What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367494 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (BN-00097403) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5367494?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain th…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Electrician Cost - Overloading Circu…: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367494?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367494?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12972143-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367494 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (BN-00097403) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5367494?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain th…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Electrician Cost - Overloading Circu…: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367494?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367494?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12972143-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9C Stowe Hill, Thorndon, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5367494 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

9C Stowe Hill, Thorndon, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5367494 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5367494 — net $564.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 December 2025	$1,280.00		Rent arrears to 19 December 2025
Exemplary damages - Failure to quit	$250.00		Exemplary damages - Failure to quit
Electrician cost - overloading circuits	$184.00		Electrician cost - overloading circuits
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice		$1,000.00	Retaliatory Notice
Compensation: Failure to maintain the dryer		$300.00	Failure to maintain the dryer
Total award	$1,864.00	$1,300.00
Net award	$564.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$564.00

Claims and awards for application 5367494 — net $564.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 19 December 2025

Amount: $1,280.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 19 December 2025

Exemplary damages - Failure to quit

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages - Failure to quit

Electrician cost - overloading circuits

Amount: $184.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Electrician cost - overloading circuits

Cleaning

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Retaliatory Notice

Dismissed claims

Compensation

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Exemplary damages Rent arrears

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (BN-00097403) immediately apportioned as follows: Stowehill Properties Limited : $564.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,996.00
The payment of the bond is calculated as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Both parties have made applications. They have both claimed compensation, exemplary damages and the filing fee. They have also claimed name suppression.
At the hearing the landlord requested an adjournment to employ legal counsel. The landlord had grounds for representation. The applications were for amounts over $6,000.00. After discussion with the parties the tenant reduced her claim to $5,999.00 to avoid an adjournment. The landlord withdrew a claim for $7,818.00 medical costs to reduce its claim below $6,000.00 and withdrew the request for legal representation.
The issues to be considered in the tenant’s claim are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises? b. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises? c. Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for i. A new modem ii. Moving costs iii. Storage costs iv. Replacement bedsheets v. Power she paid for in the basement area? d. Was the landlord’s termination notice retaliatory? e. Should exemplary damages be ordered for any landlord breach?
The issues to be considered in the landlord’s claim are: a. What date did the tenancy end? b. Should exemplary damages be ordered if the tenant did not quit the premises at the end of the tenancy? c. Are there rent arrears? d. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy? e. Should the tenant pay: i. The cost to repair the hallway door latch ii. Silicone around the bathtub taps iii. Repair to the bathtub taps iv. Electrician cost to investigate complaint of circuit tripping v. Ambient light bulb for the living room vi. An electric heater vii. Replacement dryer vent viii. An additional amount for basement power f. Did the tenant fail to allow entry to the landlord) g. Other breaches by the tenant. A. The Tenant’s claims

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenancy began on 3 May 2025. The history of maintenance issues is as follows. • Sealer around the bath, closet latch and tight taps
On 14 May the tenant requested the landlord to take white sealer and CRC when he went to the property on 18 May. That was the agreed date for the parties complete the property inspection section of their Tenancy Agreement. On 20 May the landlord emailed the tenant stating that he had followed up on the three maintenance issues the tenant raised at their meeting two days earlier. He informed her that he had arranged a builder for 22 May to look at the hallway closet latch, that he had arranged a tradesperson to re-silicone around the bath in the week commencing Monday 26 May and he would engage a plumber to look at the taps that the tenant found hard to turn off. On 21 May the tenant responded asking that the landlord to check a wall that may be wet. On 2 June the landlord emailed the tenant as follows: “An update on maintenance matters at 9C stowe Hill, Thorndon. •The catch on the hallway closet cupboard has been repaired. A builder will refit the catch to the cupboard tomorrow, around 1:00pm. •The bathroom taps - a plumber is attend to tomorrow, after 12pm tomorrow. •The silicone around the end of the bath near the bath taps - plan is to have this attended to this week. A painter will be onsite this week to complete the painting on 9 Stowe Hill. He will repair the silicone around the end of the bath near the taps. I will let you know which day this week he plans to do this.”
The painter was unable to attend to seal around the bath until 23 June. The landlord kept the tenant informed each time the painter delayed the repair. On 22 June the landlord informed the tenant that the painter would be there on 23 June and that applying silicone around the bath would not take long. The tenant responded on 23 June saying that’s fine and that she had left feijoa pickle and the lanyard on the table for the landlord.
It is clear regarding the maintenance issues raised by the tenant in these early stages of the tenancy that the landlord responded to every request made by the tenant and that she was satisfied with the landlord’s response to her requests. • Water discolouration
On 3 July the tenant texted the landlord at 9:38pm stating that the water was discoloured when she ran a bath. She believed that it would have been caused by the hot water cylinder corroding or sediment in the bottom of the cylinder. The water was checked as part of the landlord’s inspection on 31 August and both parties agree that the water was clear and showed no sign of discolouration. Following the visit the landlord emailed the tenant stating that despite there being no evidence of discolouration he would have the plumber check and clean the cylinder. The matter was not raised again by the tenant until 2 October when she complained that a plumber had not been to the property to clean the cylinder. The landlord responded that he had not engaged a plumber because the water was clear and clean when tested on 30 August and the tenant had agreed with that finding.
The tenant did provide photos showing water was discoloured at the time she sent an email on 3 July. However she did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that water continue to be discoloured. Water can be discoloured temporarily when Councils carry out work on water supply lines. The fact that water was temporary discoloured suggests the discolouration was more likely from an external source than a fault in the premises. In any event, the landlord was not required to send a plumber because there wasn’t a problem with water discolouration that was ongoing. The tenant has provided insufficient evidence for a finding to be made that the landlord failed to maintain the premises regarding the quality of the water supply. •Tripping power
Around 9:40pm on 21 July the tenant advised the landlord that when she uses the washing machine and dryer the power switches off. She added, “Running them both and the dishwasher is impossible. Its (sic) getting frustrating especially as I like to exploit the hour of free power”.
The landlord emailed early the next morning expressing his surprise that the power was tripping because the apartment was newly rewired throughout with a new switchboard. He said that he would have the electrician check the tenant’s concern. The landlord then advised the tenant that day that the electrician would visit the apartment on 24 July. The tenant thanked the landlord for his quick attention to the matter. On Wednesday the 23 July the landlord advised the tenant that the electrician would be onsite at 8:30am the next day and he would also be there. On 28 July the landlord sent the tenant a copy of the electrician’s invoice to inform her of the electrician’s findings
The electrician reported as follows: lnspected power circuit and appliances plugged into outlets that was causing the RCBO to trip at the switchboard. Tested the loading of the circuit using an Ammeter. Found the RCBO to be tripping due to overloading the circuit. Found the appliances not to be faulty. Advised customer of load management options to prevent overloading the circuit.
The electrician found that the electrical system at the premises was not faulty. The electrician tested the tenant’s appliances and her loading of appliances on circuits. The reason for tripping was that the tenant was using too many appliances on a circuit at one time. The issue was with therefore the tenant’s use of the premises.
The tenant’s complaint of the landlord failing to maintain, because the power was tripping, cannot be upheld. The premises had received a code compliance when the wiring and circuit board was upgraded. If the system was inadequate for normal power use it would not have received a compliance certificate.
The evidence does not support that tenant’s claim that the premises was faulty and the landlord failed to remedy the power supply. • Maintenance referred to in the landlord’s property inspection summary
A property inspection took place on 31 August. On 4 September the landlord emailed the tenant with a summary of maintenance matters to that date.
After lint was cleared from the rear exhaust vent of the dryer it appeared to working normally. The landlord said he would replace the front vent because it was loosely attached. He would have a Fisher and Paykel technician check the door catch. The tenant had said that the door popped open during drying. The landlord wondered if the dryer was overloaded causing the door to open. A check as to whether this can happen shows that overloading a F&P dryer can cause the door to open while clothes are drying. Having heard that the tenant was tripping the power by using too many appliances at once, it could be concluded, though not proven, that she overloaded the dryer to get as much washing dried as possible in the free hour of power.
The landlord said he would have the plumber return to check the hot water tap that the tenant found hard to turn off and was dripping.
The landlord said that despite there being no evidence of discoloured hot water after running the bath two thirds full he would have the plumber to check and clean the cylinder.
The tenant had removed two kitchen lights to save power. The landlord said he would replace the bulbs with LED energy efficient alternatives.
The landlord referred the electrician’s findings regarding the power tripping.
The landlord said he would replace a bulb over the fireplace that the tenant reported to be flickering.
The tenant said there was mould forming on the south wall. The landlord said he would provide a heater but to ventilate by opening windows.
On 7 September the tenant emailed the landlord expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s priorities. She said that she had a backlog of washing because the dryer stopped while she was out. She said that her sleep was now at risk because she is “unsure weather (sic) her best white shirts will go damp overnight instead of being dried in the dryer and I’m concerned the power will trip while I’m also running the dishwasher which means if I sleep I’ll have neither a dry shirt nor a clean cup for the morning”. The tenant went on to issue a 14 day notice to have the dryer and fuse repaired.
The landlord replied reminding the tenant of the electrician’s findings. He repeated that it was the first time they had seen mould on the bedroom wall and had not had complaints from other tenants. He asked for a time to deliver a heater, for a kitchen light bulb to be left outside so he would know the LED bulb to purchase and the ambient light bulb for the lounge that she had requested had been purchased.
On 13 September the landlord emailed after the tenant did not reply to his previous email. The landlord repeated some maintenance issues and indicated that a plumber was ready to repair the tap. The tenant replied the same day stating that her 14 day notice email dealt with matters and she required the landlord to address the power tripping and the dryer door fault. The tenant complained that the landlord was actively avoiding repairing the faults she had raised.
On 2 October the tenant gave notice to the landlord to repair the hot water discolouration. The landlord replied that the problem was looked at on the day of the inspection and no fault found and therefore no reason to remediate.
The tenant did not accept the landlord’s response to the power tripping, the water discolouration or the dryer door being faulty. The landlord did say to the tenant that he would have a F&P repairer check the door catch but did not follow up on that. The landlords’ response was that the tenant had become sufficiently frustrated that she refused entry to the landlord even to put the heater in the premises. However a landlord has right of entry to premises after giving adequate notice whether the tenant is present or not. The heater could have been dropped off.
This impasse and other areas of dispute culminated in an email from the tenant to the landlord on 17 October in which she stated that her wellbeing and quiet enjoyment of the premises was being significantly affected. She stated that the fire escape door had a broken handle, that there was rust in the hot water system, that the dryer stops even when not overloaded. She challenged the landlord’s right to limit the use of the Body Corp basement area and informed him that he had to give notice before entering the Body Corp basement. The basement was shared by three other apartments in the building. The tenant had previously agreed to, and paid for, her power usage in that basement area. The tenant also advised that the fire door handle was broken.
Regarding the tenant’s complaint that the fire door would not open the landlord stated that he asked a Body Corp member to check the door. The landlord was told that the door was fully operational. Later, on 14 November 2025 the landlord was informed that interior door handle had been removed and was found lying on stairway landing outside the tenant’s apartment. A tradesperson refitted the handle on 15 November 2025.
It is apparent from the correspondence between the parties that the landlord promptly responded to all the tenant’s emails about maintenance work. All issues were addressed, albeit not to the tenant’s satisfaction. The three main issues were the water discolouration, the power tripping and dryer stopping. The landlord tested the water and no fault was found. The landlord employed an electrician to investigate the power tripping. No fault was found with the circuit board. At the inspection the dryer was tested, and the door did not open while the dryer was running.
Based on the evidence available I am satisfied that for the most part the landlord responded promptly to the tenant’s concerns, kept the tenant informed of the maintenance being carried out and did maintain the premises. However regarding the dryer door, the landlord should have followed up on the undertaking to have a contractor check the door mechanism. It is clear that the tenant had difficulty with the dryer door, the mechanism could have been faulty and it would have been reasonable for the landlord follow up his undertaking to have it checked out. By the date of the hearing, the landlord had not provided evidence from a contractor to support his position that the door must be opening due to overloading and not a faulty catch.
It should have been clear to the landlord by 17 October that the dryer door latch needed to be investigated. The tenant said she was not overloading the dryer. The dryer door “unlatching” and stopping would be sufficiently inconvenient and annoying that compensation is appropriate on the grounds of a breach of the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises.
I have set compensation at $300.00 for that maintenance issue based on it not being fixed by the end of the tenancy. For reasons given above, no other compensation is appropriate for any other maintenance issue raised by the tenant. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment
The tenant has raised other claims regarding breaches of her quiet enjoyment. She has referred to the landlord using the wrong email address. The tenant claimed that the frequency of emails sent to her was a breach of her quiet enjoyment. The tenant claimed that the landlord’s attitude and instructions regarding her use of the basement area breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises. The tenant claimed that the landlord’s inclusion of other Body Corp members in emails breached her privacy and therefore her quiet enjoyment. The tenant claimed her quiet enjoyment was breached when she became aware that the landlord had entered the basement area without giving her notice. She believed her privacy was breached by the landlord photographing her items she was working on and storing in the Body Corp basement. The tenant claimed the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment by asking about her use of the designated car park.
I have considered all the tenant’s claim regarding quiet enjoyment and do not find her claims proved for the following reasons. a. The tenant used three email addresses when communicating with the landlord. The landlord used email addresses that worked when emails bounced from another email address. This is a minor matter that borders on frivolous. b. There is no provision in the RTA that requires a landlord to stop sending emails because a tenant asks for them to stop. A tenant may not want to receive emails about rent arrears or late payments or clarification of the use of a Body Corp basement. A tenant has no statutory right to require the landlord to stop sending emails with information a landlord decides is are relevant to the tenancy. The landlord had good reason for sending emails to the tenant. There is insufficient evidence that emails were excessive or intended to distress the tenant. c. The tenant believed that she had unlimited rights regarding the basement area because the landlord had given permission to use it. There was nothing written down about the extent of use the tenant could have of that area. The landlord did not own the basement area. As a Body Corp unit owner, he had rights to that area, shared with other Body Corp members. It is unlikely he would have told the tenant that she had unlimited use of the area. It was therefore reasonable to email her, defining the area she could use. d. It was also right that he would include other Body Corp members in the email because it was a concern that other Body Corp members had raised with the landlord. I noted that on the one hand the tenant complained that the landlord communicated with her and included other Body Corp members in the email but the tenant then replied including all the same people in her email. e. The tenant was also annoyed that the landlord checked on her use of the basement area to clarify the insurance position for the Body Corp. The tenant’s frustration shows a failure to understand the importance of making sure that her craftwork and goods that she was selling did not compromise the Body Corp’s insurance cover. f. The tenant claimed that the landlord had no right to enter the basement area without notifying her. The basement was a common Body Corp area. The landlord only needed to give notice to the tenant to enter her premises. The basement area was not her premises. g. The landlord, acting for the Body Corp, photographed items in the basement for the purpose of having information about the tenant’s use of the area. There was possibly an insurance issue because the tenant was storing goods that she was selling. The basement area was not the tenant’s premises and so any person who had access to that area would be free to take photographs of what was there. There is no breach of privacy that has been established by the tenant. h. The car park was not to be sublet by the tenant. The landlord was contacted by another resident who was unable to exit because the way was blocked by a vehicle. The driver was connected with the tenant. The landlord followed up asking if the park had been sublet. It was reasonable for the landlord to check about the carpark in light of what had happened.
I do not find it proved that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. I appreciate that the tenant was stressed while living at the premises however apart from the dryer door, no action of the landlord could reasonably be viewed was a breach of quite enjoyment. The tenant viewed the landlord’s behaviour as harassment. I do not agree with that assessment. Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for a new modem; moving costs; storage costs; replacement bedsheets and power she paid for in the basement area?
The tenant purchased a new modem. There are no grounds for the landlord to pay for that. The landlord provided a modem at the apartments. It was the tenant’s choice to buy a separate modem and to take it with her.
I am satisfied that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that it was inevitable that the tenancy would come to an end. Although the tenant believes that landlord caused the breakdown of the relationship and the reason she had to move, I am satisfied that the tenant significantly contributed to the relationship breakdown and the need for the tenancy to end. Therefore, the moving and storage costs that the tenant paid were inevitable. In the landlord’s application there is claim for loss of rent regarding a new tenancy. The tenant is not ordered to pay that claim for the same reason. The tenancy was broken and both parties should wear their own losses. That is the merits and justice of the situation.
The tenant has claimed that bedsheets had to be replaced because the hot water discoloured them. The tenant did not provide photos of the bedsheets, the age of the bedsheets and why they could not be whitened. There is insufficient information to order compensation for sheets.
The tenant paid for power that she believed she had used. It was reasonable she contributed to the power that the Body Corp was charged for her time using the basement. However I have not ordered more power costs be paid than the amount she has paid. Before the tenancy began or at the time the tenant was given permission to use the basement, the landlord should have set out the extent of use of the basement for the tenant and informed her that power would be charged. Was the landlord’s termination notice retaliatory?
On 18 October the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on Friday, 23 January 2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
Section 51(1) provides that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days notice. A landlord is not required to give reasons for the termination. However a landlord may not give a notice to terminate a tenancy if 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. See section 54(1) RTA.
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 RTA.
In para 32 above I have referred to the tenant’s October 17 email to the landlord. This email from the tenant was sent to the landlord after the frustration she experienced about the use of the basement area as well as maintenance matters that she believed that landlord was avoiding. It is clear by this stage that the landlord was equally frustrated with the tenant. Despite attending to the tenant’s complaints. she was accusing him of failing to manage the property or address her concerns. It appears that the landlord had had enough of the tenant’s attitude and so, after receiving the complaint letter, the landlord gave the tenant a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy.
I have considered the situation the parties were in by 18 October to determine whether the landlord’s notice was based on the tenant’s ongoing complaints or was divorced from that and was instead based on an assessment that the relationship between tenant and landlord was irreparable. That is because the tone of the tenant’s emails and her obvious dissatisfaction with many aspects of the tenancy strongly suggested that the tenancy was on shaky ground. It may have crossed the landlord’s mind that termination was the surgery needed for the problem however the landlord made the mistake of dealing with tenant’s complaints by immediately terminating the tenancy. If the landlord had waited a week or so after 17 October email and invited the tenant to meet to talk about the tenancy, then a notice to terminate may not have been deemed to be retaliatory.
In summary, I am satisfied that the notice was retaliatory. It was partly motivated by the tenant’s complaints against the landlord brought to a head in the letter of 17 October. The landlord therefore did commit 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) RTA.

Should exemplary damages be ordered for any landlord breach?

The tenant has claimed exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, for harassment and for retaliatory notice. Those breaches are unlawful acts. 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) RTA.
I have found that landlord did not harass the tenant and therefore no order for exemplary damages cane be made for harassment.
I have determined that the landlord’s attention to maintenance matters was excellent except for an investigation of the dryer. I have ordered compensation for that breach and am not satisfied that it would be just to make an order for exemplary damages regarding a failure to maintain.
I am satisfied that an order for exemplary damages should be made for the retaliatory notice. It is in the public interest that landlords do not give retaliatory notices.
I have determined that the amount to order for exemplary damages should be at the lower end of the scale. That is because the relationship was toxic, and it was reasonable that the tenancy came to an end. The tenant was giving messages to the landlord that her sleep, health and wellbeing were being affected because of the way the tenancy was being managed. But in general, the landlord managed the tenancy well. If the tenancy had not been terminated by notice on 18 October, I am confident it would have ended shortly thereafter by one of the parties.
In determining the amount to order for exemplary damages I have also taken into account that this is the only occasion I am aware of that the landlord has issued a retaliatory notice. The fine would be much higher if it was not the first instance. Higher amounts for exemplary damages are ordered for recidivist offenders. Therefore I have ordered $1,000.00 of the maximum $6,500.00. That reflects the merits and justice of the landlord’s unlawful act. B. The Landlord’s claims

What date did the tenancy end?

Although the landlord gave a 90 day notice, the tenant decided to end the tenancy by giving a 21 day notice to end the tenancy on 14 December. The landlord confirmed that end of tenancy date. However prior to the tenancy ending on 14 December the tenant notified the landlord that she was not able to move out until 19 December. The landlord sent emails stating that he did not accept the extension.
The landlord claims that the tenancy ended on 14 December. The tenant claims that it ended on 19 December.
The landlord is correct. The tenancy ended on 14 December because that is the date the tenant gave notice for it to end. That date can only be changed by a Tribunal order or the parties’ consent. There was no order and no consent. Should exemplary damages be ordered if the tenant did not quit the premises at the end of the tenancy?
The landlord claims that the tenant committed an unlawful act by not vacating the premises on the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant remained in occupation after 14 December. The tenant did not quit the premises. I find she committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s decision to occupy the premises beyond 14 December was intentional. The landlord made her aware of the provisions of the RTA that requires tenants to quit the premises when the tenancy terminates. The tenant decided to ignore the RTA requirement.
The tenant committed an unlawful act.
In determining whether to order for exemplary damages I have considered the following. It is in the public interest that tenants respect that they must leave the premises when a tenancy comes to an end. The effect of the tenant staying on was minimal. It was a matter of a few days. The landlord will not suffer a loss of rent for those days. I have also taken into account that this is the only occasion I am aware of that the tenant has not quit premises. The fine would be much higher if it wasn’t the first instance. Higher amounts for exemplary damages are ordered for tenants who have previously not quit the premises or who have caused a significant problem by remaining in occupation of premises. It is just to order a very minimal amount for this unlawful act. I have ordered $250.00 of a maximum $1,500.00.

Are there rent arrears?

The landlord has claimed that the tenant moved out on 21 December. The tenant disputes that she stayed beyond 19 December. I have reviewed the evidence and find that there is insufficient information to determine the tenant vacated on 21 December. The balance of probability is that she moved out on 19 December.
Rent arrears to 19 December is ordered. The amount is $1280.00. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy 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 landlord provided some photos in support of its cleaning claim. I am satisfied in a few areas the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However there was insufficient evidence to support the claim for the full cleaning cost. I have allowed compensation of $150.00 for cleaning. Should the tenant pay the landlord for; the cost to repair the hallway door latch; silicone around the bathtub taps; repair to the bathtub taps; electrician cost to investigate complaint of circuit tripping; ambient light bulb for the living room; an electric heater; replacement dryer vent; and an additional amount for basement power?
These matters can be dealt with quickly. The repair of the hallway door latch; the silicone applied around the bathtub taps; the repair to the bathtub taps; the ambient light bulb for the living room; the electric heater and the replacement dryer vent are all landlord’s costs. They are not repairs that a tenant is liable for and are therefore the claim for compensation for those items is dismissed.
I have already referred to the landlord’s claim for an additional amount for basement power in paragraph 43 above. I stated that I have not ordered more power costs be paid than the amount the tenant has already paid. Before the tenancy began or at the time the tenant was given permission to use the basement, the landlord should have set out the extent of use of the basement for the tenant and informed her that power would be charged. That did not happen.
The landlord has claimed compensation of $184.00 paid to the electrician to investigate the tenant’s complaint that the power was tripping at the premises. The electrician found no fault with the power system at the premises. The tenant’s use of the premises caused the circuit to trip. Where a tenant reports a fault that turns out not to be a fault with the premises, the tenant becomes liable for the cost of the investigation. Therefore it is appropriate that the tenant is ordered to compensate the landlord for the cost of the electrician. Did the tenant fail to allow entry to the landlord - s 48(4)(b)
The landlord stated that in her email of 13 September, the tenant denied the landlord access for showing the property to prospective tenants and a valuer. In the evidence provided, the landlord did not request entry for that purpose at any time during the tenancy. Regarding access for the carrying out tasks mentioned in the landlord’s email of 13 September, the landlord did not require the tenant’s consent to enter. The claim regarding a breach is dismissed. Other breaches.
In its submission to the Tribunal the landlord has listed many sections of the RTA which the landlord believes relate to the tenant breaching the Act. I have considered all the sections that landlord has referred to. I do not find there is sufficient merit in any of these additional claims that the landlord has made against the tenant, to make an order against her. Conclusion
In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence and submissions made by the parties in their applications, considered the law that applies and the merits and justice of the case. Suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that 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.
Neither party wholly or substantially succeeded with their application. They partly succeeded. Therefore, name suppression is not granted. Filing fee
Because both parties have been partly successful with their claims, neither party is ordered to pay the filing fee to the other party.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5367494 — net $564.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 December 2025	$1,280.00		Rent arrears to 19 December 2025
Exemplary damages - Failure to quit	$250.00		Exemplary damages - Failure to quit
Electrician cost - overloading circuits	$184.00		Electrician cost - overloading circuits
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice		$1,000.00	Retaliatory Notice
Compensation: Failure to maintain the dryer		$300.00	Failure to maintain the dryer
Total award	$1,864.00	$1,300.00
Net award	$564.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$564.00

Claims and awards for application 5367494 — net $564.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 19 December 2025

Amount: $1,280.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 19 December 2025

Exemplary damages - Failure to quit

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages - Failure to quit

Electrician cost - overloading circuits

Amount: $184.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Electrician cost - overloading circuits

Cleaning

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Retaliatory Notice

Dismissed claims

Compensation

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Exemplary damages Rent arrears

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (BN-00097403) immediately apportioned as follows: Stowehill Properties Limited : $564.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,996.00
The payment of the bond is calculated as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Both parties have made applications. They have both claimed compensation, exemplary damages and the filing fee. They have also claimed name suppression.
At the hearing the landlord requested an adjournment to employ legal counsel. The landlord had grounds for representation. The applications were for amounts over $6,000.00. After discussion with the parties the tenant reduced her claim to $5,999.00 to avoid an adjournment. The landlord withdrew a claim for $7,818.00 medical costs to reduce its claim below $6,000.00 and withdrew the request for legal representation.
The issues to be considered in the tenant’s claim are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises? b. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises? c. Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for i. A new modem ii. Moving costs iii. Storage costs iv. Replacement bedsheets v. Power she paid for in the basement area? d. Was the landlord’s termination notice retaliatory? e. Should exemplary damages be ordered for any landlord breach?
The issues to be considered in the landlord’s claim are: a. What date did the tenancy end? b. Should exemplary damages be ordered if the tenant did not quit the premises at the end of the tenancy? c. Are there rent arrears? d. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy? e. Should the tenant pay: i. The cost to repair the hallway door latch ii. Silicone around the bathtub taps iii. Repair to the bathtub taps iv. Electrician cost to investigate complaint of circuit tripping v. Ambient light bulb for the living room vi. An electric heater vii. Replacement dryer vent viii. An additional amount for basement power f. Did the tenant fail to allow entry to the landlord) g. Other breaches by the tenant. A. The Tenant’s claims

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenancy began on 3 May 2025. The history of maintenance issues is as follows. • Sealer around the bath, closet latch and tight taps
On 14 May the tenant requested the landlord to take white sealer and CRC when he went to the property on 18 May. That was the agreed date for the parties complete the property inspection section of their Tenancy Agreement. On 20 May the landlord emailed the tenant stating that he had followed up on the three maintenance issues the tenant raised at their meeting two days earlier. He informed her that he had arranged a builder for 22 May to look at the hallway closet latch, that he had arranged a tradesperson to re-silicone around the bath in the week commencing Monday 26 May and he would engage a plumber to look at the taps that the tenant found hard to turn off. On 21 May the tenant responded asking that the landlord to check a wall that may be wet. On 2 June the landlord emailed the tenant as follows: “An update on maintenance matters at 9C stowe Hill, Thorndon. •The catch on the hallway closet cupboard has been repaired. A builder will refit the catch to the cupboard tomorrow, around 1:00pm. •The bathroom taps - a plumber is attend to tomorrow, after 12pm tomorrow. •The silicone around the end of the bath near the bath taps - plan is to have this attended to this week. A painter will be onsite this week to complete the painting on 9 Stowe Hill. He will repair the silicone around the end of the bath near the taps. I will let you know which day this week he plans to do this.”
The painter was unable to attend to seal around the bath until 23 June. The landlord kept the tenant informed each time the painter delayed the repair. On 22 June the landlord informed the tenant that the painter would be there on 23 June and that applying silicone around the bath would not take long. The tenant responded on 23 June saying that’s fine and that she had left feijoa pickle and the lanyard on the table for the landlord.
It is clear regarding the maintenance issues raised by the tenant in these early stages of the tenancy that the landlord responded to every request made by the tenant and that she was satisfied with the landlord’s response to her requests. • Water discolouration
On 3 July the tenant texted the landlord at 9:38pm stating that the water was discoloured when she ran a bath. She believed that it would have been caused by the hot water cylinder corroding or sediment in the bottom of the cylinder. The water was checked as part of the landlord’s inspection on 31 August and both parties agree that the water was clear and showed no sign of discolouration. Following the visit the landlord emailed the tenant stating that despite there being no evidence of discolouration he would have the plumber check and clean the cylinder. The matter was not raised again by the tenant until 2 October when she complained that a plumber had not been to the property to clean the cylinder. The landlord responded that he had not engaged a plumber because the water was clear and clean when tested on 30 August and the tenant had agreed with that finding.
The tenant did provide photos showing water was discoloured at the time she sent an email on 3 July. However she did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that water continue to be discoloured. Water can be discoloured temporarily when Councils carry out work on water supply lines. The fact that water was temporary discoloured suggests the discolouration was more likely from an external source than a fault in the premises. In any event, the landlord was not required to send a plumber because there wasn’t a problem with water discolouration that was ongoing. The tenant has provided insufficient evidence for a finding to be made that the landlord failed to maintain the premises regarding the quality of the water supply. •Tripping power
Around 9:40pm on 21 July the tenant advised the landlord that when she uses the washing machine and dryer the power switches off. She added, “Running them both and the dishwasher is impossible. Its (sic) getting frustrating especially as I like to exploit the hour of free power”.
The landlord emailed early the next morning expressing his surprise that the power was tripping because the apartment was newly rewired throughout with a new switchboard. He said that he would have the electrician check the tenant’s concern. The landlord then advised the tenant that day that the electrician would visit the apartment on 24 July. The tenant thanked the landlord for his quick attention to the matter. On Wednesday the 23 July the landlord advised the tenant that the electrician would be onsite at 8:30am the next day and he would also be there. On 28 July the landlord sent the tenant a copy of the electrician’s invoice to inform her of the electrician’s findings
The electrician reported as follows: lnspected power circuit and appliances plugged into outlets that was causing the RCBO to trip at the switchboard. Tested the loading of the circuit using an Ammeter. Found the RCBO to be tripping due to overloading the circuit. Found the appliances not to be faulty. Advised customer of load management options to prevent overloading the circuit.
The electrician found that the electrical system at the premises was not faulty. The electrician tested the tenant’s appliances and her loading of appliances on circuits. The reason for tripping was that the tenant was using too many appliances on a circuit at one time. The issue was with therefore the tenant’s use of the premises.
The tenant’s complaint of the landlord failing to maintain, because the power was tripping, cannot be upheld. The premises had received a code compliance when the wiring and circuit board was upgraded. If the system was inadequate for normal power use it would not have received a compliance certificate.
The evidence does not support that tenant’s claim that the premises was faulty and the landlord failed to remedy the power supply. • Maintenance referred to in the landlord’s property inspection summary
A property inspection took place on 31 August. On 4 September the landlord emailed the tenant with a summary of maintenance matters to that date.
After lint was cleared from the rear exhaust vent of the dryer it appeared to working normally. The landlord said he would replace the front vent because it was loosely attached. He would have a Fisher and Paykel technician check the door catch. The tenant had said that the door popped open during drying. The landlord wondered if the dryer was overloaded causing the door to open. A check as to whether this can happen shows that overloading a F&P dryer can cause the door to open while clothes are drying. Having heard that the tenant was tripping the power by using too many appliances at once, it could be concluded, though not proven, that she overloaded the dryer to get as much washing dried as possible in the free hour of power.
The landlord said he would have the plumber return to check the hot water tap that the tenant found hard to turn off and was dripping.
The landlord said that despite there being no evidence of discoloured hot water after running the bath two thirds full he would have the plumber to check and clean the cylinder.
The tenant had removed two kitchen lights to save power. The landlord said he would replace the bulbs with LED energy efficient alternatives.
The landlord referred the electrician’s findings regarding the power tripping.
The landlord said he would replace a bulb over the fireplace that the tenant reported to be flickering.
The tenant said there was mould forming on the south wall. The landlord said he would provide a heater but to ventilate by opening windows.
On 7 September the tenant emailed the landlord expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s priorities. She said that she had a backlog of washing because the dryer stopped while she was out. She said that her sleep was now at risk because she is “unsure weather (sic) her best white shirts will go damp overnight instead of being dried in the dryer and I’m concerned the power will trip while I’m also running the dishwasher which means if I sleep I’ll have neither a dry shirt nor a clean cup for the morning”. The tenant went on to issue a 14 day notice to have the dryer and fuse repaired.
The landlord replied reminding the tenant of the electrician’s findings. He repeated that it was the first time they had seen mould on the bedroom wall and had not had complaints from other tenants. He asked for a time to deliver a heater, for a kitchen light bulb to be left outside so he would know the LED bulb to purchase and the ambient light bulb for the lounge that she had requested had been purchased.
On 13 September the landlord emailed after the tenant did not reply to his previous email. The landlord repeated some maintenance issues and indicated that a plumber was ready to repair the tap. The tenant replied the same day stating that her 14 day notice email dealt with matters and she required the landlord to address the power tripping and the dryer door fault. The tenant complained that the landlord was actively avoiding repairing the faults she had raised.
On 2 October the tenant gave notice to the landlord to repair the hot water discolouration. The landlord replied that the problem was looked at on the day of the inspection and no fault found and therefore no reason to remediate.
The tenant did not accept the landlord’s response to the power tripping, the water discolouration or the dryer door being faulty. The landlord did say to the tenant that he would have a F&P repairer check the door catch but did not follow up on that. The landlords’ response was that the tenant had become sufficiently frustrated that she refused entry to the landlord even to put the heater in the premises. However a landlord has right of entry to premises after giving adequate notice whether the tenant is present or not. The heater could have been dropped off.
This impasse and other areas of dispute culminated in an email from the tenant to the landlord on 17 October in which she stated that her wellbeing and quiet enjoyment of the premises was being significantly affected. She stated that the fire escape door had a broken handle, that there was rust in the hot water system, that the dryer stops even when not overloaded. She challenged the landlord’s right to limit the use of the Body Corp basement area and informed him that he had to give notice before entering the Body Corp basement. The basement was shared by three other apartments in the building. The tenant had previously agreed to, and paid for, her power usage in that basement area. The tenant also advised that the fire door handle was broken.
Regarding the tenant’s complaint that the fire door would not open the landlord stated that he asked a Body Corp member to check the door. The landlord was told that the door was fully operational. Later, on 14 November 2025 the landlord was informed that interior door handle had been removed and was found lying on stairway landing outside the tenant’s apartment. A tradesperson refitted the handle on 15 November 2025.
It is apparent from the correspondence between the parties that the landlord promptly responded to all the tenant’s emails about maintenance work. All issues were addressed, albeit not to the tenant’s satisfaction. The three main issues were the water discolouration, the power tripping and dryer stopping. The landlord tested the water and no fault was found. The landlord employed an electrician to investigate the power tripping. No fault was found with the circuit board. At the inspection the dryer was tested, and the door did not open while the dryer was running.
Based on the evidence available I am satisfied that for the most part the landlord responded promptly to the tenant’s concerns, kept the tenant informed of the maintenance being carried out and did maintain the premises. However regarding the dryer door, the landlord should have followed up on the undertaking to have a contractor check the door mechanism. It is clear that the tenant had difficulty with the dryer door, the mechanism could have been faulty and it would have been reasonable for the landlord follow up his undertaking to have it checked out. By the date of the hearing, the landlord had not provided evidence from a contractor to support his position that the door must be opening due to overloading and not a faulty catch.
It should have been clear to the landlord by 17 October that the dryer door latch needed to be investigated. The tenant said she was not overloading the dryer. The dryer door “unlatching” and stopping would be sufficiently inconvenient and annoying that compensation is appropriate on the grounds of a breach of the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises.
I have set compensation at $300.00 for that maintenance issue based on it not being fixed by the end of the tenancy. For reasons given above, no other compensation is appropriate for any other maintenance issue raised by the tenant. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment
The tenant has raised other claims regarding breaches of her quiet enjoyment. She has referred to the landlord using the wrong email address. The tenant claimed that the frequency of emails sent to her was a breach of her quiet enjoyment. The tenant claimed that the landlord’s attitude and instructions regarding her use of the basement area breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises. The tenant claimed that the landlord’s inclusion of other Body Corp members in emails breached her privacy and therefore her quiet enjoyment. The tenant claimed her quiet enjoyment was breached when she became aware that the landlord had entered the basement area without giving her notice. She believed her privacy was breached by the landlord photographing her items she was working on and storing in the Body Corp basement. The tenant claimed the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment by asking about her use of the designated car park.
I have considered all the tenant’s claim regarding quiet enjoyment and do not find her claims proved for the following reasons. a. The tenant used three email addresses when communicating with the landlord. The landlord used email addresses that worked when emails bounced from another email address. This is a minor matter that borders on frivolous. b. There is no provision in the RTA that requires a landlord to stop sending emails because a tenant asks for them to stop. A tenant may not want to receive emails about rent arrears or late payments or clarification of the use of a Body Corp basement. A tenant has no statutory right to require the landlord to stop sending emails with information a landlord decides is are relevant to the tenancy. The landlord had good reason for sending emails to the tenant. There is insufficient evidence that emails were excessive or intended to distress the tenant. c. The tenant believed that she had unlimited rights regarding the basement area because the landlord had given permission to use it. There was nothing written down about the extent of use the tenant could have of that area. The landlord did not own the basement area. As a Body Corp unit owner, he had rights to that area, shared with other Body Corp members. It is unlikely he would have told the tenant that she had unlimited use of the area. It was therefore reasonable to email her, defining the area she could use. d. It was also right that he would include other Body Corp members in the email because it was a concern that other Body Corp members had raised with the landlord. I noted that on the one hand the tenant complained that the landlord communicated with her and included other Body Corp members in the email but the tenant then replied including all the same people in her email. e. The tenant was also annoyed that the landlord checked on her use of the basement area to clarify the insurance position for the Body Corp. The tenant’s frustration shows a failure to understand the importance of making sure that her craftwork and goods that she was selling did not compromise the Body Corp’s insurance cover. f. The tenant claimed that the landlord had no right to enter the basement area without notifying her. The basement was a common Body Corp area. The landlord only needed to give notice to the tenant to enter her premises. The basement area was not her premises. g. The landlord, acting for the Body Corp, photographed items in the basement for the purpose of having information about the tenant’s use of the area. There was possibly an insurance issue because the tenant was storing goods that she was selling. The basement area was not the tenant’s premises and so any person who had access to that area would be free to take photographs of what was there. There is no breach of privacy that has been established by the tenant. h. The car park was not to be sublet by the tenant. The landlord was contacted by another resident who was unable to exit because the way was blocked by a vehicle. The driver was connected with the tenant. The landlord followed up asking if the park had been sublet. It was reasonable for the landlord to check about the carpark in light of what had happened.
I do not find it proved that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. I appreciate that the tenant was stressed while living at the premises however apart from the dryer door, no action of the landlord could reasonably be viewed was a breach of quite enjoyment. The tenant viewed the landlord’s behaviour as harassment. I do not agree with that assessment. Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for a new modem; moving costs; storage costs; replacement bedsheets and power she paid for in the basement area?
The tenant purchased a new modem. There are no grounds for the landlord to pay for that. The landlord provided a modem at the apartments. It was the tenant’s choice to buy a separate modem and to take it with her.
I am satisfied that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that it was inevitable that the tenancy would come to an end. Although the tenant believes that landlord caused the breakdown of the relationship and the reason she had to move, I am satisfied that the tenant significantly contributed to the relationship breakdown and the need for the tenancy to end. Therefore, the moving and storage costs that the tenant paid were inevitable. In the landlord’s application there is claim for loss of rent regarding a new tenancy. The tenant is not ordered to pay that claim for the same reason. The tenancy was broken and both parties should wear their own losses. That is the merits and justice of the situation.
The tenant has claimed that bedsheets had to be replaced because the hot water discoloured them. The tenant did not provide photos of the bedsheets, the age of the bedsheets and why they could not be whitened. There is insufficient information to order compensation for sheets.
The tenant paid for power that she believed she had used. It was reasonable she contributed to the power that the Body Corp was charged for her time using the basement. However I have not ordered more power costs be paid than the amount she has paid. Before the tenancy began or at the time the tenant was given permission to use the basement, the landlord should have set out the extent of use of the basement for the tenant and informed her that power would be charged. Was the landlord’s termination notice retaliatory?
On 18 October the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on Friday, 23 January 2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
Section 51(1) provides that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days notice. A landlord is not required to give reasons for the termination. However a landlord may not give a notice to terminate a tenancy if 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. See section 54(1) RTA.
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 RTA.
In para 32 above I have referred to the tenant’s October 17 email to the landlord. This email from the tenant was sent to the landlord after the frustration she experienced about the use of the basement area as well as maintenance matters that she believed that landlord was avoiding. It is clear by this stage that the landlord was equally frustrated with the tenant. Despite attending to the tenant’s complaints. she was accusing him of failing to manage the property or address her concerns. It appears that the landlord had had enough of the tenant’s attitude and so, after receiving the complaint letter, the landlord gave the tenant a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy.
I have considered the situation the parties were in by 18 October to determine whether the landlord’s notice was based on the tenant’s ongoing complaints or was divorced from that and was instead based on an assessment that the relationship between tenant and landlord was irreparable. That is because the tone of the tenant’s emails and her obvious dissatisfaction with many aspects of the tenancy strongly suggested that the tenancy was on shaky ground. It may have crossed the landlord’s mind that termination was the surgery needed for the problem however the landlord made the mistake of dealing with tenant’s complaints by immediately terminating the tenancy. If the landlord had waited a week or so after 17 October email and invited the tenant to meet to talk about the tenancy, then a notice to terminate may not have been deemed to be retaliatory.
In summary, I am satisfied that the notice was retaliatory. It was partly motivated by the tenant’s complaints against the landlord brought to a head in the letter of 17 October. The landlord therefore did commit 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) RTA.

Should exemplary damages be ordered for any landlord breach?

The tenant has claimed exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, for harassment and for retaliatory notice. Those breaches are unlawful acts. 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) RTA.
I have found that landlord did not harass the tenant and therefore no order for exemplary damages cane be made for harassment.
I have determined that the landlord’s attention to maintenance matters was excellent except for an investigation of the dryer. I have ordered compensation for that breach and am not satisfied that it would be just to make an order for exemplary damages regarding a failure to maintain.
I am satisfied that an order for exemplary damages should be made for the retaliatory notice. It is in the public interest that landlords do not give retaliatory notices.
I have determined that the amount to order for exemplary damages should be at the lower end of the scale. That is because the relationship was toxic, and it was reasonable that the tenancy came to an end. The tenant was giving messages to the landlord that her sleep, health and wellbeing were being affected because of the way the tenancy was being managed. But in general, the landlord managed the tenancy well. If the tenancy had not been terminated by notice on 18 October, I am confident it would have ended shortly thereafter by one of the parties.
In determining the amount to order for exemplary damages I have also taken into account that this is the only occasion I am aware of that the landlord has issued a retaliatory notice. The fine would be much higher if it was not the first instance. Higher amounts for exemplary damages are ordered for recidivist offenders. Therefore I have ordered $1,000.00 of the maximum $6,500.00. That reflects the merits and justice of the landlord’s unlawful act. B. The Landlord’s claims

What date did the tenancy end?

Although the landlord gave a 90 day notice, the tenant decided to end the tenancy by giving a 21 day notice to end the tenancy on 14 December. The landlord confirmed that end of tenancy date. However prior to the tenancy ending on 14 December the tenant notified the landlord that she was not able to move out until 19 December. The landlord sent emails stating that he did not accept the extension.
The landlord claims that the tenancy ended on 14 December. The tenant claims that it ended on 19 December.
The landlord is correct. The tenancy ended on 14 December because that is the date the tenant gave notice for it to end. That date can only be changed by a Tribunal order or the parties’ consent. There was no order and no consent. Should exemplary damages be ordered if the tenant did not quit the premises at the end of the tenancy?
The landlord claims that the tenant committed an unlawful act by not vacating the premises on the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant remained in occupation after 14 December. The tenant did not quit the premises. I find she committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s decision to occupy the premises beyond 14 December was intentional. The landlord made her aware of the provisions of the RTA that requires tenants to quit the premises when the tenancy terminates. The tenant decided to ignore the RTA requirement.
The tenant committed an unlawful act.
In determining whether to order for exemplary damages I have considered the following. It is in the public interest that tenants respect that they must leave the premises when a tenancy comes to an end. The effect of the tenant staying on was minimal. It was a matter of a few days. The landlord will not suffer a loss of rent for those days. I have also taken into account that this is the only occasion I am aware of that the tenant has not quit premises. The fine would be much higher if it wasn’t the first instance. Higher amounts for exemplary damages are ordered for tenants who have previously not quit the premises or who have caused a significant problem by remaining in occupation of premises. It is just to order a very minimal amount for this unlawful act. I have ordered $250.00 of a maximum $1,500.00.

Are there rent arrears?

The landlord has claimed that the tenant moved out on 21 December. The tenant disputes that she stayed beyond 19 December. I have reviewed the evidence and find that there is insufficient information to determine the tenant vacated on 21 December. The balance of probability is that she moved out on 19 December.
Rent arrears to 19 December is ordered. The amount is $1280.00. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy 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 landlord provided some photos in support of its cleaning claim. I am satisfied in a few areas the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However there was insufficient evidence to support the claim for the full cleaning cost. I have allowed compensation of $150.00 for cleaning. Should the tenant pay the landlord for; the cost to repair the hallway door latch; silicone around the bathtub taps; repair to the bathtub taps; electrician cost to investigate complaint of circuit tripping; ambient light bulb for the living room; an electric heater; replacement dryer vent; and an additional amount for basement power?
These matters can be dealt with quickly. The repair of the hallway door latch; the silicone applied around the bathtub taps; the repair to the bathtub taps; the ambient light bulb for the living room; the electric heater and the replacement dryer vent are all landlord’s costs. They are not repairs that a tenant is liable for and are therefore the claim for compensation for those items is dismissed.
I have already referred to the landlord’s claim for an additional amount for basement power in paragraph 43 above. I stated that I have not ordered more power costs be paid than the amount the tenant has already paid. Before the tenancy began or at the time the tenant was given permission to use the basement, the landlord should have set out the extent of use of the basement for the tenant and informed her that power would be charged. That did not happen.
The landlord has claimed compensation of $184.00 paid to the electrician to investigate the tenant’s complaint that the power was tripping at the premises. The electrician found no fault with the power system at the premises. The tenant’s use of the premises caused the circuit to trip. Where a tenant reports a fault that turns out not to be a fault with the premises, the tenant becomes liable for the cost of the investigation. Therefore it is appropriate that the tenant is ordered to compensate the landlord for the cost of the electrician. Did the tenant fail to allow entry to the landlord - s 48(4)(b)
The landlord stated that in her email of 13 September, the tenant denied the landlord access for showing the property to prospective tenants and a valuer. In the evidence provided, the landlord did not request entry for that purpose at any time during the tenancy. Regarding access for the carrying out tasks mentioned in the landlord’s email of 13 September, the landlord did not require the tenant’s consent to enter. The claim regarding a breach is dismissed. Other breaches.
In its submission to the Tribunal the landlord has listed many sections of the RTA which the landlord believes relate to the tenant breaching the Act. I have considered all the sections that landlord has referred to. I do not find there is sufficient merit in any of these additional claims that the landlord has made against the tenant, to make an order against her. Conclusion
In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence and submissions made by the parties in their applications, considered the law that applies and the merits and justice of the case. Suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that 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.
Neither party wholly or substantially succeeded with their application. They partly succeeded. Therefore, name suppression is not granted. Filing fee
Because both parties have been partly successful with their claims, neither party is ordered to pay the filing fee to the other party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367494 — Rent arrears at 9C Stowe Hill, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367494 — Rent arrears at 9C Stowe Hill, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Should exemplary damages be ordered for any landlord breach?

What date did the tenancy end?

Are there rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Should exemplary damages be ordered for any landlord breach?

What date did the tenancy end?

Are there rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions