What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5381782 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 5381782?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381782?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381782?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13317862-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5381782 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 5381782?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381782?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381782?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13317862-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

251 Waterholes Road, Rolleston, RD 4, Rolleston 7674 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5381782 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5381782 — net $3,628.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: failure to complete required statements in tenancy agreement	$300.00	failure to complete required statements in tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: retaliatory termination notice	$1,800.00	retaliatory termination notice
Refund bond	$1,000.00	Refund bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,628.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,628.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5381782 — net $3,628.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: failure to complete required statements in tenancy agreement	$300.00	failure to complete required statements in tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: retaliatory termination notice	$1,800.00	retaliatory termination notice
Refund bond	$1,000.00	Refund bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,628.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,628.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Tribunal declares the notice to terminate the tenancy to be a retaliatory notice.
Neville Sharpe must pay [The tenant/s] $3,628.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord of his statutory responsibilities. Background
The tenancy started on 18 February 2024 and ended on 16 August 2025 after the landlord gave a 42-day notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant paid a bond of $1,000.00 at the start of the tenancy. The landlord never lodged the bond, did not refund it, nor has he yet made an application for costs from the bond.
On 5 November 2025 the tenant made her application.
I explained to the parties that in the absence of a landlord cross application I could not address any issues raised by the landlord. Nor can the Tribunal address matters of general complaint.
To succeed, the tenant must establish on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has not complied with a statutory responsibility. Only then can the Tribunal decide what sanction (if any) should apply.
I heard evidence from both parties, and I have considered the documentary evidence. I allowed the landlord time to produce the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) assessment report, which he did soon after the hearing. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond? •Is the tenant entitled to have her bond refunded? •Did the landlord comply with the requirement to include compliance statements in the tenancy agreement? •Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS and/or fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? •Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? •Was the notice to terminate the tenancy unlawful? Was it a retaliatory notice? •Did the landlord unlawfully dispose of the tenant’s goods? Relevant law – statutory provisions
The following sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) are relevant: •Section 13A – Contents of tenancy agreement •Section 19 – Duties of landlord on receipt of bond •Section 22B – Applications to, and orders by, Tribunal •Section 38 – Quiet enjoyment •Section 40 – Tenant’s responsibilities •Section 45 – Landlord’s responsibilities •Section 51 – Termination by notice •Section 54 – Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory •Section 62 – Goods left on premises on termination of tenancy •Section 62A – Disposal of abandoned goods following assessment of market value •Section 109 – Unlawful acts Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

The landlord admitted that he never lodged the bond. He referred to there being rent arrears but that is irrelevant. Bond is separate. The landlord holds it on trust until it is lodged with the Bond Centre, required within 23-working day of the bond being paid.
The landlord said the bond took several weeks to be paid and he then forgot to lodge it. He confirmed that he had been a landlord for about 10 years and had previously lodged a bond.
I find that the statutory criteria for awarding exemplary damages are met. The landlord’s failure has caused the tenant worry, and even when she raised the bond issue, he still failed to lodge it. That establishes that he acted with intent. It is against the public interest for landlords not to comply with their statutory responsibilities, and the failure to lodge the bond was against the tenant’s interests.
For this unlawful act I award the tenant exemplary damages of $500.00.

Is the tenant entitled to have her bond refunded?

The tenant lodged her application on 5 November 2025. The landlord has not lodged a cross application, though he said he intended to.
Section 22B(1) RTA provides that if a tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
As there is no cross application setting out the landlord’s counterclaim at this time, the bond must be paid to the tenant now. The landlord can still file a cross application setting out his counterclaim, but he cannot retain the bond in the meantime. It must be paid to the tenant immediately. Did the landlord comply with the requirement to include compliance statements in the tenancy agreement?
Section 13A RTA sets out the minimum information that must be included in every tenancy agreement. Insulation, HHS compliance, and insurance statements must be included (in addition to other required information). A failure to include these statements is an unlawful act.
The tenancy agreement is woefully inadequate. I find that the landlord committed an unlawful act 2 by not including these statements. The statutory criteria for awarding exemplary damages are met. I award the tenant exemplary damages of $300.00 for this breach. Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS and/or fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
Both of these issues are alleged failures by the landlord to comply with his section 45 RTA responsibilities. Even if both are proved only one award of exemplary damages can be made, not multiple awards for the same or similar breach.
The landlord has provided a copy of the professional HHS assessment he had done on 28 February 2024 (before the tenancy started). A couple of compliance issues were identified by the assessor. They were promptly rectified. The assessor certified total compliance with the HHS on 16 March 2024.
In the absence of a competing HHS assessment report by the tenant I find that the premises complied with the HHS.
The tenant identified some maintenance issues, the most significant of which was leaking from the roof through the hallway ceiling. 2 See section 13A(1F) RTA
The landlord said the leak occurred following an extreme weather event. He was in Timaru. When the tenant phoned him, he advised her to put a bucket and tarpaulin under the leak until he could inspect the roof himself. He said he inspected the roof the following morning and engaged a plumber who came the next day. He then had to engage other tradespeople to do repairs, but the damaged portion of the roof was repaired.
The tenant raised other repair issues – a cupboard in the kitchen taped shut; the replacement of a letterbox; water in the cellar; and decking timber that needed repair.
The landlord said he was not made aware of most of those issues. He thought the tenant’s ex-partner might have damaged the letterbox and it was therefore her responsibility to fix it.
The tenant replaced the letterbox herself and she has taken that letterbox with her. Because she still has the letterbox she has suffered no loss.
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
These premises date back almost 120 years to the beginning of the 20 th century. The HHS assessment report contain photos that show the weatherboards are old and the paintwork poor. That there was an acute weather event that resulted in leaking does not establish a landlord breach; it is the landlord’s response that is important.
Here, I find that the landlord responded in a timely manner to the repair issues drawn to his attention. A house of this age will invariably require repairs and maintenance. I do not find that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair such that the Tribunal need impose any sanction. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The tenant said that the landlord came to the premises on a coupe of occasions without notice.
The landlord resides nearby. On one occasion he said he was having a spa and he heard what he thought was screaming. Concerned for the tenant he took a baseball bat and investigated. When he realised it was the tenant’s teenage son and friend being noisy, he left. He said they all had a good laugh about it and the tenant texted him to say it was good to know someone had ‘got her back’.
On another occasion the landlord knocked at the door to see if a courier had delivered a parcel there. Another time, he arrived to fix the roof without notice. Sometimes, he shut the gates while moving sheep.
Objectively viewed, these are not interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. They are ordinary life events. No harm was done. There is no call for the Tribunal to intervene. Was the notice to terminate the tenancy unlawful? Was it a retaliatory notice?
The landlord gave the tenant 42 days’ written notice to terminate the tenancy. He was able to do that due to a statutory amendment to the RTA that took effect from 30 January 2025 that altered the notice periods 3 .
A landlord can (and could then) terminate a periodic tenancy on 42 days’ notice if the owner required the premises within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or member of the owner’s family 4 .
The landlord said that his (step) daughter and son had sold their house and his daughter and her boyfriend wanted to move into these premises. When I queried that, the landlord said that his daughter had not moved in because the tenant did not return the keys and he and his daughter were worried about retaliation (he was in Fiji at that time). So, his daughter moved into his house.
The landlord’s daughter has never moved into the premises; it has not been tenanted in the meantime; and it will not be rented until next month.
I did not find that explanation convincing. As soon as the landlord returned from Fiji, the plan for his daughter to move in could have been executed by a simple change of locks. By then he had already served a trespass notice on the tenant.
I find that the reason given for the termination was not a genuine one. The landlord wanted the tenancy to end and believed this was the quickest way to do that.
I further find that the decision to terminate the tenancy was in retaliation for the tenant raising repair issues. It quickly followed what the tenant described as ‘the incident’, a discussion about cleaning the log burner flu and other repairs. The tenant told the landlord she was recording him. According to her he said he wanted the house back because he had had enough. 3 See Section 26(1) Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 4 See section 51(2)(a) RTA
When the Tribunal declares a notice to terminate a retaliatory notice the giving of the notice is an unlawful act 5 .
I find that the section 109 RTA criteria are met: the landlord acted internationally; it was against the tenant’s interests; it had an effect on the tenant requiring her to move; and it was against the public interest.
For this unlawful act I award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,800.00.
I make no separate award for the termination being unlawful (the reason given was not genuine). Both unlawful acts arise from the same action, the termination of the tenancy. Did the landlord unlawfully dispose of the tenant’s goods?
Section 40 RTA requires a tenant to remove all their goods from the premises on the termination of the tenancy 6 . If a tenant fails to do that a landlord must make reasonable efforts to assess the market value of the goods. If that assessment indicates that the value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord may dispose of the goods as the landlord thinks fit.
The tenant listed 6 chattels she left behind – 2 couches, 2 chairs, a cupboard with drawers, and a 9kg LPG cylinder.
The landlord said the goods were just rubbish which he eventually had a contractor remove and dump.
The tenant did not produce any evidence as to the value of the goods for the Tribunal to conclude that the landlord dealt with the goods wrongly or that his assessment of their value as being below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them was inaccurate.
I dismiss this part of the tenant’s application. Result
The tenant’s application is successful in part. The Tribunal awards her exemplary damages for proven landlord breaches amounting to $2,600.00. As well, the landlord must pay her the bond. I also order reimbursement of the filing fee. In total, the landlord will pay the tenant $3,628.00. 5 See section 54(6) RTA 6 See section 40(1)(e)(ii) RTA Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression, nor would he be eligible for it because he has not successfully defended the application.
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as her application is mostly successful 7 . Comment
The landlord sought a stay of the order pending the hearing of his cross application. I am not prepared to do that. The landlord has not yet filed an application. He has had ample time to do so. His application, if filed, will be heard separately.
I have already noted that the tenancy agreement was non-compliant in several respects. If the landlord rents the premises again, he should use the Tenancy Services tenancy agreement which can be downloaded free of charge. It is fully compliant with all the provisions of the RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381782 — Exemplary damages at 251 Waterholes Road, Rolleston, RD 4, Rolleston 7674

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381782 — Exemplary damages at 251 Waterholes Road, Rolleston, RD 4, Rolleston 7674

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Is the tenant entitled to have her bond refunded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Is the tenant entitled to have her bond refunded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions