What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5373503 about?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Albany As The Agent For John Stapleton must pay [The tenant/s] $300.00 immediately, being exemplary damages.

How much money was awarded in case 5373503?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5373503?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5373503?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12858736-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5373503 about?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Albany As The Agent For John Stapleton must pay [The tenant/s] $300.00 immediately, being exemplary damages.

How much money was awarded in case 5373503?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5373503?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5373503?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12858736-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

63A Santiago Crescent, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5373503 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5373503 — net $300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$300.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$300.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5373503 — net $300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$300.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$300.00

Order

Barfoot & Thompson Albany As The Agent For John Stapleton must pay [The tenant/s] $300.00 immediately, being exemplary damages.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 11 December 2025.
The tenancy of the premises commenced in April 2025, and the tenancy is current. It is a fixed term tenancy through until 24 April 2026.
The landlord filed an application with Tenancy Services on 24 October 2025. The tenant filed a cross application on 4 December 2025.
The premises consist of a detached home over two levels. The tenant resides in the lower level. The upstairs level is rented to other tenants. The property manager in this matter does not manage the upstairs unit. The Law
The relevant law applying to this matter is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant must establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. This means that the obligation to prove the landlord’s claims is on the landlord. The obligation to prove the tenant’s claims is on the tenant.
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.
Is 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.” Landlord’s claims
The landlord applied to have the tenancy terminated under s.55(1)(aa) RTA. That section relates to recidivist rent arrears. The landlord is required by the section to serve notices on the tenant which comply with the formal requirements of the section. The section is interpreted strictly as the outcome of a successful application will be termination of the tenancy. Amongst other things, the notices are required to include notice of the tenant’s right to challenge the notice. That information was not included in any of the notices. The application is dismissed.
The landlord applied to have the tenancy terminated under s.56 RTA. That section requires the landlord to give the tenant notice that he has 14 days to remedy any breach of the tenancy agreement, including a failure to pay rent on time and in full.
Three 14-day breach notices were served on the tenant by the landlord. Evidence showed that the notices dated 14 August 2025 and 2 October 2025 were complied with by the tenant. The tenant paid the rent arrears required by the notices.
The notice dated 18 September 2025, required the tenant to pay arrears of $590.00. The rent summary shows that $100.00 was still owing by the tenant at the end of the 14-day period.
Section 56(1)(c) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall terminate the tenancy if the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The landlord had the option of serving recidivist rent arrears notices but did not do so. That may have been the more appropriate manner to deal with the ongoing rent arrears.
The amount outstanding was $100.00, which is less than the equivalent of 2 day’s rent. Rent is not in arrears at the date of this hearing. I do not consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to make any order terminating the tenancy. An order to do so in these circumstances would be disproportionate. The application is dismissed.
The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of a threat made by the tenant. Section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has threatened to assault any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
The landlord says that the tenant has threatened the neighbour who resides upstairs. That neighbour was not called to give evidence and was not available for cross examination by the tenant. The sole document provided to the Tribunal from that Tenant was a computer-self generated police report.
That report states that on 18 October 2025 at approximately 10.40 pm, the neighbour was concerned that the tenant was playing loud music. The neighbour went downstairs to the tenant’s premises to raise the issue. A conversation took place between the neighbour and the tenant. The neighbour said in his report “at this point I (Matthew) lost my temper and ended up making a snide remark.... That was when he snapped and threatened that if he wanted a fight they could take it “down to the street” and” do you want to? Do you? He then follows it up by saying he knows people that would’ve decked you for saying stuff like that.... I realised my mistake immediately after saying it and began apologising multiple times throughout, but he didn't budge on his threat...... I continued to apologise, as I was having a bad day hence the behaviour and he seemed to accept it, but the atmosphere still felt a bit tense.”
The tenant accepted the general nature of the conversation. He said that he did not intend for the words to be taken as a threat.
In R v Meek [1981] NZLR 499(CA) the Court of Appeal held that “to threaten to assault means just what it says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat; Or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.”
In Collins V Housing New Zealand Ltd [2024] NZAR 665, the High Court held “Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it was made. How far that applies under this Act is another question. The intent of s.55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context, the fact of a threat has to be enough.”
Do the specific words used by the tenant amount to a threat? I am not persuaded that they do. It does not amount to a specific threat. It appears to be more of a request or an inquiry. The neighbour accepts in his statement that he may have provoked the tenant and that he apologised to the tenant at the end of the incident. If I am wrong in this matter, then I use my discretion under s.55(2) RTA to refuse to make a termination order under this section. I am satisfied that there was no loss to the landlord which required compensation and I am satisfied that the tenant will not repeat the behaviour. The application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for a rent arrears order is dismissed as the rent is not in arrears as at the date of this hearing. Tenant claims
The tenant says that the landlord has unlawfully entered the premises.
Section 48 RTA sets the basis for any entry by the landlord. That section provides that the landlord shall not enter the premises except with the consent of the tenant or in any of the circumstances described in that section.
Of particular relevance is the limitation in subsection 48(7) RTA. It provides that in this section “premises” does not include land or facilities. A landlord is not prevented from knocking on the door of the premises and requesting rent payments, delivering notices, or being on the grounds for some other legitimate purposes, provided they do not enter the actual premises and provided they do not interfere with the tenants right of quiet enjoyment.
Events complained of by the tenant, where there was no entry to the premises, are therefore dismissed. The tenant provided evidence that on an occasion in June 2025, a contractor had entered the premises without notice and in the tenant’s absence to install a heat pump. The landlord said that this particular owner had required a degree of “education” on the obligations of a landlord. The landlord accepted that this was a breach of their right of entry. This is an unlawful act. Schedule1 RTA provides that exemplary damages for such a breach may be awarded by the tribunal to a maximum of $1,500.00.
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 said; “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.
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.
The owner is deemed to be aware of his legal obligations regarding entry and therefore any entry in breach of that obligation is considered to be intentional.
The effect of the entry on the tenant was relatively minor but having said that, it is in the best interest of both this tenant and tenants generally for landlords to comply with their obligations.
I consider that a modest award of exemplary damages is appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant $300.00. Power use
The tenant explained that he had received, what he considered to be particularly high power bills. He was concerned that it was possible that the tenants upstairs had been drawing power from his system.
The tenant employed an electrical contractor to investigate. The electrical contractor was unable to gain access to the upstairs unit. The best that the electrical contractor was able to say was that there was still a reasonable concern that it was possible that the upstairs unit was drawing on the downstairs unit’s power consumption. No further evidence was provided other than this opinion. The contractor gave evidence by way of a written statement and was not available to be cross examined by the landlord.
The obligation to prove this claim is on the tenant. The tenant needs to be able to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. Is it more likely than not that power is being drawn by the upstairs unit? I do not consider that the evidence provided to the Tribunal by the tenant is sufficient to allow the Tribunal to come to that conclusion and the claim is dismissed. Quiet enjoyment
Section 38 RTA protects a tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. It protects the tenant against interference with the tenant’s quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or persons claiming through or under the landlord. The basis of it is that the landlord, by letting the premises, confers on the tenant the right of possession during the term and implied promise not to interfere with the tenant’s exercise and use of the right of possession during that term.
In a number of cases, landlords who have persisted in building or other intrusive work or other activity on the premises have been held in breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. In the case before the Tribunal, the tenant says that the landlord has had tree contractors trimming trees for a period of approximately 5 hours.
I do not consider that such a limited breach for a legal activity amounts to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and the application is dismissed.
Both parties have applied for reimbursement of the filing fee. Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and no order is made with regards to the filing fees.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5373503 — Exemplary damages at 63A Santiago Crescent, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5373503 — Exemplary damages at 63A Santiago Crescent, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions