What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421988 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 5421988?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ba…: $124.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide a f…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide con…: $3,250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refund of rent 10%- un…: $1,496.00 awarded to tenant; Copy Of The TA Prior To The Commence…: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Electricity Costs For October And No…: $197.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Tenancy: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421988?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13352634-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421988 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 5421988?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ba…: $124.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide a f…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide con…: $3,250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refund of rent 10%- un…: $1,496.00 awarded to tenant; Copy Of The TA Prior To The Commence…: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Electricity Costs For October And No…: $197.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Tenancy: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421988?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13352634-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421988 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421988 — net $8,725.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Electricity costs for October and November 2024	$197.31		Electricity costs for October and November 2024
Compensation: Failure to maintain bathroom heater		$124.29	Failure to maintain bathroom heater
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint an agent		$1,000.00	Failure to appoint an agent
Exemplary damages: Interference with internet and		$1,350.00	Interference with internet and
Compensation: Failure to provide a fully signed		$200.00	Failure to provide a fully signed
copy of the TA prior to the commencement of the		$375.00	copy of the TA prior to the commencement of the
tenancy		$100.00	tenancy
Compensation: Failure to provide contact details		$3,250.00	Failure to provide contact details
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice		$1,000.00	Retaliatory notice
Compensation: Refund of rent 10%- unlawful		$1,496.00	Refund of rent 10%- unlawful
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$197.31	$8,923.29
Net award		$8,725.98
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$8,725.98

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421988 — net $8,725.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Electricity costs for October and November 2024	$197.31		Electricity costs for October and November 2024
Compensation: Failure to maintain bathroom heater		$124.29	Failure to maintain bathroom heater
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint an agent		$1,000.00	Failure to appoint an agent
Exemplary damages: Interference with internet and		$1,350.00	Interference with internet and
Compensation: Failure to provide a fully signed		$200.00	Failure to provide a fully signed
copy of the TA prior to the commencement of the		$375.00	copy of the TA prior to the commencement of the
tenancy		$100.00	tenancy
Compensation: Failure to provide contact details		$3,250.00	Failure to provide contact details
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice		$1,000.00	Retaliatory notice
Compensation: Refund of rent 10%- unlawful		$1,496.00	Refund of rent 10%- unlawful
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$197.31	$8,923.29
Net award		$8,725.98
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$8,725.98

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Heron Lee must pay [The tenant] $8,725.98 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 11 and 12 February 2026.
The tenant applied for compensation, general damages and exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord 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”). Evidential burden
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. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section 109(2)(b) of the RTA, bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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, 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]. 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 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching either of these s45(1) obligations 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 tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. A. Taps
The tenant says there was a leaky tap in the laundry the landlord knew about before the tenancy commenced on 11 May 2024. The landlord confirmed she knew about this the leak, that she considered it minor as there was no risk of water damage to the premise or the tenant running out of water and the drip was not audible from the main living spaces.
In response to the tenant’s concern, on Tuesday 28 May 2024, the landlord arranged for [The plumber] to go out to fix the laundry tap. The tenant confirmed it had been fixed in an email to the landlord on 17 June 2024.
The tenant confirmed on 26 August 2024 she also raised an issue with shower and bathtub taps that had leaks. The landlord again arranged for [The plumber] to come to fix these leaks. The tenant confirmed [The plumber] came quickly, but he had the wrong cartridge so had to come back to finish the work. The landlord confirmed there had been some issues with the tenant and [The plumber] finding a suitable time for him to come back. However, by 9 September 2024 the leaks were all fixed.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the landlord responded to the tenant’s leaky taps/shower issues in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and 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]. that the leaky taps/shower were fixed satisfactorily. I accept that there was some delay due to the contractor and tenant working to get their schedules to match.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for this alleged breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA as the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities. B. Bathroom heater
On 21 May 2024, the tenant clams the bathroom heater kept cutting out and then sparking when in use and she was afraid of an electrical fire resulting from the sparking. The tenant says she tried to contact the landlord but was unable to reach her as she had no phone number for her in Australia and she was not answering emails. The landlord’s contact details had not been set out in the tenancy agreement and there was confusion for the tenant over the letting agent’s role in the ongoing management of the tenancy. The letting agent was not named as agent or landlord in the tenancy agreement, but the tenancy agreement was on the letting agent’s employers’ letterhead. Neither the letting agent nor the landlord explained the relationship between the three parties to the tenant until sometime later in the tenancy.
The tenant says that it took the landlord a long time to give her the landlord’s Australian number, so she kept reaching out to the letting agent and the letting agent sent the landlord emails. This was what happened with the bathroom heater issues.
The landlord confirmed that on 4 June 2024 the tenant asked for her Australian contact details, and she was confused about why the tenant required this information when she always made herself available on the email address the tenant had been provided. The tenant confirmed the landlord did not respond promptly to emails and that she required a phone contact for emergency situations that may happen outside of business type hours when the landlord could reasonably be expected to be viewing emails. This evidence shows that the communication between the landlord and tenant was fraught with difficulty from the start of the tenancy because the landlord had failed to meet her s13A of the RTA obligations to provide the tenant with her contact mobile number(s) as well as her email address and her address(es) for service in Australia and New Zealand.
The tenant confirmed she messaged the letting agent on 24 May 2024, as she considered this an emergency and did not have a contact phone number for the landlord, who was residing in Australia. The letting agent arranged for an electrician to come to look at the heater under urgency. The tenant noted she was not notified in advance of the electrician’s day and time of arrival, as the tenant had expected. Section 48(2)(a) of the RTA allows a landlord or its contractors to enter the premise without notice in emergencies. The tenant had classified this as an emergency, which is why the letting agent arranged an electrician under urgency, even though she did not have the authority to do so as she was not engaged to manage the property.
On 25 May 2024 the first electrician came and disconnected the bathroom heater, so that it no longer posed an imminent risk. The letting agent thought that was the best course of action, as the landlord was then free to decide what she wanted to do with the heater once they contacted her. The letting agent successfully emailed the landlord on 25 May 2025 and told the letting agent to convey to the tenant not to use those appliances (or plug anything into the power points in the bathroom) until [Electrician 1] and [Electrician 2] had dealt with the issue.
The tenant produced evidence the first electrician left the exposed wires hanging out of the wall, which cause her to become anxious about further electrical fire risk, as he says the exposed wires were sparking. The tenant got the electrician’s number from the letting agent and raised her concern about the sparking wires on 28 May 2024.
On 28 May 2024 the landlord asked the tenant not to contact tradesmen directly and to email her so she could consult the family.
On 4 June 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord saying “regarding the heater, I was already in touch with [Electrician 2] and it was resolved the Friday before your last email. [Electrician 1] left it exposed, and the steam from the shower caused it to short circuit. Although I have tried cleaning the singe, it does not come off completely. However, it isn’t very visible unless you know where to look. The heater has been disconnected from the power source but remains on the wall rendering it unusable”.
The tenant has submitted an email from the landlord dated 19 August 2024 that confirms the electrician will replace the heater at the same time he checks the tubing to the kitchen extractor fan, which she says may have become blocked with oil or fat used in cooking by the previous tenant.
On 10 September 2024, the electrician contacted the tenant to arrange a time to reinstall the heating in the bathroom. Thereafter there was a lot of back and forward between the tenant and the electrician about a time to come to install the heater because the tenant required a specific appointment time that fitted her schedule, and she had been unable to be flexible at that time.
The landlord arranged for the electrician to come on 11 October 2024, a month before the end of the tenancy. It is unclear from the evidence whether this visit took place as the air conditioning was not addressed before the tenancy ended. It appears that the bathroom fan was not replaced by the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the landlord and tenant had communication issues that made addressing this kind of repair issue more challenging than it would have been had the landlord been in New Zealand and more easily contactable by the tenant. However, the evidence proves the landlord responded to the tenant’s electrical issues in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and that the bathroom heater risk was addressed satisfactorily. The tenant however had a reasonable expectation she would have full use of the bathroom heater as one of the appliances in the house at the start of her tenancy. The bathroom heater was never fixed or replaced after the emergency disconnection.
I find the tenant has proven she was without the use of the bathroom heater from 24 May 2024 to the end of the tenancy on 14 November 2024, being 24 weeks and 6 days. I award the tenant $5 rent rebate per week for the period she suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of having issues with the heater and then no heater. This is a compensatory sum of $124.29.
The landlord did try to get the bathroom heater replaced but due to difficulties in scheduling the installation, it was not completed by the end of the tenancy. Therefore, this breach cannot be held to be intentional and therefore the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. C. Extractor fans
On 1 June 2024, the tenant raised an issue with the extractor fan in the bathroom and kitchen not working properly. She stated the bathroom fan did not appear to be sucking up the moisture. She confirmed she was worried about mould, especially during the winter months when it was too cold to regularly open the windows, as there was condensation on all the windows and mould starting to grow on the bathroom ceiling. She also claimed the kitchen rangehood was so ineffective it let cooking smells go right though the house before being vented outside.
The landlord replied on 22 June 2024 telling the tenant she had been experiencing internet issues and confirmed the fans are only one year old, and the air-conditioning would be dealt with later. She reminded the tenant about the HRV system and told her to make sure it was on winter settings.
The landlord provided evidence that the bathroom and kitchen fans are fully compliant with healthy homes standards requirements for the size of the room and the purpose. She stated that these fans were fit for a family of five and should have been sufficient for a sole tenant. The landlord and the plumber advised the tenant to open the bathroom window when showering to stop the level of condensation forming in the bathroom that would lead to mildew growth and to use the HRV system. The landlord provided evidence the HRV system was serviced just before the tenancy commenced and should alleviate the condensation issues, in conjunction with use of the fans and opening windows when cooking or showering. The tenant was unhappy with this advice and continued to insist there was an issue with the fans.
On 11 August 2024, the landlord reiterated that the fans were only a year old, having been installed in the first quarter of 2023, but she was happy to send an electrician to check. However, the landlord stated that if the electrician was sent out and found no issues with the fans, the tenant would be charged a call-out fee.
The tenant stated she was allergic to a bad smell coming out of the kitchen fan and that it didn’t work. The landlord insisted there could not be an issue with either fan as they were a year old.
The tenant says she had watched the kitchen fan when she was boiling a pot on the stove and could see none of the steam being sucked up.
The landlord says she could not figure out how to address the smell so, around 19 August 2024, she instructed the electrician to replace the ceiling tube in the kitchen fan to outlet try and address the issue. She thought there may have been a build-up of fat or oil in the tubing from the prior tenant’s cooking. The landlord was told by her contractor that he had not found any issues with the ceiling tube he had removed and replaced.
The tenant states the fans still did not work effectively for the remainder of her tenancy and the smell persisted.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the landlord responded to the tenant’s extractor fan issues in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and that it is unlikely there was an issue with the fans, given they were a year old at the start of the tenancy and the landlord took reasonable steps to get her contractors to investigate and try to remediate the tenant’s issues. The evidence does not support a need to replace the extractor fans, and the landlord undertook everything else she could to try to address the condensation, mildew and smell issues the tenant raised.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for this alleged breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA as the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities. D. Water Pump
On Sunday morning 18 August 2024 the tenant texted the landlord to inform her the water pump was not working, and she had no water.
When she did not hear back from the landlord, she contacted [Electrician 1] as she thought the water pump issue may be connected to a recent power outage. [Electrician 1] asked if the tenant had keys to the pump room. She did not.
The tenant then called the letting agent, to ask if she had a key to the pump room.
The tenant was unable to go to the letting agent’s office in [Town] to collect the key so asked if the letting agent could bring it to the premise and leave it in the mailbox for the tenant to collect, so she could check the pump and she if she could restart it. This caused an issue as the tenant did not return the keys until 14 September 2024 and the landlord was uncomfortable about the tenant having access to that part of the property all that time.
The tenant says the door to the pump room was unable to be opened, as it was blocked. She then did some online research and found a way to get the pump going again by checking the fuse box and then turning the power to the pump off and on again. This successfully reset the pump.
On 19 August 2924, the landlord advised that [Electrician 1] had contacted her about the problem and suggested the tenant keep spare water in bottles in the house in case of there being water or pump issues, rather than powering up the generator. She also confirmed that [Electrician 1] had access to the key to the pump room in a lock box.
The landlord says she was delayed in responding to the tenant as she was on holiday in the northern hemisphere, so there was a delay of a few hours until the landlord saw and answered the tenant’s email.
The landlord disclosed that power cuts happened frequently at the property and that is why the tenant needed to learn to store some water.
The tenant confirmed she had been without water overnight, but it could have been longer had she not been proactive.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the landlord responded to the tenant’s pump issues in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and that the pump was reset by the tenant within 24 hours of it stalling due to the power outage. In rural properties that rely on tank water, power outages frequently cause periods of no running water until the power outage is remediated and the pump reset. The tenant was told to keep water on the premise for these short water outages and the landlord proved the electrician had access to the pump if it has been more than a reset required. Again, the issue was not a breach if the landlord’s s45(1)(b) obligations. It was caused by a lack of emergency communication channels for the tenant due to the landlord being away from New Zealand and not having appointed an agent.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for this alleged breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA as the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 11 May 2024. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Sunday, 8 September 2024. A. Ventilation
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant has based her claim on the kitchen and bathroom fans not working.
The landlord confirmed that the fans were around a year old and met the requirements for new fans installed after 1 July 2019 that must have a minimum diameter (including ducting) of 120mm or an exhaust capacity of at least 25 litres per second.
There was a third party independent detailed healthy homes assessment undertaken in 2022. This report had been superseded by the landlord upgrading the fans in the first quarter of 2023. There was no further healthy homes assessment or report undertaken by either party during the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the premise had two healthy homes standards compliant extractor fans that externally vented, and the tenant has failed to provide any evidence that proves in the balance of probabilities these fans were not fully compliant on the compliance date.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for this alleged breach of the ventilation standard as the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities. Breach of privacy/quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed her and breached her quiet enjoyment.
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 tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim is: a. The landlord peering through her windows when undertaking work in the shared grounds and making noise with the water blaster for longer than agreed; b. The landlord entering the tenant’s private outside area without notice or valid reason by walking on her driveway in direct view of the tenant’s bedroom on the west side of the property; c. The tenant having the general sense of “being under siege” all the time by the landlord and not enjoy living at the premise as she was unsettled by the way the landlord dealt with her e.g. imposing control over how the tenant should use the rooms rented, how she should clean and generally micromanaging her; d. On 20 May 2024 the tenant unexpectedly encountered a tradesman on the property who said he was there to service the septic tank, when she had no notice, he was coming, who he was or if she was supposed to be on the property; e. The roof cleaner came on Monday 2 September 2024 to clear the leaves. The tenant says she was not given notice of this visit; f. The roof was water blasted on 11 October 2024 and the tenant says she was not given prior notice about the type of work to be conducted; g. A contractor caught her off guard and went past her window when she was in the shower on 14 October 2024; h. The landlord’s guests and or tradespeople parked in front of the tenant’s premise, specifically, the pergola people that came on 4 June 2024, parked in the turn around.
The landlord’s evidence was: a. The landlord did not peer through the tenant’s windows. The landlord provided photographs of some jobs being done in the shared yard when she was back in New Zealand. These photographs show that no one can see through the windows due to the reflective glass; b. The landlord accepts the communication with the tenant broke down quite early in the tenancy and that this led to the tenant having the general sense of “being under siege” and not enjoy living at the premise. The landlord says she felt a similar way when she was in New Zealand. She stated that she tried to be a good landlord but felt nothing she did was good enough and she had to constantly walk on eggshells when dealing with the tenant, to the point she felt the tenancy could not continue for either of their sakes. She also noted that several of her regular contractors did not want to deal with the tenant as she was difficult to arrange times with to undertake work and was inflexible with them; c. The landlord confirmed she had not been given notice of septic tank service man coming and that she had the same issue with this service man the year prior. She provided evidence of having raised this issue with this contractor in 2023 and again in 2024 and reiterated that he must notify her before he comes out to service the septic tank; d. The tenant was given notice on Friday 30 August 2024 by [The property manager/s] that the roof cleaner was coming on Monday 2 September 2024 to clear the leaves; e. The landlord is entitled to carry out necessary maintenance on the property, and does not have to provide the tenant with a maintenance schedule; and f. [The property manager/s] asked the contractors and guests to park on the landlord’s side of the driveway after the 4 June 2024 incident, and the tenant confirmed there were no further issues after that.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and privacy was not breached by the acts or omissions of the landlord in a way that constitutes harassment and that when the tenant raised any such issues the landlord fully investigated these claims and made sure she addressed any future potential breaches before they occurred. Due to the lack of evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities, the claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry
Section 48 of the RTA contains provisions in relation to the landlord’s right of entry.
The tenant breach of quite enjoyment claims have also been progressed under this head of claim.
Firstly, s48(7) of the RTA makes it clear that the definition of premise for the purpose of this section of the RTA expressly excludes the land and facilities. Any unlawful entry must be entry into the tenant’s premise without the statutory notice and/or without her consent.
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 RTA.
None of the unlawful entry claims the tenant has made are entries into the premise without the statutorily required notice or without her consent. In fact, all of the incidents complained off occurred outside her premise.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the landlord and/or her contractors have not breached the landlord’s s48 of the RTA access rights. Due to the lack of evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities, the claim is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to appoint an agent when she was out of New Zealand for 21 consecutive days or longer?
Section 16A(1) of the RTA requires that a landlord must have agent in New Zealand, if out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days.
The landlord confirmed that because she is an Australian tax resident she cannot spend more than 6 months of the year living in New Zealand. Therefore, she knew from the beginning of the tenancy that she was likely to be out of New Zealand for more than 21 consecutive days and would need to appoint an agent to manage the tenancy when she was away from New Zealand.
Section 16A(4) confirms that a landlord who appoints an agent under this section must, immediately after appointing the agent, (a) notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address, and address for service; and (b) if a bond is held in respect of the tenancy, notify the chief executive in the approved form of those particulars.
Breaching s16A of the RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims she thought this was a flatmate situation and that the RTA did not apply. The landlord saw this tenancy as being a flatmate situation because she shared part of the family home with the owner and her family when she was staying in New Zealand. I do not accept this, as the landlord used a letting agent that is an experienced property manager that must have been aware that these were two separate households that would fall under the jurisdiction of the RTA.
Additionally, the landlord stated that she was always contactable by the tenant by email and saw no need to appoint an agent to manage the tenancy while she was away in Australia for varying periods of time. The letting agent had managed the premise for the landlord’s mother but the tenancy set up, according to the landlord, at that time was a “proper residential tenancy”.
The tenant has made it clear that the landlord’s failure to provide an agent to manage the property when she was out of New Zealand had caused major communication issues, stress, loss of amenity at times and inconvenience. She had not known who to call for help in emergencies, had been chastised by the landlord when the tenant had contacted the landlord’s contractors directly or the letting agent and was at her wits end with how to get repair, maintenance and other tenancy related issued addressed in a reasonable timeframe. The extreme stress having no New Zealand appointed agent when the landlord was out of New Zealand for 21 days of longer, ultimately led to the relationship breaking down irretrievably and the tenancy coming to an end.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of 1,000.00 in exemplary damages ( two thirds of the maximum penalty) because: a. The landlord intentionally did not ensure a New Zealand agent was appointed when she was living part time in Australia, nor did she met her statutory obligations pursuant to s16A(4) of the RTA to provide the tenant with the agents contact details or notify the Bond Centre of the appointment of an agent. She did ask the letting agent to assist her if she had to have any repairs and maintenance issue investigated urgently but expressly told the tenant she would remain her point of contact; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the landlord having a New Zealand based agent that she can communicate any issues and concerns with and have these investigated and addressed in a timely manner; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to appoint an agent and notify them and the Bond Centre of who that agent is and their contact details; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching her obligations to appoint an agent and notify the tenants and the Bond Centre of who that agent is and their contact details for the protection of both parties’ interests. Did the landlord interfere with tenant’s internet and power supply?
The tenant claims the landlord interfered with the internet and power services that were provided by the landlord as part of the tenancy.
Section 45(2) of the RTA states the “landlord shall not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telephone services, or other services to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out”. A contravention by the landlord of subsection (2) is declared to be an unlawful act.
Breaching s45(2) of the RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
On 17 October 2024, the tenant raised concerns about how the landlord allocated the tenant’s power consumption and how she calculated the amounts charged for that consumption. After taking advice, the tenant ceased paying the power bills until the issue was resolved and she could be sure the power she was being charged for matched her consumption and that she was not paying the fixed charges. Access to the internet formed part of the services provided by the landlord to the tenant under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
On 31 October 2024, the tenant claims the landlord was so upset about the tenant having ceased paying the power bill that, when she left to return overseas, she turned off the modem. The modem was in the main house where the tenant could not turn it back on, and the tenant lost internet access. The tenant has proven that she had to use her phone data for the remainder of the tenancy to access the internet for work and personal use, and that this increased the cost of her mobile phone bill. The tenant did not provide her phone bills to prove the amount of the increase in this period.
The landlord denies doing this and says that she had dusted to modem before she left but she would not turn it off deliberately as she required the internet connection for the security camera. Further, she says she was able to access the security cameras over this period, which required the modem to be on. It is possible to have two or more different Wi-Fi access codes (passwords) for one modem/router. This is a common requirement for separating guest access, smart home devices, or creating distinct networks for different users. It may be that this was how the landlord was able to still have access to the modem herself, while disabling the tenant’s access. The tenant noted that a different internet connection name popped up than had been present in the past and the one she had used was no longer available. This indicates that the log in details for the modem were changed.
The landlord also gave evidence that she reminded the tenant that the internet access was conditional in the tenancy agreement on the tenant “paying her bills on time” and the tenant was behind in paying the power bills. The tenant explained she had ceased paying the power bills until she better understood if the landlord was billing her correctly.
The tenant produced emails and notes from her lawyer and social worker that prove the tenant had no internet access for the remainder of her tenancy, as they had tried to communicate with her via the internet and can attest to the internet not working and witnessing her having to hot spot her mobile data at an exorbitant rate. The tenant was unable to arrange her own separate internet or power connection due to the premise not being subdivided lawfully, and therefore not being recognised by these service providers as a separate household.
The tenant also claims the landlord sent her a reminder notice from the power company warning the power may be disconnected if unpaid. This notice was given to the tenant on the afternoon of 1 November 2024 and the power was disconnected the following day. The landlord claims this was due to non-payment of the last power bills.
I am satisfied the evidence proves that on the balance of probabilities, the landlord intentionally interfered with the tenant’s internet access from 31 October 2025 to 14 November 2025 and her electricity access from 1 November 2025 and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,350.00 of exemplary damages (three quarters of the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known the significant impact on the tenant of having her access to these services, services she was unable to access directly herself, abruptly stopped when the landlord had left the country, and the landlord would be difficult to communicate with about the issue as the relationship was already extremely strained ; b. The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing continued access to these services, and not taking the lawful steps available to her to recover any monies owed, meant the tenant was isolated and anxious and suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience because of the breach. c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s abrupt disconnection of these services to the tenant in retaliation for the tenant tying to exercise her right to be billed for power consumption in accordance with the RTA; and d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide the internet and power services provided for in the tenancy agreement.
I note for completeness that the landlord cannot rely on the unlawful clause in tenancy agreement that makes provision of these utilities conditional upon the tenant paying her bills on time regardless of whether there is a dispute about whether or not the amounts being charged, and the calculation methods are lawful. Charging outgoings- power
The tenant claims she has been charged for outgoings that are not related to her consumption of utilities, specifically electricity.
Section 39(3) of the RTA states that “the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities”.
The tenant claims the power readings from a separate meter for her household were provided to her irregularly only when the landlord was back in New Zealand but that these readings were illegible.
The landlord confirmed: a. The fixed daily charges, of approximately $23.00 per month, were halved with the tenant paying one half and the landlord the other half each month, regardless of whether the landlord was in the country or not. Tenants are generally liable for fixed power charges (daily supply charges) in New Zealand, as these are considered part of the cost of having the electricity supply connected for their use. Halving this cost was a sensible approach as both parties needed to access power; and b. For the periods the landlord is out of New Zealand, the tenant is charged for all the power consumption. This could have been an issue as the landlord was running some things on the property that use power when she is away from New Zealand. However, the landlord clarified that when she came back to New Zealand, she calculated the tenant’s actual usage over the period the landlord had been away by reading the separate power meter, deducting the landlord’s usage and balancing up any overpayment by the tenant in the following billing period. The landlord stated she was usually out of New Zealand for 5 to 8 weeks at a time but one time she was away for around 4 months due to work commitments followed by a holiday; and c. For the periods the landlord was in New Zealand, she read the separate meter for the tenant’s premise when she arrived and left and billed the tenant for her consumption for that period, at the rate charged by the power supplier, minus any applicable overpayments from the prior 5 to 8-week period.
The landlord stated that this arrangement is clear in the tenancy agreement and that the tenant had never asked about this, or the landlord would have shown her the book she records all the power meter readings in.
The tenant confirmed that she has not paid the following power bills : a. $78.00 for September 2024; and b. $119.31 for October 2024.
I am satisfied that the tenant was being charged for her power consumption and her share of the fixed daily charge in accordance with s39(3) of the RTA and award the landlord the $197.31 electricity arrears the landlord has proven she is owed. Was the tenancy agreement signed by both parties and a fully signed copy provided to the tenant before tenancy commenced?
Section 13 of the RTA states: (1) The landlord must ensure that the tenancy agreement is in writing. (2) The landlord must, before the tenancy commences,— (a) sign the tenancy agreement; and (b) provide a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant (whether or not the tenant has signed it).
Section 13(4) and schedule 1A of the RTA provides for exemplary damages of up to a maximum of $750.00 for any intentional breach of s13A(1) of the RTA.
The tenancy commenced on 11 May 2024.
There are two copies of the tenancy agreement. This is because the tenant signed the tenancy agreement electronically on 6 May 2024, before the landlord had signed the tenancy agreement and completed her contact details.
The landlord’s version of the tenancy agreement, provided in evidence, was the copy she had signed at the letting agent’s premise on 10 May 2024. The landlord states she left with the letting agent the signed copy of the tenancy agreement, healthy homes information and the pre- tenancy inspection photographs, taken by the landlord on 8 May 2024. Her expectation was the letting agent would get the tenant to sign the same copy of the tenancy agreement and then supply a full set of the pre-tenancy documents to the tenant before the tenancy commenced. The landlord was flying back to Australia on 12 May 2024, so she was unable to meet with the tenant and complete this process herself.
The landlord stated that she expected that the tenant would pick up the keys, the fully signed lease, healthy homes information and pre- tenancy inspection photographs, taken by the landlord on 8 May 2024. The landlord says the tenant was not available to go to the letting agent’s office and so she did not get these documents. The letting agent left the keys in the letter box for the tenant. But failed to provide the completed paperwork to her. Therefore, the version of the tenancy agreement the landlord signed was never provided to the tenant.
The landlord did not follow up with the letting agent to confirm the tenant had received the final paperwork and was available for a pre-let inspection. No pre- let inspection was undertaken with the tenant, as the tenant did not meet the letting agent to get the keys. The tenant says she was packing and moving at the time the keys were dropped off and that no offer was made to have an entry inspection with the letting agent.
The first the landlord knew the tenant had not received the paperwork was when the tenant made the Tribunal application.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not receive a fully signed copy of the tenancy agreement prior to her tenancy commencing because this task feel through the gaps between the landlord and the letting agent. I am not however satisfied this breach was intentional.
Because the tenant did not receive the fully signed copy and other pre-tenancy documents left with the letting agent for the tenant, and thus did not have this information for the duration of the tenancy, I award her compensation of $200.00 for the stress and inconvenience the letting agent’s mistake caused. Did the tenancy agreement contain all the s13A of the RTA statutorily required content?
Section 13A (1) of the RTA states that the tenancy agreement must contain the following information that is missing from the copy of the tenancy agreement the landlord signed and provided in evidence: a. The landlord’s contact email address (if any) (Refer to s13A(1)(a)); b. The landlord’s contact mobile telephone number if any) (Refer to s13A(1)(aa)); and c. The landlord’s address for service (Refer to s13A(1)(f)).
Section 13A(1AAA) of the RTA holds that a landlord who fails to ensure that the tenancy agreement includes the information specified in subsection (1)(a) to (ab), (c) to (f), and (i) to (p) commits an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00.
The copy of the tenancy agreement the landlord signed does not provided this information.
The landlord says she left a welcome pack in the kitchen, which had the landlord’s contact details on page three, flowers, and details about how to use things in the property. The tenant claims she did not receive this information and remained confused about who the landlord was and if the letting agent was also the property manager. With the void in the contact details supplied, which the tenant did raise several times with the landlord and the letting agent, the tenant was unable to contact the landlord promptly when she needed to, especially when emergencies arose.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to complete the section of the tenancy agreement fully with all the information required by s13A(1) of the RTA and that even if the tenant had received the welcome pack, which she denies, that does not absolve the landlord from this intentional breach of the RTA.
I find it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay $375.00 of exemplary damages (half the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known she had to provide the tenant with these important contact details; b. The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing this information is that she was unable to contact the landlord easily during the tenancy and had no idea where the correct address for service was for her; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide this critical information when the landlord was living between Australia and New Zealand, and no one was clear with the tenant the scope of the role the letting agent was to play in the tenancy relationship; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fails to provide the required contact details and address for service.
However, the Tribunal is barred from making such an exemplary damage award by s109(2) of the RTA because the date the breach occurred, being 11 May 2024, is more than 12 months prior to the tenant’s 20 August 2025 application to the Tribunal. Therefore, I award the tenant compensation of $375.00 in recognition of the impact of this breach on her. Did the landlord fail to comply with section 13A(1A), (1CA) and (2) of the RTA by failing to provide a signed health homes statement and the required healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement?
Section 13A of the RTA provides a comprehensive list of information that must be included in the tenancy agreement.
Section 13A(1A) states the landlord “must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that provides the following information to the tenant (subject to subsections (1B) and (1C)): (a) whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises: (b) details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises”.
Section 13A(1CA) states he landlord “must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, (a) that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5)”.
Section 13A(2) required the landlord to provide information on whether the premises are insured and if they are who with and the excess amount for each policy and that the landlord will provide a copy of the policy on request.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1A), (1CA) or (2) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The parties each produced a different copy of the tenancy agreement. Both contain insurance information, a signed healthy homes compliance statement, and an insulation statement. Neither of these versions contain any of the other four healthy homes standards information.
The tenancy agreement was provided by an experienced property management company, whose branding is on the document. The same property management company had been supplied with the details of the premise’s compliance against the other four healthy homes standards, but it was not supplied to the tenant by the letting agent or the landlord.
The landlord accepted the tenant did not receive the required healthy homes information in or with the tenancy agreement, but states the premise was fully compliant, the tenant never requested it, and the landlord had not intentionally failed to provide this information to the tenant.
I find 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 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 not satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required healthy homes information, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, but find it appropriate to award the tenant compensation of $100.00 because: a. The landlord should have made sure the tenant received the tenancy agreement with all the required healthy homes compliance information in it or with it and she did not; b. The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing this information is that she took on the tenancy for a premise that did not know met none, some or all the standards HHS. However, because the premise was fully compliant, there was no real harm to the tenant of not having received this information; and c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide healthy homes’ standards information;

Did the landlord attempt to terminate without grounds?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
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 $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord gave the tenant notice 17 October 2024, ending the tenancy on 26 December 2024, and telling the tenant she was free to leave earlier, when the tenancy was not able to be lawfully ended by the giving of notice until the 9 May 2025.
I find 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 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 in exemplary damages of $3,250.00 (half of the maximum penalty available) because: a. The tenant was given an unlawful notice and had to seek legal advice whether she had to move out of the premise on Boxing Day, a public holiday the tenant was entitled to be able to enjoy without being forced to move when she thought she had the certainty of secure accommodation until 9 May 2025 . This caused her considerable stress and inconvenience; b. it is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful notice; and c. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to give tenants lawful notice.

Did the landlord issue the tenant with a retaliatory termination notice?

The tenant claims the landlord issued her with a retaliatory notice terminating her tenancy.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy was for a fixed term, commencing 11 May 2024 and ending on 9 May 2025.
The landlord gave the tenant notice 17 October 2024, ending the tenancy on 26 December 2024, and telling the tenant she was free to leave earlier, when the tenancy was not able to be lawfully ended by the giving of notice until the 9 May 2025.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that she and her contractors found the tenant increasingly difficult to deal with, and that she found the tenant’s numerous and continuous complaints about breaches of her RTA rights and the landlord’s obligations, along with the tenant’s inflexibility with contractors trying to undertake repairs and maintenance in a reasonable timeframe, challenging.
Additionally, the tenant confirmed she had formally raised concerns about breaches of the landlord’s RTA obligations by email on 10 and 14 October 2024 and that the landlord decided to respond to her asserting her RTA rights by unlawfully terminating the tenancy in retaliation for the tenant asserting her RTA rights.
The landlord confirmed she had talked to Tenancy Services on 17 October 2024 and sought advice on what she saw as an untenable situation for both parties. The landlord claims she was advised the tenancy was flatmates, and she only had to give 1 weeks’ notice. The landlord says she was actively encouraged to end the tenancy.
Tenancy Services is a service provided by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). It provides guidance, educational material, and advice to landlords and tenants’, but the advice or guidance given is not a substitute for seeking legal advice from a lawyer and it is not binding on the Tenancy Tribunal.
A Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator is an independent judicial officer engaged by the Ministry of Justice to make final, legally binding decisions based on the evidence presented in a specific case. The decisions and reasons for decisions may vary from the advice or guidance provided by Tenancy Services Call Centre staff. If a party wants legal advice it must go to a legal services provider. MBIE’s service to landlords and tenants is for education and guidance and is not a substitute for legal advice.
There are documents provided in evidence that show the landlord and her contractors had discussions about the challenges of dealing with the tenant and that she and they wanted to end the tenancy as a result. One such email exchange on 13 August 2024 between a contractor, [Electrician 1], and the landlord discuss issues the landlord was having, the tenant not opening the window, mentioning eye rolls and [Electrician 1] saying the tenant’s difficult and paranoid. These communications paint a picture of the landlord considering the tenant to be a nuisance and that’s why her tenancy was terminated. [Electrician 1] even states that in his view she will never be made happy.
I am satisfied the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that there is a casual link exists between the tenant’s formal email complaints on 10 and 14 October 2024, seeking to uphold her rights as a tenant, with the landlord issuing her with a retaliatory notice on 17 October 2024.
I find that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy and that this was an intentional and unlawful act (Refer to s52(4)(a) of the RTA).
I also find that the landlord was not the landlord was justified in giving the notice (refer to s54(5) of the RTA).
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord was motivated partly by the tenant exercising a right under the RTA, or because she informed the landlord, she had complaints against the landlord for breaches of the RTA; b. The tenant is entitled to the security afforded to her by the law to protect her from having her tenancy terminated, before the end of the fixed term tenancy, in retaliation for exercising a right under the RTA, or because she informed the landlord, she had complaints against the landlord for breaches of the RTA; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to the tenant to terminate her tenancy lawfully to protect tenant’s interests.
The quantum of exemplary damages takes into consideration the tenant and the landlord were operating under a mistaken belief the relationship was that of a flat mate at the time the tenancy was ended and that the tenant did not raise her reasonable belief she was a tenant under the RTA until after her tenancy had ended. It also considers the fact the tenant has already been awarded $3,250.00 in exemplary damages for being given an unlawful termination notice.

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Section 36 of the RTA states “the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes”.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA states the premise must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premise.
The tenant claimed that the premises are unlawful residential premises because the premise was not consented by the local council to be used as a separate rental premise. She stated that there was no legally consented fire wall between the premises and no ability for her to have separate internet or electricity connections in her own name with her chosen providers because of it being an unlawful resident premise.
Additionally, the tenant claims the landlord does not pay rates for two separate premises and knows it is unlawful to rent the premise out under a residential tenancy and that she tried to contract out of this breach of local council regulations and the Building Code and Regulations by saying the tenancy was a flatmate situation when the agreement the letting agent drafted and both partes signed clearly states it is a residential tenancy agreement
A landlord is obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes (section 36 RTA).
The landlord’s written evidence is as follows: “In 2022 long term tenants of the house [Tenancy address suppressed] relocated. I had already taken over the management of the house after our Mother’s passing from [The letting agent]. This was the opportunity to clean up the house and make it ready for further occupancy. I was limited by tax residency laws and had a 6-month time frame to organize and administer. 6 July 2022 to Feb 2023. It was the intention to provide a small lockable space for myself, so I could regularly come over to work on the land and restore the gardens after the nine years it was tenanted. I started discussing options with family, particularly a nephew how this could give them relief from an overcrowded town house. With a growing talk of housing crisis, I didn’t feel it was right to lock up and leave empty a viable, functional family home. I contacted [The Council] by phone to ask about the process of Resource Consent. The gentleman explained that due to COVID restrictions was still isolating after contact w the virus and he said the paperwork process would take at least 18mths to 2 ½ years to process. I asked about different scenarios, either dividing the original structure, which wouldn’t effect the roof line or services at all - as result would take away a possible load off the septic services, as It is consented for a 3 bedroom home, which supported a family of 5 for 9 years. With this new proposal, one side would have one resident (albeit parttime), and it the larger half of the house would have a couple, or small family; max 3 people. The other option was to build a separate structure or add a mini home away from the house, leaving the house intact, but largely un utilized with the larger part of the home empty or have my nephew take over the house. This would also offer security for when I am not there, as I had been told empty houses in this district are targets for vandals. After a lengthy and informative conversation the gentleman explained that the property had one more entitlement for either a restructure of the original consented dwelling building or build/install an independent structure further into the paddock. This would mean if the one Resource Consent was issued for a division, I would never have the option to build somewhere else on the property. This needed time to consider. I had drawn up plans for the addition of the internal wall and begun collecting quotes from Tradies, thinking they would be booked out for months ahead due to covid restrictions effecting supply of materials and workers able to work. On the Contrary, due to the restrictions, everyone was really happy to find small jobs that didn’t involve a lot of contact w people and within their work restrictions. At least they could keep busy and make some income. I pursued quotes and continued the jobs I are started (installing new carpet, painting the house, replacing cupboards, knobs, taps and bathroom fans. I also installed water tanks to increase the water capacity. These I plumbed into the paddock for stock and also into the smaller half of the house, making it independent to the larger side of the house.) I asked my electrician what the options were as far as supplying an independent electrical connection. He rewired the smaller half of the house and installed a submain meter into my cupboard. This was I could record and tally my usage against the other side of the house. I arranged a telephone meeting with local Planners. We spoke in length of my plan and they assured me it would be a rather simple process, but would take much longer due to COVID still effecting the NZ work force. I asked then about historical applications, if I continued the transition before the Building Certificate was issued, given the various time restraints. They advised me if was unusual, but possible. I insisted that all work and materials used in the transition to be complaint to resource consent standards and insisted on no short cuts or compromises. As per fire wall requirements, It is impossible to install a tilt concrete wall, so researched the GIB and KOROK options. GIB also offers a viable sound proofing option, so I choose that option, installing a total of three layers of GIB, fire retardant and the sound proofing foam product injected into the wall cavities. I asked [The letting agent] to come back and visit the house and give me an appraisal for the larger part of the house for further discussions with my nephew. My nephew and his partner were unable to transfer to the [Town] Station and decided to stay in their small townhouse in [City], therefore declining the offer to live in the family house at [suburb suppressed]. I continued the process of cleaning up and finishing off the house, closing up the larger side. I began the task of juggling farm work between NSW Australia and [suburb suppressed] NZ, spending between 1-2 mths at a time to manage each place. The Feb Cyclone hit the ridge in [suburb suppressed] badly and created a huge landslide in the paddock. The cleanup was significant and as a result the engineers report advised no further development on the paddock for the vulnerability to excess rain coming off the road and causing further slippage. This concluded that the one Resource Consent allotment for the property (almost 5 acs) would be utilized for the house division with a possible addition. I again contacted [The Council] to ask about starting the RC process, now certain that this entitlement would be for the original house’s division. They were overwhelmed by the cyclone damage and suggested I delay due to other urgent business due to the storms damage. There were 100’s of people homeless and devastated by the floods and landslides around the district. The radio was full of devastating stories of extra people now joining an already overwhelmed rental market. I spoke to [The letting agent] in regards to putting the house on the rental market, given the dire need for more availability. Over the years of management, like many small town operators, [The letting agent] had become a family friend, with independent relationship w my two sisters in [City]. [The letting agent] had offered to be a back up, if I needed help w the property while I was absent. ([The letting agent] has a great list of workers that can solve problems on rural properties and she would hold a full set of keys in case of need while I am out of the country) [The letting agent] was very clear explaining she could not offer management due to the consent not being complete. I asked her if she could list the property and vet applications? I believed she was able to do this but not manage the property. If [The letting agent] has over reached her professional limits, this is the measure of a kind and generous woman who has no malicious intent about her. I concur I had proceeded in offering this home to someone in the rental market with out the completion of the consent. This in no way actually effected the quality of home offered to a tenant. It presented newly refurbished, offering a lush roomy home in a spectacular garden setting. This also doesn’t reflect on the property being substandard. The home certainly does have a completed a healthy Homes check”.
I am satisfied this evidence proves, on the balance of probabilities, the landlord was aware that this was an unlawful residential premise and was the reason the letting agent was not managing the property. It also confirms the letting agent confirmed to the landlord that she knew it was an unlawful residential tenancy. Neither party informed the tenant of this prior to her signing up to the tenancy. Amount of rent to be refunded
Pursuant to section 78A (4) of the RTA where premises are found to be unlawful the Tribunal can consider reimbursing rent paid. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenants, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. See section 78A(4)(ii) RTA. A proportionate return of rent may be considered.
The Tribunal has considered the following special circumstances of this case.
The landlord claimed that the tenant had the benefit of living in the premises for just over 6 months, at an affordable rent and there is no persuasive evidence the tenants’ raised concerns about the tenancy being an unlawful residential tenancy until after being served with a termination notice.
The Tribunal is obliged to take a strict approach when an unlawful premises is rented out, because of the risks involved. In this situation, the premise itself is not an unlawful residential premise because it does not comply with the building code or any other statutory requirements. It is an unlawful residential premise because the owner failed to get written consent from [The Council] to allow her to lawfully rent out the premise as a residential tenancy.
The owner confirmed she knew about this requirement, did not take steps to comply with it, and in fact intentionally chose to rent the premise out knowing she was not lawfully entitled to do so.
Section 36 of the RTA is clear, “the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes”. The owner has proven she knew of the legal impediment to the occupation of the premise for residential purposes but did so anyway rather than leave the premise empty when there is a shortage of rental accommodation. She did not tell the tenant about this legal impediment prior to her choosing to sign up to the tenancy, thereby depriving her of the opportunity to choose whether or not to do so.
The parties confirmed the tenant has paid $560.00 per week rent for the 26 weeks and 5 days of the tenancy, being $14,960.00 rent from the 11 May 2024 to 14 November 2024.
Having carefully considered the special circumstances of this case the Tribunal orders a refund to the tenant of ten percent of the rent in the sum of $1,496.00. This recognises: a. The tenant had the amenity of a heathy homes and building standards compliant home that was unconsented because the landlord had chosen to use the one resource consent available for the property for a different use; b. The landlord’s intentional breach of the RTA; and c. The tenant not raising this issue until the end of the tenancy. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Quiet enjoyment
The landlord claims amount of communication from tenant was excessive, when information was sent to her that answered her questions. She states this over communication impacted her quiet enjoyment of her New Zealand home and this was compounded by the tenant by threatening to take her to the Tribunal. The landlord seeks compensation and exemplary damages for what she claims is the tenant’s breach of her obligations under the RTA.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the landlord has identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders around a tenant breaching a landlord’s quiet enjoyment by exercising her s40(1)(d) of the RTA obligations to raise any repair issues and her right to seek assistance from the Tenancy Tribunal to resolve her tenancy dispute, this claim must be dismissed. Costs
The landlord seeks compensation for her legal costs, for what she claims have been vexatious claims by the tenant.
She also seeks compensation for the cost of the workers that had to do her work while she prepared for the 9 December 2025 hearing when she only got the tenants claims on 25 November 2025, due to the incorrect email address being used to communicate with her.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the landlord has identified, from which these claims can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders reimbursing the landlord for time to prepare her evidence to defend the tenants claims or for the cost of covering her normal work duties while she does so, this claim must be dismissed.

OTHER ORDERS

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 has substantially succeeded with her claims, I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claims so her application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name 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 tenant has substantially succeeded in her proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct.
The tenant’s application for non-publication is ordered.
The landlord also applies for non-publication of her name 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 landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings, and I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct in this matter. She has intentionally committed a number of significant breaches of her obligations under the RTA.
The landlord’s application for non-publication is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421988 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421988 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord attempt to terminate without grounds?

Did the landlord issue the tenant with a retaliatory termination notice?

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord attempt to terminate without grounds?

Did the landlord issue the tenant with a retaliatory termination notice?

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions