What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429290 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 5429290?

Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,210.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429290?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13357678-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429290 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 5429290?

Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,210.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429290?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13357678-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 26, 125B Metcalfe Road, Ranui, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5429290 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429290 — net $1,038.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 26.3.26	$1,210.00		Rent arrears to 26.3.26
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the tenant reimburse the filing fee of $28. The tenant did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.
Compensation: unlawful entry		$200.00	unlawful entry
Total award	$1,238.00	$200.00
Net award	$1,038.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,038.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Opes Property Management North Limited As Agent For Her Limited $1,038.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The claim for water rates is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 29 March 2024 and is ongoing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant disputes the rent arrears and claims exemplary damages for an unlawful entry by the landlord.

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. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

RENT ARREARS

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing as at 26 March 2026 is $1,010.
The tenant disputes the rent arrears because she says the rent summary does not reflect the unsealed mediated agreement which says that as at 14 October 2025 the rent arrears was $870.
The landlord says the rent summary is accurate.
It appears that the mediated agreement incorrectly recorded the rent arrears. I have calculated the rent arrears was $1,910 as at 14 October 2025. The mediated order went on to say that the tenant will make monthly payments for rent and an additional amount of $300 towards the rent arrears will continue until all the rent arrears have been paid in full. The landlord says she relied on that being the understanding between the parties.
The mediated order is not a sealed order. The mediator made clear in her email to the parties that the rent arrears were not correct and requested the updated rent arrears. She said if she did not receive the rent arrears that day the application would be withdrawn. The rent arrears were not provided by the landlord who replied only with “yes this is good thank you”. I therefore consider the mediated agreement was not finalised and the application with the mediation service was discontinued by the mediator. I consider in the circumstances it should have been clear to the tenant that the mediated agreement did not accurately reflect the rent arrears as it was intended to.
I find that the tenant is liable for the rent arrears as claimed by the landlord, which as at 26 March 2026 was $1,010 + $200 which has been recorded in the rent summary ($100 on 14 November 2025 and 13 March 2026), which was intended for the water rates and which I have deducted from rent paid, Accordingly, the amount ordered is $1,210. OUTGOINGS - WATER
The landlord claims $199.10 for water rates.
The landlord has recorded two payments for water rates of $100 in the rent summary. I have deducted those payments from the rent arrears and record they should be allocated to the water rates.
In reallocating those payments, I find that there are no water rates due and this claim is dismissed TENANTS CLAIM - UNLAWFUL ENTRY
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. 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. 1
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 2
The tenant says the landlord came to her home on 24 February 2026 for an inspection, however she had not received notice of the inspection. The landlord acknowledged going to the premises, knocking on the door and opening it and stepping in when the tenant did not answer. When the tenant appeared, she says she immediately checked if notice of the inspection had been sent and when she realised it had not she apologised. The landlord believed the notice of the inspection had been sent before she entered the premises. The landlord left without undertaking the inspection.
The tenant agreed it was a mistake. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The remedy:
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: 1 See section 48(1) and (2) RTA. 2 See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA. “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. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest, and whether it is just to make the award. 4
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. Lack of knowledge of a particular obligation they have failed to perform or ignorance of the law is no defence. 5
I consider the tenant has not proven the landlord intended to enter the premises without giving notice, accordingly I decline to make an order for 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 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 6 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach when deciding to award compensation.
Even though the tenant has not specifically claimed compensation in respect of the breach I may award compensation for the landlord’s breach. 7
I consider compensation in the sum of $200 reasonably compensates the tenant for this breach. I accept the tenant was “shocked” to use her words, at 3 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 4 Section 109 of the RTA. 5 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 6 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 7 Maria Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities [2022] NZDC 7003. seeing the property manager at the home, but I consider the overall impact would not have been significant.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the tenant reimburse the filing fee of $28. The tenant did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 8
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 9
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant seeks name suppression. The tenant has not been successful in defending the landlord’s claim; however, she was successful with her application in respect of the unlawful entry, therefore I will allow name suppression for the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429290 — net $1,038.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 26.3.26	$1,210.00		Rent arrears to 26.3.26
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the tenant reimburse the filing fee of $28. The tenant did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.
Compensation: unlawful entry		$200.00	unlawful entry
Total award	$1,238.00	$200.00
Net award	$1,038.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,038.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Opes Property Management North Limited As Agent For Her Limited $1,038.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The claim for water rates is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 29 March 2024 and is ongoing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant disputes the rent arrears and claims exemplary damages for an unlawful entry by the landlord.

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. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

RENT ARREARS

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing as at 26 March 2026 is $1,010.
The tenant disputes the rent arrears because she says the rent summary does not reflect the unsealed mediated agreement which says that as at 14 October 2025 the rent arrears was $870.
The landlord says the rent summary is accurate.
It appears that the mediated agreement incorrectly recorded the rent arrears. I have calculated the rent arrears was $1,910 as at 14 October 2025. The mediated order went on to say that the tenant will make monthly payments for rent and an additional amount of $300 towards the rent arrears will continue until all the rent arrears have been paid in full. The landlord says she relied on that being the understanding between the parties.
The mediated order is not a sealed order. The mediator made clear in her email to the parties that the rent arrears were not correct and requested the updated rent arrears. She said if she did not receive the rent arrears that day the application would be withdrawn. The rent arrears were not provided by the landlord who replied only with “yes this is good thank you”. I therefore consider the mediated agreement was not finalised and the application with the mediation service was discontinued by the mediator. I consider in the circumstances it should have been clear to the tenant that the mediated agreement did not accurately reflect the rent arrears as it was intended to.
I find that the tenant is liable for the rent arrears as claimed by the landlord, which as at 26 March 2026 was $1,010 + $200 which has been recorded in the rent summary ($100 on 14 November 2025 and 13 March 2026), which was intended for the water rates and which I have deducted from rent paid, Accordingly, the amount ordered is $1,210. OUTGOINGS - WATER
The landlord claims $199.10 for water rates.
The landlord has recorded two payments for water rates of $100 in the rent summary. I have deducted those payments from the rent arrears and record they should be allocated to the water rates.
In reallocating those payments, I find that there are no water rates due and this claim is dismissed TENANTS CLAIM - UNLAWFUL ENTRY
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. 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. 1
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 2
The tenant says the landlord came to her home on 24 February 2026 for an inspection, however she had not received notice of the inspection. The landlord acknowledged going to the premises, knocking on the door and opening it and stepping in when the tenant did not answer. When the tenant appeared, she says she immediately checked if notice of the inspection had been sent and when she realised it had not she apologised. The landlord believed the notice of the inspection had been sent before she entered the premises. The landlord left without undertaking the inspection.
The tenant agreed it was a mistake. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The remedy:
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: 1 See section 48(1) and (2) RTA. 2 See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA. “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. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest, and whether it is just to make the award. 4
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. Lack of knowledge of a particular obligation they have failed to perform or ignorance of the law is no defence. 5
I consider the tenant has not proven the landlord intended to enter the premises without giving notice, accordingly I decline to make an order for 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 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 6 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach when deciding to award compensation.
Even though the tenant has not specifically claimed compensation in respect of the breach I may award compensation for the landlord’s breach. 7
I consider compensation in the sum of $200 reasonably compensates the tenant for this breach. I accept the tenant was “shocked” to use her words, at 3 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 4 Section 109 of the RTA. 5 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 6 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 7 Maria Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities [2022] NZDC 7003. seeing the property manager at the home, but I consider the overall impact would not have been significant.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the tenant reimburse the filing fee of $28. The tenant did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 8
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 9
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant seeks name suppression. The tenant has not been successful in defending the landlord’s claim; however, she was successful with her application in respect of the unlawful entry, therefore I will allow name suppression for the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429290 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 26, 125B Metcalfe Road, Ranui, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429290 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 26, 125B Metcalfe Road, Ranui, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions