What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359658 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,928.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5359658?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359658?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359658?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12813246-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359658 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,928.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5359658?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359658?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359658?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12813246-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 2, Unit/Flat Flat 4, 117 Remuera Road, Remuera, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359658 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359658 — net $1,928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$350.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice	$750.00	Retaliatory Notice
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$500.00	Unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: Breach quiet enjoyment	$300.00	Breach quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,928.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,928.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359658 — net $1,928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$350.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice	$750.00	Retaliatory Notice
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$500.00	Unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: Breach quiet enjoyment	$300.00	Breach quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,928.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,928.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,928.00 immediately.
The purported termination notices of 6 October 2025 and 15 October 2025 are declared retaliatory and are set aside.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the landlord at the scheduled hearing time at the North Shore District Court. The Tribunal received an email from the Auckland registry at 10:18am advising that the landlord’s wife was at the counter at the Auckland District Court. She was requesting that she be called. No prior approval had been granted for the landlord to attend the hearing via telephone. The hearing continued in the absence of the landlord.
The tenant has filed an application with the following claims • Failure by landlord to lodge bond • Retaliatory notice • Breach of quiet enjoyment • Unlawful entry • Threat to cut off power supply • Unlawful increase in utility charges • Tenancy agreement Background
The tenancy began on 26 July 2025 and as at the hearing date the tenant still resides at the tenancy address.
The premises consist of a 3-bedroom townhouse – 2 levels with 1 bathroom. Each bedroom was occupied by a different tenant. They paid their rent directly to the landlord.
All tenants had use of common facilities. One of the tenants has already moved out.
On 14 October 2025 the Tribunal declared that the agreement between the parties is a residential tenancy agreement under the RTA.
There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. The tenant provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the applicant today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
On the tenant’s application the issues to be determined are these: • Has the landlord breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies

Act?

• Was the landlord’s notice to terminate retaliatory? • Was the breach deliberate thus justifying an order for exemplary damages? Statutory provisions

Retaliatory Notice – s54 RTA
Duties of landlord on receipt of bond – s19 RTA
Breach of quiet enjoyment – s38 RTA
Unlawful entry by landlord – s48 RTA
Interference with the supply of essential services to the premises – s45 (2) RTA
Rent increases – s24 RTA Legal Considerations
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 un-likely, 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. Failure by landlord to lodge bond
[The tenant/s] claims 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.
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 tenant says that the landlord has failed to lodge her bond. The tenant paid a bond of $240.00 on 17 July 2025. As at the hearing date the bond has not been lodged.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages in respect of the landlord’s failure to lodge bond.
I am satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations because the bond was not lodged within 23 working days “after the payment [was] made”. Bond money does not belong to the landlord, there was no right for them to hold it.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
I consider exemplary damages should be ordered for these reasons: i. I consider it likely the failure to lodge the bond was intentional. ii. The effect for the tenant is that her bond was not secure in the Bond Centre. iii. There is a strong interest for landlords, tenants and the public generally that the bond system be robust, and of course that means landlords lodging tenants bond money as they are required to do. iv. It would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond is $1,500.00. For the reasons as set out above, I order $350.00 exemplary damages to be paid to the tenant. Retaliatory notice
On 6 October 2025 and 15 October 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy. The tenant claims the notices are 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. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that the landlord served her with a 14-day notice on 6 October 2025. This notice was sent immediately after the filing of the tenant’s application with the Tenancy Tribunal.
The landlord stated in his email that “the agreement does not appear to be working for either party we are hereby giving 14 days’ notice to vacate”.
The landlord then served a further termination notice dated 15 October 2025, the day after the last Tenancy Tribunal hearing. The landlord’s notice was a 90- day termination notice.
The tenant says that this notice was a direct response to the Tribunal hearing the day before and is therefore retaliatory.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory within the meaning of section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The notices were served on the tenant on 6 October 2025 and 15 October 2025, which was one day after the tenant lodged an application with the Tenancy Tribunal against the landlord. The second notice was the following day after the earlier decision from the Tenancy Tribunal.
The close temporal connection between the tenant’s application, and the Tribunal decision, and the service of the termination notice strongly supports the inference that the landlord’s actions were motivated, at least in part, by the tenant’s exercise of their rights under the Act.
There is no credible alternative explanation provided by the landlord for the timing of the notice.
Accordingly, I find that the notice was given in retaliation for the tenant’s application to the Tribunal and is therefore of no effect pursuant to section 54(2) of the Act.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for retaliatory notice is $6,500.00. For the reasons as set out above, I order $750.00 exemplary damages to be paid to the tenant. Unlawful entry
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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 tenant claims that the landlord has entered the property on at least 3 occasions without notice. The tenant says that the landlord has turned up and entered the premises while the tenants have been at work.
The tenant says that on one occasion she arrived home from work and discovered that the landlord had been inside the property and had left a suitcase. This happened the following day after the tenant filed her application with the Tenancy Tribunal. The tenant says that she could not sleep for several days as she was worried that the landlord may turn up any time.
The tenant confirmed during the hearing that at no time did she or the other tenants give consent for the landlord to enter the house.
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.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord has committed an unlawful entry in breach of section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord entered the premises without the tenant’s consent and without providing the required notice and left a suitcase inside the property.
Section 48 strictly regulates a landlord’s right of entry, requiring either the tenant’s consent or proper notice for specific purposes. No such consent or notice was given in this instance.
Section 48(4)(a) of the Act provides that it is an unlawful act for a landlord to enter the premises other than in accordance with the Act.
Having regard to the factors in section 109(3), including the intentional nature of the breach and the impact on the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to order exemplary damages.
The tenant’s claim for unlawful entry is therefore upheld, and exemplary damages are awarded.
The landlord’s actions constitute an unlawful entry, and I uphold the tenant’s claim accordingly. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
For the reasons set out above I order exemplary damages of $500.00 be paid to the tenant. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is 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.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant says that when she rents a house she should be able to use it as her own home.
The tenant claims that the landlord threatened to cut the power, internet and remove all appliances.
The tenant further says that the landlord has harassed one of the other tenants by threatening to increase the amount payable for utilities. She further stated that the landlord would harass the tenant via email.
The tenant provided an email from the landlord in respect of electricity charges: The electricity was changes to prepaid as YOU had offered back in June and as mentioned REPEATLY you are splitting the utilities 3 ways! Each of you have to pay $60 per week towards expenses. Room is $250 plus expenses – actual costs which have increased significantly since you have moved in. I have no idea what you are doing there. Our power bills for a family of 5 in a four-bedroom home is less than $250 per month. The simplest solution is for us to give you two weeks’ notice to find somewhere else to move. We have noticed your online posts searching for room and we as a consequence will advertised the room to be available in two weeks – 15 Sep 2025. Until then pay up for YOUR SHARE of the arrears in the utilities costs – or the electricity will be [disconnected].
In a further email dated 9 February 2025 the landlord states as follows: Jessie I am not going to keep having the same conversation with you. Your electricity will be disconnected today due to lack of payment.
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.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord has breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment under section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord sent a series of distressing emails to the tenant and attended the property without proper notice or justification. Section 38(2) provides that the tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming through the landlord.
The landlord’s repeated communications and unannounced attendances have caused the tenant undue stress and have interfered with her reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in the use of the premises.
In an email from the landlord to the tenant dated 30 September 2025 the landlord threatened to cut off the power and “electricity supply stops when your contributed amount runs out”.
It is not automatically an unlawful act under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) for a landlord to merely threaten to cut off the power supply to a tenanted address, if the threat is not carried out. However, such a threat can still amount to a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment under section 38(2) of the RTA if it causes the tenant distress or interferes with their reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the premises.
The Tribunal has previously found that actual disconnection of essential services (such as power or water) by a landlord is an unlawful act under section 45(2), and exemplary damages may be awarded.
However, if the landlord only threatens but does not follow through, it is not an unlawful act under section 45(2), but it may still be a breach of quiet enjoyment under section 38(2).
Having considered the evidence, I am also satisfied that the landlord’s threat to cut off the power supply to the premises, although not carried out, constitutes a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment under section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 38(2) provides that the tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord. The landlord’s threat caused the tenant distress and interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in the use of the premises.
I consider the landlord’s actions were intentional and in clear disregard of the tenant’s rights and having regard to the impact on the tenant, I am satisfied that exemplary damages are also warranted under section 38(3) and section 109 of the Act.
The tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is therefore upheld, and exemplary damages are awarded.
Accordingly, I uphold the tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment and award exemplary damages of $300.00 payable to the tenant. Providing tenant with flat/house sharing agreement and not tenancy agreement
The tenant says that the landlord has deliberately drawn up a flat/house sharing agreement instead of a tenancy agreement as he is an experienced landlord. She says that the landlord has taken advantage of the fact that she and the other tenants are foreigners.
If the landlord deliberately mislabels the arrangement to avoid the Act’s requirements, this may be considered an intentional breach and can result in exemplary damages for specific breaches.
The landlord breaches their obligations under the RTA if they knowingly mislabel a tenancy as a flatmate or house-sharing agreement. The Tribunal will apply the RTA based on the true nature of the arrangement and may award exemplary damages for any resulting unlawful acts.
There is inadequate evidence filed by the tenant in support of this claim. Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord knowingly and intentionally issued a flat/house sharing agreement rather than a tenancy agreement.
Accordingly, this claim has not been established. Utility increase
The tenant says that the landlord has breached section 24 RTA by trying to increase the amount payable for utilities. Section 24 applies to rent increases. The tenant did not pay the increase.
Section 24 RTA requires that rent increases must be made in accordance with the Act (including giving proper notice and not increasing more than once every 12 months for most tenancies).
If the tenancy agreement states that the tenant pays a fixed amount for power (as part of the rent or as a separate charge), the landlord can only increase this amount if the agreement allows for it, and the increase is made in accordance with the notice requirements for rent increases.
If the power is charged as a separate amount (not included in the rent), and the agreement allows for the landlord to pass on actual usage or changes in cost, then the landlord may increase the charge to reflect actual costs, provided this is consistent with the agreement.
A landlord can increase the amount payable for power if the tenancy agreement allows for it, and the increase is made in accordance with the RTA’s requirements for notice and frequency of increases. Section 24 does not prohibit this, but the landlord must follow the correct process.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that an agreement allowed for an increase in the utility charge. It is clear that the landlord was attempting to increase the utility portion of the rent payable. Although I am satisfied that the landlord breached their obligations in this regard I find it a technical breach and make no further order is respect of this.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359658 — Exemplary damages at Room 2, Unit/Flat Flat 4, 117 Remuera Road, Remuera,

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359658 — Exemplary damages at Room 2, Unit/Flat Flat 4, 117 Remuera Road, Remuera,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions