What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407676 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for a suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5407676?

Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Use Of Shower: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407676?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407676?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13181855-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407676 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for a suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5407676?

Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Use Of Shower: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407676?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407676?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13181855-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Chaucer Road South, Hospital Hill, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407676 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407676. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: loss of use of shower	$150.00	loss of use of shower
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$575.00	breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: harassment	$1,000.00	harassment
Exemplary damages: fail to appoint agent	$500.00	fail to appoint agent
Exemplary damages: unlawful notice of termination	$1,000.00	unlawful notice of termination
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407676. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: loss of use of shower	$150.00	loss of use of shower
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$575.00	breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: harassment	$1,000.00	harassment
Exemplary damages: fail to appoint agent	$500.00	fail to appoint agent
Exemplary damages: unlawful notice of termination	$1,000.00	unlawful notice of termination
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for a suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The tenancy of at is terminated, and possession is granted to , at 11:59pm on 18 March 2024. The tenancy may be ended earlier by the tenants giving the landlord 7 days’ notice in writing.
Khaterina Maniadis must pay

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by teleconference at her request. Background
[The tenant/s]
At that time, the tenancy was managed by Ms Burney from RPM NZ Limited as the landlord’s agent. Ms Burney has provided a written statement.
Ms Burney did an inspection around 27 November 2025 and reported to the landlord. The tenants were asked to clean the shower and arrange for the removal of green waste.
On 28 November Ms Maniadis sent the tenants a 14-day notice including a “detailed instructional letter” stating, “You must remedy all breaches (cleaning, pest control, yard rubbish) by the deadline Friday, December 12, 2025.” It also stated “I, Kathy Maniadis am now the required point of contact for this notice. All communication and mandatory photographic evidence must be sent directly to me.”
Ms Burney says in her statement that the, “Tenants had already cleaned the bathroom prior to the notice being issued, Ms Maniadis was advised of this prior to the notice being sent..... Ms Maniadis had been advised that the rubbish would be removed by 30/11/25”
A txt from Ms Burney to the tenants on 27 November states, “Thank you for the photos. Thank you for blocking off the area where the rat was getting in.........Once again so sorry for the million questions, this is not usual practice.”
I find it proved on balance that at the time the landlord sent that 14 day notice to the tenants: a. the tenants had addressed the issues raised by the landlord’s agent Ms Burney during the inspection; b. the tenants were not in breach of their obligations; and c. the landlord had been told that by Ms Burney.
Ms Burney’s statement notes that she discovered a leak on the exterior cladding outside the shower wall and advised Ms Maniadis.
On 30 November Ms Maniadis issued a series of demands to the tenants.
The first stipulated that the sole point of contact for the landlord was Ms Maniadis and reminded the tenants that the prior 14 day notice was still effective;
The second, is headed “IMMEDIATE MANDATORY ACTION: CEASE ALL USE OF MAIN BATHROOM SHOWER.....DANGER AND LIABILITY WARNING: You must cease all use of the main bathroom shower IMMEDIATELY.....Any further damage caused by water ingress after the date and time of this notice will be deemed intentional and will result in you being held 100% financially liable for the full cost of the resulting structural repairs and mould remediation.....Please advise immediately how you plan to manage bathing during this period [until repaired] COMPLIANCE IS NOT OPTIONAL...”
A daily rent credit of $10.00 was offered but has not been paid.
The tenants responded that day, “Thanks for the update. We already Sease(sic) the bathing and shutdown the main shower from last night, so you can go ahead.”
The third notice that day, was an “Official Demand: 14-Day Notice to Remedy Breach – Required proof of Alternative Showering Arrangements” That notice alleged a breach of the tenants’ obligations by failing to meet the landlord’s demand that they “...provide written evidence and approval of where your alternative showering arrangements will be located.”
The fourth notice on 30 November was an updated series of demands supplementing the 14 day notice issued on 28 November including, “Confirmation Requirement Failure to provide the following photographic evidence by the deadline will constitute a failure to remedy the breach...You must e-mail the landlord high-resolution photographic proof of the fully remediated breaches, specifically showing: • the fully cleaned shower (base, glass, fixtures) • the clean fan grille • all accumulated rubbish removed from the property • The official receipt and report from the Licensed Pest Control Officer”
On 1 December the landlord sent a further 14 day notice alleging breach of the tenants’ obligations by unauthorised modifications and placement of poison/ traps. Again, very specific instructions were given as to what the tenants were required to do to remedy the breach, with a requirement that the tenants e- mail Ms Maniadis “...all required photographic proof.”
Another notice on 1 December alleged breach of the tenants’ obligation to provide proof of alternative showering arrangements and required, “Full Documentation: The address, contact details and evidence of the arrangement (eg. Membership confirmation, receipts for payment for the alternative showering facility you are utilizing).”
Another notice sent to the tenants on 1 December gave notice of an intended entry by the landlord’s plumber between 9:00am and 1:00pm on 2 November. It included a reminder that the shower and wet area not be used and that, “This instruction is legally binding...”
Another notice that day corrected the entry date for the plumber to 2 December.
Another notice on 1 December gave notice of entry to change locks on Wednesday 2 November between 11:00am and 3:00pm and another notice followed, correcting the date to for that entry to Wednesday December 3 rd .
Also on 1 December, Ms Maniadis sent the tenants another confirmation that the management agreement with RPM NZ Limited had been terminated and that the tenants should deal with Ms Maniadis direct.
On 3 December Ms Burney confirmed to the tenants that she was no longer managing the tenancy.
The tenants asked to end the tenancy early. On 4 December the landlord responded, “To confirm. We do not accept your request to end the tenancy agreement early. The agreement remains legally binding and you remain liable for all obligations until its’ contractual end date.”
The landlord issued another Notice to Remedy on 5 December alleging “The presence of mould, extreme filth and active rodent signs.” She required that the tenants “Provide Proof: Submit a receipt from the professional cleaning service AND photographic evidence showing the area underneath he cupboard fully cleaned and sanitized before the base is put back.”
The tenants’ evidence, which is supported by photographs, is that the material found under that cupboard, where rodent ingress had been looked for and was possible, included a toddler sized shoe (the tenants have a 5 year old) that suggested it was there when the tenancy started.
Another notice for a visit by the landlord’s plumber was given on 5 December “.......at some time today” (ie. without the required 24 hours’ notice”) 1 . That was followed by another notice the same day noting that the plumber had been unable to visit. In that communication Ms Maniadis withdrew the instruction not to sue the shower. Access for the plumber was instead requested for 8 December.
On 6 December the landlord again notified the tenant that the request to end the tenancy early was declined. This time, the communication included an allegation that work the tenants had done to apply new silicone in the shower, with Ms Burney’s approval, had “...directly obscured the source of the leak, 1 S.48(2)(d) RTA which complicated the builder’s ability to provide a swift diagnosis and escalated the necessary rectification work.”
The tenants’ evidence is that on 8 December, [Tenant 1] was working but [Tenant 2] was home. The plumber called [Tenant 1] to arrange a time to visit which [Tenant 1] received and responded to in his morning break, confirming it suited for the plumber to visit. By that time the plumber had arranged to do another job. The landlord sent the tenants a “FINAL URGENT NOTICE & WARNING: LIABILITY FOR ESCALATED DAMAGE – 2 CHAUCER ROAD”.
That notice alleged breach of the tenants’ obligations by refusing to allow entry to the plumber and that, “Your use of the severely leaking shower [which the landlord had specifically said the tenants could use in her 5 December notice] while actively refusing access for its repair is an act of malicious damage escalation. Any further property damage caused after the scheduled entry time of Wednesday, December 10 th , will be considered a direct result of your deliberate obstruction, and you will be held financially liable for the resultant, increased repair costs” A notice of entry for 10 December was included.
The landlord continued to insist that, “...the core issue from the 14 Day Notice to Remedy Breach remains outstanding: the damage resulting from the unauthorised silicone repair ion the bathroom/ shower area.”
The landlord’s plumber, [the plumber] has provided an extensive report. The essence of it is that: a. he was engaged in relation to a water leak in the shower at the premises; b. he has no relationship with the tenants other than having attended the premises as the landlord’s tradesperson; c. the scope of his engagement was to; i. investigate the shower water leak problems; ii. inspect the silicone job around the shower base [done by the tenants]; iii. determine the source of dampness at the base of the wall; iv. open the wall to locate the leak; v. repair the leaking pipework and reinstate the wall temporarily.
He found, and reported to the landlord, that: a. the house when he visited appeared “immaculately clean and tidy; b. the silicon around the shower base was a very well done job, “...the new silicone had been done to replace a very poor original silicone job which had failed and had black mould. The new silicone job was a job well done to fix an existing bad silicone job.” c. when he cut open the outside wall he found that water was leaking inside the wall from a corroded galvanised water fitting on the cold water feed. The leak had been dripping inside the wall causing dampness in the wall cavity. [Photographs have been provided]. d. he fixed it and temporarily reinstated the wall.
The landlord’s position is that the plumber’s report is wrong. She says that is proved by a discarded shower flange which appears in one of the photos taken after he had completed the work. She insists that there must be another cause than the leak shown in the photographs and described by [the plumber]. She alleges collusion between her agent Ms Burney, her plumber and the tenants, to make a false story of the leak and other problems resulting from the age and condition of the house, rather than the tenants’ actions.
On 26 January 2026 the landlord gave the tenants a Notice to Vacate stating that that the final day of the tenancy would be 25 February 2026. The Issues
The tenants seek orders: a. allowing the tenancy to end before the fixed term – giving them 4 weeks to find alternative accommodation; b. for compensation for the period they could not use the shower; c. for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to appoint an agent in New Zealand after the previous agency ended; d. for compensation and/ or exemplary damages for breach of their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises and harassment; e. for exemplary damages, for being issued an unlawful notice of termination; f. for refund of their bond.
The landlord’s application includes a number of claims. At the hearing Ms Maniadis confirmed that she is just seeking termination of the tenancy so she can have access to the premises to inspect and address any required repairs. Bond
The bond is provided as security for the tenants meeting their obligations. That cannot be assessed until the tenancy ends. It would be premature to determine the parties’ entitlements to the bond until then. Shower
The tenants were instructed not to use the shower on 30 November 2025. They were told they could use it again on 5 December 2025.
They should be compensated for that lack of amenity, which I fix at $150.00. Termination
There is no dispute that the tenancy should end before the fixed term expires on 18 July 2026.
What the Tribunal needs to decide is: a. what should the end date be; and b. was the landlord’s termination notice unlawful.
At the hearing the landlord submitted that she was entitled to end the tenancy on short notice because the premises are uninhabitable 2 .
The evidence falls far short of showing that premises are uninhabitable. Even before [the plumber] fixed the water leak, the landlord had removed her prohibition on using the shower.
Understandably, the landlord wants access to the premises to assess and remedy any existing or ongoing damage. She can do so by exercising her lawful rights of entry 3 .
The notice of termination simply says that the landlord, “...will be personally attending the property to resolve the ongoing moisture and structural issues. To get to the bottom of the leakage, internal wall linings must be removed and the sub-floor inspected. This work cannot be performed while the property is occupied.”
With respect, there is insufficient evidence to support those assertions. The evidence is that there was a leak in the wall from a galvanised pipe joint. That has been fixed. The evidence does not prove a likelihood of ongoing moisture damage, though there may of course be moisture damage that is not obvious and that will require repair.
The landlord was not entitled to end the tenancy by notice because the premises were uninhabitable. 2 S. 59(1) and (2) RTA - Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), the premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable...either party may give [for a landlord 7 days’] notice to the other terminating the tenancy. 3 S.48 RTA
Even if this was a periodic tenancy which could be ended by notice, 90 days’ notice would be required. The termination notice was unlawful and there is no basis to end the tenancy earlier than the 4 weeks proposed by the tenants.
The landlord issued a notice of termination she was not entitled to give. I find it more likely than not, that she knew she was not entitled to give the notice - having already asserted to the tenants that they could not give notice and were bound to the 1 year term.
By doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $6,500.00 may be awarded. 4
The unlawful act having been committed intentionally, the Tribunal must decide whether an award of exemplary damages would be just having regard to the landlord’s intent, the interests of the tenants, the effect of the breach on the tenants and the public interest. 5
The fact that the landlord declined the tenants’ request to end the tenancy early but then tried to end it on short notice when circumstances suited her, is an aggravating factor.
I take into account that when the landlord issued the notice, she was aware that the tenants too wanted to end the fixed term early so the consequence of the notice being issued would not have been to deny the tenants the whole of the remaining term.
Giving the notice in these circumstances represents a pattern, shown by the evidence, of the landlord asserting rights she does not have, in a manner causing prejudice to the tenants. The public interest requires that landlords be aware of their rights and obligations and that their rights be exercised in a way consistent with tenants’ entitlements.
I find it would be just to make a meaningful but moderate (considering the maximum) award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment of the premises and/ or harass them?
A landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises 6 .
Breaching that 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 7 . 4 S.60AA and Schedule 1A RTA 5 S.109(3) RTA 6 S.38(2) 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 evidence does not prove that the tenants were in breach of their obligations in any way.
The landlord was told that. For instance, even before issuing the first 14 day notice to remedy on 28 November 2025, the landlord had been informed in writing by her agent Ms Burney: a. that Ms Burney had installed rat traps and bait and that it was not clear how the rats had gained entry – with lots of patching in the walls, areas stuffed with paper and evidence of previous visits by vermin; b. that Ms Burney had consulted a builder and that the mould on the silicone in the shower was likely due to the product failing and/ or incorrect installation; c. that the tenants had removed rubbish, cleaned the shower tray offered to replace the mouldy silicone in the shower and installed rat bait and trap; and d. that “.....there is nothing now that needs to be remediated – hence no 14 day notice required”
The 14 day notice on 28 November, and what was really a barrage of notices that followed, included unfounded accusations, stipulations and instructions that the landlord was not entitled to insist upon and were threatening in tone.
They caused stress and anxiety for the tenants and constituted a severe breach of the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The purpose of those actions was to pressure the tenants into actions the landlord wanted but was not entitled to. That fits within the concept of harassment as outlined above.
I find it proved on balance that the landlord breached the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment of the premises and harassed them.
The harassment occurred most intensively from 28 November through to 10 December when the plumbing work was completed.
The unlawful termination notice is another example of improper conduct but separate redress has been awarded for that. 7 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find that the tenants should be compensated for the effect of the landlord’s conduct on their right to enjoyment of the premises. I assess that compensation as equal to 50% of the rent payable for that 2 week period.
By harassing the tenants, 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 landlords’ harassment of the tenants was intentional and bullying.
The intent can only have been to put pressure on the tenants, despite their not having been in breach of their obligations.
The anxiety and stress the landlord’s conduct caused to the tenants was real and significant.
Although the weight of his comments is limited because he is not qualified to give expert opinion on the matter, the plumber notes in his report that, “[[Tenant 2] was visibly upset about the accusations being made by the landlord against her and her husband, regarding the damage and a supposed “cover up”.
That upset is reasonable, having regard to the content and tone of the landlord’s communications.
I find that it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages of 1/3 the maximum. Agency
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure that the landlord has an agent in New Zealand. Failing to do that is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded. 8
Ms Maniadis lives in Australia. She terminated the agency of RPM NZ Limited and notified the tenants of that on 30 November 2026. No other agent was appointed. The landlord thereby committed an unlawful act.
Ms Maniadis says that she did not appoint another agent within the time required (by 21 December) because she knew the tenants wanted to end the tenancy so the tenancy was coming to an end. 8 S.16A(1), (6) and Schedule 1A RTA
With respect, that is not consistent with the landlord having in early December rejected the tenants’ request to reduce the fixed term. Her termination notice was not issued until 26 January 2026.
At the time the landlord was required to have an agent in place, there was no basis for assuming an early end to the tenancy. I find the landlord’s breach was intentional.
Again considering the s.109(3) criteria, the landlord failure to appoint another agent seems to reflect a preference to manage the tenancy herself from a distance, contrary to the requirements of the RTA.
That had significant adverse consequences for the tenants. They were required to themselves provide unreasonable evidence of compliance instead of local agents being able to inspect and confirm. Ms Maniadis, reacted to information not derived from actual visits to the premises (although she did not believe direct reports from her previous agent or plumber). In essence the landlord’s decision not to appoint a local agent exacerbated the difficulties for the tenants in responding to the landlord’s expectations.
Again the public interest requires that landlords be aware of and comply with their responsibilities rather than just asserting their interests.
I find that it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages, again set at 1/3 of the maximum.
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407676 — Exemplary damages at 2 Chaucer Road South, Hospital Hill, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407676 — Exemplary damages at 2 Chaucer Road South, Hospital Hill, Napier 4110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions