What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5419759 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 5419759?

Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419759?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419759?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13458973-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5419759 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 5419759?

Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419759?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419759?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13458973-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5419759 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5419759 — net $1,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond	$500.00	fail to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: fail to provide agreement	$200.00	fail to provide agreement
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$700.00	breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,428.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,428.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5419759 — net $1,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond	$500.00	fail to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: fail to provide agreement	$200.00	fail to provide agreement
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$700.00	breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,428.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,428.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The premises this application is about is a self-contained “tiny home”.
It is located on a property where the landlord also has her home and consulting practice. That practice involves her providing at her home, therapeutic sessions of a very personal and confidential nature.
This was the first tenancy of the premises.
The parties entered into a periodic tenancy agreement starting on 27 October 2025, at a rent of $350.00 per week. A bond of $1,400.00 was paid.
The tenancy ended after the tenant gave notice of termination on 2 December 2025. Rent was paid to 14 December.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord paid to the tenant $1,000.00 of her bond. The Claims
The tenant claims that the landlord reached her obligations in a number of ways, namely: a. failing to provide her with a copy of the tenancy agreement; b. failing to lodge the tenant’s bond with the Bond Centre; c. failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair and maintenance; d. breaching her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
At the hearing the landlord indicated that she had filed a cross application, but I could not locate it. It was agreed that as those claims were not complex and were well known to the tenant, they should be considered, so all issues about the tenancy could be dealt with.
In addition to the claim for $400.00 in lieu of notice, which is not disputed by the tenant, the landlord’s claim was for $200.00 in cleaning costs.
That claim was withdrawn during the hearing. Approach to deciding the tenants’ claims
The first thing the Tribunal has to do is determine whether the landlord breached her obligations in the ways claimed.
These are the tenant’s claims, so as applicant she is required to provide evidence that proves the facts on which the claims are based, on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not).
If a breach of the landlord’s obligations is proved, the Tribunal must then assess whether loss has been caused. That loss may be in terms of financial loss or loss of amenity in the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises.
If loss is proved the tenant would generally be entitled to compensation for that loss. In some circumstances, where a breach has caused harm that is difficult to quantify, the Tribunal can award general damages.
If the breach is of a type which the RTA classifies as an unlawful act, the Tribunal then needs to consider whether it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages. The purpose of exemplary damages is not to compensate for loss but to punish unlawful behaviour. Exemplary damages may be awarded in addition to compensation, up to the maximum amount specified in Schedule 1A RTA.
In deciding whether to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the breach was intentional, which means that what was done, was done consciously. It does not require that the landlords intended to act unlawfully. 1
The Tribunal then needs to consider the intent behind the breach, the effect of the breach, the interests of the tenant and the public interest. 2
Where more than one related unlawful act has been committed, the Tribunal needs to be careful to ensure that multiple “punishments” are not awarded for what are, in substance, the same breach of the party’s obligations. 3 Failure to provide a copy of the agreement
A landlord must sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant before the tenancy starts. Failure to do that is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded. 4
When the tenant gave the landlord notice of termination on 2 December 2025 she asked the landlord for a copy of the agreement, which the landlord immediately did.
There is no dispute that the landlord did not provide the tenant a copy before then. The landlord therefore breached her obligations and committed an unlawful act.
The breach was not from circumstances outside the landlord’s control so should be regarded as intentional.
The landlord’s evidence is that she had the signed copy to give to the tenant but just overlooked it. That is corroborated by a txt from the landlord to the tenant at the start of the tenancy noting, “...have a copy of the tenancy to give you when I 1 See for example TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at para [37] 2 S.109(3) RTA 3 Eg. Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited DC Wellington CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014 at paras [28] [29] 4 S.13 and Schedule 1A RTA see you next.” Nothing in the evidence suggests that if she was asked for a copy earlier it would not have been provided, but it is the landlord’s obligation not the tenant’s.
There is no evidence of any quantifiable loss or harm caused to the tenant by the breach, although I accept that from the tenant’s point of view, as a dispute arose, it was uncomfortable for her to have to address those issues with the landlord without having her own copy of the agreement to refer to, which she was entitled to.
I find that it would be just to award a small sum as compensation to the tenant for the consequences of that breach.
I find no evidence of ill intent in the landlord overlooking to give the tenant a copy of the agreement and do not consider it just to make an award of exemplary damages as well as the award of compensation. Failure to lodge the bond
A landlord must lodge any bond payment made by the tenant with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receiving it. Failure to do that is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $1,500.00 may be awarded. 5
The landlord accepts that she did not at any stage lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. My understanding of the landlord’s evidence is that she was generally aware that she should lodge the bond but not that it was a statutory requirement. She decided it would be better for her to keep the bond “on hand” and had it available throughout the tenancy in a separate rental account.
The landlord proposed to deduct $600.00 from the bond, being $400.00 for rent plus $200.00 for cleaning costs.
When the tenant disputed the cleaning charges, it was agreed that $1,000.00 from the bond would be repaid to the tenant. That is appropriate. The tenant was required to give 21 days’ notice of termination, so the landlord was entitled to rent from in lieu of that notice.
That being so, no direct loss was caused to the tenant.
Before that settlement of the bond was agreed, the tenant was in the position she should not have been in, of negotiating a dispute knowing that her bond was in the landlord’s bank account, not independently and securely held as it should have been.
Aggravating factors are the landlord’s awareness that the bond should have been lodged, the ease with which she could have ascertained this was a strict legal requirement and her failure to lodge the bond even after the tenant pointed 5 S.19 and Schedule 1A RTA the obligation out to her when there was a dispute about the bond, making it even more important that it be properly secured.
There is a public interest in landlords being aware of and complying with such core obligations.
There is no evidence of this representing a pattern of such behaviours by the landlord. Weighing those factors, I find that a moderate award of exemplary damages would be just. Failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of maintenance and repair
The evidence shows that the tenant raised within the landlord her concern that access to date was “patchy”. The landlord responded, “Yep will get onto that today...”. I understand a new router was installed. The evidence does not show the issue having been raised again by the tenant. It would not be just to require the landlord to pay compensation if the tenant had not met her obligation to tell the landlord about the problem if it was a continuing one. 6
In terms of the hot water supply, I understand this is through a califont system so should not run out of hot water like a cylinder might. The landlord does say however that the pressure might be impacted by use of water in other parts of the property.
The tenant says the landlord’s awareness of this problem is shown by a txt from the landlord the day after the tenancy started saying, “...wondering how last night went. Really hope you had hot water.” The tenant responded, “....had some [hot water] but the mixer was a bit odd? Like it was either hot or cold but that could have been impacted by the weather last night.” The tenant also highlights a txt from the landlord, when giving consent to the tenant’s partner staying, that “The only things we may need to co-ordinate is water use with another using the shower etc.”
I suspect that the hot water supply was, like the initial access to data, a bit “patchy” and impacted by other household’s water use in ways that premises with other infrastructure might not be.
The evidence does not enable me to make a reliable finding about the adequacy of the system or the extent any shortcomings of the impacted on the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises. That claim is dismissed. 6 See s.40(1)((d) RTA Breach of right to Quiet Enjoyment
A tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment the premises without interruption by the landlord. 7
“Premises” includes any part of premises, land and appurtenances. 8
Essentially, the tenant’s claim is that her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises was interrupted by the landlord’s unreasonable expectations about how she lived at the property, to prioritise the needs of the landlord’s clients and her business practice.
There is also a claim that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment through interactions with the tenant’s partner who was staying there. The evidence does not show any serious departure from the kinds of interaction that might be expected, with the landlord, tenant and her partner living in close proximity.
The tenant says she was castigated by the landlord for normal activities such as walking to the bin at the gate when the landlord had clients and given schedules of the landlord’s appointments, which the was expected to work around. She says she became quite anxious about going outside in case she was confronted by the landlord again.
I do not think it helpful to analyse in detail the events of which the parties have very different perceptions.
Looked at as a whole, the picture presented by the evidence is that: a. the landlord was trialling having someone living in the tiny home on the property she conducts her practice from; b. she was aware that her client’s privacy expectations might create constraints about how the tenant conducted herself at the property (hence the landlord looking for a tenant who was working full time so away from the property during business hours); c. the landlord did not really know the extent of those constraints but discussed the situation with the tenant before the tenancy began and hoped a workable arrangement would be worked out; d. in balancing her obligation to provide the tenant with quiet enjoyment of her home against her obligation to protect her clients’ privacy and confidentiality, more weight was given to her obligation to her clients.
In any close living situation, some consideration and compromise are often required. I accept that the landlord did discuss the situation with the tenant before the tenancy started but neither the evidence nor the content of the 7 S.38 RTA 8 S.2 RTA tenancy agreement, show any specific understandings about the limits on her use of the premises, the tenant could be said to have accepted.
In any event, a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of premises they are paying rent for is a core entitlement and one they cannot waive by agreement. 9
I am left with the conclusion that although the landlord tried to be balanced in her expectations, the impact of those expectations on the tenant’s use of the premises (including the land) meant that the tenant was receiving less utility from the premises than she was entitled to expect under the agreement. The landlord thereby breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
The tenant is entitled to compensation for that loss of amenity, which I assess at 2 weeks’ rent.
For the sake of completeness, I note that breach of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act. Those circumstances are not apparent here.
Because the tenant has had claims upheld, I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5419759 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5419759 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

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