What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5427340?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5427340?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $475.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $15.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427340?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427340?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13512074-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5427340?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5427340?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $475.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $15.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427340?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427340?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13512074-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5784 South Road, Rahotu, Opunake 4684 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427340 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427340 — net $10.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$15.00		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$475.00		Lawns and Garden work
Exemplary damages – overseas without NZ agent		$500.00	Exemplary damages – overseas without NZ agent
Total award	$490.00	$500.00
Net award		$10.00
Bond		$1,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$10.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427340 — net $10.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$15.00		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$475.00		Lawns and Garden work
Exemplary damages – overseas without NZ agent		$500.00	Exemplary damages – overseas without NZ agent
Total award	$490.00	$500.00
Net award		$10.00
Bond		$1,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$10.00

Order

No suppression orders apply to this decision.
Darshan Desai and Dhruv Kumar Desai must pay Rohit Kumar $10.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (BN-17573267) to Rohit Kumar immediately.
The tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry is dismissed.
The landlords’ claim for water rates is dismissed.
The tenant has permission to being a further application for water rates he has paid to the landlord. When making that application the tenant should provide a copy of this order and cite the above application numbers

Reasons

Both parties attended a remote video hearing.
The landlord and tenant both have claims which were clarified at the start of the hearing and also further clarified later on during the hearing when dealing with the tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry.
The claims are set out under the individual headings below.

THE CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

As explained at the hearing 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 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.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

Garden maintenance during the tenancy - $950

Under section 40(1)(c) RTA a tenant is required to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the course of the tenancy. Where responsibility for garden maintenance rests with the tenant, this obligation extends to keeping the garden reasonably tidy. The garden was the tenant’s responsibility in this tenancy. This is set out in the tenancy agreement. The tenancy ended on 24 December 2025.
The landlord says, and I accept that, during the tenancy, the garden was not maintained to a reasonably tidy standard. The landlord says that towards the end of the tenancy they had to get in contractors to remedy the issue to return the garden to a reasonable condition.
Photographic evidence provided shows very significant lawn growth (I accept that in part it would be at least knee height) indicating a lack of lawn mowing for a significant period of time.
The landlord undertook remedial garden maintenance using contractors on 2 and 3 December, at a cost of $950. The landlord seeks reimbursement of this sum from the tenant. An invoice for this expenditure is provided.
The tenant submits that the landlord did not provide sufficient notice or opportunity for him to attend to the garden maintenance. The tenant says that had he been given adequate notice, he would have completed the required garden work at the end of the tenancy, which concluded on 24 December 2025. He says the sum sought is excessive.
The tenant further states that he was away from the property at the time the landlord contacted him regarding the need to carry out the maintenance work, and was therefore unable to respond or attend to the garden before the landlord arranged the work. The tenant says the landlord wanted the gardening done for the sale of the property.
I heard that, in additional to earlier discussions about garden maintenance that took place from much earlier in the tenancy, how the tenant was contacted on 18 November about the condition of the garden in a call from the landlord who says that he requested the tenant to arrange urgent garden maintenance.
The landlord followed this up advising the tenant by Whatsapp on 22 November that:
The tenant replied:
There was then additional communication with the landlord telling the tenant the date upon which the work would be done by the landlord’s contractors. To which the tenant gave a thumbs up.
Therefore, it is clear that the tenant knew that the landlord regarded the gardens as not being reasonable, was going to undertake the gardening work and the date upon which it was first intended to be done (this did change but nothing turns on this albeit it shows the tenant being afforded additional time to do the work himself).
It was clear from the communications that the tenant was not going to do the gardening work for almost another month (the tenancy ending on 24/12/25) if the landlord did not take action.
While the landlord may have been anxious to prepare the property for sale regardless of motivation a tenant must still comply with their obligations.
I accept without reservation that this garden was overgrown and likely the result of numerous months of neglect. The tenant saying that he would resolve the issue almost one month later after being advised he needed to remedy the position was not sufficient. The landlord gave the tenant a reasonable opportunity to remedy but it was not acted upon by the tenant. Instead, the tenant expressly said if the matter was left to him the work would not be done until the end of the tenancy and later gave a thumbs up in relation to the work.
I therefore consider that the landlord may recover a reasonable sum for this work.
The garden is large and the grass is high but I do not accept that the landlord has established that the bushes needed trimming or that it would have taken two days to remedy the garden so it was in a reasonable condition. The tenant is not liable for work done over and above this. The landlord may have wanted to do this additional work for sale purposes, to make the house look additionally pleasing to prospective purchasers, but that is their own choice.
The tenant’s position that the work could have been done for $60 was fanciful. The job was not insignificant or a routine monthly tidy up.
I award the sum of $475 being half of the sum claimed and a sum that I consider to be reasonable given a) the evidence presented, b) the extent of the overgrown lawn and c) the fact there would have been not insignificant disposal costs associated with the level of grass. Water rates - $184
The landlord claims $184 in unpaid water costs.
I heard how there is no water meter to monitor water use at the property. Therefore, the claim does not relate to metered water charges for water consumption.
The charge claimed is based solely on the fixed water portion contained within the landlords’ standard District Council rates invoice (sent quarterly), a snapshot of which is shown below:
Under section 39 RTA a tenant is only liable for water charges where the charges relate to the tenant’s actual consumption. Fixed charges remain the responsibility of the landlord. This is because the landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied
In this case, the charges claimed are fixed water charges, as part of the landlords’ general rates, rather than charges based on the tenant’s consumption. The charges claimed would be payable even if the property was unoccupied. Accordingly, the tenant is not liable for these costs under 39 RTA and the claim is dismissed.
The tenant says that he has therefore paid water rates that should not have been charged to him by the landlord (because they were based on rates invoices). The tenant says he should be paid this back.
This does not form part of the existing application and therefore the tenant must file a new application in respect of any such claim.
The Tribunal gives the tenant permission to bring such a claim. If the tenant wants to pursue this the tenant must file a new application and in doing so should provide a copy of this order and cite this application number.
The parties may also be able to resolve this matter between them without further involvement of the Tribunal. Cleaning and rubbish costs following the end of the tenancy - $75
Under sections 40(1)(c) and 40(1)(e) RTA a tenant must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy and, at the end of the tenancy, leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This includes removing all rubbish from the premises.
That said the RTA does not require the premises to be left in a motel-style or professionally presented condition. While a landlord may choose to carry out additional cleaning, gardening, or presentation work in preparation for sale or for a new tenancy, that is not what is required under the RTA.
The landlord identified the rangehood and an area around a door as requiring additional cleaning. I do not accept that this amounts to the premises being left in an unreasonably unclean state. No award is made for cleaning in this regard.
The tenant did however leave rubbish in the council bins at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence that a) rubbish was left in the bins and b) unsuitable rubbish was placed in the green waste bin. This is shown in photographs.
The landlord arranged for the rubbish to be sorted appropriately and for the bins to be placed out for kerbside collection. No separate disposal charge was therefore incurred.
It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to sort the rubbish and place the bins out for collection. The landlord was not required to have to allow the tenant to return to address this issue.
Based on the evidence before me, I consider a sum of $15 to be reasonable for this work. The amount claimed is proven and is therefore awarded.

TENANT CLAIMS

Landlord lived out of New Zealand – failure to appoint an agent – Exemplary damages

The tenant says the landlords lived out of New Zealand for the duration of the tenancy in Australia with no agent - they managed the tenancy themselves. He seeks exemplary damages in respect of this breach.
Section 16A RTA confirms that a landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure that the landlord has an agent in New Zealand. The section further requires the landlord to notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address, and address for service. Where a bond is held, the landlord must also notify the Chief Executive (Tenancy Services) of the agent’s details. A failure to appoint an agent in these circumstances is expressly defined under the RTA as an unlawful act.
There is no dispute that the landlords live in Australia and there is no evidence that a New Zealand based agent was appointed.
This is an unlawful act, so exemplary damages might be ordered.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and deter unlawful conduct. They are punitive in nature and are akin to a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal explained that exemplary and punitive damages are different descriptions of the same concept. They are “exemplary” because they are intended to teach an example for the wrongdoer and others, and “punitive” because they are intended to punish. While they operate like a fine, the payment is made to the person who has been the victim of the conduct.
Exemplary damages may be awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion where one party has proved that the other has committed a defined unlawful act under the RTA. Before making such an award, the Tribunal must take into account the person’s intent in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the act was committed, the public interest, and whether it is just to make the award (s 109 RTA).
Intention is established where a party turns their mind to the act and deliberately carries it out. It is not necessary to show that the party intended to act unlawfully; it is sufficient that they intended to do the act that is, in fact, unlawful. A lack of knowledge of the obligation or ignorance of the law does not provide a defence (TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182).
The landlord says that despite being overseas there were no management issues. The tenant could contact them via phone, email and Whatsapp and that maintenance was done. The landlord refers to an inspection that took place about 6 months after the tenancy had started and also maintenance work that was done during the tenancy.
The tenant says that he had to collect the keys to begin this tenancy from the previous tenant. He got calls and messages at inconvenient times and if the landlord has been more present the issue with the garden would not have arisen.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A RTA, which for a breach of section 16A is $1,500.00.
Taking these factors into account I conclude that: a. it is more likely than not that the landlords’ decisions regarding the management of the tenancy were made intentionally. b. the effect of the unlawful act was that the premises did not receive the level of oversight ordinarily expected of a tenancy in New Zealand. This was evident particularly in this hearing by the landlord seeking water costs that are not recoverable from the tenant under the RTA. c. There is a strong interest for tenants to have an agent available in New Zealand to oversee the tenancy, and that interest extends more broadly to landlords and the public generally. d. I consider it would be just to make an order in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages available is $1,500.
In the circumstances of this case, I consider an award at one-third of the maximum to be appropriate. I do not consider that there are aggravating features present, nor any factors that would justify a lesser award.
I have awarded $500 to the tenant. Breach of privacy and unlawful entry – Landlord’s contractors took photographs of the outside of the premises – Exemplary damages and compensation
The tenant says that the landlord’s contractor unlawfully entered the property and breached his privacy by taking photographs of the garden without him having notice of them attending. He seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded (see section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
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 (section 48 RTA). However, importantly here in this section “premises” does not include land or facilities (section 48(7) RTA).
The landlord denies that his contractors took photographs of the garden on any occasion other than on the days the tenant was given notice that they were attending the premises to undertake the garden work.
He says the contractors are New Plymouth based (the property is a considerable distance from New Plymouth) and they only attended to do the work after notice was given (on 2 and 3 December). The contractors, the landlord says, were instructed to take before and after photographs and these are some of the photographs the landlord says are on file.
The landlord also says that a number of the photographs relied upon by the tenant in this context were not taken by the contractors at all, but were in fact taken by the tenant’s own staff member who lived at the property with him. I heard how this person sent the landlord some of the photographs of the garden (because they were concerned about their own rental relationship with the tenant). The sending of the photographs via Whatsapp to the landlord in this regard is supported by a screen shot of the Whatsapp message.
The tenant could not say on what date he thought the contractors had attended the premises to take the photographs concerned. The tenant does not have an issue with the notice that was given to him by the landlord for the contractors attending the property to actually undertake the work. His concern lies only with an alleged earlier visit when photographs, he says, were taken.
I accept the landlord’s position that some of the garden photographs were sent to him by the tenant’s staff member (who lived with him) rather than by contractors. I have no reason to doubt this and it is supported by the Whatsapp message. This leaves the remaining photographs.
Even if the contractors had taken the remaining photographs on a date prior to actually undertaking the maintenance work I find that unlawful entry has not been established. That is because a tenant does not need to be given notice of a landlord (or agent) attending the land (e.g. the garden) of the premises (section 48(7) RTA). This part of the claim is dismissed.
I also dismiss the claim in relation to the tenant’s breach of quiet enjoyment arising from the same facts. I am not satisfied that the tenant has sufficiently proven that the photographs were taken by the contractors on a separate occasion upon which he had no notice of their attendance.
Further, even if this were the case and the contractors had attended to take these photographs without notice, I do not consider that the taking these photographs would amount to harassment so as to give rise to an award of exemplary damages or that the tenant has proven that from such an action, he would have suffered a loss so as to give rise to compensation.
This part of the tenant’s application is dismissed.

THE BOND

The tenant sought refund of the bond and the landlord wanted the bond to cover proven claims.
The bond has been released appropriately to reflect the money that is owed to each party as a result of this order.

FILING FEE AND SUPPRESSION

Neither party has been substantially successful. They have both had parts of their claims fail. I decline to award either party reimbursement of the filing fee.
Neither party wants suppression of their identifying details so I have not awarded this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427340 — Exemplary damages at 5784 South Road, Rahotu, Opunake 4684

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427340 — Exemplary damages at 5784 South Road, Rahotu, Opunake 4684

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

THE CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

LANDLORD CLAIMS

TENANT CLAIMS

THE BOND

FILING FEE AND SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

THE CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

LANDLORD CLAIMS

TENANT CLAIMS

THE BOND

FILING FEE AND SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions