What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400845 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 5400845?

Compensation: Bond Refund: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400845?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400845?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13411661-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400845 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 5400845?

Compensation: Bond Refund: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400845?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400845?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13411661-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

27 Dovey Place, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5400845 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5400845 — net $3,478.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bond Refund	$1,500.00	Bond Refund
Exemplary damages: Section 38	$1,200.00	Section 38
Exemplary damages: Section 19	$750.00	Section 19
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,478.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,478.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.
Vimaal Sharma and Sima Prasad must pay [The tenant/s] $3,478.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

If Vimaal Sharma does not comply with order 2 on or before Friday 17 April 2026, the applicant may withhold rent to the value of the award.

Reasons

The landlord and tenant entered into a fixed-term tenancy that commenced on 4 August 2025 for a two-year fixed term. The landlord made an application to the Tribunal seeking to end the fixed-term tenancy on the grounds of financial difficulty. That application was dealt with separately, and the Tribunal found that there were no grounds for early termination of the fixed-term tenancy.
On 2 April 2026, I heard the tenants’ application. The landlord did not attend the hearing. After the hearing, I received notification from the registry that the landlord had provided a medical certificate stating that they were unwell. This was provided after the hearing, and it was open to the landlord to arrange representation in their absence if they were unable to attend.
The tenants advised that their application seeks compensation and exemplary damages arising from the pressure they say they were subjected to by the landlord to vacate the property. They seek compensation to enable them to relocate to another property.
This application was made for exemplary damages and compensation, and those are the matters considered at this hearing. The previous hearing concerned early termination of the fixed-term tenancy. That application was made by the landlord, opposed by the tenants, and declined. There is no application before me for early termination of the fixed-term tenancy. I explained to the tenants that if they wished to pursue that course, the hearing would need to be adjourned and the landlord given notice. The tenants elected to proceed on the matters contained in their original application.
The previous Tribunal decision records that the landlord purchased the property in 2013, at which time they operated a successful multi-million-dollar business and owned multiple investment properties in addition to a family home. More recently, the landlord’s business failed, and the majority of the investment properties were sold by the bank. This property is the last remaining investment property. The landlord expressed a wish to control the sale of the property rather than have it sold by the bank as a mortgagee sale for less than market value.
The landlord was aware of their deteriorating financial position at the time of entering into the fixed-term tenancy. Following the commencement of the tenancy, the tenants say the landlord began to pressure them to vacate. The tenants have provided text messages and communications showing that pressure was applied during November, January, and March.
The parties share a cultural background, and the tone of the messages is, respectful and courteous. However, it is clear from the content that pressure was being applied to the tenants to vacate in order to allow the landlord proceed with a sale to a prospective purchaser. A fuller record of the background facts is contained in the Tribunal order dated 5 March.
The tenants state that the landlord failed to lodge their bond of $1,500, and that the pressure and uncertainty caused by the landlord’s conduct amounts to harassment and a breach of quiet enjoyment under section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. They also allege that the landlord failed to maintain the property, referring to a kitchen sink leak, and that the landlord’s conduct amounted to an attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds, contrary to section 60AA of the Act.
The tenants also raised a claim of retaliatory notice. I discussed this with the applicants at the hearing. Retaliatory notice arises where, after a tenant asserts their legal rights (for example, requesting maintenance), the landlord responds by issuing a termination notice. The factual circumstances described here relate instead to general conduct and pressure applied by the landlord.
While I accept that the landlord’s conduct was improper, unprofessional, and in breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment, the facts do not support a finding of retaliatory notice. That claim is therefore dismissed.
The claim for failure to maintain under section 45 is not made out on the evidence. The tenants referred to a single text message sent in August requesting maintenance relating to a broken cabinet door, a leak, and an odour. The exchange was amicable, and the landlord indicated they would follow this up. There is no further evidence as to whether the issue was resolved, and no additional communications were provided. The tenants have not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the issue remained unresolved. That claim is dismissed.
The claim under section 60AA, alleging that the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds, is also not made out. While the landlord’s conduct was improper and ill-founded, the previous Tribunal decision records that the landlord genuinely believed they had grounds to terminate the tenancy under section 58.
For exemplary damages to be awarded, there must be intentional conduct. Intent requires knowledge that the conduct is unlawful. The evidence suggests a genuinely held, albeit incorrect, belief that termination was lawful. Accordingly, the claim under section 60AA is dismissed.
The tenants claim that their right to quiet enjoyment, protected under section 38, was breached by the landlord’s conduct. The text messages show that shortly after the tenancy commenced, and from around October onwards, the landlord began pressuring the tenants to vacate. This included repeated messages in November offering alternative properties, asserting that no tenancy existed, and referring to the bond as an incentive to encourage them to leave. Additionally the landlord provided their details to the prospective purchaser to apply to them additional pressure and assert unfounded rights of possession.
Taking into account the text messages and the wider context recorded in the decision of 5 March, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment was intentionally interfered with by the landlord.
This is aggravated by the fact that this was a fixed-term tenancy, which is intended to provide certainty and security of tenure for both parties. The landlord’s conduct demonstrates a disregard for those protections and an attempt to pressure the tenants for the landlord’s own financial benefit.
The tenants describe significant stress, including impacts on their wellbeing and their children, and ongoing uncertainty about their housing situation. Tenants are in a comparatively weaker position in the landlord–tenant relationship, and the Act provides protections to ensure stability of tenure. There is a strong public interest in upholding those protections.
I am satisfied that the landlord has committed an unlawful act under section 38(3). This is a relatively serious breach. In the circumstances, an award of $1,200, being the mid-range of the available penalty, is appropriate.
The tenants also seek the return of their bond, which was not lodged with the Bond Centre. The tenants provided evidence that the bond of $1,500 was paid to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged holding the bond and, on at least one occasion, referred to it as an incentive for the tenants to vacate.
A bond is the property of the tenants and must be held in trust by the Bond Centre as security for the landlord. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that bonds are properly lodged and not misused.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to comply with section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires the bond to be lodged within 23 working days of receipt. The landlord is to immediately return the bond of $1,500. In addition, an award of $750 is made for the failure to lodge and the improper use of the bond.
Given the landlords precarious financial position, I have made allowance for the tenant to recover this award from the rent payable should the landlord not comply.
As the tenants have been substantially successful in their application, the filing fee is awarded. Suppression is also granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5400845 — net $3,478.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bond Refund	$1,500.00	Bond Refund
Exemplary damages: Section 38	$1,200.00	Section 38
Exemplary damages: Section 19	$750.00	Section 19
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,478.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,478.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.
Vimaal Sharma and Sima Prasad must pay [The tenant/s] $3,478.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

If Vimaal Sharma does not comply with order 2 on or before Friday 17 April 2026, the applicant may withhold rent to the value of the award.

Reasons

The landlord and tenant entered into a fixed-term tenancy that commenced on 4 August 2025 for a two-year fixed term. The landlord made an application to the Tribunal seeking to end the fixed-term tenancy on the grounds of financial difficulty. That application was dealt with separately, and the Tribunal found that there were no grounds for early termination of the fixed-term tenancy.
On 2 April 2026, I heard the tenants’ application. The landlord did not attend the hearing. After the hearing, I received notification from the registry that the landlord had provided a medical certificate stating that they were unwell. This was provided after the hearing, and it was open to the landlord to arrange representation in their absence if they were unable to attend.
The tenants advised that their application seeks compensation and exemplary damages arising from the pressure they say they were subjected to by the landlord to vacate the property. They seek compensation to enable them to relocate to another property.
This application was made for exemplary damages and compensation, and those are the matters considered at this hearing. The previous hearing concerned early termination of the fixed-term tenancy. That application was made by the landlord, opposed by the tenants, and declined. There is no application before me for early termination of the fixed-term tenancy. I explained to the tenants that if they wished to pursue that course, the hearing would need to be adjourned and the landlord given notice. The tenants elected to proceed on the matters contained in their original application.
The previous Tribunal decision records that the landlord purchased the property in 2013, at which time they operated a successful multi-million-dollar business and owned multiple investment properties in addition to a family home. More recently, the landlord’s business failed, and the majority of the investment properties were sold by the bank. This property is the last remaining investment property. The landlord expressed a wish to control the sale of the property rather than have it sold by the bank as a mortgagee sale for less than market value.
The landlord was aware of their deteriorating financial position at the time of entering into the fixed-term tenancy. Following the commencement of the tenancy, the tenants say the landlord began to pressure them to vacate. The tenants have provided text messages and communications showing that pressure was applied during November, January, and March.
The parties share a cultural background, and the tone of the messages is, respectful and courteous. However, it is clear from the content that pressure was being applied to the tenants to vacate in order to allow the landlord proceed with a sale to a prospective purchaser. A fuller record of the background facts is contained in the Tribunal order dated 5 March.
The tenants state that the landlord failed to lodge their bond of $1,500, and that the pressure and uncertainty caused by the landlord’s conduct amounts to harassment and a breach of quiet enjoyment under section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. They also allege that the landlord failed to maintain the property, referring to a kitchen sink leak, and that the landlord’s conduct amounted to an attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds, contrary to section 60AA of the Act.
The tenants also raised a claim of retaliatory notice. I discussed this with the applicants at the hearing. Retaliatory notice arises where, after a tenant asserts their legal rights (for example, requesting maintenance), the landlord responds by issuing a termination notice. The factual circumstances described here relate instead to general conduct and pressure applied by the landlord.
While I accept that the landlord’s conduct was improper, unprofessional, and in breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment, the facts do not support a finding of retaliatory notice. That claim is therefore dismissed.
The claim for failure to maintain under section 45 is not made out on the evidence. The tenants referred to a single text message sent in August requesting maintenance relating to a broken cabinet door, a leak, and an odour. The exchange was amicable, and the landlord indicated they would follow this up. There is no further evidence as to whether the issue was resolved, and no additional communications were provided. The tenants have not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the issue remained unresolved. That claim is dismissed.
The claim under section 60AA, alleging that the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds, is also not made out. While the landlord’s conduct was improper and ill-founded, the previous Tribunal decision records that the landlord genuinely believed they had grounds to terminate the tenancy under section 58.
For exemplary damages to be awarded, there must be intentional conduct. Intent requires knowledge that the conduct is unlawful. The evidence suggests a genuinely held, albeit incorrect, belief that termination was lawful. Accordingly, the claim under section 60AA is dismissed.
The tenants claim that their right to quiet enjoyment, protected under section 38, was breached by the landlord’s conduct. The text messages show that shortly after the tenancy commenced, and from around October onwards, the landlord began pressuring the tenants to vacate. This included repeated messages in November offering alternative properties, asserting that no tenancy existed, and referring to the bond as an incentive to encourage them to leave. Additionally the landlord provided their details to the prospective purchaser to apply to them additional pressure and assert unfounded rights of possession.
Taking into account the text messages and the wider context recorded in the decision of 5 March, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment was intentionally interfered with by the landlord.
This is aggravated by the fact that this was a fixed-term tenancy, which is intended to provide certainty and security of tenure for both parties. The landlord’s conduct demonstrates a disregard for those protections and an attempt to pressure the tenants for the landlord’s own financial benefit.
The tenants describe significant stress, including impacts on their wellbeing and their children, and ongoing uncertainty about their housing situation. Tenants are in a comparatively weaker position in the landlord–tenant relationship, and the Act provides protections to ensure stability of tenure. There is a strong public interest in upholding those protections.
I am satisfied that the landlord has committed an unlawful act under section 38(3). This is a relatively serious breach. In the circumstances, an award of $1,200, being the mid-range of the available penalty, is appropriate.
The tenants also seek the return of their bond, which was not lodged with the Bond Centre. The tenants provided evidence that the bond of $1,500 was paid to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged holding the bond and, on at least one occasion, referred to it as an incentive for the tenants to vacate.
A bond is the property of the tenants and must be held in trust by the Bond Centre as security for the landlord. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that bonds are properly lodged and not misused.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to comply with section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires the bond to be lodged within 23 working days of receipt. The landlord is to immediately return the bond of $1,500. In addition, an award of $750 is made for the failure to lodge and the improper use of the bond.
Given the landlords precarious financial position, I have made allowance for the tenant to recover this award from the rent payable should the landlord not comply.
As the tenants have been substantially successful in their application, the filing fee is awarded. Suppression is also granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400845 — Exemplary damages at 27 Dovey Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400845 — Exemplary damages at 27 Dovey Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions