Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5358526 — Exemplary damages at Flat 1, 25 Sefton Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910
Decided 29 Apr 2026 · Published 29 Apr 2026 · Application 5358526
- Exemplary damages
- Healthy homes
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Okahu Limited must pay [he tenant] $7,427.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
- This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 7 July 2025 under application numbers 5251822 and 5218833.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy and exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises.
- The tenant has applied for the bond and compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, maintain the premises and comply with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) requirements, comply with work orders and for serving a retaliatory termination notice and interfering with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. Background
- This tenancy began on 26 August 2024 and ended on 21 October 2025.
- On 7 July 2025, the Tribunal issued an order on the tenant’s previous application for compensation and exemplary damages and the landlord’s application for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy.
- That order awarded rent arrears to the landlord to 4 July 2025 and awarded compensation and exemplary damages to the tenant. It also made a work order against the landlord and reduced the rent from $450 per to $350 per week until the landlord complied with the work order.
- After setting off the awards against each other, the landlord was ordered to pay the tenant $3,448.57. The landlord has not paid the tenant anything under that order and the tenant has not taken steps to enforce the order. I have therefore incorporated the order in this order for enforcement purposes.
- On 16 January 2026 the Tribunal issued an order under these applications adjourning the hearing and setting out the parties’ claims. This decision disposes of those claims. Rent
- There is no dispute that the landlord has not complied with the work order. The landlord offered a defence to that which I reject for the reasons given below. It follows that the rent payable from 5 July was $350 per week. The landlord provided rent records, and the tenant does not dispute them so far as his payments are concerned.
- I have calculated that for the period 5 July to 21 October 2025 the tenant should have paid $5,450 rent. He paid $3,628.57 which leaves arrears of $1,821.43 which I have awarded. Landlord’s Other Claims Compensation for the Condition of the Premises at the End of the Tenancy Law
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
- The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
- There are rules regarding how much compensation the landlord can recover from the tenant depending on the landlord’s insurance but there is no need to consider them in this case.
- The landlord claims compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and damage to the premises. She claims that the tenant broke 26 windows in the premises and that walls required repair and painting due to tenant damage.
- The tenant denied the landlord’s claims. He said that he left the premises in a better condition than they were in when they were provided to him, and he did not cause any damage.
- The landlord did not provide enough evidence to prove the claims. There were a few photographs but none that enabled a comparison between the ingoing and outgoing condition of the premises.
- As well, the tenant called a witness who was the landlord’s property manager for the tenancy from the beginning of the tenancy until about April 2025. She said that she has been back to the premises since the tenancy ended including very recently. She said that the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy and that there has been no repair of the premises contrary to what the landlord claimed.
- The landlord’s claims in this regard are therefore dismissed. Unlawful Use of the Premises and Compensation for Contamination.
- Using the premises for an unlawful purpose is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $1,800 can be awarded.
- The landlord claims that the tenant used methamphetamine (meth) in the premises during the tenancy. She produced the result of meth testing seemingly indicating that meth residue above 1.5 μg/100cm² was found in the premises. The tenant disputed the test results and said they were fake.
- I make no finding about the testing but there are two fatal flaws with the landlord’s claim.
- The first is that there was no ingoing test and no evidence that the premises were not contaminated by meth when the tenancy began.
- The second is that an indicative test over 1.5 μg/100cm² does not get the landlord anywhere in terms of compensation because the Tribunal does not recognise that any remediation is needed where levels are below 15 μg/100cm².
- These claims are therefore dismissed. Tenant’s Claims Bond
- A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
- On 7 July 2025 landlord was ordered to pay $1500 exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond and she was ordered to lodge it. She has not done so. This leaves the tenant without the security of the bond and an award of exemplary damages in required for this continuing breach.
- Because the landlord has already been punished once for not lodging the bond I am not minded to make an award at the upper end of the scale again. An award of $500 is appropriate.
- Given the result of this application, the landlord is ordered to repay the bond to the tenant. The Condition of the Premises.
- Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and comply with HHS requirements.
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
- Previously, the landlord was ordered to pay exemplary damages of $4,320 and compensation of $2,000 for beach of her obligations to maintain the premises and comply with HHS.
- The Adjudicator’s order carefully analysed the landlord’s conduct before making these awards. There was no improvement of the condition of the premises between that time and the end of the tenancy and I see no reason to differ from her analysis. I therefore base the award I have made of exemplary damages on her award, and I have adjusted it for the shorter time between those awards and the end of the tenancy and between the start of the tenancy and those awards. I have therefore awarded $1,500 exemplary damages. Have not awarded compensation because the abatement of rent means compensation is unnecessary.
- I do not accept the landlords claim that she was not able to carry out improvements to the premises due to the tenant’s conduct. She referred to the tenant threatening and harassing one of her contractors. The tenant denied that.
- I did not find the landlord to be a reliable witness. She was vague in her recollection of some events, possibly due to a concussion that she said she had suffered. I found some of her evidence in relation to her claims to lack credibility and her claims were not well supported by evidence, as I have said.
- As well, there is no evidence that the landlord made any concerted effort to carry out the work required by the work order. For example, there was no evidence that she served a notice under s48 of the Act requiring access for her contractor to enter the premises to carry out necessary work.
- The landlord’s attitude generally, exemplified by her failure to lodge the bond after being ordered to do so, suggest a disregard for her obligations which is consistent with a failure to make any real effort to comply with the work order. Work Order
- On 7 July 2025 the Tribunal made a work order against the landlord. The landlord has breached the work order by failing to comply with it.
- Breaching a work order without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $5,000.00.
- For the reasons given before, I find that the landlord has breached the work order without reasonable excuse.
- The landlord has failed to comply with an express order for work to be carried out to comply with her obligations relating to the condition of the premises. If parties are allowed to ignore these types of order without significant consequences, they are likely to lose their effectiveness. An award of exemplary damages is therefore required.
- I take into consideration the period of the breach and the other awards I have made, and I find that an award of $1,000 is appropriate. Retaliatory Notice
- On 8 July 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice to end the tenancy on 9 October 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
- 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.
- 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.
- landlord served a 90-day termination notice on the tenant immediately after the order was made on 7 July 2025. The timing in striking and the inference that it was the order, and the overall success of the tenant’s application that motivated the notice.
- The landlord denied the connection and maintained that it was the tenant’s behaviour that caused her to serve the notice. The evidence for that was weak and it does not displace the inference. Even if there were other reasons for the notice, I am satisfied that it was at least in part motivated by the tenant’s application and its success.
- I take into consideration the seriousness of serving a termination notice with the intention of stifling a tenant’s legitimate demands and the fact that there were substantial rent arrears before the tenant made his application. Also, the fact that the tenant was not fazed by the notice. A significant award is required but towards the lower end of the scale. I award $ 1500. Quiet Enjoyment
- The landlord installed a camera outside the building. The tenant said that it was directed at his front door and that it was intended to monitor his movements. The landlord said that it was intended to improve the security of the tenants in the building.
- I am not persuaded that the camera was an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in his use of the premises. It was outside the premises and even if it could record the tenant’s comings and goings and what occurred in the vicinity of the premises, it did not intrude into his privacy in his use of the premises themselves. I note as well that the camera was installed near the end of the tenancy.
- I therefore dismiss this claim. Filing Fees
- I make no order of the filing fees. Suppression
- The tenant has been substantially successful, and I grant his request for name suppression.
- There is no compelling reason to grant the landlord’s request for name suppression Result
- After setting off the rent arrears against the awards to the tenant, incorporating the previous money order and ordering the landlord to repay the bond, the landlord must pay the tenant $7,927.14