What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5420816 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 5420816?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $2,537.14 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420816?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420816?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13323008-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5420816 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 5420816?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $2,537.14 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420816?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420816?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13323008-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5420816 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5420816 — net $6,315.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain	$2,537.14	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$3,000.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$750.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,315.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,315.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5420816 — net $6,315.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain	$2,537.14	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$3,000.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$750.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,315.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,315.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ name and identifying details.
Mcgill Solutions Limited As Agent For Sajad Bassam must pay [The tenant/s] $6,315.14 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were assisted by a Mandarin speaking interpreter.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages and exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenants?
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Breaching this s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenants gave evidence they viewed property in August 2025 and were very excited about moving into it.
During the viewing the tenants noted several issues with the property. It was a new build that was in the process of being completed and had not been fully finished. The parties confirm the tenants asked the property manager if the unit they were considering renting would be fully completed by their move in date and were told it would be fully completed by 10 September 2025.
The tenants say they wanted to provide a bit of leeway, so agreed to commence their tenancy on 27 September 2025, on the condition the unit would be fully completed and ready to occupy by that date. The property manager promised the unit would be ready for occupancy by that date and based on this promise, the tenants signed up for the tenancy, gave notice on their prior rental accommodation and prepared to move. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
On 27 September 2025, the tenants moved into the unit and found it looked the same as when they had viewed it. Nothing more had been done.
Thereafter, they had contractors coming in and out of their unit and the surrounding units constantly over the next four months to carry out different types of works.
The female tenant works from home and gave evidence about the significant impact this ongoing construction work had on her and her work and the high levels of stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity she has suffered.
The male tenant also confirmed the high levels of stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity the tenants have both suffered has impacted on their relationship and on his ability to perform at full capacity at work, which requires a high degree of concentration from him.
The tenants gave evidence the property managers failed to investigate and repair the ongoing defects with the property brought to their attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The tenants have described the following issues that were not addressed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances: a. Curtains in the downstairs area and wardrobe innards were not installed until 29 September 2025; b. Rubbish bins were not provided for the premise until 9 October 2025, meaning the tenants were inconvenience and had to pay to dispose of their garbage themselves for nearly 2 weeks; c. There were construction nails sticking out of the carpet in the stairwell until 7 October 2025, being 1 week and 3 days, causing a hazard; d. The toilet seat was faulty and kept moving every time the tenants sat on it. It took numerous unsuccessful attempts to fix it before a new one was finally installed over a period of 2 to 3 weeks; e. A significant gap at the front door between the pavers and the fence caused injury to the tenant’s friend on move in day and it took until 16 January 2026 to resolve the issue as the owner saw it as part of the landscape design and did not consider it an issue. Due to the close location to the front door, this safety hazard was addressed by sloping the decline downwards more gently from the pavers. This was an easy remedy that could have been undertaken earlier and was not; f. The garden landscaping was not completed until 16 January 2026; and g. The walls and ceiling developed paint bubbles that required remediation.
I am satisfied that the tenants were promised a completed home to move into on 27 September 2025 and that they signed up to the tenancy on the condition that it was. Instead, they suffered the loss of amenity that resulted from the plethora of issues that remained on move in date and for the 15 weeks and 6 days period between 27 September 2025 and 16 January 2026. The tenants sought a rent rebate from the landlord during this time and this request was refused by the owner. I award the tenants a rent rebate of $160.00 per week for that period in recognition of loss of amenity suffered for a completed premise they were paying above median market rent to enjoy, being a compensatory sum of $2,537.14.
I am not satisfied that this ongoing breach was intentional because it is difficult for owners to be able to predict when construction works, including remediation of identified issues. It is also difficult for property managers and owners to get construction contractors to address issues identified in a timely manner when they are on their own construction schedule, their contractors have to be used to remediate construction project related issues, they try not to have to remediate issues they think may not be construction related and the property managers are unable to engage their own contractors to undertake construction related remediation work that is covered by the construction warranty. For these reasons, I am satisfied that exemplary damages cannot be awarded for this breach. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment of the premise and their privacy.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 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.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenants confirmed that the basis for this claim is the ongoing breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment they suffered as a result of the ongoing finishing construction work inside their unit and in the units immediately surrounding them for a period of 4 months. For example, they were expected to take calls from contractors and arrange to be home to given them access to undertake construction or remediation work, contractors often just turned up at their door and told them the property managers and told them to knock and see if they were home instead of telling them to make a time to come with the statutory required notice. This put the tenants in a position they felt they could not say no and had to let the contractors enter at inconvenient and sometimes embarrassing times. Further, construction workers blocked the shared driveway, so the tenants were unable to exit the property when they needed to, the construction workers had CCTV recording anyone that came and left the premise to protect the construction site, and the tenants were subject to loud construction noise during the day when the female tenant was trying to work. This interfered with the tenants’ privacy and quiet enjoyment of their home.
Additionally, the garden landscapers were right outside the living areas of the tenants’ home and there was a large ranch slider that connected those living/dining/kitchen facilities with the garden/yard. The tenants had contractors working in the gardens for a lengthy period while the tenants were either working from home and trying to enjoy the property in their time off work. They were forced to keep the curtains shut during the garden/landscaping period to try to claw back some privacy.
Finally, on 1 October 2025, [Council] inspector visited the property and confirmed that the garden/yard was not up to standard. The tenants had no prior notice of this visit, and the person arrived at an inconvenient time wanting access to the yard. The tenants felt they had no other option but to allow entry.
The landlord has breached the tenants’ privacy and quiet enjoyment of their home consistently for the first four months of their tenancy. When these issues were raised with the landlord, they were dismissed. The owner refused to offer any compensation for the breach of privacy, quiet enjoyment, stress and inconvenience suffered. I find the landlord has committed an intentional and 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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $3,000.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) because: a. the landlord knew the tenants had expressly asked if the unit would be completed, that they had agreed to rent the unit on the promise it would be completed, that the tenants had informed the property manager during the viewing that they were renting the back unit because they required quiet and privacy for the female tenant’s work purpose and the landlord made a promise it could not keep and that led to the tenants having a complete lack of quiet enjoyment and privacy for the first four months of their tenancy; b. the tenants suffered a level of stress and inconvenience that had not expected as well as an ongoing breach of their privacy and quiet enjoyment; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy. Unlawful entry
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has entered the premise without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants provided compelling evidence that proves the landlord’s curtain/blinds contractors entered the unit on 29 September 2025 without notice or consent, when the tenants were out, after the tenants had expressly denied them consent to enter. This is a clear and intentional breach of the landlord’s access rights. The property manager stated they were unaware the contractors were going to access the house that day and that the owner had made the arrangements with the contractor for work to be completed that should have been completed on 27 September 2025.
The tenants have failed to provide enough evidence on the balance of probabilities that the 17 November 2025 visit by the landlord’s alarm person was unconsented. The tenants have proved they were not given prior notice of this visit, but in granting the contractor access to the house, albeit under the stress of the contractor saying the property manger had told him to knock on the door to see if they were home and willing to grant access, they did in fact grant his access with their consent. They could have refused him entry and required him to come back on another day with the required amount of notice. Therefore, the entry cannot be held to be unlawful.
The landlord committed an intentional and unlawful act when it allowed the curtain/blinds contractors into the unit against the tenants’ express instructions that they were not to enter.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 in exemplary damages (half the maximum penalty available) because: a. the landlord knew the tenants had not given consent to enter the premise but did so as it was convenient for it and its contractors to install the dining/kitchen blinds when it was convenient to them; b. the tenants suffered the stress of knowing the landlord’s contractors had been in their home when they were out and they experienced a breach of their privacy; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress and breach of privacy caused ; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their right of entry obligations.

Was the weekly rent charged by the landlords in excess of market rates?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord is seeking rent in excess of the market rent the landlord is charging other tenants in the same block of six units they rent a unit in.
The tenancy commenced on 27 September 2025 at the agreed weekly rental rate was $660.00 per week based on a market rent at the time.
A week after the tenancy commenced the tenants saw pictures of their unit on Trade me for rent at $630.00 per week. They say the property manager informed them, when they viewed the units in August 2025, that all six units would be rented at the same weekly rental rate of $660.00 and that as they were the first to view the units, they could pick which one they wanted at that weekly rental rate. The property manager that conducted the viewing denies this and says the front and back units have study’s that the other four units do not have, they only have one neighbouring unit they share a wall with, and they have more natural light. Additionally, two units have two bathrooms, that the other four do not have. The remaining two units have no extra bathroom or study and less natural light. Therefore, the property manager says that each unit type has a slightly different market rent rate. He says that four of the units are rented at $660.00 and the two that have less amenities are rented at $630.00 per week. The property managers accepted the photograph used by its administration team in the Trade me advertisement was misleading as it was a photograph of the tenants’ unit and not the other two units the advertisement related too. The property managers stated that as soon as they became aware of the error, the incorrect photograph was replaced.
The tenants state that this advertisement proves the rent had been set above market rate.
The tenants have applied to the Tribunal seeking an order for reduction in the rent under s 25 of the RTA.
Section 25 of the RTA provides: Market rent (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent. (2) .... (3) For the purposes of this Act, the market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents [(other than income-related rents within the meaning of [[section 2(1)]] of the [[Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992]])] for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant. (4) An order made under this section shall take effect on and from a date to be specified in the order, which may be the date of the order or any earlier or later date, but being no earlier than the date of the application for the order and no later than 30 days after the date of the order.
The are three questions arising for determination under s 25 of the RTA. First, what a market rent would be for the premise. Second, whether the rent charged is substantially above the market value. And, if so, thirdly, what the rent should be.
Each of these three questions are analysed separately below.

What would a market rent would be for the premise?

The Tenancy Services rental data for a two-bedroom unit estimates the market rent for a similar 2 bedroom premise (without the study) in the [Suburb] area to be as follows: a. The lower quartile for rental rates in the area sits at $530.00 per week; b. The median rents sit at $620.00 per week; and c. The upper quartile for the area is $720.00 per week.
No other market rental data was presented to the Tribunal by the parties to prove or disprove whether the rental rate was set above market rate.

Was the rent substantially above the market value?

Market rent is the amount a landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a tenant might reasonably expect to pay, for a tenancy. It needs to be similar to the rent charged for similar properties in similar areas.
The Tenancy Services market rent data comes from bond information held by Tenancy Services for non-government owned properties and provides an indication of the non-government rental market based on bonds lodged. This overall data for 2025 shows that the rent payable by the tenants sits between the median and upper quartile rental rates estimated by the Tenancy Services data.
For all these reasons I find that on the balance of probabilities, the evidence produced by the parties proves the current market rent for this premise is between $530.00 and $740.00 per week.

What the rent should be?

The tenants have paid a market rent of $660.00 per week from 27 September 2025.
I conclude from the evidence available that the tenants are paying rent at the market rate and that there is a reasonable explanation as to why two of the six units in their block may be paying $30.00 per week less than they are.
I find that on the balance of probabilities, the evidence supports a finding that the rental rate being charged by the landlord is commensurate with market rental rates for the premise, albeit in the upper quartile of the market rental rate.
Therefore, the tenants claims for an order reducing the rent under s 25 of the RTA is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420816 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420816 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Was the weekly rent charged by the landlords in excess of market rates?

What would a market rent would be for the premise?

Was the rent substantially above the market value?

What the rent should be?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Was the weekly rent charged by the landlords in excess of market rates?

What would a market rent would be for the premise?

Was the rent substantially above the market value?

What the rent should be?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions