Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5372562 — Exemplary damages at 120a Milford Park Drive, Paengaroa, RD 9, Paengaroa 3189
Published 2 April 2026 · Application 5372562
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Paengaroa
Tribunal region
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,978.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $2,978.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemplary damages – failure to repair in a timely way | $2,000.00 | Exemplary damages – failure to repair in a timely way | |
| Reimbursement of overpaid rent | $200.00 | Reimbursement of overpaid rent | |
| Exemplary damages – failure to lodge bond | $750.00 | Exemplary damages – failure to lodge bond | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,978.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $2,978.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5372562 — net $2,978.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Exemplary damages – failure to repair in a timely way
- Amount
- $2,000.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Exemplary damages – failure to repair in a timely way
Reimbursement of overpaid rent
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Reimbursement of overpaid rent
Exemplary damages – failure to lodge bond
- Amount
- $750.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Exemplary damages – failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $2,978.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $2,978.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Holly Kemen and Jason Baldock must pay Cavelle Heeni Heat-Uatuku $2,978.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 1 April 2026 – the tenant in person and the landlord by telephone. Ms Kemen represented Mr Baldcock who was the other named landlord in the tenancy agreement.
- The background to this claim is that the tenant rented the premises from 26 August 2025 to 24 October 2025. The premises were new and next door to the property occupied by the landlords and their family.
- The tenant now makes a number of claims against the landlord and I will address each of those in turn. Failure to repair in a timely way
- Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides, amongst other things, that landlords must keep premises in a reasonable state of repair and provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
- Breaching any of these obligations 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant states that the landlord has breached this section because right from the start of the tenancy there was an issue with water supply where there was sometimes no water, no hot water and very low water pressure.
- These issues were communicated to the landlord on 27 August 2025, 8 September 2025, 16 September 2025, 3 October 2025, 7 October 2025 and 9 October 2025.
- Each time these issues were communicated the landlord effected a short term fix by ‘tripping the pump’.
- On 16 September 2025 a plumber attended the issue and effected a repair which was not a permanent fix.
- On 6 October 2025 the plumber again attended the premises and found a leak under the ground.
- The issue was not permanently fixed until after the tenancy ended
- On the evidence before me I am satisfied that the landlord has breached s45 by failing to repair an issue in a timely way and by failing to ensure adequate storage and collection of water. Having been made aware of the issue on 27 August 2025, and after being made aware on 16 September 2025 that the plumber’s fix was not permanent, the landlord elected not to repair until after the tenancy ended, as evidenced in an email to the tenant on 9 October 2025.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord clearly intended not to fix the issue until after the tenancy ended. The email from the landlord on 9 October 2025 confirms this. The landlord states that her intention was to do this work once the tenant had left so as to avoid the tenant putting up with having no water for a week.
- The tenant states that this failure to repair in a timely way motivated her desire to terminate the tenancy – a significant effect given that she had only been in the property for approximately 6 weeks by the time she gave the notice of termination. She also stated that it was very inconvenient not to have a regular water supply and that she and her partner had on occasion had to shower at their gym.
- In awarding an amount of $2,000.00 in exemplary damages against the landlord I have taken into account the above factors, as well as the public interest in landlords’ abiding by their obligations under the RTA. I have also taken into account a possible rent reduction because of the failure to provide an adequate water supply.
- I note too that this award of exemplary damages takes into account that awards of exemplary damages are intended to be punitive in nature and to act as a deterrent. Overpaid rent
- On 19 August 2025 the parties signed a tenancy agreement which stated that the rent was $450.00 per week and that a maximum of 2 tenants were permitted to reside at the tenancy.
- On 21 September 2025 the landlord gave notice to the tenant that the rent was to increase to $550.00 per week because she had intended only to rent to a single person and there was now an extra person staying at the tenancy. She stated that this rent increase was to cover extra costs for power, water, gas and lawns.
- On 23 September 2025 the landlord advised the tenant that the rent increase was effective immediately.
- The tenant initially accepted this rent increase and then subsequently objected to it. She claims a return of the extra $200.00 she paid in rent.
- I accept that the landlord is required to return the $200.00 extra rent paid to the tenant.
- I say this for reasons that include: (a) Even though I accept that the tenancy was advertised as being for one person and the landlord understood that only this tenant would reside at the premises, the tenancy agreement clearly states that the rent is $450.00 per week with a maximum of 2 tenants able to reside at the premises; and (b) The tenancy agreement does not state that the rent will increase if there are 2 tenants at the property; and (c) Section 11 RTA provides that any agreement by a tenant which is inconsistent with the RTA shall be of no effect. In this case that means that in spite of the tenant initially agreeing to the increase, she cannot be bound by that agreement.
- I note that the tenant originally paid an extra $300.00 in rent but at the end of the tenancy the landlord paid her back $100.00.
- I am dismissing the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for this breach. This is because exemplary damages are awarded only where the breach is described in the RTA as an unlawful act.
- This breach is not described in the RTA as an unlawful act. Failure to lodge the bond
- A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord advises that they did not lodge the bond because they were not aware of their obligation to do so. She says that on 9 October 2025 she became aware of the obligation to lodge the bond but did not do so because the tenancy was ending on 24 October 2025.
- The landlord did not lodge the bond and has thereby 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.
- In awarding $750.00 in exemplary damages I have taken into account the following factors: (a) Ignorance of the obligation is not a valid reason for not lodging the bond, and even when notified of the duty to do so, the landlord still did not lodge the bond; and (b) While I accept that there was only a couple of weeks to run on the tenancy once the landlord knew of their obligation, the duty still remains; and (c) I accept the tenant’s evidence that the failure to lodge the bond was one of the contributing factors in her feelings of considerable distress after the altercation on 9 October 2025; and (d) There is considerable public interest in landlords abiding by their obligations, particularly when it comes to dealing with tenants’ money; and (e) Exemplary damages awards are intended to be punitive.
- I also note that the bond was refunded in full 6 days after the tenancy ended. Harassment
- A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
- The tenant states that the landlord has harassed her. She refers to 9 October 2025 when the landlord was at the property when she returned home and gave her a notice of termination. She states that the landlord was aggressive, yelling and referred to her smoking weed.
- The tenant also states that the landlord then went back to her neighbouring property and began videoing her and her partner.
- The tenant also states that she felt harassed because on 20 October 2025, in a message to the tenant, the landlord referred to the tenant’s struggle with her mental health, when in fact she had never told the landlord that she suffered from mental health issues.
- I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim. This is largely because I am satisfied that both parties equally participated in the altercation on 9 October 2025. I also accept the landlord’s evidence that she did not video the tenant and her partner and that the security cameras that she has on her property did not cover the tenanted premises.
- With regard to the landlord’s reference to mental health issues on 20 October 2025, I do not see this reference as a particular pattern of behaviour directed to the tenant. It therefore does not amount to harassment. Notice of termination
- On 9 October 2025 the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 20 November 2025. The landlord gave 42 days’ notice because they said a member of the landlord’s family was needing to live there.
- The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
- For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant also claims that the landlord breached s60AA which provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give a notice of termination knowing that they are not entitled to give such a notice.
- To prove these claims the tenant relies on the fact that on 2 November 2025 the premises were listed for rent on TradeMe.
- I am dismissing these claims. I do so because I accept the landlord’s explanation that her brother was requiring a place to live after a marital separation but that, subsequent to the notices of termination having been exchanged, he was then able to go back to his own home.
- In any event, the landlord’s notice of termination on 9 October 2025 was effectively superceded by the tenant’s own notice of termination later that day, effective 24 October 2025. Filing fee reimbursement
- The tenant was substantially successful with this application against the landlord and so I consider it appropriate that the landlord reimburse her the filing fee. C ter Haar 02 April 2026
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(3), s11, s19(1), s19(2), s38(2), s38(3), s45, s45(1A), s54(1), s60AA
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5372562?
The tribunal order states: Holly Kemen and Jason Baldock must pay Cavelle Heeni Heat-Uatuku
How much money was awarded in case 5372562?
Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Overpaid Rent: $200.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372562?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372562?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13384436-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.