Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5408333 — Property damage at Room 3&1, Unit/Flat 364-364b, 364 Pages Road, Aranui,
Decided 23 Apr 2026 · Published 23 Apr 2026 · Application 5408333
- Property damage
- Exemplary damages
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The tenant/s] must pay Epharmacy Limited $1,538.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing I held on 14 April 2026. Ms Morgan appeared for the landlord company (written authorisation produced).
- Previously., I held a directions conference with the parties on 20 February 2026. I recorded the parties’ agreement that they would meet so the tenant could retrieve her mattress. That happened as agreed.
- I also recorded that the tenant returned the keys to the landlord at the hearing.
- I made directions for the tenant to file a statement of her claims and for the landlord to file a statement of defence as well as a statement of its claims against the tenant. The tenant’s claims
- The tenant has the following claims: •An alleged unlawful entry by the landlord on or about 5 December 2025. •The unlawful removal of her goods. •A wrongful allegation that she had abandoned the tenancy. •A breach by the landlord of its obligation of good faith and a failure to communicate.
- At the directions conference, the tenant referred to issues from the first tenancy (including a period of 9 days when she was without power). But at the hearing the tenant confirmed that her claims related to the second tenancy only. I will address that in more detail later. The landlord’s claims
- The landlord has the following claims: •Cleaning and the removal of multiple nails from the carpet into the floor due to the tenant installing carpet without consent. •Carpet replacement. •Repairs and painting.
- The landlord confirmed that its claims related to the first tenancy only.
- Both parties gave evidence and made submissions. I also heard evidence from the tenant’s witnesses Ms Cunnen and Mr McNicoll.
- I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Background
- The applications relate to two separate boarding house tenancies. The first tenancy (room 3) started on 31 October 2024 (the ‘front’ house’). The landlord’s application relates to that tenancy only.
- The second tenancy (Room 1 in the ‘back house’) started on 3 December 2025 but was quickly terminated by the landlord.
- After that tenancy was terminated the tenant made her application. The landlord’s application followed.
- The applications were confusing in that they relate to 2 separate tenancies with the same landlord but became less confusing with the tenant’s confirmation that her application only concerned the second tenancy. Issues
- The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Did the landlord (Ms Morgan’s husband and another person) unlawfully enter the (2 nd ) premises and then unlawfully remove the tenant’s goods? •Did the landlord correctly decide that the tenant had abandoned the tenancy? •Did the landlord have grounds to terminate the tenancy? •Was there a failure by the landlord to communicate and was there a breach of an obligation of good faith? •Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for cleaning, nail removal, carpet replacement, and repairs/painting? Relevant law
- Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
- Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to repair any damage caused carelessly or intentionally.
- Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation and exemplary damages
- The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
- Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
- In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
- Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion Did the landlord (Ms Morgan’s husband and another person) unlawfully enter the (2 nd ) premises and then unlawfully remove her goods?
- The tenant alleges that she had moved all her goods into Room 1 on 3 or 4 December 2025. She did not stay at the tenancy that night. When she returned, she states that all her belongings (described in a list, and including a Louis Vuitton handbag) were gone, except for her mattress.
- Ms Cunnen touched on this issue in her evidence. She did not say she saw the tenant move her goods to the new room only that when she and the tenant went to the room the following day or the day after all her belongings were gone.
- Ms Cunnen said she spoke to a male tenant living in that boarding house who told her that Ms Morgan’s husband and another man asked where the tenant was to which he replied that she had gone to her sisters for the night but would likely return later. She states ‘according to the (male) tenant, two men arrived in a truck and began moving Ms Watson’s goods and left’.
- Ms Morgan’s husband provided a written statement. He states that on 3 December 2025 he and a contractor offered to move Ms Watson’s bed from the first tenancy to the second, an offer she accepted. He said there were no personal belongings in the new room which he thought was odd. On 4 and 5 December 2025 he was at the property doing maintenance all day. He did not see Ms Watson or her vehicle again.
- I did not find Ms Watson’s evidence persuasive at all. Ms Cunnen did not observe Ms Watson move her furniture into the new room. She relies on what a male flatmate at the new boarding house told her.
- I did not have the chance to assess Mr Morgan’s credibility.
- The one witness who could have given direct evidence – the male flatmate at the new tenancy – neither attended to give evidence nor provided a witness statement.
- I do not find on the evidence available to me that Ms Watson moved her goods into the new room, nor that Mr Morgan and his contractor removed her goods from that room. Nor did they unlawfully enter the premises.
- The only chattel I find that was moved was the mattress. The return of that chattel was agreed at the directions conference and has since happened.
- Ms Morgan said she did not have access to the room in the 2 nd tenancy as she did not have a key. The key was only returned by Ms Watson at the directions conference on 20 February 2026.
- I dismiss this claim for lack of proof. If Ms Watson alleges theft she has the option of making a police complaint. Did the landlord correctly decide that the tenant had abandoned the tenancy?
- I need not make a finding on this issue since nothing arises from it. The landlord did not terminate the (2 nd ) tenancy for abandonment. If Mr Morgan is correct though, that he (being Ms Morgan’s husband) never saw the tenant or her vehicle again after moving the mattress to her new room, that conclusion was probably reasonable at the time, since the room was otherwise empty.
Did the landlord have grounds to terminate the tenancy?
- Ms Morgan confirmed that she terminated the 2 nd tenancy due to the significant damage the tenant had caused to the room at the first tenancy premises. She was unwilling to risk more damage.
- That is not a valid reason to terminate the 2 nd tenancy which was a new and separate tenancy in difference premises.
- Section 60AA RTA applies when a landlord acts to terminate a tenancy without grounds. Doing so is an unlawful act.
- I find that Ms Morgan probably knew she was unable to terminate the 2 nd tenancy for the reason she did but went ahead anyway. It was an intentional act. It was against the tenant’s interests that she did that. The termination of a tenancy has an effect on a tenant who is forced to then find somewhere else to live. It is against the public interest for landlords to ignore their statutory responsibilities.
- When an unlawful act is proved, as I find it is here, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages (for this act, to a maximum of $6,500.00).
- I award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,500.00 in this case. Was there a failure by the landlord to communicate and was there a breach of an obligation of good faith?
- This is a vague allegation and one that does not establish any breach of a statutory obligation by the landlord. The tenant is not a forum for general complaint.
- The tenant alleges that the landlord failed to communicate between 18 December 2025 and 29 January 2026.
- It seems odd, given that the tenancy started on or about 3 December 2025, and the tenant alleges that valuable items were left at the premises and effectively stolen by the landlord, that there was such as delay in communicating with the landlord. That aside, the landlord considered that the tenancy had ended; it had been terminated, wrongly as it happens. Looked at in that context the landlord’s lack of communication does not seem so unusual.
- I dismiss this part of the claim. No landlord breach is proven. Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for cleaning, nail removal, carpet replacement, and repairs/painting?
- Based on the evidence before me, oral and documentary, including photos, I find that the landlord’s claims for cleaning, carpet replacement and repairs to walls and doors and skirtings including painting, are proved.
- The tenant said that the advertisement for the premises allowed smoking. Ms Morgan strongly denied that she allowed smoking.
- Regardless, the tenant is still required to leave the premises (the boarding house room) reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and to repair any damage beyond fair wear and tear.
- Ms Morgan said the premises has been fully redecorated and new carpet laid in 2020.
- I have depreciated the claims for repairs/painting and for carpet replacement by one half in this case. Ms Watson agreed that she had removed the carpet without the landlord’s permission. The carpet she replaced it with required the removal of numerous nails/tacks and the removal of adhesive. It was inferior carpet, in pieces. Carpet in boarding house tenancies often depreciates more quickly than in residential tenancies due to a higher number of tenancies for the room over time. A depreciation of 50%, while generous, allows for any pre- existing wear and damage. Result
- The tenant’s claims are dismissed other than the claim for the landlord terminating the tenancy without lawful grounds. For that unlawful act I award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,500.00. The landlord is holding the bond and may retain it. The tenant in entitled to that as a credit.
- The landlord’s claims are proved. The claims for carpet replacement and for repairs/painting are depreciated by 50% to take account of the time since the premises were last decorated and new carpet laid, and of fair wear and tear. I award the landlord compensation of $3,518.00.
- After the deduction of the bond and the award of exemplary damages, the tenant will pay the landlord $1,538.00.
- I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fees the parties paid. Each has been successful to an extent. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
- Neither party, when asked, sought an order for name suppression.