What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361677 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 5361677?

Cleaning: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss of amenity and in…: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $23.00 awarded to landlord; RTA: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361677?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361677?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13414753-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361677 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 5361677?

Cleaning: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss of amenity and in…: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $23.00 awarded to landlord; RTA: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361677?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361677?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13414753-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361677 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361677 — net $1,720.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Light bulb	$23.00		Light bulb
Cleaning: Oven and cupboards	$207.00		Cleaning: Oven and cupboards
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment-s38 of the		$250.00	Quiet enjoyment-s38 of the
RTA		$500.00	RTA
Compensation: Loss of amenity and inconvenience		$1,200.00	92. I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,200.00 in exemplary damages (one sixth of the maximum penalty available) as I find t…
Carpet Cleaning		$28.00	Carpet Cleaning
Total award	$258.00	$1,978.00
Net award		$1,720.00
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,720.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361677 — net $1,720.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Light bulb	$23.00		Light bulb
Cleaning: Oven and cupboards	$207.00		Cleaning: Oven and cupboards
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment-s38 of the		$250.00	Quiet enjoyment-s38 of the
RTA		$500.00	RTA
Compensation: Loss of amenity and inconvenience		$1,200.00	92. I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,200.00 in exemplary damages (one sixth of the maximum penalty available) as I find t…
Carpet Cleaning		$28.00	Carpet Cleaning
Total award	$258.00	$1,978.00
Net award		$1,720.00
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,720.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
Mission Property Management Limited As Agent For Sai Hung And Cui Ying Fung Ben Zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $1,720.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 April 2026.
[Tenant 1] appeared for both tenants and confirmed she had consent to represent [Tenant 2].
Mr Ben Zhang appeared for the landlord.
The landlord applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants made a cross application for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy

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 in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, 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 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. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA , bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord clams the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Specifically, that the tenants did not leave the carpets, oven, cupboards, draws and a window ledge reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and did not replace one light bulb. Further, the landlord claims the deck floorboards were left in a dirty state and required commercial cleaning. Lastly the landlord claims the lawns and yard were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition in all the circumstances.
The tenants accept liability for the replacement cost of one light bulb. The amount ordered is proved.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”. Carpet
The tenants provided a receipt for the carpet cleaner they hired and photographs of the cleaned carpet at the end of the tenancy. They also directed me to the 13 April 2023 entry inspection report that records existing carpet stains in the lounge and bedrooms. This evidence proves the carpet was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy, or at least a comparable state to the condition the tenants received it in. The claim for the cost of cleaning the carpet is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. The tenants have successfully disproven this claim. Oven, cupboards/draws, window ledge
The landlord has produced photographic evidence that proves the oven, cupboards, draws and a window ledge were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
The tenants accept these areas were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and accept liability for some of the $621.00 cleaning cost incurred.
This claim is upheld, and I award the landlord one third if the cost claimed, being $207.00. The amount ordered is proved. Lawns and Yard
The landlord claims $172.50 for mowing the lawns and clearing the yard of leaves.
The tenants proved they mowed the lawns at the end of the tenancy and that the lawns were not in pristine condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s photographic evidence also does not support its claim the lawns required mowing at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied the tenants have disproven the landlord’s claim for the cost of mowing the lawn and the landlord has failed to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord’s photographic evidence shows the yard had leaves on the paths, driveway and yard at the end of the tenancy, as it was at the beginning of winter, just after autumn, and the parties confirmed the property was surrounded by trees.
I do not find it reasonable in all the circumstances for the tenants to have been required to ensure the paths and driveway and yard was clear of leaves at this time of the year. This claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Deck
The landlord produced two photographs that show the deck worn with paint stains on it that were noted in the entry inspection report. It does not look dirty in these images or in need of water blasting.
The tenants say the deck was in a similar condition at the start of the tenancy and the entry inspections photographs do not show the deck being in a better condition than it was at the end of the tenancy. It looks the similar in both sets of images.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to 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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy because of the tenants intentional or careless acts or omissions: a. Cracked kitchen tiles; b. Shower box wall damage; c. Scuff marks and paint peeling in small patches in lounge, hallway, and all four bedrooms.
The landlord claims this damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants deny liability for this damage. Kitchen tiles
The property manager confirms the owner replaced the tiles himself and that he did not provide the property manager with a receipt for the purchase of the tiles. Therefore, there was no evidence to support the $270.00 claimed by the landlord.
The landlord relied on an email the tenants sent to it on 1 August 2025 “accepting the cost as they did not have proof of it already being broken at the start of the tenancy”.
The tenants say they sent the 1 August 2025 email accepting the cost as they considered the tiles were already worn and slightly cracked and moved when you walked on them at the start of the tenancy, but did not have proof. After the tenancy ended, they sought advice and no longer accept liability.
The tenants say the tiles moved when you walked on them, the cracks may have gotten worse from that. They claim this damage should be defined as fair wear and tear. They say they raised this issue with landlord but have no record of doing so.
The landlord stated it has no idea how old the tiles are, but the house is around 30 years old and when the tenants moved in the tiles were good. The landlord insists the tenants broke the tiles and that the damage is not fair wear and tear.
I am satisfied that the tenants are not liable for the replacement cost of the ties as there has been no proof of the purchase costs of the tiles incurred by the owner, and I prefer the tenants evidence that the tiles were old and unstable and any cracks that appeared during the tenancy were more likely than not a result of the old moving tiles and not because of the careless acts or omissions of the tenants or their intentional acts. The claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence from the landlord to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Shower wall
The entry inspection photographs show the shower box intact on 13 April 2023.
The landlord says it does not know when the property manager first noticed this damage. It confirms that routine property inspections were done every 17 weeks but has no idea if any of these reports record this damage.
The tenants says they are not sure when the damage to the shower happened, but think it happened around the end of 2024. The tenants confirmed there were several property inspections done after the shower wall broke away at the bottom, causing water proofing issues but the property manager failed to address this issue in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances after becoming aware of it.
The tenants say they did not raise this issue with the property manager at inspections as it was so obvious, and they also confirmed they never asked the landlord to fix this hole.
The landlord had time to address this issue with the tenants between the end of 2024 and 13 July 2025 and did not do so. Had this issue been of concern to the landlord it should have done so and could have enquired at the time how the damage occurred so it could make an informed decision whose cost it was to remedy the damage. A landlord cannot sit on its laurels and do nothing to mitigate its losses and then make a claim against the tenants for this damage at the end of the tenancy. The damage would have been likely to have been exacerbated by being left unremedied for a period of approximately 7 months. The claim for $402.50 is therefore dismissed. Lounge, hallway and bedroom walls
The entry inspection photographs show scuff marks and paint patches on the walls in these rooms on 13 April 2023.
The landlord has provided photographs of this damage from the exit inspection, but it was hard to compare these images as it was difficult to reconcile the at distance entry inspection photographs with the up-close exit inspection photographs.
The tenants say the entry inspection proves there were scuff marks and paint patches on lounge, hallway and bedrooms 2,3 and 4 walls at beginning of tenancy. The landlord did not disprove the tenants’ defence.
The claims are dismissed.

Should the tenants be liable for 32 days of lost rent?

The landlord claims the tenants prevented it from conducting viewings for potential new tenants on 12 and 19 June 2025 and that they were obstructive in that they did not provide the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy state from 12 June to 13 July 2025 and this resulted in the landlord being unable to rent the premise out for 32 days.
The landlord confirmed it advertised the premise about 4 weeks before the end of the tenancy. 4 weeks prior to 13 July 2025 is Sunday, 15 June 2025.
The landlord took potential new tenants into the premise on 12 and 19 June 2025 and chose not to take any further potential new tenants through as one of the bedrooms had items on the floor the tenants were sorting out for moving and there were some items they were packing around the place. The photographs the landlord produced to support its claim appeared to be of bedroom 3 and do not suggest the entire house was dirty and so untidy that potential new tenants could not view the premise. The tenants confirmed they had items in bedroom 3 only that they were sorting out for their move. There did not appear to be any reasonable accommodation for the inconvenience the tenants suffered because of these viewings.
The tenants also stated: a. The first viewing, on 12 June 2025, the male-tenant received the email notification just prior, but he was away and didn’t see the email. The landlord did not send this email to the female tenant, so she was caught by surprise when the property manager turned up with prospective new tenants to view the premise. She says they were in the process of moving and were sorting stuff to move or throw out. However, she let the property manager and potential new tenants in so as not to be obstructive; b. On 18 June 2025, the female tenant received a text at 6:01pm informing them the landlord would have a viewing 3:30pm the next day (less than 24 hours’ notice). The property manager and potential new tenants came the next day, and the female tenant let them in as she was not sure what the rules were regarding access in these circumstances; c. The landlord arranged other viewings but cancelled these, which was frustrating and inconvenienced the tenants; and d. Potential tenants came to the house without the property manager and told the tenants they were there for a viewing. The tenant can’t remember the dates of these incident as the messages to the landlord are on the female tenant’s old phone number. The property manager did not have access to this information either as he was nit the property manager dealing with the tenants at this time.
The new tenants moved in on 29 August 2025, being 31 days after the first viewing and not long after the premise was advertised. The landlord did not offer the tenants any rent reduction to compensate them for the loss of amenity and inconvenience suffered because of viewings and the need to always have the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy state while they were packing to move.
The landlord has not produced any evidence the tenants obstructed the letting process, that it was unable to take potential new tenants to look at the premise or that the premise was so dirty and untidy that potential new tenants could not accurately access the suitability of the premise for their needs
The claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence from the landlord to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Should exemplary damages be awarded to the landlord for the tenants’ breach of their s40(1)(c) of the RTA obligations to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy during the termination notice period?
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for the tenants’ failure to keep the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition in the period from the date they gave notice to the 19 June 2025, when the property manager’s stopped taking potential new tenants for viewings due to the untidy condition of bedroom three.
There is no provision in Schedule 1A or s40(1)(c) of the RTA for the Tribunal to award exemplary damages to a landlord for breaches of s40(1)(c) of the RTA during the termination notice period.
The landlord was unable to alert me to any provision in the RTA that gives me the jurisdiction to make an award of exemplary damages for a breach of s40(1)(c) of the RTA.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Unlawful entry

[The tenant/s] claim 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.
On 18 June 2025, the female tenant received a text on 6:01pm that the landlord would have a viewing 3:30pm the next day (less than 24 hours’ notice). The property manager came the next day with the persons wanting to view the premise. The female tenant let them in.
Where a tenant grants the landlord access to the premise, despite not having been given the required statutory notice, the tenant is deemed to have consented to the entry. It is therefore not an unconsented or unlawful entry.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the landlord has not breached the landlord’s s48 of the RTA access rights. Due to the lack of evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities, the claim is dismissed. Breach of privacy/quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment.
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 confirmed that the basis for this claim is: a. The first viewing, on 12 June 2025, the male-tenant received the email notification just prior, but he was away and didn’t see the email. The landlord did not send this email to the female tenant, so she was caught by surprise when the property manager turned up with prospective new tenants to view the premise. She says they were in the process of moving and were sorting stuff to move or throw out. However, she let the property manager and potential new tenants in so as not to be obstructive but it was a breach of her quiet enjoyment of the property she was paying rent to enjoy and she had not been offered any rent rebate to compensate her for the loss of amenity and inconvenience of the viewings while the landlord was looking for new tenants; b. On 18 June 2025, the female tenant received a text at 6:01pm informing them the landlord would have a viewing 3:30pm the next day (less than 24 hours’ notice). The property manager and potential new tenants came the next day, and the female tenant let them in as she was not sure what the rules were regarding access in these circumstances. She says this was also a breach of her quiet enjoyment of the property she was paying rent to enjoy and she had not been offered any rent rebate to compensate her for the loss of amenity and inconvenience of the viewings or having to maintain the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at all times while the landlord was looking for new tenants he may want to take for viewings at any time in the notice period; c. The landlord arranged other viewings but cancelled these, which was frustrating and inconvenienced the tenants when they went to the trouble of maintaining the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition after 19 June 2025 viewing; and d. Potential tenants came to the house without the property manager and told the tenants they were there for a viewing which was inconvenient and a breach of their quiet enjoyment.
The landlord’s evidence was: a. It did not breach the tenants quiet enjoyment; b. It was entitled to bring potential new tenants to view the house; c. The tenants had a statutory obligation to allow reasonable times for viewings and at times pre-arranged viewings can fall through; and d. It had no knowledge of potential ne tenants turning up to the house without a property manager.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the tenants’ quiet enjoyment and privacy was breached by the acts or omissions of the property managers in a way that constitutes harassment and a breach of their privacy. The tenants should have been given the statutory notice for access, allowing them sufficient time to tidy up before viewings, should have been compensated for the requirement to have the house reasonably clean and tidy at all times while they were preparing to move and packing/sorting their belongings and should not have had to put up with prospective new tenants approaching them to view the premise without a property manager present and without having been given adequate notice.
I find the landlord has breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment and privacy intentionally by failing to manage the reletting process in a fair and reasonable manner and award the tenants $250.00 exemplary damages for the breach (one eights of the maximum penalty available) for the following reasons: a. The landlord engaged in a pattern of behaviour it knew was causing the tenants trouble, worry and distress and did not take steps to make the loss of amenity and inconvenience of its requirements to undertake viewings at short notice and to keep the premise clean and tidy at all times in case of viewings at short notice palatable to the tenants by offering a rent reduction for this period in exchange for this type of short notice access and tidiness requirements when they were packing/sorting their belongings; b. The tenants suffered distress, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise they was paying to have as a safe haven from duress because of the landlord’s harassment; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the distress, 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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the compensatory sum of $500.00 for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants during the period 12 June 2025 to 13 July 2025 when they moved out because of the reletting process and mismanagement of it. 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 alarm from 7 March 2024, when the one smoke alarm expired, according to the information provided in the tenancy agreement.
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.
On 23 January 2025, the tenants formally notified the property manager that the smoke alarm installed at the premises had expired (expiry date: 7 March 2024) and required replacement. The tenants claim the smoke alarm in question was a photoelectric model with a sealed, non-replaceable battery.
In response, the property manager incorrectly asserted that the maintenance of the smoke alarm, including battery replacement, was the tenant’s responsibility, pursuant to Clause 8 of the Tenancy Agreement. However, this clause refers to alarms with replaceable batteries and does not override the landlord’s statutory obligations.
Under the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, landlords are legally required to ensure that working smoke alarms are installed and maintained in all rental properties. These alarms must be photoelectric and fitted with either a long-life (10-year) sealed battery or be hardwired.
The tenants have proven the smoke alarm was: a. Expired at the time of the tenants request to replace it with a complaint one; b. Non-functional due to a non-replaceable battery; and c. Not replaced by the landlord upon notice.
The landlord says the smoke alarm was an old type alarm that was not sealed and that the tenants should have changed the battery if it was not working. The landlord also claims the entry inspection report records two smoke alarms in the hallway, but the hallway photographs are not clear and the types or numbers of smoke alarms are not able to be verified. It is clear that the entry inspection report and the tenancy agreement contain conflicting information.
The tenants evidence also suggests the landlord took no steps to come and investigate the tenants’ concerns or take any steps to remedy its breach.
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,200.00 in exemplary damages (one sixth of the maximum penalty available) as I find the breach to be intentional as the landlord and/or his agent was made aware of the breach, and it was not investigated or remedied in a reasonable timeframe considering the seriousness of the breach and its potential impact on the tenants.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

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 tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with their claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Because Mission Property Management Limited As Agent For Sai Hung And Cui Ying Fung has substantially succeeded with its claims I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants apply 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 their proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct.
The tenant’s application for non-publication is ordered.
The landlord did not apply for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361677 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361677 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants be liable for 32 days of lost rent?

TENANTS CLAIMS

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants be liable for 32 days of lost rent?

TENANTS CLAIMS

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions