Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5386064 — Exemplary damages at 30 Charles Road, Hannahs Bay, Rotorua 3010
Decided 24 Jun 2026 · Published 24 Jun 2026 · Application 5386064
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s] name and identifying details.
- Paul Christensen to pay [The tenant/s] $2,500.00 in exemplary damages immediately.
- Paul Christensen to pay [The tenant/s] $28.00 in exemplary damages immediately, being the application filing fee.
- Bond Services to pay the full bond to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing, the second of two hearings, by MS Teams video link. The tenants attended remotely with the assistance of NZSL interpreters.
- The tenancy has already ended by consent. Possession has already been dealt with. The landlord has paid the $500.00 previously agreed. The remaining issues are the tenants’ claims for compensation and exemplary damages.
- I have considered the tenants’ memoranda dated 8 May 2026, the evidence filed, the evidence given at the hearing, and the parties’ submissions. I have not treated this hearing as an opportunity to determine any new claims.
- The landlord confirmed the bond remains lodged and agreed to a full refund of the bond. Did the Landlord’s fail to maintain the premises?
- The tenants claim that the landlord breached section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to maintain the premises. The issues relied on include: a. the hot water/power issue (resolved by consent); b. drainage (water pooling and not draining from the grounds of the property); c. grounds maintenance and general repairs; and d. access to external areas (an adjacent premises/sleepout).
- Under s 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with relevant requirements relating to buildings, health and safety. Breach of these obligations may be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to $7,200.00.
- I accept that there were maintenance issues early in the tenancy. The hot water issue was genuine and caused inconvenience. The first power bill was unusually high, and there was evidence that the issue was repaired on or about 20 September 2025. However, the evidence did not allow me to calculate with precision the amount of increased power cost caused by the defect. Nor am I satisfied that the landlord intentionally failed to maintain the premises.
- There were issues with water draining from the property and grounds maintenance and other general issues raised by the Tenant, but I have found that the Landlord did try to deal with these issues promptly, and remedial work stalled due to a genuine breakdown in the parties communication. I have also considered the Tenant’s advice that they were eager to take the home and were aware there were issues with the premises which the Landlord had promised to rectify. I find a mutual understanding was arrived at in that regard, even if the required work did not occur.
- I have not found an unlawful act under this head. Did the Landlords interfere with the Tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
- The tenants claim that the landlord interfered with their quiet enjoyment and harassed them.
- A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Breaching that obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to $3,000.00.
- Harassment involves conduct that troubles, worries or distresses, and usually indicates a pattern of behaviour directed towards another person: MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
- I accept that there were two significant incidents. The first occurred soon after the tenancy commencing. The Landlord’s wife, Nadia attended the premises with her adult daughter, Gracie. Nadia said she wanted to provide the tenants with information she felt they needed, and to bring them a housewarming gift (a pot plant), and Gracie came along with her, because Gracie likes dogs.
- I accept that [Tenant 2] consented to the visit and that the entry itself was not unlawful.
- However, I also accept [Tenant 1]’s evidence that she clearly said her assistance dog was not to be held, and that despite that, Gracie later held the dog after asking [Tenant 2] in the hallway. [Tenant 2] accepted he handed the dog over because he felt that he could not say no, in essence.
- Nadia disputed parts of [Tenant 1]’s account and said she did not see how it occurred. I find that the dog was held contrary to [Tenant 1]’s clearly expressed boundary.
- That incident was not trivial. [Tenant 1] is deaf and relies on accessible communication assistance, including NZSL interpreters and clear written communication. She also described neurological issues affecting stress, fatigue and memory, when she is put into situations where there is conflict or uncertainty. This can lead her to have mini-seizures which can be very serious for her wellbeing and safety. She relies on a trained dog to manage risks associated with her health.
- The issue was not simply that a pet was held without permission, although that is a breach of the clear boundaries set by the tenant, but the dog is also a disability aid and is a lifeline to [Tenant 1] which she does not want compromised, particularly in situations of high stress and pressure or conflict. Even if Gracie did not intend harm, the landlord brought Gracie into the home and must bear responsibility for the visit and its consequences.
- I accept [Tenant 1]’s evidence that the incident caused immediate distress and made her feel unsafe in her home.
- The second significant incident occurred on 26 November 2025.
- I refer to the Landlord’s email on 24 November 2025, in which he states: I am writing to advise that I have arranged for landscapers to visit 30 Charles on the morning of the Wednesday 26th November to clear the raised garden near the road, remove the tree etc. Please also be advised I want to schedule [contractor name], who has been busy on other work in recent weeks, to come by and finish the last couple of jobs inside and, if possible, continue the drainage work (see below). I also wanted to take the opportunity visit 30 Charles myself at that time to collect the rodent bait stations & previous tenants items as well get a better understanding of the other work you are looking to have done.
- I have closely studied the Tenants’ reply: We acknowledge the booking of landscapers and request that, as part of this work, they attend to the following items, which remain outstanding: -The overgrown hedges -The garden along the driveway, where agapanthus is overgrowing and suffocating the existing plants -Clearance of the front raised garden and trees -Removal of the cabbage tree, as half of it is dead and its proximity to the house poses an avoidable risk of damage in upcoming storms We also acknowledge the removal of the previous tenant's belongings and rubbish, inclusive of the bait stations. You will find everything stored in the carport. Regarding the remainder of the matters listed in the 14-day notice, we now need to proceed with the next steps in the legal process. You will hear from Tenancy Services in due course as this progresses. As mentioned previously, this is to ensure that all parties have a positive, inclusive, and transparent round-the-table discussion, and that the process aligns fully with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and its amendments.
- Paul attended the property when the tenants were expecting landscapers or gardeners. They did not want any discourse with Paul. Paul’s attendance developed into an attempt to discuss matters directly with the tenants, including matters already within a legal process. I accept that Paul was trying to resolve issues, and that he is a businessman, and was under pressure following the property manager’s withdrawal from managing the tenancy. However, the tenants had particular and reasonable communication needs, including the need for written and accessible communication. Paul remained on the property for a period after the tenants made clear they did not wish to engage in that way.
- I do not find that the landlords acted maliciously. But I do find that the landlords imposed their preferred way of communicating and resolving matters onto tenants who had particular vulnerabilities and communication needs.
- The tenants were pushing back, and trying to establish boundaries, and the Landlords, on the noted occasions, showed less than the required discernment, insight, and tact.
- I accept that the tenants experienced the landlords’ conduct as stressful and intrusive. However, I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes harassment for the purposes of section 38(3). The proved incidents were limited in number and arose in the context of maintenance, access and communication difficulties, occurring in the context of a breakdown in the tenancy relationship which arose from a mistaken understanding of boundaries and engagement limits.
- The Landlord’s conduct does not establish a deliberate or sustained pattern of troubling, worrying, distressing or wearing down the tenants. I therefore decline exemplary damages under section 38(3). I have considered the impact of those matters, where relevant, as part of compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment and in assessing the effect of the retaliatory notice below. Was the Landlord’s 90-day notice retaliatory?
- The tenants claim the landlord issued a retaliatory notice.
- For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, pursuant to a valid notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right, or by a complaint against the landlord. Giving a termination notice declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to $6,500.00.
- In the earlier order, I recorded that the landlord’s termination notice, while valid, was likely retaliatory. Having now heard further evidence, I confirm that finding.
- The notice followed the tenants’ complaints and assertion of rights in relation to the condition of the premises, subsequent access, and attempts to scope and fulfil the tenant’s maintenance requests.
- The incident which transpired on 26 November 2026 was avoidable. The termination notice followed shortly thereafter. Tribunal proceedings were on foot. The notice was, on balance, retaliatory.
- I am satisfied the notice was motivated, at least in part, by those complaints and by the communication breakdowns and conflict breakdown arising from them
- I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by giving a retaliatory termination notice.
- Under section 109(3A), it is not necessary to prove that the retaliatory notice was intentional in the same way as other unlawful acts. I must consider whether it is just to award exemplary damages, having regard to the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenants, and the public interest.
- The effect of the notice was significant. It destabilised the tenancy and contributed to the tenants losing confidence that they could safely and peacefully remain in the property. The public interest requires landlords not to respond to complaints by terminating the tenancy. That is what happened here.
- However, the tenancy ultimately ended by consent, possession was resolved, and the landlord has already paid $500.00 by consent.
- I also accept that the landlords were trying, albeit poorly, to resolve a tenancy relationship that had broken down. An award at the maximum is not justified.
- I award exemplary damages of $2,500.00 and this includes compensation for the Tenant’s loss of amenity and quiet enjoyment as a result of the 26 November incident.
Did the Landlord discriminate against the tenants?
- The tenants claim that the landlord discriminated against them in relation to disability and communication access.
- I accept that [Tenant 1] is deaf, that she relies on accessible communication, and that her disability and communication needs are relevant context. They are relevant to the effect of the landlords’ conduct and to the quiet enjoyment claim.
- However, I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes a separate act of unlawful discrimination in the grant, renewal, variation or termination of the tenancy contrary to s 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act and the Human Rights Act 1993.
- I consider that this claim is best addressed as part of quiet enjoyment, communication, and impact on the tenant, and that is what I have done.
- The discrimination claim is dismissed. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
- The tenants have substantially succeeded. They have succeeded on the retaliatory notice claim and partly on quiet enjoyment and maintenance. The filing fee is reimbursed, and they are granted name suppression.