What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412525 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 5412525?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412525?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412525?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13233957-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412525 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 5412525?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412525?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412525?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13233957-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5412525 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant/s], and Ms Thompson-Wise, representing the landlord, both attended the hearing by teleconference and video conference respectively.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenancy ended on 9 February 2026, when the tenant was evicted by the bailiff. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
When the parties’ evidence differs on an issue, the party seeking to prove the claim must provide additional supporting evidence of their position. Background
The parties were also parties to an earlier application 5361283 by the landlord for rent arrears and compensation. The parties agreed to a mediator’s order dated 28 October 2025, sealed on 29 October 2025, the terms of which included a conditional termination order.
When the tenant failed to pay rent according to the terms of the mediator’s order in application 5361283, the landlord moved towards terminating the tenancy and regaining possession of the property. The tenant filed a rehearing application in application 5361283 relating to the mediator’s order for termination of the tenancy and its enforcement by the landlord, which was dismissed in a Tribunal order dated 7 February 2026.
The tenant also filed a similar rehearing application, disputing the termination of the tenancy order and the enforcement process by the landlord, in this application 5412525, as well as an application to stay proceedings. A direction was issued to the parties on 5 February 2026, as follows: "The tenant has filed a Stay of Proceedings application in relation to termination and possession of the property. The claims before me in application 5412525 are for compensation and exemplary damages only. There is no application in relation to the conditional termination order agreed to by the parties in a mediator’s order in a different application 5361283. Therefore, the termination and possession must stand."
It was explained to the tenant at the hearing that any rehearing application relating to the conditional termination order in the mediator’s order must be linked to application 5361283, not the tenant’s application 5412525 for compensation and exemplary damages, and that her rehearing application about the termination and possession order and its enforcement in application 5361283 had already been determined and had been dismissed by another adjudicator. Compensation
The applicant claimed the landlord issued her with an eviction notice due to her unintentionally breaching a Tribunal order by failing to make a rent payment. The tenant said the landlord’s staff came to her property to issue her a letter dated 3 December 2025, which was headed “Notice to move out”, informing her she had one week to pay the total rent arrears owing or she could leave by 20 December 2025 and hand the keys back to the landlord on 22 December 2025.
The tenant said the landlord acted unlawfully by acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds, failing to file for a possession order from the Tribunal or Ministry of Justice, which would only then allow the landlord to enforce and officially serve a notice of eviction.
The landlord said the parties agreed to a mediator’s order made on 28 October 2025, sealed on 29 October 2025 in application 5361283. The mediator’s order provided for a conditional termination order where the tenancy would terminate and possession would be granted to the landlord if the tenant failed to comply with the terms of the mediator’s order, which the tenant did. The landlord said they had the authority to terminate the tenancy and regain possession of the property pursuant to the mediator’s order.
The landlord said the letter dated 3 December 2025 that they sent to the tenant was an opportunity for the tenant, once she had breached the mediator’s order, to either pay the full amount of rent arrears owing or to voluntarily vacate the premises. The landlord said this was a step outlined in the letter to attempt to avoid having to involve the services of the bailiff.
The tenant disputed this and said the landlord’s staff visited her property about 3 times and harassed her about leaving the property, in front of her children.
The landlord said their staff visited the tenant twice, one visit of which was a pre-vacation inspection. The landlord said that when the tenant refused to pay the remaining rent arrears or voluntarily leave the property, the landlord then went to the District Court on 17 December 2025 to enforce the possession order via the bailiff.
The tenant said she believed the landlord’s letter of 3 December 2025 was a notice of eviction.
The tenant claimed $6,500.00 compensation. She said $3,000.00 was for stress and inconvenience suffered by her and her family, and that $3,500.00 was to get her and her family back on their feet after being evicted.
The landlord disputed the compensation claim, acknowledging there would have been distress involved for the tenant, but indicating this was due to the rent arrears the tenant owed and the process of losing her home as part of being evicted, and was not due to the actions of the landlord.
A party seeking compensation must show that the issues for which they claim compensation were likely caused by the actions of the party against whom they are claiming compensation and must also provide additional supporting evidence of this.
The tenant did not provide any additional supporting evidence of the effect of stress or inconvenience on she or her family that linked to the actions of the landlord, such as medical, counselling, witness statements or other evidence for example, nor did she provide any additional supporting evidence or details of the expenses/costs that would be involved in getting her and her family back on their feet.
I also find the tenant provided insufficient additional supporting evidence, such as witness statements or copies of texts, emails or other correspondence or evidence, for example, of any attempt by the landlord’s staff to harass her and make her leave the property.
I accept that the letter of 3 December 2025 provided, from the landlord to the tenant, asking the tenant to pay the rent arrears owing or leave the property, was more likely an attempt by the landlord to have the tenant either pay what was owing in rent arrears or voluntarily leave the premises. The letter of 3 December 2025 was also, in my view, an opportunity for the tenant to retain her tenancy, in the event she could have paid the rent arrears owing, before the bailiff became involved and evicted the tenant. As it turned out, the evidence was that the tenant refused to leave the property in any event and so the landlord had to enforce the possession order using the bailiff’s services.
I find that, due to insufficient additional supporting evidence being provided, the tenant has not shown that any stress, inconvenience or costs involved in getting her and her family back on their feet after being evicted, are directly or likely caused by the actions of the landlord, given the evidence as outlined above. As such, I dismiss the tenant’s compensation claim. Exemplary damages
The tenant pointed to section 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), saying the landlord attempted to terminate her tenancy without grounds and so committed an unlawful act.
Section 60AA of the RTA provides: 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 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.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The mediator’s order in application 5361283, dated 28 October 2025, sealed on 29 October 2025 provided for the tenancy to be terminated and possession returned to the landlord if the tenant breached the terms of the mediator’s order for conditional termination of the tenancy. Thus, as the tenant breached the terms of the mediator’s order by failing to pay rent, as acknowledged by the tenant, then the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy and regain possession of the premises, pursuant to the mediator’s order.
I have found, as above, that the landlord’s letter to the tenant dated 3 December 2025 was likely an attempt by the landlord to ask the tenant to voluntarily comply with the termination and possession order, before engaging the bailiff to do so. However, even if the letter of 3 December 2025 had been considered a notice to terminate, the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy and regain possession pursuant to the mediator’s order dated 28 October 2025, sealed on 29 October 2025. As such, I find that, based on the evidence, the landlord has not breached section 60AA of the RTA and so has not committed an unlawful act.
Therefore, as the landlord has not breached section 60AA of the RTA, and there was no other unlawful act referred to by the tenant, the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Suppression
The tenant requested name suppression. The tenant has young children in her family living with her and spoke of other personal issues she is currently dealing with. Given the evidence and in the circumstances, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412525 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412525 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions