What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429565 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 5429565?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $505.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429565?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429565?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13494847-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429565 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 5429565?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $505.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429565?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429565?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13494847-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 6, Unit/Flat Unit 2, 48 Aurora Terrace, Kelburn, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5429565 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429565 — net $992.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears for the week ending 24 April 2025	$505.86		Rent arrears for the week ending 24 April 2025
Compensation: Failing to clean lounge carpet		$150.00	Failing to clean lounge carpet
Compensation: Overpayment of cleaning expenses		$320.00	23. The tenant is entitled to compensation for the failure to clean the carpets to a reasonable standard.
Exemplary damages: Failure to ensure facilities in a		$1,000.00	Failure to ensure facilities in a
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$505.86	$1,498.00
Net award		$992.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$992.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Property Management Wellington Limited As agent for Platinum Property Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $992.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord must conduct the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday 7 May 2026: a. Professionally clean the carpet in the communal lounge of Flat 2 to deodorise and remove stains (to the extent that the stains can be removed).
As an alternative to compliance with Order 3, the landlord must pay the tenant $200 immediately.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 3 or 4 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $200. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with the landlord represented by Ms Heaven- Lee.
The tenant has applied for: a. a work order requiring the landlord to complete further carpet cleaning of a communal lounge at the premises; b. compensation and exemplary damages for failure by the landlord to complete cleaning of common areas; and c. reimbursement of expenses paid to the landlord for cleaning services that were not provided pursuant to the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy for arrears.
This is a boarding house tenancy that commenced on 24 May 2025. The tenancy agreement provides that the weekly rent is $165 plus a further weekly amount of $50 to cover expenses. The agreement records that the expenses cover: electricity, unlimited data (wifi), rubbish collection and common area cleaning.

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

The law

The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) provides that the landlord of a boarding house must at all times ensure that the facilities 1 of boarding house premises are in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 2
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. 3 1 Section 66B RTA—The definition of facilities means the facilities provided by the landlord of a boarding house for the shared use by tenants of the boarding house, such as toilet and bathroom facilities, cooking facilities: and general living, dining, or recreational areas. 2 Section 66I(1)(a) RTA
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of its obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. 4
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. 5
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. 6 . Background facts
By email on 8 December 2025, the tenant notified the landlord that another tenant in the boarding house was ill and taken to hospital (he subsequently passed away). He said this tenant had soiled the carpets and bedding in his room and in the communal lounge, and they required cleaning because of stains and smell. The landlord advised that they would send a manager to assess.
Hearing nothing further, the tenant was concerned about stains and smell from the soiled bedding and carpets. On Sunday 14 December 2025, he spoke to a representative of the landlord who was at the premises and he asked when cleaners would be coming through. The representative told him that weekly expenses of $40 do not cover cleaning of common areas and for cleaning cover the weekly expenses would be $50. He also stated that the landlord expected the tenants to take care of cleaning.
The tenant was understandably surprised because he was paying $50 for expenses and his tenancy agreement specifically provided that this covered cleaning of common areas. He was under the impression that cleaners did come to the property, although this was irregular and had become a noticeable problem recently with cleaning not done.
The tenant sent a follow up email to the landlord on 15 December 2025 asking about this issue and noting that he had been charged for cleaning services he was not receiving. He calculated that he was due a refund of the amount charged for the 30-week period of the tenancy so far. He also recorded that the smell from 3 Section 66I(4) and Schedule 1A RTA 4 Section 78(1)(e) RTA 5 Sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) RTA 6 Sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) RTA the soiled rooms was unsanitary and unhygienic, reinforcing that these areas needed to be cleaned.
The landlord claims that the areas were cleaned in December 2025. The tenant disputes this and the landlord was unable to provide evidence to support that claim. Cleaning invoices provided in evidence (which I understand are for the landlord’s own employees who conduct cleaning at the property) are not itemised and do not distinguish between the three separate boarding houses contained within the same building.
The tenant says some cleaning was finally done in mid-January 2026 after he complained further. However, there are still stains and a smell on the lounge carpet. He has complained to the landlord asking for further cleaning which they have not done. He also complains about the condition of rooms 1 and 5. However, neither of these rooms are occupied by the tenant and there is no application before the Tribunal from other tenants in those rooms. In any event, responsibility for cleaning boarding rooms (as opposed to facilities) rests with the tenant occupying the room. Therefore, I can only deal with the communal lounge carpet.
Together with the parties, I visited the premises during the hearing to view the condition of the communal lounge carpet. There are several stains on the carpet. I could not detect a smell. However, a scented candle was burning in the area which may have masked the smell.
The tenant explained that the illness and then passing of the other tenant was traumatic and he is concerned that proper cleaning has not taken place so that the carpet is sanitary.
Ms Heaven-Lee submits that the lounge carpet, while stained in parts, is reasonably clean given that it is in a communal area.
In relation to charging the tenant $50/week for services including common area cleaning, Ms Heaven-Lee maintained at the hearing that those cleaning services had been provided during the tenancy. She implied that the conversation the tenant had with a representative suggesting otherwise was incorrect. I stood the hearing down briefly so that Ms Heaven-Lee could contact her office for evidence to confirm cleaning was provided, such as a scope of works and invoices from the cleaners.
Ms Heaven-Lee then obtained confirmation from her manager that the landlord had not in fact provided any cleaning services of common areas for this boarding house as contracted in the tenancy agreement. Cleaning was only initiated from early January 2026. Findings
After carefully considering the evidence and my own observations from the site visit, I accept that the lounge carpet is stained and may not have been properly sanitised and deodorised after the staining occurred on or about 8 December 2025. I can understand the tenant’s sensitivity about this and his concerns about hygiene. If this type of staining occurred in a standard residential tenancy, a landlord would reasonably require the tenant to clean it. The landlord’s obligation is to ensure the facilities (which includes this communal lounge) are in a reasonable state of cleanliness at all times. 7 They are in breach of this obligation. Further cleaning to remove the stains to the extent possible and to deodorise the carpet is required. Work orders are made accordingly, including alternative money orders should the landlord fail to comply with the work orders.
I also find that the landlord has failed to provide cleaning services of common areas for the period from 24 May 2025 to approximately 5 January 2026, which is a period of approximately 32 weeks. This is a breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement and the RTA. 8

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

The tenant is entitled to compensation for the failure to clean the carpets to a reasonable standard. I am satisfied that the stains on the carpet have been there since 8 December 2025, just over 4 months ago. The stains are unsightly and make the communal lounge area unpleasant. I also accept the tenant’s evidence that the carpet smelt. Taking into account the cleaning done in mid-January 2026, I award the tenant $150 compensation which I consider is fair and reasonable.
In addition, the tenant is entitled to reimbursement of the service fee charged by the landlord for common area cleaning that was not done. The evidence seems to establish that this was an extra $10/week. I award $320 being the amount overpaid for a period of approximately 32 weeks.

Is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: 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. 7 n1 and 2 above 8 n1 and 2 above
The landlord has breached their obligation to ensure the facilities (which includes the communal lounge and other shared areas) are reasonably clean and tidy at all times. Therefore, I find they have committed an unlawful act. 9
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in two respects. The first unlawful act is failing to provide the cleaning services as contracted in the tenancy agreement. It is a reasonable implication that by failing to engage cleaners to clean the communal areas of this boarding house from May 2025 to January 2026, the landlord has failed to ensure that the facilities are reasonably clean at all times. The second unlawful act is failing to clean the lounge carpet to a reasonable standard after stains and smell were reported in December 2025.
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. 10
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001).
I consider the landlord cannot plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
In summary, 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. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional.
I consider that the matter of intention is proved in this case with the landlord failing to provide cleaning services of the facilities as contracted in the tenancy agreement and as required by s66I. 9 Section 66I(4) and Schedule 1A RTA 10 Section 109(3) RTA
It is of significant interest to tenants and the Public that landlords comply with their obligations. Considering the factors in s109 RTA, I have determined that it is just to make an award of $1,000 to mark disapproval of the landlord’s conduct. The award is at the lower end of the scale. The maximum award available of $7,200 covers any and all unlawful acts under s66I(4) which includes more serious breaches of maintenance or healthy homes obligations. I find that this particular breach must therefore fall at the lower end of the scale.

Is the landlord entitled to a termination order?

The landlord sought an order for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to terminate a boarding house tenancy. The process is that a landlord may give a tenant 10 days’ notice to pay arrears. If the tenant does not comply with the notice, the landlord may give the tenant a 48- hour notice terminating the tenancy. 11 If the tenant has not quit the premises within the period specified in the notice, the Tribunal may grant a possession order. 12
In this case, the landlord served a notice on the tenant to pay arrears in 10 days which the tenant has not complied with. However, the landlord has not served a termination notice on the tenant. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot consider a possession order.
The landlord provided evidence to establish rent arrears owed as at 24 April 2026. However, the above awards set off the arrears in full. It follows that the landlord is not entitled to serve a termination notice on the tenant at the date of this order. Filing fee and suppression
As the tenant has wholly succeeded with his claims, he is entitled to suppression of his name and identifying details and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429565 — net $992.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears for the week ending 24 April 2025	$505.86		Rent arrears for the week ending 24 April 2025
Compensation: Failing to clean lounge carpet		$150.00	Failing to clean lounge carpet
Compensation: Overpayment of cleaning expenses		$320.00	23. The tenant is entitled to compensation for the failure to clean the carpets to a reasonable standard.
Exemplary damages: Failure to ensure facilities in a		$1,000.00	Failure to ensure facilities in a
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$505.86	$1,498.00
Net award		$992.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$992.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Property Management Wellington Limited As agent for Platinum Property Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $992.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord must conduct the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday 7 May 2026: a. Professionally clean the carpet in the communal lounge of Flat 2 to deodorise and remove stains (to the extent that the stains can be removed).
As an alternative to compliance with Order 3, the landlord must pay the tenant $200 immediately.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 3 or 4 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $200. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with the landlord represented by Ms Heaven- Lee.
The tenant has applied for: a. a work order requiring the landlord to complete further carpet cleaning of a communal lounge at the premises; b. compensation and exemplary damages for failure by the landlord to complete cleaning of common areas; and c. reimbursement of expenses paid to the landlord for cleaning services that were not provided pursuant to the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy for arrears.
This is a boarding house tenancy that commenced on 24 May 2025. The tenancy agreement provides that the weekly rent is $165 plus a further weekly amount of $50 to cover expenses. The agreement records that the expenses cover: electricity, unlimited data (wifi), rubbish collection and common area cleaning.

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

The law

The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) provides that the landlord of a boarding house must at all times ensure that the facilities 1 of boarding house premises are in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 2
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. 3 1 Section 66B RTA—The definition of facilities means the facilities provided by the landlord of a boarding house for the shared use by tenants of the boarding house, such as toilet and bathroom facilities, cooking facilities: and general living, dining, or recreational areas. 2 Section 66I(1)(a) RTA
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of its obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. 4
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. 5
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. 6 . Background facts
By email on 8 December 2025, the tenant notified the landlord that another tenant in the boarding house was ill and taken to hospital (he subsequently passed away). He said this tenant had soiled the carpets and bedding in his room and in the communal lounge, and they required cleaning because of stains and smell. The landlord advised that they would send a manager to assess.
Hearing nothing further, the tenant was concerned about stains and smell from the soiled bedding and carpets. On Sunday 14 December 2025, he spoke to a representative of the landlord who was at the premises and he asked when cleaners would be coming through. The representative told him that weekly expenses of $40 do not cover cleaning of common areas and for cleaning cover the weekly expenses would be $50. He also stated that the landlord expected the tenants to take care of cleaning.
The tenant was understandably surprised because he was paying $50 for expenses and his tenancy agreement specifically provided that this covered cleaning of common areas. He was under the impression that cleaners did come to the property, although this was irregular and had become a noticeable problem recently with cleaning not done.
The tenant sent a follow up email to the landlord on 15 December 2025 asking about this issue and noting that he had been charged for cleaning services he was not receiving. He calculated that he was due a refund of the amount charged for the 30-week period of the tenancy so far. He also recorded that the smell from 3 Section 66I(4) and Schedule 1A RTA 4 Section 78(1)(e) RTA 5 Sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) RTA 6 Sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) RTA the soiled rooms was unsanitary and unhygienic, reinforcing that these areas needed to be cleaned.
The landlord claims that the areas were cleaned in December 2025. The tenant disputes this and the landlord was unable to provide evidence to support that claim. Cleaning invoices provided in evidence (which I understand are for the landlord’s own employees who conduct cleaning at the property) are not itemised and do not distinguish between the three separate boarding houses contained within the same building.
The tenant says some cleaning was finally done in mid-January 2026 after he complained further. However, there are still stains and a smell on the lounge carpet. He has complained to the landlord asking for further cleaning which they have not done. He also complains about the condition of rooms 1 and 5. However, neither of these rooms are occupied by the tenant and there is no application before the Tribunal from other tenants in those rooms. In any event, responsibility for cleaning boarding rooms (as opposed to facilities) rests with the tenant occupying the room. Therefore, I can only deal with the communal lounge carpet.
Together with the parties, I visited the premises during the hearing to view the condition of the communal lounge carpet. There are several stains on the carpet. I could not detect a smell. However, a scented candle was burning in the area which may have masked the smell.
The tenant explained that the illness and then passing of the other tenant was traumatic and he is concerned that proper cleaning has not taken place so that the carpet is sanitary.
Ms Heaven-Lee submits that the lounge carpet, while stained in parts, is reasonably clean given that it is in a communal area.
In relation to charging the tenant $50/week for services including common area cleaning, Ms Heaven-Lee maintained at the hearing that those cleaning services had been provided during the tenancy. She implied that the conversation the tenant had with a representative suggesting otherwise was incorrect. I stood the hearing down briefly so that Ms Heaven-Lee could contact her office for evidence to confirm cleaning was provided, such as a scope of works and invoices from the cleaners.
Ms Heaven-Lee then obtained confirmation from her manager that the landlord had not in fact provided any cleaning services of common areas for this boarding house as contracted in the tenancy agreement. Cleaning was only initiated from early January 2026. Findings
After carefully considering the evidence and my own observations from the site visit, I accept that the lounge carpet is stained and may not have been properly sanitised and deodorised after the staining occurred on or about 8 December 2025. I can understand the tenant’s sensitivity about this and his concerns about hygiene. If this type of staining occurred in a standard residential tenancy, a landlord would reasonably require the tenant to clean it. The landlord’s obligation is to ensure the facilities (which includes this communal lounge) are in a reasonable state of cleanliness at all times. 7 They are in breach of this obligation. Further cleaning to remove the stains to the extent possible and to deodorise the carpet is required. Work orders are made accordingly, including alternative money orders should the landlord fail to comply with the work orders.
I also find that the landlord has failed to provide cleaning services of common areas for the period from 24 May 2025 to approximately 5 January 2026, which is a period of approximately 32 weeks. This is a breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement and the RTA. 8

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

The tenant is entitled to compensation for the failure to clean the carpets to a reasonable standard. I am satisfied that the stains on the carpet have been there since 8 December 2025, just over 4 months ago. The stains are unsightly and make the communal lounge area unpleasant. I also accept the tenant’s evidence that the carpet smelt. Taking into account the cleaning done in mid-January 2026, I award the tenant $150 compensation which I consider is fair and reasonable.
In addition, the tenant is entitled to reimbursement of the service fee charged by the landlord for common area cleaning that was not done. The evidence seems to establish that this was an extra $10/week. I award $320 being the amount overpaid for a period of approximately 32 weeks.

Is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: 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. 7 n1 and 2 above 8 n1 and 2 above
The landlord has breached their obligation to ensure the facilities (which includes the communal lounge and other shared areas) are reasonably clean and tidy at all times. Therefore, I find they have committed an unlawful act. 9
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in two respects. The first unlawful act is failing to provide the cleaning services as contracted in the tenancy agreement. It is a reasonable implication that by failing to engage cleaners to clean the communal areas of this boarding house from May 2025 to January 2026, the landlord has failed to ensure that the facilities are reasonably clean at all times. The second unlawful act is failing to clean the lounge carpet to a reasonable standard after stains and smell were reported in December 2025.
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. 10
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001).
I consider the landlord cannot plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
In summary, 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. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional.
I consider that the matter of intention is proved in this case with the landlord failing to provide cleaning services of the facilities as contracted in the tenancy agreement and as required by s66I. 9 Section 66I(4) and Schedule 1A RTA 10 Section 109(3) RTA
It is of significant interest to tenants and the Public that landlords comply with their obligations. Considering the factors in s109 RTA, I have determined that it is just to make an award of $1,000 to mark disapproval of the landlord’s conduct. The award is at the lower end of the scale. The maximum award available of $7,200 covers any and all unlawful acts under s66I(4) which includes more serious breaches of maintenance or healthy homes obligations. I find that this particular breach must therefore fall at the lower end of the scale.

Is the landlord entitled to a termination order?

The landlord sought an order for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to terminate a boarding house tenancy. The process is that a landlord may give a tenant 10 days’ notice to pay arrears. If the tenant does not comply with the notice, the landlord may give the tenant a 48- hour notice terminating the tenancy. 11 If the tenant has not quit the premises within the period specified in the notice, the Tribunal may grant a possession order. 12
In this case, the landlord served a notice on the tenant to pay arrears in 10 days which the tenant has not complied with. However, the landlord has not served a termination notice on the tenant. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot consider a possession order.
The landlord provided evidence to establish rent arrears owed as at 24 April 2026. However, the above awards set off the arrears in full. It follows that the landlord is not entitled to serve a termination notice on the tenant at the date of this order. Filing fee and suppression
As the tenant has wholly succeeded with his claims, he is entitled to suppression of his name and identifying details and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429565 — Exemplary damages at Room 6, Unit/Flat Unit 2, 48 Aurora Terrace, Kelburn,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429565 — Exemplary damages at Room 6, Unit/Flat Unit 2, 48 Aurora Terrace, Kelburn,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

Is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

Is the landlord entitled to a termination order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

Is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

Is the landlord entitled to a termination order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions