What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5428136 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5428136?

Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $943.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428136?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428136?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13833488-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5428136 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5428136?

Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $943.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428136?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428136?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13833488-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[redacted] Tenancy Tribunal Case 5428136 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5428136 — net $3,084.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 March 2026	$943.57		Rent arrears to 18 March 2026
Exemplary damages		$4,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$943.57	$4,028.00
Net award		$3,084.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,084.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5428136 — net $3,084.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 March 2026	$943.57		Rent arrears to 18 March 2026
Exemplary damages		$4,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$943.57	$4,028.00
Net award		$3,084.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,084.43

Order

Applications for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlord’s application for suppression is refused.
[The landlord/s] must pay [the first named tenant] $3,084.43 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre must pay the bond in the sum of $3,200 to the tenants immediately.

Reasons

Except for the second named tenant, all parties attended the hearing.
The first application in time is 5428136 made by the first two named tenants who I will call the tenants. They claim compensation and exemplary damages against their landlord Ms Healey. She acknowledges them as her tenants. They claim that she has committed various breaches of her obligations including tenancy agreement requirements, Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), interference with their quiet enjoyment and unlawful termination.
The landlord has filed two applications. Her first application sought rent arrears, and her second application claimed termination and rent arrears.
The fourth application has been filed by a former partner of one of the tenants, who claims that she too was a tenant. She makes claims like those made by the tenants.
The landlord disputes that the former partner was a tenant. The first named tenant said that he regarded her as a tenant. The second named tenant’s position in relation to her status is unknown.
There are two written tenancy agreements, one between the landlord and each of the tenants. They are on the same terms and at least the landlord and the first named tenant agree that they constitute one tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenants.
On 23 March the Tribunal made a conditional termination order requiring the tenants, by 25 March to pay $650 weekly rent starting from 18 March. The payments were not made and so the tenancy terminated on 25 March.
It is unclear when the second named tenant vacated the premises and so I have awarded rent arrears to 25 March. The first named tenant had vacated by then. If the second named tenant remained in occupation of the premises beyond that date, the landlord can pursue him for further rent due. The first named tenant should not be liable for rent beyond that date because he vacated the premises.
The following issues need to be determined, I.Was the third named tenant a tenant? II.What rent was payable under the tenancy agreement? III.In what way has the landlord breached her obligations (the landlord accepts that she has breached them in some respects)? IV.What remedy are the tenants entitled to? More Background
The applicants had been living together in rented premises and they were keen to find somewhere more spacious to live.
The landlord offered them the premises and they were happy to accept.
The first named tenant and his partner knew the landlord, but they had not seen one another for some time. They reunited and it seemed to auger well for the future.
Sadly, it did not turn out well. Their relationship has ended in animosity, regret and this litigation.
The landlord employed a property manager who conducted a healthy homes standards (HHS) assessment of the premises which found that it was not compliant in some respects. As a result, they were not willing to be involved in granting a tenancy.
The landlord employed another property manager who conducted credit references of the prospective tenants and advised the landlord against granting a tenancy to the partner.
The landlord prepared two separate tenancy agreements, one to each of the tenants and the parties signed them. The agreements were identical. The rent was $650 per week, and they were for a fixed term from 24 November 2025 to 24 May 2026. They and the first tenant’s partner moved into the premises, and they made the first rent payment on 2 December.
A short time later, the landlord wrote to the tenants and told them that the rent was too low to cover her outgoings, and she was increasing it to $800 per week. The tenants accepted that and began paying rent at $800 per week from 9 December. The landlord said that she did not give proper thought to how much rent she should charge when she agreed the tenancy.
It seems that the tenants accepted that the rent was below the market rent, and they were also concerned that if they didn’t accept and pay the increased rent, they would be forced to leave the premises. At that time, they had not yet paid the bond, and they were concerned that the landlord could use that to terminate the tenancy.
In mid-January the landlord wrote to the tenants and informed then that she would be moving into the premises on 27 January, and, if they chose to stay, they would then become her boarders paying her $300 each per week.
By that time the rent payments were falling short of $800 per week. It seems that the second named tenant’s payments were erratic and often short. The arrangement was that he and the first tenant’s partner paid their shares of the rent into the first tenant’s account, and he paid the landlord.
The tenants rejected the landlord’s plan and stood their ground. The landlord did not take that well.
A short time later the partner left the premises. It was difficult to get the second named tenant to pay his share of the rent and the pressure from the landlord and general disharmony in the household was taking its toll.
The first named tenant left the premises at the beginning of March. By that time, his mental health was suffering, and he was struggling to cope with the situation. That left the second tenant in occupation, and he was unable to pay the rent alone.

Was the Partner a Tenant?

The partner said that it was always envisaged that she would be a tenant, and she claims that although she was not named as a tenant on the written tenancy agreement, she was in fact a tenant.
She faces the obvious difficulty that there are written tenancy agreements, and she is not named in them. Where parties have signed a written tenancy agreement, there is an obvious presumption that the parties named in the agreement are the parties to the tenancy. But that presumption can be displaced by other evidence.
In this case the other evidence in favour of the partner being a tenant is weak and there is countervailing evidence.
I accept that it was envisaged that the partner would be a tenant and there is evidence that the landlord expected her to be a tenant. But between the preliminary stages of agreeing a tenancy and the final agreement, things can change.
Here, there was an obvious reason for the landlord not to accept the partner as a tenant, namely her poor credit reference and the advice of the property manager. She says that the tenants did not have good credit ratings either but even that is true, it does not take her far. Landlords are entitled to choose to whom they grant a tenancy, and, in this case, I accept that the landlord chose not to grant the tenancy to the partner.
It is true that the landlord referred to her as a tenant but that was before the completion of the written agreement. If the landlord had intended to put the partner on the tenancy, I would have expected her to name her in the written agreement.
As well, there was no evidence that the landlord and the partner agreed on the essential terms of the agreement such as the rent and the term of the tenancy. It is not enough for someone to say that they were expecting to be a tenant, there must be evidence of an agreement on at least the essential terms for a tenancy agreement.
For these reasons I find that the partner was not a tenant and therefore her application must be dismissed.

What Rent was Payable and What Rent is Due?

The starting point is obviously the written agreement. Where parties have agreed terms in writing those terms are binding and where one party asserts that the terms changed, there needs to be good evidence of an agreement varying the terms.
Section 24(1)(g) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the rent under a fixed term tenancy cannot be increased by the landlord unless the agreement provides for it. Even then, it can be only in accordance with the section which does not allow an increase within the first year of the agreement. Section 11 of the Act also provides that tenants cannot waive their rights under the Act.
But case law has established that parties are able to vary the terms of their tenancy by mutual agreement and there are cases where the Tribunal should give effect to that. The relevant case law distinguishes between a landlord who unilaterally increases the rent and parties who reach an agreement to increase the rent. The key question is therefore was the rent varied by mutual agreement?
The relevant messages do not suggest a mutual agreement. They strongly suggest the landlord dictating an increase. This was no proposal followed by a discussion and then an agreement. It was presented to the tenants as necessary for the landlord to cover her expenses and for the continuance of the tenancy. It appears to have been an edict rather than a proposal.
The tenants were entitled to reject the reject the rent increase at least until the end of their fixed term agreement. They explained that they felt vulnerable because they had not paid the bond and therefore, they had no choice but to accept the increase. That is not an agreement that the parties reached freely and fairly.
The nature of a fixed term tenancy agreement is that it gives the parties certainly as to the term of the tenancy and the rent for the duration of the tenancy (unless the parties have provided for an increase in the agreement). Given the clear wording of the Act, there would need to be clear evidence of an agreement to increase the rent, and, in my view, there would need to be a genuine and valid reason for the tenants to agree to it to overcome the Act’s prohibition against an increase.
There was no discussion about the increase or any genuine and valid reason for the tenants to agree an increase. They may have felt that the initial rent was low, but there was no evidence that it was. They went along with it out of fear of losing the tenancy. I find, therefore, that the increase was unlawful and of no effect.
It follows that the claim for rent arrears must be assessed based on a weekly rent of $650 and that the tenant’s rent statement, subject to one thing, is correct. The statement records a payment of $1,150 on 19 February. In fact, only $650 was paid. The second tenant had said that he paid $500 to the landlord direct but there is no evidence of that. The award of rent in the sum of $943.57 to 25 March is made after making that correction. The Tenants’ Claims - Law
The following landlord obligations are relevant.
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety including Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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.
A landlord must provide the tenant with a HHS statement, HHS information and insurance information with the tenancy agreement before it is signed.
A landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with HHS within 21 days after receiving the request.
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 $750.00.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
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.
A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00.
A landlord commits an unlawful act who gives a notice to terminate a tenancy knowing that they are not entitled to do so. Where a landlord does so, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500. The Tenants’ Claims – Discussion and Decision Tenancy Agreement
There is a written tenancy agreement containing the essential terms but in virtually every other respect the landlord failed to comply with her obligations relating to the tenancy agreement.
The landlord failed to provide a HHS statement, an insurance statement and HHS information. She also failed to provide HHS information within the time allowed after the tenants requested it. These are all breaches of the Act which carry with them, potentially, awards of $750 exemplary damages.
It is a feature of the landlord’s conduct in this case, apparent from some of the landlord’s messages, that she had a conscious disregard for the obligations that the law imposes on landlords. I find, therefore, that these were all unlawful acts and that there should be an award of exemplary damages.
In considering the amount of an award, and this applies to the tenants’ other claims, I must consider all the relevant circumstances of the case. The context in which this tenancy came about, the dynamics of the tenancy and the effect of the breaches on the tenants are especially relevant.
The premises became available following the breakdown of the landlord’s relationship with her partner who had been living in the premises. He was moving out and that provided the tenants with the opportunity to move in. The tenants were very keen to take the opportunity to move to a more spacious and I gather a significantly more commodious dwelling than they were living in previously. The landlord and the first named tenant and his partner were friends and there was an element of informality in their dealings.
The landlord was dealing with the aftermath of the breakup including the fate of the premises. It seems that the most likely outcome was that they would be sold. I accept that the landlord was going through a difficult time and that she was probably not thinking as clearly as she might otherwise would.
I take these things into account, and I also note that when a landlord grants a tenancy without observing the formal requirements, the Tribunal tends not to consider each breach individually, but rather considers the failures to be part of a general failure to follow the requirements.
Taking all things into consideration I find that an award in the sum of $500 is appropriate. Healthy Homes Standards
The landlord was aware that the premises did not comply fully with HHS as they should have done from the beginning of the tenancy. There is evidence that the landlord attended to one identified non-compliance by installing compliant smoke alarms.
The other standards that were not met were insulation – the ceiling insulation needed topping up, heating – the capacity of the heat pump was inadequate, a downpipe was missing, and some window latches were missing allowing draughts.
Given that the tenancy existed during summer, these shortcomings did not much affect the tenants use and enjoyment of the premises. The first named tenant confirmed as much.
Plainly, the landlord should have ensured that the premises complied with all HHS before the tenancy began. It is obvious that she was aware of the situation, and she chose to ignore the requirements. Indeed, she was dismissive of them. This was an unlawful act and given the importance generally of landlords complying with HHS, an award of exemplary damages is required.
Given the minimal effect of the breach on the tenants and the shortness of the tenancy, an award in the sum of $1,000 is appropriate. Unlawful Entry/Quiet Enjoyment
The tenants claim that the landlord interfered with their quiet enjoyment of the premises by repeatedly entering the premises with contractors who were there to assess and quote for work that the landlord was considering doing to ready the premises for sale. In my view s48 of the Act does not permit that because there is no evidence that the work constituted repairs or necessary maintenance of the premises.
That said, entry to the premises may be permitted by the tenants and where permission is given, the entry is not unlawful. I note that there came a point when the tenants refused entry for these kinds of visits.
I accept that the landlord was pushing the boundaries of what is permissible, but I do not find that there has been an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment or unlawful entry.
I note that the tenants were also unhappy with the tenants’ ex-partner coming to the premises to collect his belongings. I accept that the landlord should have ensured that there was no need for that, but I don’t accept that there was a breach or, if there was, that there should be any award.
Therefore, I make no award of compensation or exemplary damages. Unlawful Termination
In January, the tenant wrote to the tenant telling them that she would be moving into the premises from 27 January and that the tenants would become her lodgers if they chose to stay. In other words that their tenancy would end whether they chose to stay or not.
In my view, this was the low point of the landlord’s behaviour. I find it impossible to fathom how the landlord could possibly believe that it was proper, let alone legally permissible, to inform tenants in possession of premises under a fixed term tenancy, that they either accepted that they would become her lodgers at a weekly rate fixed by her or they moved out.
In doing so the landlord gave a notice to terminate the tenancy knowing that she was not entitled to do so. Everyone is deemed to know the law, but this cannot have been a case of ignorance of the law. The landlord is a lawyer, and she must have known that what she was doing was contrary to law and an attempt to deny the tenants of their right to exclusive possession of the premises.
There were problems brewing between the tenants and they likely contributed to the eventual demise of this tenancy, but the landlord’s attempt to force the tenants to give up their fixed term tenancy must also have played a part. I am sure it would have added to the stress and discomfort they were feeling. Fortunately, they had support, and they rightly rejected the landlord’s attempt to railroad them into a situation that suited her.
Parliament has set a high limit on exemplary damages for this unlawful act no doubt because it undermines the tenant’s fundamental right to the security of tenure that they have been granted.
In my view this tenancy was probably destined to end badly, and the landlord is not solely responsible for that. But she has done her part, and she should have known better. A substantial award is needed to reflect the seriousness and deliberate nature of the breach. I award the sum of $2,500. Other Claims
The tenants have made other complaints such as that the garage door was damaged by the landlord’s ex-partner, locks were changed, and the premises were not reasonably clean. I do not intend to discuss these in any detail. I find that they have not been proved. Compensation
I have taken the effect of the landlord’s actions on the tenants into consideration in making the awards of exemplary damages and so no separate award of compensation is required. Filing Fee
The tenants have been largely successful and so I have awarded the filing fee. Outcome
After setting off the rent arrears against the awards to the tenants the landlord must pay the tenants $3,084.43. I have ordered the landlord to pay that to the first named tenant because the second named tenant has chosen to opt out of this application. I note that he cannot now bring a claim against the landlord because he has elected not to make a claim. The bond must be paid to the tenants. Suppression
The tenants have succeeded and so I have granted them name suppression. There is no good reason to grant the landlord name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428136 — Exemplary damages at [redacted]

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428136 — Exemplary damages at [redacted]

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the Partner a Tenant?

What Rent was Payable and What Rent is Due?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the Partner a Tenant?

What Rent was Payable and What Rent is Due?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions