What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5428293 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5428293?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428293?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13172860-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5428293 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5428293?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428293?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13172860-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5428293 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The tenant’s application is dismissed
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 17 February 2026. I have delayed issuing my decision as I have given the applications a lot of thought. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it.
The tenant has applied for a declaration that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was a retaliatory notice, exemplary damages, and a prohibition order. The tenant also wants her complaints to be enforced and for maintenance issues to be fixed. She has raised an issue about incorrectly claimed rent arrears.
The landlord seeks a possession order following its termination notice dated 16 January 2026. Background
This boarding house tenancy is well known to the Tribunal. I first heard an application by the tenant on 11 November 2025. The tenant alleged that the landlord’s notices to terminate the tenancy dated 8 and 9 October 2025 were retaliatory. She sought an order setting them aside.
I set out the background in my decision 1 and the relevant law. I need not repeat it here.
Both parties then filed new applications which came before the Tribunal on 15 January 2026. The landlord sought termination of the tenancy under section 66U(1)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant sought compensation for breaches of her quiet enjoyment.
The adjudicator dismissed both applications. She found that while section 66U RTA gave the landlord the right to terminate the tenancy, it did not give the Tribunal the power to terminate the tenancy on the grounds listed in that section. She also found that the tenant had not established grounds for compensation for breaches of her quiet enjoyment nor that the landlord caused or permitted other tenants to breach her quiet enjoyment.
The same incident that was before the Tribunal at the January 2026 hearing resulted in the landlord issuing a termination notice the day after the hearing. The notice referenced section 66U(1)(iii) RTA – immediate termination of the boarding house tenancy where the tenant has caused, or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants. The tenant’s application was lodged in response to that notice.
The tenant alleges that the notice was retaliatory because it was issued the day after the hearing on 15 January 2026. Issues
The Tribunal must decide these issues: •Was the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy a retaliatory notice for the reason stated by the tenant? •Can the Tribunal award exemplary damages? 1 See [2025] NZTT5363482 •Has the tenant established claims for compensation and/or exemplary damages against the landlord? •Did the landlord correctly terminate the tenancy? •Is the landlord entitled to a possession order? Law
As I have noted, I need not set out the statute law that applies in this case because both previous decisions by the Tribunal have done that.
I will however set out some of the legal principles that apply to the tenant’s application. Compensation and exemplary damages
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.
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 following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. 2 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion Was the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy a retaliatory notice for the reason stated by the tenant?
This claim cannot succeed. The tenant alleges that the landlord acted in retaliation for the Tribunal dismissing its application at the hearing on 15 January 2026. But as I set out in my order dated 11 November 2025 a landlord’s retaliation must be related to some action or complaint by the tenant, not a failed Tribunal application.
Essentially, the landlord applied for the wrong order in its last application. Had it applied for a possession order the outcome might have been different. The adjudicator’s finding addressed the order sought, a termination order. But that was not an order the Tribunal could make.
The landlord’s application the day after (for a possession order) was the correct application. And while the previous adjudicator was not required to look at the reason for the termination (a threat to cause serious disruption to another tenant) this application requires me to do just that.
The landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy cannot be considered a retaliatory notice for the reasons given. The application for a declaration is dismissed.

Can the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

It follows from my finding that the notice to terminate the tenancy was not a retaliatory notice that the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages. That part of the application is dismissed. Has the tenant established claims for compensation and/or exemplary damages against the landlord?
Some of the tenant’s claims were the subject of her last application – breaches of her quiet enjoyment by other tenants with the landlord causing or permitting that to happen, and the landlord’s emails about rent arrears when there were none.
Because those issues have already been considered and dismissed by the Tribunal they cannot be litigated again. In law, that is known as res judicata – something already heard and decided.
The tenant made submissions about wanting her complaints enforced and about maintenance issues. Both issues are too vague and insufficiently supported by evidence for the Tribunal to award compensation.
Exemplary damages require the offending party to have committed an unlawful act intentionally, judicially defined to mean turning their mind to the action and then deliberately setting about to commit.
The tenant has failed to prove that the landlord committed any defined unlawful act intentionally. I dismiss her applications for compensation and for exemplary damages.
Finally, there is no legal basis here for what the tenant has referred to as a ‘prohibition order’.

Did the landlord correctly terminate the tenancy?

The landlord terminated the tenancy by written notice dated 16 January 2026 because it said the tenant had caused or threatened to cause serious disruption to other tenants.
The event that led to the termination notice occurred on 19 December 2025. The tenant said she asked another tenant to ‘keep the noise down’ to which that tenant replied ‘not my fucking problem’. This tenant then said words to the effect ‘it will be if I have a go at you’ and then said ‘please choke’ before swearing at the other tenant in Mandarin.
Following the verbal altercation, both tenants made complaints to the police.
The Tribunal’s focus is on that event alone, not on the well-documented and on- going disruption among these boarding house tenants, each of whom considers the other at fault.
Section 66U(1)(iii) RTA requires that there be serious disruption or a threat of serious disruption to other tenants. Neither serious nor disruption is defined in the RTA. Dictionary meanings of ‘disruption’ include ‘a major disturbance, something that changes plans or interrupts an event or process’. ‘Serious’ means ‘important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling, often involving significant risk, harm, or consequences’.
The meaning of a statute can also be gleaned from the language used elsewhere in the relevant section. In section 66U other situations that can result in the immediate termination of the tenancy are where a tenant has caused or threatened to cause serious damage to the premises, or endangered, or threated to endanger, people or property.
I consider that the statutory language envisions something of substance by using the word serious before damage and disruption.
What happened here was a verbal altercation between 2 tenants. I did not hear evidence from the other tenant. This tenant’s evidence is that the other tenant gave as good as she got by responding ‘not my fucking problem’.
The section 66U RTA options for terminating a tenancy are a hierarchy from immediate (for serious actions as defined), to 28 hours (for rent arrears or an illegal purpose, or for abandonment), to 14 days (for a service tenancy), to 28 days (where no reason is given).
I do not find that the verbal altercation between this tenant and the other tenant on 19 December 2025 was of such significance to meet the statutory definition of serious disruption.
The landlord did not have grounds to terminate the tenancy immediately even acknowledging that it gave the tenant one week to vacate.
I set aside the notice to terminate because the statutory criteria for giving the notice were not met.

Is the landlord entitled to a possession order?

It follows from my finding that the notice to terminate the tenancy did not meet the statutory criteria for such a notice to be given that landlord is not entitled to a possession order. Comment
This tenancy could have ended by the landlord initially giving a 28-day no cause termination notice. Because of the subsequent events with several notices to terminate having been given, the relationship between the parties has now completely broken down.
In my order dated 11 November 2025 I commented: The Tribunal observed that the communications between the parties were courteous. XX said she was prepared to work with the tenant to find another boarding house tenancy that might suit her better. The Tribunal encourages the parties to work together to achieve that.
Unfortunately, that did not happen. There are faults on both sides here. I do not accept that the tenant is the blameless victim of the landlord’s actions nor of the actions of the other tenants; she too has displayed aggravating behaviours which have been the subject of recent complaints.
This is a tenancy that should end by agreement. The parties should work towards that. From what the Tribunal has observed, nothing positive can result from the tenancy continuing, either for the tenant or for the landlord. Result
For the reasons given, both applications are dismissed. Name suppression
The Tribunal suppressed the names and identifying details of both parties in its last order. That order requires me to so the same. The names and identifying details of both parties are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428293 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428293 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Did the landlord correctly terminate the tenancy?

Is the landlord entitled to a possession order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Can the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Did the landlord correctly terminate the tenancy?

Is the landlord entitled to a possession order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions