What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400190 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 5400190?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400190?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment, Illegal Lockout, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13228604-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400190 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 5400190?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400190?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment, Illegal Lockout, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13228604-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5400190 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord] must pay [the tenant] immediately the sum of $650.00 exemplary damages for invalid notice to terminate.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has a number of claims against the landlord. He seeks over $30,000 in compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages up to the following amounts for breaches under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) as follows: a. Failure to provide an address for service, section 13A(1A)(f). b. Forged bond documentation, sections 19 and 109: $1,500 c. Retaliatory termination, section 54$6,500 d. Invalid 48-hour notice, section 55 and 60AA$4,000 e. False information to WINZ, section 109(1)(e)$4,000 f. Interference with quiet enjoyment, section 38$3,000
The tenant also seeks: a. a declaration that the 48-hour notice was retaliatory and invalid (sections 54, 55, 60AA) b. a declaration that the bond documentation was forged. c. repayment of the bond of $1,300. d. repayment of rent during “lockout” $2,339. e. Move in costs due to forced relocation $2,500 f. compensation for theft of personal property $5,000. Background
This dispute concerns a boarding house tenancy between the parties starting on 5 September 2025. This was for Room 5.
The parties agree that there had been a previous such agreement for Rooms 1 1 and 9 at the same establishment.
Following the end of the earlier tenancy, there had been a confusing episode regarding release of the bond for the previous tenancy for Room 9. This is discussed further below.
When the current agreement was entered into, the tenant was expecting to be in Room 9 again. He was bailed to reside at that address. The tenant said that the only bail condition was the residential one.
Unfortunately, it transpired that the occupant who had agreed to vacate Room 9 had changed his mind. Therefore, the room that was available for the tenant was Room 5. Some of the tenant’s claims hinge on the fact that the room available for him to occupy differed from the one on the terms of his bail.
The onus is on the tenant to establish his claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant confirmed that the bond of $1,300.00 has been refunded and so that application is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide an address for service?

Section 13A of the Act sets out the required contents of a residential tenancies agreement. These include the landlord’s address for service (section 13A(1)(f)). 1 In fact, the earlier agreement refers to Room 7.
The tenancy agreement shows two addresses for the landlord: and office address of [address suppressed], and a postal address of [address suppressed].
Although the section of the tenant details specifies that his email address and physical address are both addresses for service, the landlord’s ones do not. Failure to provide an address for service amounts to an unlawful act. Therefore, technically, the landlord has committed an unlawful act for which a maximum of $750 exemplary damages may be ordered. 2
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 find that there was no intent to avoid any responsibility or cause inconvenience to the tenant. The tenant has had no difficulty in instigating proceedings against the landlord and has not established any ill effect from the tenancy agreement not saying that either of those addresses is an address for service.
In the present case, there is no public interest in ordering the landlord to pay exemplary damages for this oversight and so no order is made.
It is recommended that the landlord review their tenancy agreement form to ensure that it complies with all aspects of section 13A, including by specifying which addresses may be used as an address for service. An email address for service is not required but is desirable and is commonplace.

Did the landlord fail to comply with section 19?

The tenant seeks exemplary damages, alleging the landlord failed to comply with the requirements of section 19, which specifies the landlord’s obligations on receipt of the bond. In particular, the bond must be lodged within 23 working days.
The says that the landlord has forged his signature.
There is no evidence of a failure to lodge the bond. Section 19 does not cover the matter that concerns the tenant.
As explained at the hearing, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make findings of forgery. 2 See section 13A(1AAA) and Schedule 1A
The grievance actually arises from the documentation signed in April 2025, when the parties entered into a boarding tenancy agreement for Room 7. 3 The tenant signed this agreement using his initials. The tenant later moved to Room 9.
In fact, given it transpired that the tenant has received his bond refund, there was probably no need for me to spend the time I did trying to understand the various bond refund forms and amounts. However, I make the following observations:
At the end of that first tenancy, on 26 August, the landlord submitted a bond refund form to Tenancy Services splitting the bond. They wanted $754 of the $1,300 bond to be paid to them, and the balance paid to the tenant. The form was signed by the landlord, but not by the tenant.
The landlord said that they often seek a refund in this way. They said that Tenancy Services then contacts the tenant to get agreement.
This differs from the usual practice where either: a. the parties agree on the terms of the refund of bond and the landlord submits a bond form signed by both parties; or b. if there is no agreement, one or both parties apply to the Tribunal to release the bond. If the landlord has claims against the bond, the onus is on them to establish the basis for those claims.
Here, a somewhat complicated arrangement was made where the balance of the tenant’s part of the refund from the first tenancy was to be transferred to the new tenancy, with WINZ paying a top-up of the new bond.
In summary, the landlord submitted a total of three bond forms to the Bond Centre: a. one with only the landlord’s signature b. one with the signatures of both parties c. one with the landlord’s signature and the tenant’s initials
The third bond refund form was dated 16 October 2025. It was for $1,300 to be refunded to the landlord. This is the one with the tenant’s initials on it. Tenancy Services then queried the difference in the tenant’s signature compared with the second bond form.
The tenant denies signing the third bond form and says that the landlord copied and pasted his initials from the first tenancy agreement. 3 The parties referred to this as Room 1 during the hearing. The room number for the last tenancy does not need to be determined.
The landlord’s explanation is that at the time that the tenant signed the first tenancy agreement, a bond refund form was automatically generated with his signature, in this case, his initials. They say that they usually have the tenant sign the bond refund form at the start of the tenancy in this way.
The tenant says he was not aware that at the time of signing the tenancy agreement, he was also signing a bond refund form. He has now received the $1,300 back but is aggrieved that it appears that his signature was forged.
As noted above, I can make no finding on the question of forgery, but I do comment: a. It is not surprising that the tenant was upset to see his initials on a bond form that he denies signing. b. There is no reason to have a tenant sign a blank bond refund form at the start of the tenancy. If there is a problem with getting a tenant to sign a bond refund form at the end of the tenancy when the landlord is seeking compensation, an application can be made to the Tribunal for compensation and release of the bond, either in full to the landlord or split between the parties, depending on the amounts owed.
It is recommended that the landlord cease any practice that asks a tenant to sign a blank bond refund form at the start of the tenancy.

Was the notice to terminate the tenancy retaliatory?

On 13 November 2025 the landlord gave the tenant two notices ending the tenancy. One gives the tenant 48 hours’ notice. The other gives the tenant 28 days’ notice.
Before considering the tenant’s claim I note the formatting of the dates is inconsistent and confusing.
The 48-hour notice is dated “11/12/2025” and says that the tenant must vacate by 14-11-2025”. It is supposed to be dated 12 November, not 11 December with an end date of 14 November. The date format for the date of the letter has the month before the day, whereas the date of vacation within the same letter has the day before the month.
The 28-day notice is dated “12/11/2025”. It is also 12 November. The end date of the tenancy is “12-17-2025”. This time the date format for the date of the letter has the day before the month, but the date of vacation within the same letter has the month before the day. In other words, the other way around from the other notice.
It is recommended that the landlord ensure consistency in such letters and should use the full name of the month, rather than a number, to avoid confusion. Further, the date of the notice should be the date on which it is served. The parties agree that the notices were given to the tenant on 13 November 2025.
The tenant claims the 48-hour 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.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord’s rights and responsibilities for termination of a boarding house tenancy are set out in section 66U. In particular: (1)The landlord of a boarding house may terminate a boarding house tenancy— (a) immediately, if the tenant has— (i) caused, or threatened to cause, serious damage to the premises; or (ii) endangered, or threatened to endanger, people or property; or (iii) caused, or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants; or (b) on 48 hours’ notice, if— (i) the landlord has, by written notice to the tenant, required the tenant to pay any rent in arrears within a stated period of not less than 10 days, commencing on the day the notice is given, and the tenant fails to pay the rent in arrears within the stated period; or (ii) the tenant is using the premises for an illegal purpose; or (iii) the landlord believes, having complied with section 66X, that the tenant has abandoned the room; or (c) on 14 days’ notice, if the tenancy is also a service tenancy, in which case section 53 applies; or (d) on 28 days’ notice, if no reason is given.
The tenant says that the landlord gave him notice after he emailed the tenancy manager, [name suppressed], saying that he is going to bring a private prosecution against them. In that email, the tenant alleges that the landlord is guilty of three crimes under the Crimes Act 1961: forgery, section 256, using a forged document, section 263 and conspiracy to commit an offence under section 310. That email was sent on 11 November 2025.
The tenant says that it was as a result of sending this notice, that the landlord terminated the tenancy.
The email does not refer to any right under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 or the tenancy agreement, but it clearly amounts to a complaint against the landlord.
Had that been the only email that the tenant had sent around this time, then his argument would have had some weight in deciding whether the landlord was at least partially motivated to terminate the tenancy because of receiving this email. However, between 30 October 2025 and 10 November 2025, the tenant sent the landlord several other emails. These were prompted by his belief that the landlord had forged his signature on the bond refund form.
The first one, dated 30 October 2025 includes the following: “I don’t care about my bound. I’m going all out, [***] kill myself over this, cause you’re a bunch of evil, money hunger [***]. And NZ needs a bad guy. [***] sign my name you reckon. I’ll make sure you die for that. [***] sign my name you [***]!!!!!!!!!!!!!” 4
This email contains a threat to harm and would provide a basis for terminating the tenancy immediately under section 66U(1)(a).
In a second one sent on the same date to a different landlord email address is not as direct, saying, “Cause I’d kill you for signing my name.”
On 5 November the tenant sent further abusive messages which contained no actual threats. The landlord responded, trying to provide an explanation. In one email, a staff member said that she had been trying to ring him and asked him to ring her to discuss.
In an email dated 10 November, the tenant said, “I just wanted you to know so you can sweat a bit before hell opens up on your ‘church’. I’d encourage you to seek legal advice but it’s not going to do you a lick of good. Shouldn’t have [***] with my bail sunshine. See you guys real soon”.
On 12 November, the tenant emailed saying, “Okay, you guys all voted so I found your addresses on the electoral roll. I will serve you at your home if you do not confirm an email address to be served to.” He named six staff members and said, “As I’ll most likely be serving you in person I’ll be using this email as proof of service if you pretend I never served you and act unaware in court as a defence”. This is followed by a winking emoji.
On 13 November 2025 the tenancy manager emailed the tenant attaching the two notices to terminate. In the email, [the tenancy manager] said, “Due to the threats you’ve sent my team via email I will need to follow through on a 48-hour eviction of your tenancy. Please see PDF documents attached, and threatening 4 The brackets [***] are offensive words that have been redacted from the publicised decision. email references below.” He referred to three of the emails outlined above, with specific quotes.
The tenant has not established on the balance of probabilities that the notice to terminate was given because the tenant had endeavoured to exercise a right or make a complaint. I find it is more likely that the 48-hour notice was given because of the threatening and abusive language in the emails the tenant sent to the landlord. I do not find that this was retaliatory notice.

Was the notice to terminate invalid?

The 48-hour notice in fact said that the grounds for termination were because the tenant had caused serious disruption to other tenants. The notice says that it is issued under section 66U of the Act, and section 66U(1)(a) was reproduced in the letter. 5 That is the subsection that allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy immediately.
The notice did not terminate the tenancy immediately, and also cited the grounds for termination were serious disturbance of other tenants. The only evidence of a possible disturbance of other tenants was earlier in the tenancy, on or about 19 September when the [the tenant] returned to the premises. The kaitiaki or head tenant believed [the tenant] was smoking cannabis. He called the manager who visited late at night and there was a heated verbal exchange. No action was taken to terminate the tenancy following this. I observe that an argument between the manager and the tenant might not properly fall into the category of a tenant causing serious disruption to other tenants.
The landlord said that the manager had said that the tenant was using threatening language. The manager gave the tenant a verbal 28-day notice. That was never put in writing and served.
I find that at any time the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy by giving 28 days’ notice in writing under section 66U(1)(d).
The landlord was also entitled to terminate the tenancy immediately under section 66U(1)(a)(i) on the grounds that the tenant had threatened to endanger people or property. However, the landlord terminated the tenancy on 48 hours’ notice on the grounds that the tenant had caused serious disruption to other tenants.
The landlord knew that this was not the reason for the notice. I find that the 48- hour notice that was issued was invalid.
Section 60AA says that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to 5 See above, paragraph 44. the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
I am satisfied that the landlord knew, or ought to have known, that the notice was invalid. The letter set out the provisions of section 66U, which included the fact that one ground is that the tenant has threatened harm, but that is not the ground that the landlord relied on in the letter. The landlord has used the words “caused serious disruption to other tenants”.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 maximum award under Schedule 1A for a breach of section 60AA is $6,500.
It is not necessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, simply that they intended the act or omission that amounts to a breach. The landlord intended to give the tenant the notice to end the tenancy and therefore intended the unlawful act.
There is a public interest in ensuring that landlords take care to ensure they are acting within the law when issuing notices and also that this landlord ensures that their staff are properly trained and resourced to comply with the requirements under the Act.
The impact on the tenant is that his tenancy was ended on 48 hours’ notice.
That is balanced against the fact that the landlord had grounds to end the tenancy immediately, and that the tenant told the Tribunal that he had not been living at the property because the room number differed from the one which he was bailed to reside at.
Therefore, on balance, I find that an order for $650 is appropriate. Has the landlord interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?
Section 38 of the Act provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord.
Section 38(2) says that 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 says that the landlord interfered with his quiet enjoyment by: a. putting him in the wrong room; b. notifying Probation and Bail Service of the room change; c. changing the locks.
The tenant says that he did not stay at the address because it would have been a breach of bail if he was in the wrong room. He says that he was arrested for breach of bail because of the landlord’s actions.
I do not accept the tenant’s argument. He said that he did not stay at the address at [the boarding house], choosing instead to stay with the mother of his child. The tenant provided no evidence from the Police or Corrections regarding the circumstances of his arrest for breach of bail, but if he was arrested, I find it more likely that it was because he was not staying at the [boarding house] address at all, rather than because he was in the wrong room.
If he needed to have his bail varied, then it was up to his lawyer to attend to that.
As explained at the hearing, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine issues concerning privacy of information. The Tribunal has previously observed: 6 The word 'privacy' in section 38(2) RTA does not mean privacy in the sense of the Privacy Act 1993. The purpose of the section is to ensure tenants are free from unwarranted or undue intrusion or disturbance in their private lives while living at the tenancy premises.
The landlord provided a copy of a statement the tenant had agreed to by ticking a box. It reads: I give permission for [the landlord] to share my information with other agencies like Ministry for Social Development, Department of Corrections and other accommodation providers to assist with matching suitable housing for my circumstances. By clicking yes, I am allowing [the landlord] and the select agencies to disclose the authorised information to each other under Principle 11 of the Privacy Act 1993.
The tenant was given an opportunity to reply to this but did not do so. 6 In Thompson-Huntley v K J P Investments Limited [2021] NZTT Waitakere 4260498 at 33. Applied in [Suppressed] v [Suppressed] [2022] NZTT [Event location suppressed] 4319072.
It seems that the landlord notified relevant authorities of the room change in an effort to assist the tenant with variation of his bail and/or protect the tenant from being arrested for breach of bail. I do not find that this is a breach of his personal privacy under section 38 of the Act.
The tenant said that when he returned to the premises on 21 September 2025, the locks to the main door and to his room had been changed. The landlord said that only the main door lock had been changed. The tenant acknowledged that he had not been to his room on that day.
The landlord explained that from time to time the lock to the main door needs to be changed, such as when a tenant exits a tenancy but does not return the key. The tenants simply need to contact reception or the manager to get a new key. Many tenants just ask someone on the ground floor, near the door to open the door. [The tenant] agreed that is what happens, which is why occupying a room near the door is not desirable.
Section 46 of the Act says that a landlord cannot change the locks without the tenant’s consent, but that section does not apply to boarding house tenancies. 7
The tenant has not established that the landlord has interfered with his quiet enjoyment of the property.

Should the landlord repay any rent?

The tenant seeks $2,339 repayment of rent during “lockout”.
The tenant has not established that he was locked out or prevented from using the room on the tenancy agreement. This claim is dismissed.

Should the landlord pay relocation costs?

The tenant claims $2,500 for relocation costs. He has provided no evidence of any relocation costs or why the landlord should be responsible for them. Any inconvenience caused by the invalid notice has been considered in the order for exemplary damages. That claim is dismissed.

Should the tenant be compensated for theft of personal property?

The tenant claims $5,000 for theft of personal property, including a TV, PS5, clothes and bedding.
The tenant has provided no evidence of the purchase price, age, or replacement cost of any items, but more importantly, he has provided no evidence as to how or why the landlord is responsible for any loss of property. That claim is dismissed. 7 See section 66A(2)(c).
The tenant has not substantially succeeded and so there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Because this decision has reference to the tenant being on bail, without any details of the reasons for it, I have decided that it is in the interests of justice that he has name suppression. The landlord has been largely successful and so name suppression is ordered for them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400190 — 14-day notice

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400190 — 14-day notice

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide an address for service?

Did the landlord fail to comply with section 19?

Was the notice to terminate the tenancy retaliatory?

Was the notice to terminate invalid?

Should the landlord repay any rent?

Should the landlord pay relocation costs?

Should the tenant be compensated for theft of personal property?

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide an address for service?

Did the landlord fail to comply with section 19?

Was the notice to terminate the tenancy retaliatory?

Was the notice to terminate invalid?

Should the landlord repay any rent?

Should the landlord pay relocation costs?

Should the tenant be compensated for theft of personal property?