What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5369877 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 5369877?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5369877?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5369877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13017759-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5369877 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 5369877?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5369877?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5369877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13017759-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5369877 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5369877 — net $228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$200.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$228.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5369877 — net $228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$200.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Rent-A-Room Limited Henrik De Blij must pay [The tenant/s] $228.00 immediately, being exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 January 2026.
This is a boarding house tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 6 October 2024 and ended on 10 October 2025.
The premises consisted of a main complex over two levels. The main complex included 9 bedrooms and all relevant facilities. There were also three separate cabins. The cabins are not self-contained, and each cabin had one resident. The residents of the cabins used the facilities in the main complex. The tenant in this hearing lived in one of the cabins. At all relevant times there were 10 residents at the property. The Law
The relevant law applying to this matter is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant (in this case the tenant), 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 more likely than not. This obligation carried by the tenant 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 (DC) TT 233/02, in practical terms this means that; “Like 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.”
The tenant claims are; • Unlawful entry. • Unlawful invoicing. • Interference with services. • Exemplary damages where available • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The claim for release of the bond was withdrawn at the hearing as the bond has now been refunded to the tenant. The landlord apologised for the delay.
The claim for failing to maintain was withdrawn as the incident occurred after the tenancy had ended. Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal held; “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of the conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors set out in s.109 RTA; A. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. B. The effect of the unlawful act. C. The interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. D. The public interest. E. Whether it is just to make an award.
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, confusion, lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law is no defence.
A party is deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every separate breach under the same provision of the RTA. (see MBIE v Hills Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583). This is of particular relevance in this case where the tenant refers to multiple breaches by the landlord. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A RTA.
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one-third of the maximum available unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors to be considered (Wellington Property Management Limited v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281.
I record that even if the Tribunal finds an act to be an unlawful act, but decides not to award exemplary damages, the District Court has found that it can still award compensation for the breach (Cavanagh v Kainga Ora [NZDC] 7033).
Section 109(2)(b) RTA provides that a tenant may not apply for an award of exemplary damages more than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act. This limit may not apply where the breach is of an ongoing nature. Unlawful entry
Section 66R RTA provides that a landlord may only enter a boarding room with the consent of the tenant or on providing 24 hours’ notice prior to entry.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to enter a boarding room other than in accordance with s.66R RTA (see s.66T RTA). A breach exposes a landlord to a claim for exemplary damages to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The tenant says that he received notice from the landlord of a need to have a contractor enter the boarding room to instal an electricity meter. The notice was received by the tenant on 5 June 2025 at 1.52 pm. The tenant agreed. Entry was gained by the contractor on 6 June 2025 at 10.00 am. That is nearly 4 hours prior to the time allowed for by the notice.
The landlord said obtaining contractors was difficult and that they were notorious for arriving when they were ready. He said that he didn’t know precisely when the contractor arrived.
In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the tenant who was quite precise as to what had occurred. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
In considering the issue of exemplary damages I find that; • The landlord had not intended to unlawfully enter the premises but was aware of the obligation and the potential risk of the contractor attempting to enter the premises prior to the arranged time. • The effect of the unlawful act on the tenant was limited, as the breach was for a matter of hours only. The interests of the tenant were breached, but only in a relatively limited manner. • It is in the interest of tenant’s generally that landlords do not breach the tenant’s right to privacy and that the notice period is complied with. It is just for an award to be made in favour of the tenant, but the award should be at the lower end of the scale. The landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $200.00. Unlawful Utility invoicing.
Section 66E (3) RTA provides that; (3) A tenant is responsible for all outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of a room that is exclusively occupied by the tenant. (4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises: (a) electricity and gas supplied to the tenant’s boarding room, if the supply is separately metered for that room: (b) telephone and Internet connected to the tenant’s boarding room. (5) If the landlord provides services to a tenant, and payment for those services is not included in the rent, the landlord must provide the tenant each week with an itemised account of the services provided and the amount payable by the tenant.
The tenant says that the landlord has passed on the electricity costs for three months at the end of the tenancy, rather than invoicing it on a weekly basis as required by s.66E(5). A copy of an invoice was provided to the Tribunal showing electricity charges for the final three months being passed onto the tenant by the landlord.
Section 66E RTA refers to both “charges”, which a tenant is responsible for under s.66E(3) RTA and “services” provided by the landlord under s.66E (5) RTA. As a matter of statutory interpretation, the use of different words in the statute means that they must have a different meaning. I consider that the electricity charges under s.66E(3) RTA must be different from the “services provided” by the landlord in s.66E(5) RTA. There is no obligation on the landlord to provide the tenant each week with an itemised account of the electricity charge payable by the tenant. The claim is dismissed. Interference with services
Section 66J (1) RTA provides; (1) The landlord must not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telephone services, or other services to the premises, unless the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to comply with the section.
The tenant says that there was a heat pump in the main complex. There was no remote available for the tenants to use. The tenants only had the ability to turn the heat pump on or off. The temperature had been set by the landlord at 20 degrees.
The tenant says that the landlord has deliberately turned the heat pump off during October 2025 (and that he typically did at the end of winter in previous years). The tenant says that the electricity circuit switchboard was also locked by the landlord. The tenant provided evidence of complaints being raised by other tenants with the landlord about the heat pump failing to operate after his tenancy had ended.
The landlord said that he does not turn power off to the heat pump at any time. He denied preventing access to the switchboard. He said that the “downstairs tenant’s” in the main complex had access. He said that he avoided having anything to do with the supply of electricity to premises due to the risks involved.
The burden of proving this claim is on the tenant. The tenant must provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that it is more likely than not that the landlord has interfered with the supply of electricity. I am not persuaded that the tenant has met the standard required and the claim is dismissed.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The parties confirmed that the bond had recently been released to the tenant by the landlord. The landlord accepted that this was an accounting error on his part and apologised. That, combined with the order for exemplary damages is sufficient for me to consider that the tenant has been substantially successful in this matter. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5369877 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5369877 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions