Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5426908 — Exemplary damages at 1/383 Papanui Road, Strowan, Christchurch 8052
Published 9 April 2026 · Application 5426908
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Armstrong
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,345.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $2,255.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 31 December 2025 | $170.00 | Rent arrears to 31 December 2025 | |
| Window repairs | $175.00 | Window repairs | |
| Carpet Cleaning | $200.00 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Exemplary damages: Unlawful notice | $2,500.00 | Unlawful notice | |
| Compensation: Hot water | $300.00 | Hot water | |
| Total award | $545.00 | $2,800.00 | |
| Net award | $2,255.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $2,255.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5426908 — net $2,255.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 31 December 2025
- Amount
- $170.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 31 December 2025
Window repairs
- Amount
- $175.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Window repairs
Carpet Cleaning
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Unlawful notice
- Amount
- $2,500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Unlawful notice
Compensation: Hot water
- Amount
- $300.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Hot water
Total award
Landlord $545.00 · Tenant $2,800.00
Net award
Tenant $2,255.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $2,255.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Four Seasons Realty 2017 Limited and Majestic Trading Limited must pay Andrew Neville Humphries $2,255.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (6533423-004) to Andrew Neville Humphries immediately.
Reasons
- All parties attended or were represented at the hearing. Representatives of Four Seasons Realty Limited (Harcourts) represented Harcourts and Majestic Trading Limited (the Landlord).
- The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and payment from the bond.
- The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations and for payment of the bond. Background
- This tenancy began on 9 May 2024, and it was originally for a one-year fixed term. In June 2025 the parties agreed an extension of the term to 5 May 2026.
- Prior to the start of the tenancy the Landlords were using the premises as an office. They had decommissioned the hot water cylinder and had only a small water heater for the kitchen. They tried to recommission the cylinder when the tenancy began, but it had to be replaced.
- In November 2025 the Landlords owners informed Harcourts that their son wanted to live in the premises and instructed them to serve a notice terminating the tenancy on that ground.
- On 27 November Harcourts duly served a 42-day termination notice on the tenant purporting to terminate the tenancy on 6 January 2026.
- That caused the tenant to find other accommodation at a difficult time of year. Fortunately, he was able to find a suitable rental for himself and his brother and on 18 December he asked Harcourts if he could end the tenancy on 31 December to which the Landlord agreed.
- Harcourts and the Landlord were not happy with the way that the premises were left at the end of the tenancy in some respects including cleanliness and window damage and on 8 January 2026 they notified the tenant of the Landlord’s intention to seek compensation. Rent
- The landlord provided a rent statement, and the parties agreed that there were arrears in the sum of $170 when the tenancy ended. The Tenant’s Claims Relevant Law
- Under s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and comply with all legislative requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety so far as they apply to the premises.
- The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (the Regulations) provide that adequate means of heating water must be provided in every dwelling.
- Under Section 60AA of the Act a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing that 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. The maximum award for breach of s45 is $7,200 and the maximum award for an unlawful termination notice is $6500.00.
- 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. Claims The Condition of the Premises at the Start of the Tenancy
- The ingoing photographs show that the outside area of the premises was somewhat untidy and there was some rubbish left there including a wooden pallet and two plastic containers.
- There were also some items inside the premises that the landlord should have removed before the tenancy began including a fridge in the space for the washing machine and items in a wardrobe.
- There was no water for the bathroom for first 20 days of the tenancy because the hot water cylinder could not be recommissioned and needed to be replaced.
- These things were breaches of the Act and the Regulations.
- The tenant and his brother could not shower for the first 20 days of the tenancy, and they were not able to instal their washing machine and wash their clothes for the first 10 days.
- At the least, the tenant is entitled to compensation for these breaches. Taking the hot water and washing machine issues together I assess compensation at $300. I will come back to the condition of the garden.
- The tenant also claim that the Landlord misrepresented the premises as a four- bedroom house when it had only three bedrooms. The fourth bedroom is a sunroom that could be used as a bedroom. There is room for argument over how practical it would be to use the sunroom as a bedroom but in my view that is not important here. The tenant viewed the premises before agreeing the tenancy and so he knew what he was getting. There has therefore been no actionable misrepresentation. Termination Notice
- The landlord’s termination notice was plainly invalid. Section 50 of the Act provides for the circumstances in which tenancies can be terminated. In the case of a fixed term tenancy, it does not include by notice under s51(2)(a) which is the notice that the landlord served in this case. Harcourts accepted that.
- I note as well that the Landlord is not a natural person and so there is no question of a member of the Landlord’s family occupying the premises. This was not discussed at the hearing, but I assume that it was a member of the owners of the Landlord company that wanted to move in. The owners and the company are separate legal entities. It is not necessary to consider this further because the notice was invalid anyway.
- The tenant also claimed that the notice was retaliatory. For the same reason, it is not necessary to consider that either. For completeness, the evidence did not satisfy me that it was retaliatory.
- I accept that the property manager who served the notice did so without considering whether it was a valid notice under the Act. But it is a fundamental legal principle that everyone is deemed to know the law. The Landlord and Harcourts obviously intended to serve the notice with the object of terminating the tenancy. It follows that doing so was an intentional unlawful act.
- Given the seriousness of serving an invalid termination notice and the effect it can have on a tenant, I find that there should be an award of exemplary damages.
- Harcourts made the points that the tenant could have objected to the notice and if he had done so it would have been withdrawn and that the Landlord allowed the tenant to give less than 21 days notice of termination himself. Neither point weighs with me. Given that the property manager did not know that the notice was invalid, the tenant can hardly be expected to know that. Accepting the tenant’s notice did assist him but he should not have been put in that situation in the first place.
- Fortunately for all concerned the tenant was able to find a suitable rental quickly but he still had the upset, upheaval, inconvenience and expense associated with having to do so. The other important consideration is that landlords must be encouraged to know the rules regarding termination before they serve termination notices.
- Taking all things into consideration I find that an award at the lower end of the mid-range of the scale is appropriate and so I have awarded $2,500 exemplary damages. I have considered the effect on the tenant and so no separate award of compensation is needed. The Landlord’s Claims Relevant Law
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
- There are limitations on how much the landlord can recover for damage to the premises depending on the landlord’s insurance, but they are not relevant in this case. Cleaning
- The tenant did a reasonably good job of cleaning the premises before he vacated them but there were a few misses as he accepted. Considering that the premises were not provided to him as they should have been and I have made no award in that respect, I make no award in the landlord’s favour regarding the cleaning. Carpet Cleaning
- The landlord claims that the carpet was stained during the tenancy and that there was an unpleasant odour in the premises which they put down to the carpet. They had the carpet cleaned shortly after the tenancy ended and then cleaned again and deodorised a month later.
- The tenant denied any staining during the tenancy and denied that there was any unpleasant odour. He pointed out that he passed all the intermediate inspections. Harcourts said that the premises were always well ventilated before those inspections.
- The photographs provide some evidence of staining to the carpet although in some cases it is difficult to determine staining from the natural grain of the carpet.
- There is no evidence in relation to the first cleaning apart from a brief invoice. The second invoice is slightly more informative, and that carpet cleaner has provided some further written evidence regarding staining and odour.
- I am satisfied on the evidence that the carpet needed cleaning and deodorising, but I am not satisfied that it was needed twice. No explanation or evidence has been provided for that. I have therefore awarded the cost of the second carpet cleaners in the sum of $200. Glass Damage
- The Landlords claim the cost or replacing three panes of glass one each in windows in the lounge and bedroom 3 and one in the front door.
- The tenant denies liability for any of the alleged damage.
- There was damage to a window in bedroom 3 shown in the ingoing report but Harcourts pointed to a crack in a different window, and I accept that. I find that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The damage in the lounge consists of a chip and glass damage is noted in the lounge in the ingoing report. There is no evidence that there were two damaged windows in the lounge and so I find that it was existing damage.
- There was a problem with the front door sticking at the top of the door frame during the tenancy and the tenant reported it to Harcourts. The Landlord said that they would fix it, but they did not do so. The tenant said that his daughter came to the house, opened the door and a pane of glass at the bottom of the door cracked. The tenant said that he was in the lounge at the time and heard the crack. He reported the damage to Harcourts.
- The tenant said that the pane cracked due to tension on it from the door twisting when it was stuck as the top and moved at the bottom. Harcourts disputes that and they produced an email from the glazier stating that the way the glass was broken is consistent with impact damage. That is plainly correct, but the glazier does not say that the damage is inconsistent with the tenant’s explanation.
- I found the tenant to be a credible witness and there is good evidence to support his account of what happened. His explanation of how the damage could occur is plausible and I accept his evidence. It follows that this was not careless damage.
- I have therefore apportioned the cost and awarded the cost of replacing the glass in bedroom 3. Outside Work and Rubbish Removal.
- There was no evidence to support the claim for the cost of outside work and rubbish removal and so it must be dismissed. Filing Fees
- Both sides have had some success and so I make no award of the filing fees. Result
- After setting off the awards Harcourts and the Landlord must pay the tenant $2,255. The tenant will receive the bond. I have made the order against both Harcourts and the Landlord because Harcourts served the termination notice. The Act provides that an agent can be treated as a landlord where appropriate and it is appropriate to do so in this case.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1947, s45, s50, s51(2), s60AA
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5426908?
The tribunal order states: Four Seasons Realty 2017 Limited and Majestic Trading Limited must pay
How much money was awarded in case 5426908?
Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Hot Water: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $170.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426908?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426908?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13413122-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.