What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389817 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 5389817?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389817?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389817?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12885081-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389817 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 5389817?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389817?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389817?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12885081-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389817 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389817 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
ndlordTenant Exemplary damages- Tenant failing to allow landlord to enter upon premises in circumstances where landlord	$1,500.00	ndlordTenant Exemplary damages- Tenant failing to allow landlord to enter upon premises in circumstances where landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Patricia Paul must pay [The landlord] $1,528.00 immediately, calculated as se out in the table below:
Patricia Paul must allow the landlord to undertake a routine property inspection on Friday 19 December 2025 at 4pm. If the tenant refuses the landlord entry, the tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. Did the tenant fail to allow the landlord entry in circumstances where the landlord is entitled to enter?
[The landlord] claims the tenant has not allowed it entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has produced evidence that after receiving lawful notice, the tenant has refused the landlord entry to carry out routine property inspections on 24 June 2025, 21 July 2025, 25 September 2025, 14 November 2025 and 28 November 2025. Each time the landlord had issued the tenant with a 14-day breach notice for failure to allow entry and for engaging in threatening and intimidating behavioural conduct. The landlord claims the behavioural conduct of the tenant on 24 November 2025 was so threatening and intimidating she reported the incident to the Police as she feared for her safety. She stated the tenant had told her she could not enter the house, “stood over her” and was “in her face” and told her “my life is good now and you have to come to ruin my life”. She also threatened the property manager that her cousin, that is a member of parliament would “come after” the property manager.
The last property inspection was conducted on 24 April 2025. The owner’s insurance policy requires the property manager to carry out routine property inspections every 3 months or the insurance is invalidated. The tenant’s repeated refusal to allow entry for the purpose of carrying out an inspection has put the landlord in a challenging situation and has caused it real risk. Any damage caused by the tenant during the tenancy will not be covered at all by insurance, thereby creating increased risk for the tenant as well.
I find the tenant has 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.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s repeated breaches were intentional and that an award of $1,500.00 exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) is warranted. Because: a. The tenant has repeatedly refused the landlord entry after receiving lawful notice of routine property inspections; b. The effect for the landlord is that it has no idea the condition of the house nor if any damages have occurred that it may not be insured for at present; c. The strong interest for landlord’s and the public generally, is tenants allow landlords entry to carry out property inspections on a quarterly basis; and d. In the circumstances I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant breached their obligations by failing to allow the landlord entry to carry out routine property inspections on five separate occasions in the period from June to November 2025. On all five dated listed in paragraph [7] above, the landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant, but the breach was not remedied within the required period. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having heard the evidence I am satisfied the tenant should be given one final opportunity to grant access to the landlord to carry out a routine inspection on Friday 19 December 2025. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389817 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
ndlordTenant Exemplary damages- Tenant failing to allow landlord to enter upon premises in circumstances where landlord	$1,500.00	ndlordTenant Exemplary damages- Tenant failing to allow landlord to enter upon premises in circumstances where landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Patricia Paul must pay [The landlord] $1,528.00 immediately, calculated as se out in the table below:
Patricia Paul must allow the landlord to undertake a routine property inspection on Friday 19 December 2025 at 4pm. If the tenant refuses the landlord entry, the tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. Did the tenant fail to allow the landlord entry in circumstances where the landlord is entitled to enter?
[The landlord] claims the tenant has not allowed it entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has produced evidence that after receiving lawful notice, the tenant has refused the landlord entry to carry out routine property inspections on 24 June 2025, 21 July 2025, 25 September 2025, 14 November 2025 and 28 November 2025. Each time the landlord had issued the tenant with a 14-day breach notice for failure to allow entry and for engaging in threatening and intimidating behavioural conduct. The landlord claims the behavioural conduct of the tenant on 24 November 2025 was so threatening and intimidating she reported the incident to the Police as she feared for her safety. She stated the tenant had told her she could not enter the house, “stood over her” and was “in her face” and told her “my life is good now and you have to come to ruin my life”. She also threatened the property manager that her cousin, that is a member of parliament would “come after” the property manager.
The last property inspection was conducted on 24 April 2025. The owner’s insurance policy requires the property manager to carry out routine property inspections every 3 months or the insurance is invalidated. The tenant’s repeated refusal to allow entry for the purpose of carrying out an inspection has put the landlord in a challenging situation and has caused it real risk. Any damage caused by the tenant during the tenancy will not be covered at all by insurance, thereby creating increased risk for the tenant as well.
I find the tenant has 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.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s repeated breaches were intentional and that an award of $1,500.00 exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) is warranted. Because: a. The tenant has repeatedly refused the landlord entry after receiving lawful notice of routine property inspections; b. The effect for the landlord is that it has no idea the condition of the house nor if any damages have occurred that it may not be insured for at present; c. The strong interest for landlord’s and the public generally, is tenants allow landlords entry to carry out property inspections on a quarterly basis; and d. In the circumstances I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant breached their obligations by failing to allow the landlord entry to carry out routine property inspections on five separate occasions in the period from June to November 2025. On all five dated listed in paragraph [7] above, the landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant, but the breach was not remedied within the required period. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having heard the evidence I am satisfied the tenant should be given one final opportunity to grant access to the landlord to carry out a routine inspection on Friday 19 December 2025. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389817 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389817 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions