What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422711 about?

The tribunal order states: This order revokes and replaces the order made on 23 April 2026.

How much money was awarded in case 5422711?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422711?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13689728-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422711 about?

The tribunal order states: This order revokes and replaces the order made on 23 April 2026.

How much money was awarded in case 5422711?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422711?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13689728-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

727 Poyntzs Road, Eyrewell, RD 6, West Eyreton 7476 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422711 — Exemplary damages

Order

This order revokes and replaces the order made on 23 April 2026.
Todd George Banks And Trevor Quirk As Trustees For Bb Family Trustees Limited Todd George Banks must pay Karen Christine Leslie $3,800.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 3 June 2026.

BACKGROUND

This tenancy commenced on 1 December 2023. The tenant paid a bond which was lodged with Tenancy Services. The tenant paid rent, part of which she paid to the landlord and part of which she paid to the owners of the land on which the tenancy premises was situated. The tenancy premises consists of two tiny homes on wheels with an enclosed living space between the tiny homes.
The tenancy ended in February 2025 following the local Council investigating the premises and raising a concern with the landowners about the lack of building and resource consent for the premises.
On 25 June 2025 the landlord filed an application for rent arrears and payment of the bond held by the bond centre.
On 28 October 2025 Adjudicator Small dismissed the landlord’s claim as the landlord did not attend the hearing.
The landlord applied for a rehearing and on 16 December 2025 Adjudicator Carter granted the rehearing. Adjudicator Carter directed that the tenant file her cross application and that the rehearing be scheduled before him.
A hearing was scheduled on 10 March 2026 and Adjudicator Carter treated that hearing as a case conference.
A hearing was scheduled for 22 April 2026. The tenant did not appear and the cross application that she had filed was dismissed. The landlord did attend the hearing and Adjudicator Carter made an order on 23 April 2026 that the tenant pay rent arrears and for payment of the bond to the landlord.
The tenant applied for a rehearing due to connectivity issues relating to the hearing on 22 April 2026. That application was scheduled for hearing and on 18 May 2026 Adjudicator Carter granted the tenant’s rehearing application and made further directions including amending the landlord’s claim and for the filing of evidence.

THIS HEARING AND THE CLAIMS

The hearing before me was therefore a rehearing in respect of an order made on 23 April 2026.
The landlord’s claims are: a. Rent arrears, b. That the tenant had used the premises, or permitted the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose, c. That the tenant had caused or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other people residing in the neighbourhood. d. The landlord sought exemplary damages in respect of the above two claims. e. Payment of the bond – the landlord holds the bond following it being released after the making of the order dated 23 April 2026.
The tenant’s claims are: a. That the premises is an unlawful residential premises, b. That the landlord failed to provide and maintain locks to secure the premises, c. That the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards, d. That the landlord failed to provide a healthy homes compliance statement at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenant had earlier raised in the proceedings that she may bring additional claims however she confirmed at the hearing that she was not seeking orders in respect of the landlord failing to lodge the bond in the required time, the landlord failing to state the amount of rent on advertisement of the residential premises, and the landlord inviting or encouraging bids for rent.

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 applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 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. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach when deciding to award compensation. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 3 the Court of Appeal said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.
Section 109 (3) of the RTA says if the Tribunal is satisfied that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally, and that, having regard to— (a) the intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and (b) the effect of the unlawful act; and (c) the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) the public interest,— 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 3 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) it would be just to require the person against whom the order is sought to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages, the Tribunal may make an order accordingly.
A party may not apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act or no later than 12 months after the termination of the tenancy if the breach relates to the landlord’s obligations in respect of the bond and record keeping. 4 TENANT’S CLAIMS Was the premises an unlawful residential premises and if so, what is the remedy?
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. 5 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. 6
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order. 7
The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. 8
If the landlord has applied for termination for rent arrears, and the Tribunal declares the residential tenancy to be unlawful, the Tribunal may order termination, but it is not required to do so. 9
There is therefore a two-step process to decide if premises are unlawful. a. Step one is to decide if the premises cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes. This first step involves making a finding that the 4 RTA, s 109 (2). 5 RTA, s 77(2)(ac). 6 RTA, s 78A(2). 7 RTA, s 78 A (3). 8 RTA, s 78A (4) and (5). 9 RTA, s 78A(3)(b) RTA. whole of the property has some sort of regulatory failure which means it cannot be occupied as a residential dwelling. The unlawfulness must be more than, say, just an outstanding permit for a bathroom. 10 b. Step two is to decide if the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA.
The Tribunal is obliged to take a strict approach in such situations, because of the serious risk involved. The public policy behind section 78A of the RTA is to discourage landlords from renting out properties that were unconsented or unlawful and had therefore never been subject to meeting the legal requirements to ensure their safe and healthy occupation by tenants. In tenanting a property that cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes a landlord is not only profiting from illegal conduct but is potentially placing a tenant’s health and safety at risk. If there is a fire, for instance, in an unlawful residential premises, the consequences not just for the tenant but also for the landlord, are serious, including loss of life. That kind of scenario indicates how seriously the Tribunal must approach these situations and is no doubt why Parliament has set severe sanctions in the RTA for renting out premises that are unlawful. 11
Prior cases where the Tribunal has found premises to be unlawful appear to fall broadly into one or more of the following categories: a. Unconsented premises: In other words, premises where there has been no building consent or resource consent for the premises at all. b. Premises where an abatement notice or dangerous and insanitary building notice has been issued by the Council. c. Cases where garages, basement conversions or parts of premises being used as a larger household unit have been converted for residential use and then rented out as a separate household unit, without Council consent as to the change of use. The premises themselves may have had the necessary building consents but there is no Council approval for the use of the premises as a separate household unit.
Section 36 of the RTA states that the landlord should 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 provides a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Section 45(1)(c) RTA, in this case, requires consideration of whether the landlord has complied with the provisions of the Building Act 2004. Section 40 of 10 See Mansfield v Silk and another [2020] NZ TT 4246581, at [16]. 11 Noted in North v Hunt [2021] NZTT 429579, at [30] and [31] the Building Act 2004 states that a household unit, being a building intended for residential occupation, must have a building consent. A building should be certified as being compliant by having a code compliance certificate. If it has neither, or a building consent only, then pursuant to the RTA, it is an unlawful residential premises. This case
The tenant says the premises was an unlawful residential premises because it lacked a building consent it was required to have.
The tenant provided a letter dated 20 November 2024 and subsequent email dated 11 December 2025 (although this date appears to be the date the tenant received it and I understand it was sent during the tenancy) that had been sent from the Waikakariri District Council Principal Compliance Officer, Paul Jones, to the owners of the property. In the second email Mr Jones said there are a number of WDC District Plan and NZ Building Code Act rule breaches which are applicable to the premises, including (but not limited to): • The distance between the main dwelling end secondary dwelling is approximately 62 metres, the maximum allowable without a resource consent is 30 metres. • The distance from the front road boundary is approximately 16.5 metres and the minimum allowable distance without a resource consent is 20 metres. • Looking at the structure as a whole (two smaller trailer units & central enclosed living space) a building consent should have been obtained prior to setting up. • Stormwater, sewer and grey water disposal would have been considered as part of the building consent process.
The email went on further to say given the above issues the simplest solution is to remove the structure from the property, which I understand occurred and resulted in the tenancy ending in February 2025.
The landlord disputes that the premises is an unlawful residential premises and says because it is a moveable home it did not require building consent.
The landlord provided an email, referred to as a builders report, from an engineer to explain the nature of the home, in support of his position that it was a movable home that would not require building or resource consent. That email read: I David Holland, an engineer currently employed at Air New Zealand was employed to shift Flora and Todds tiny homes from their location down Poyntz's road to their current parking space. The tiny homes are easily moved requiring 1.5 to 2 days to disassemble the flat pack covered deck - this fits neatly on a large trailer. Then this is towing the 2 units behind the landcruiser to their current parking spot in one of my paddocks. they are essentially a trailer home with all the lights for towing along with the 230V system for a home. At the Poyntz's road site their was extensive ground works with a solid driveway, fresh water connection and a sump for grey water along with a composting toilet. these were all in good working order when I packed up the Tiny homes between room and towed the trailer homes. Please note the Tiny home was of a good clean functioning standard, there was however a lot of rubbish in and around the tiny homes left by the tenant. Also of note the land owners were very pleased to have the the vacated.
Neither Paul Jones nor David Holland were made available by the parties to give evidence at the hearing.
The landlord did not dispute that the Council had determined that the building consent was required, and both the landlord and owners of the property appear to have relied on this as the basis for terminating the tenancy.
The landlord also did not provide any evidence from a registered builder to challenge the position of the local Council that a resource consent and builders consent were required. Further I note that Mr Holland’s statement makes no specific comment on the need for building consent or otherwise.
According to the Council’s assessment, the premises is unconsented, and a building consent and resource consent were required. Because the Council determined that a building consent should have been obtained, I consider that the landlord has not complied with the Building Act 2004, and consequently the landlord failed to comply with section 45(1)(c) of the RTA. Therefore, the premises is an unlawful residential premises.
I consider the landlord caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation of the premises by not making sufficient documented enquiries as to whether a resource or building consent was required and obtaining the required consents.

What is the remedy?

In determining the appropriate remedy or rent refund, the Tribunal must, take into account the nature of the premises and any special circumstances. 12
The nature of the premises was that of two tiny homes with an enclosed living space which was potentially unsafe and unsanitary, however the tenant did not labour these matters at the hearing. She was concerned that the premises was placed in an unsafe position under trees.
Other Tribunal decisions have identified the following factors as relevant to determining the appropriate remedy: 12 RTA, 78A(4). a. the landlord’s motivation for renting the premises, conduct during the tenancy and the benefits obtained by the landlord: The landlord was motivated to rent the premises to secure rental income while overseas. The tenant has paid a total of $12,600.00 to the landlord according to bank statements. b. the tenant’s motivation for renting the premises and bringing the claim, the length of occupation and the benefits obtained by the tenant: The tenant needed accommodation and resided in the premises for 14 months and had the benefit of using the premises for that period. To a degree the premises appears to have largely suited the tenant’s needs, and she did not end the tenancy. It appears the tenant filed this claim to off-set the landlord’s claim for rent arrears and the bond. c. the seriousness of the breaches rendering the premises unlawful: In this case there has not been a technical breach. The landlord did not obtain a building consent for the premises, and it appears potentially a building consent or certificate of acceptance may not have been granted by the local Council. d. any other breaches by the landlord: As I address later in this decision, there have been other breaches of the RTA by the landlord, including failing to comply with the healthy homes standards in respect of insulation and failing to provide a healthy homes compliance statement. e. any detriment or loss suffered by the tenant: The tenant has lived in a home that likely did not meet building standards, that creates a risk for her. There was some evidence that the tenants notified the landlord of concerns around the wind and cold, however she did not seek Tribunal intervention during the tenancy. f. the purpose of section 78A in preventing landlords from unfairly profiting from renting out unconsented or unlawful properties which have not been through the proper checks to make sure they are safe and healthy for occupation by tenants. Landlords should not be able to profit from unlawful activity. g. the public interest in discouraging unlawful tenancies, and h. any other compensation or exemplary damages awarded: As noted below, I have ordered that the landlord pay compensation and exemplary damages for other breaches of the RTA.
The Tribunal has a discretion to order a refund of the entire amount of the rent paid but may deduct from that an amount that would be fair to deduct, based on any special circumstances. In this case, I have determined that a rent refund should be made to the tenant, but I also conclude that the special circumstances of the case require that the significant amount of the rent paid, be retained by the landlord. That is largely because the tenant had beneficial use of the premises and lived in the home for 14 months without terminating the tenancy or bringing a claim to the Tribunal.
Rather than calculate compensation as a portion of rent paid, I consider a global award of compensation is the best approach. In considering the circumstances of this case I order $1,000.00 compensation be paid by the landlord to the tenant.
The tenant did not include the owners of the property as a respondent to this claim and I have no documentary evidence as to the amount the tenant paid the owners; therefore, I have only taken into account the amount of rent paid to the landlord when determining the appropriate remedy in this case.
I consider an award of exemplary damages is also just and will address this further below.

Did the landlord fail to provide adequate locks?

A landlord is required to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. 13 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 14
The tenant says at the start of the tenancy both the front and back door were unable to be locked as they had keys jammed in them. She says at times when it was very windy at night she would find the doors had opened, which was a worry for her.
The landlord disputed that there was a key jammed in the back door and says in approximately July 2024 they arranged for the issue with the lock to be repaired due to the tenant raising concerns about the door. The landlord said the tenant initially said she would have the door repaired by a family member.
The tenant did not dispute that the issue was addressed in July 2024, therefore the claim for exemplary damages has been filed out of time.
However, the obligation on the landlord to provide a secure home is not an obligation that the landlord should leave to the tenant to address. I also note that the RTA says that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon 13 RTA, s 46. 14 RTA s 46(3) and Schedule 1A. breach of contract. 15 In this case the tenant appears to have given the landlord the initial impression that she would fix the doors and there is no evidence that she issued the landlord with a 14 day notice in respect of the security issues and she did not bring a claim to the Tribunal promptly.
In the circumstances I make a nominal award of compensation of $200 which I consider reflects the nature, duration and effect of the breach and the tenant’s failure to mitigate her loss in respect of this issue.

Did the landlord fail to provide a healthy homes compliance statement?

The tenant said that she did not get a healthy homes compliance statement at the commencement of the tenancy.
Landlords are required to provide a tenancy agreement to the tenant which includes a healthy homes compliance statement (HHS compliance statement). The HHS sets out what information must be in the HHS compliance statement. 16 As part of the HHS compliance statement the landlord must certify that they will comply with the HHS and detail the current level of compliance. The purpose of the HHS compliance statement is to make it clear to both parties from the outset of the tenancy what the current level of compliance to the HHS is, and what if anything will require remediation.
A landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include an HHS compliance statement in the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750.00 for failure to provide the HHS compliance statement. 17
The landlord says that he was not aware he would need to provide an HHS compliance statement when the tenant was renting moveable tiny homes (that the landlord referred to as caravans) with a co-joining habitable space.
I consider the RTA is clear and the obligation to provide a HHS compliance statement applies to all tenancies and in failing to provide a HHS compliance statement the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The tenant claims exemplary damages. The claim for exemplary damages has however been filed out of time.
I consider that I may award compensation for the landlord’s breach, despite her seeking exemplary damages in respect of the claim. 18 The tenant has been disadvantaged by not having an HHS compliance statement. The lack of an 15 RTA, s 49. 16 RTA, s 13A (1CA), 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) and 138B(5). 17 RTA, s 13A (1F), s 109 and Schedule 1A. 18 Maria Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities [2022] NZDC 7003. HHS compliance statement has meant the tenant has no information about the level of compliance with the HHS and is a breach of the HHS. I consider the tenant should be compensated for breach and consider $200 reasonably reflects the nature, duration and effect of the breach.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the insulation healthy homes standard?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The claim is in respect of the insulation HHS only.
The RTA requires compliance with the HHS. 19 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. 20 For private rentals, 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 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. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 21
I note here that the obligation to comply with the HHS in this case commenced 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy. Insulation standard:
The insulation standard says that: a. The ceiling of each domestic living space in the premises must be fully covered by qualifying ceiling insulation. b. If a domestic living space in the premises has a suspended floor, that floor must be fully covered by qualifying underfloor insulation.
To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and
3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. The HHS does provide an exemption to the 19 RTA, s 45(1) (bb). 20 HHS, Schedule 1 21 RTA, s 45(1A). requirements for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. 22 Insulation standard: this case
The tenant says the premises did not comply with the insulation standard. The tenant says the conjoining space between the two tiny homes had a plastic roof (clear lite), which I understand was polycarbonate roofing. The tenant did not provide any independent expert evidence in respect of the insulation in the premises or refer to any photographs which shows the conjoining area had a polycarbonate roof.
The landlord accepted that there was a polycarbonate clear lite roof that was designed for light to enter the living area and said that the premises was otherwise insulated.
I consider that the polycarbonate roof between the moveable homes was not insulated to the required HHS. This was a domestic living space that is required to be insulated in accordance with the HHS. I do not accept the suggestion by the landlord that the premises should be exempt from the HHS for design or aesthetic purposes. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages for breach of s 45 RTA
The tenant seeks exemplary damages. Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately under the same provision of the RTA. 23
The landlord has committed an unlawful act by renting out an unlawful residential premises and failing to comply with the insulation HHS. In assessing the claim for exemplary damages, I consider the following factors are relevant: 24 a. Intent: i. Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular 22 HHS, regs 13-20 23 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583 24 RTA, s 109. obligation they have failed to perform, confusion, lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law is no defence. 25 ii. A party is deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. If the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally. iii. The landlord says the property was insulated, which indicates he was aware of the obligation to insulate. I find the landlord has intentionally failed to meet his responsibility to insulate the premises to the required HHS. iv. I also consider the landlord intentionally failed to ensure that the premises was lawful because while he considered a resource or building consent were not required, his ignorance of these well- known legal obligations is also no defence. b. Effect: i. The effect of the breach meant that the tenant lived in an unhealthy and unlawful home. The tenant says the home was very cold. c. Interest of tenant: i. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with its obligations under the RTA. d. Public interest: i. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that breach their obligations under the RTA.
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 26 In having regards to the above factors I consider an award of exemplary damages of a third of the maximum, being $2,400.00 is just and it is ordered accordingly. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much does the tenant owe for rent arrears?

As noted above, where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the 25 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 26 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order. 27
I acknowledge that the tenant has lived in the home for 14 months without raising a concern about the lawfulness of the premises, however I have established that this was an unlawful tenancy and should not have been rented out and landlords should be discouraged from renting out unlawful premises.
On balance I find that there are no special circumstances of this case to make it unjust not to order payment of the full rent arrears, save for $2,200, being the equivalent amount of the bond which is now held by the landlord. The tenant anticipated that the bond would be paid towards the rent arrears at the end of the tenancy (that is until the Council became involved), therefore I consider that it would be unjust to not award that amount. The balance of the claim for rent arrears is dismissed. Did the tenant breach the neighbour’s quiet enjoyment or use or permit the use of the premises for any unlawful purpose?
The landlord claims the tenant has disturbed their neighbours quiet enjoyment and has used the premises unlawfully.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. 28 Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 29
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". 30
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. 31 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 32
It is unlawful to commit crimes of burglary and theft.
The landlord claims the tenant permitted her son to have a firearm at the premises and had permitted her son to steal and damage neighbours’ property. In support of the claim the landlord provided an emailed copy of a newspaper 27 RTA, s 78 A (3). 28 RTA, s 40(2)(c). 29 RTA, s 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A. 30 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 31 RTA, s 40(2)(b). 32 RTA, s 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A. article which refers to the offending but does not implicate the tenant in the offending.
The landlord also submitted an email from Constable Suzy Mills from the NZ Police dated 24 November 2024, in which Constable Mills recommends terminating the tenancy for this tenant, her family and associates. Constable Mills says they have located stolen property and items of concern. There are no details of where this stolen property and items were located precisely.
The tenant says her son lived in a different premises nearby on the same block of land. The tenant acknowledged her sons offending but disputes any responsibility for his offending.
The tenant had her son’s partner give oral evidence at the hearing to confirm that they lived in a separate dwelling and that the tenant’s home was not searched by the Police.
I have considered the evidence provided and I am not satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has proven this tenant committed an unlawful act by breaching the neighbour’s quiet enjoyment or by using or permitting the use of the premises for any unlawful purpose because: a. I consider it more likely than not that the tenant’s son was living at a separate but nearby premises, b. The criminal action of the tenant’s son occurred away from this tenancy premises, c. There was no direct or written evidence from the victims of the alleged offending or any compelling evidence of a firearm unlawfully being at the tenant’s premises, d. There is insufficient evidence that the tenant permitted her son’s behaviour towards the other neighbouring premises, she has not been charged with any offending and it is not clear that she even had knowledge of the offending as it occurred.
However, even if I were to find the tenant had committed an unlawful act, the tenant’s son’s offending occurred in November 2024. The landlord amended the claim to include the breaches under s 40 (2)(b) and (c) of the RTA in May 2026. This is outside the time frame for filing a claim for exemplary damages.
Accordingly, the claim in respect of the tenant breaching the neighbour’s quiet enjoyment or using or permitting the use of the premises for any unlawful purpose is dismissed.

BOND

The landlord has received the bond of $2,200 from the bond centre following the making of the order of 23 April 2026. The bond off-sets the rent arrears ordered, leaving the amounts I have ordered the landlord to pay the tenant as the amounts payable immediately.

FILING FEE

Because both parties have been partly successful in their claims, I do not make an order for each to pay the filing fee as they would cancel each other out. 33

SUPPRESSION

On my enquiry, neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422711 — Exemplary damages at 727 Poyntzs Road, Eyrewell, RD 6, West Eyreton 7476

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422711 — Exemplary damages at 727 Poyntzs Road, Eyrewell, RD 6, West Eyreton 7476

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

THIS HEARING AND THE CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

What is the remedy?

Did the landlord fail to provide adequate locks?

Did the landlord fail to provide a healthy homes compliance statement?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the insulation healthy homes standard?

How much does the tenant owe for rent arrears?

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Property management

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

THIS HEARING AND THE CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

What is the remedy?

Did the landlord fail to provide adequate locks?

Did the landlord fail to provide a healthy homes compliance statement?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the insulation healthy homes standard?

How much does the tenant owe for rent arrears?

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Property management