compel the tenants to vacate without any without any application to the Tribunal or enforcement under section 106. This conduct strikes at the core protections of the Act. Rent arrears do not justify such conduct. The landlord knew or ought to have known that eviction requires a Tribunal order and lawful enforcement. Landlords have no right of self-help re-entry, and the prohibition in section 63 is clear and fundamental. The conduct was intentional, serious, and contrary to the public interest. It occurred despite the availability of lawful remedies through the Tribunal
This conduct breached sections 48, 38, and 63 of the Act and amounted to harassment. The conduct was intentional, serious, and contrary to the statutory scheme and public interest.
Compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment under section 38 is awarded in the amount of $1,500.00.
Compensation for the landlord threatening unlawful taking of possession of the premises without an order of the Tenancy Tribunal, in breach of section 63, is awarded in the amount of $1,500.00. Healthy Homes Claims
The tenants alleged multiple breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord asserted compliance and relied on the compliance statement and inspection record in the tenancy agreement. The tenants’ allegations were broad and not supported by expert evidence. Given the conflicting accounts and limited evidential foundation, I am not satisfied that the tenants have discharged the onus of proof. These claims are dismissed. Damage, Rubbish, and Loss of Rent
The landlord claimed compensation for damage, rubbish, and loss of rent but provided no photographs, invoices, inspection reports during or from the end of the tenancy, or other objective evidence. Assertions alone are insufficient to establish liability. These claims are dismissed. Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages may be awarded only where an unlawful act is committed intentionally, and only where the Tribunal is satisfied it is just to do so, having regard to the matters set out in section 109(3) RTA, including the intent of the party committing the unlawful act, the effect of the act on the other party, the interests of the parties, and the public interest.
The maximum amounts for exemplary damages are prescribed in Schedule 1A. Awards must be made within the relevant statutory bands and must reflect the relative seriousness of each unlawful act, avoiding duplication for the same conduct. Failure to Lodge Bond – section 19(2) (Maximum $1,500)
Failure to lodge the bond within 23 working days is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to $1,500.
The landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond for the duration of the tenancy, depriving the tenants of statutory protection. The landlord’s explanation that the bond was “used for rent” does not relieve the statutory obligation to lodge it. The failure was deliberate, persisted for the duration of the tenancy, and deprived the tenants of the statutory protections of the Bond Centre.
Having regard to the landlord’s intent, the prolonged nature of the breach, the effect on the tenants, and the public interest in deterring non-lodgement of bonds, exemplary damages are warranted at the top of the Schedule 1A band. I award $500.00. Unlawful Entry – section 48(4)(a) (Maximum $1,500)
Entering the premises without consent or the required notice is an unlawful act attracting exemplary damages up to $1,500.
I am satisfied that on 17 February 2025 the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice. The entry was intentional and occurred in the context of rent arrears and escalating threats. This was not a technical or inadvertent breach.
Given the seriousness of the entry, the vulnerability of the tenants at the time, and the need to deter landlords from disregarding the statutory entry regime, exemplary damages are justified at the upper end of the band. I award $1,500.00. Harassment / Breach of Quiet Enjoyment – section 38(3) (Maximum $3,000)
Harassment is an unlawful act where a landlord interferes with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in circumstances amounting to harassment. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to $3,000.
The evidence establishes a pattern of aggressive and threatening communications culminating in the incident of 17 February 2025. The conduct was directed, intentional, and serious, and caused significant distress to the tenants and their children. The Tribunal is satisfied that the conduct meets the statutory and case-law threshold for harassment, including the principles articulated in MacDonald v Dodds and Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, recognising that a single act of sufficient seriousness may amount to harassment.
Given the sustained nature of the conduct, the impact on the tenants, and the strong public interest in deterring harassment as a means of enforcing rent, exemplary damages are warranted at the maximum of the Schedule 1A band. I award $3,000.00. Avoidance of Double Counting
Each award above relates to a distinct unlawful act with a separate statutory basis and maximum under Schedule 1A. The awards do not duplicate the same conduct but reflect different protected interests: bond protection, lawful entry, freedom from harassment, and security of tenure. Exemplary Damages Against the Tenants
The landlord identified no unlawful act by the tenants under the RTA. This claim is dismissed. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
As the tenants have been substantially successful in their application, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee and name suppression. See sections 102(4) and 95A(3) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356744 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356744 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions