What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5434298 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5434298?

Compensation: internet 10 months @ p…: $1,880.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: internet 4 months at p…: $392.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: internet 6 months @ p/…: $1,068.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenities in n…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of use of the she…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: moving costs after bei…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: part charge for a mont…: $73.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Purchase Of Starlink: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5434298?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13875258-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5434298 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5434298?

Compensation: internet 10 months @ p…: $1,880.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: internet 4 months at p…: $392.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: internet 6 months @ p/…: $1,068.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenities in n…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of use of the she…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: moving costs after bei…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: part charge for a mont…: $73.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Purchase Of Starlink: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5434298?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13875258-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

439 Peach Hill Road, Ramarama, Drury 2579 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5434298 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5434298 — net $7,191.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: purchase of starlink	$300.00	purchase of starlink
Compensation: internet 10 months @ p/month	$1,880.00	internet 10 months @ p/month
Compensation: internet 6 months @ p/month	$1,068.00	internet 6 months @ p/month
Compensation: internet 4 months at p/month	$392.00	internet 4 months at p/month
Compensation: part charge for a month’s internet	$73.00	part charge for a month’s internet
Compensation: loss of amenities in not having own clothesline	$350.00	loss of amenities in not having own clothesline
Compensation: moving costs after being served with a protection order	$750.00	moving costs after being served with a protection order
Exemplary damages: harassment by service of a protection order on the tenant which tantamount to unlawful eviction	$2,000.00	harassment by service of a protection order on the tenant which tantamount to unlawful eviction
Compensation: loss of use of the shed area	$350.00	loss of use of the shed area
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,191.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,191.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Madly Trustees Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $7,191.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 July 2026. Daniel Alexander and Michal Alexander attended as trustees/directors for the landlord company.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under the parties’ tenancy agreement to provide reliable internet to the premises.
The landlord disputes that they ever promised to provide internet to the tenant, maintaining that the written tenancy agreement between the parties make no mention of provision of internet.
However, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the parties did verbally agree that the tenant would be provided with sufficiently strong internet connection as part of her tenancy. Because the premises is in a rural area, the landlord had represented to the tenant at the start of the tenancy that the landlord’s Starlink satellite internet connection would be made available to the tenant.
The landlord’s text of 13 January 2023 to the tenant supports the tenant’s evidence of the verbal agreement for provision of fast and reliable internet: We have star link. Fastest internet on the planet. I have spoken recently to my tech mate and he is able to point to point it to the shed as I have cameras that need wifi.
There was no disclaimer by the landlord that the proposed method of connection to the shed (by way of Wifi expander only) may not provide fast and reliable internet, as contended by the landlord during the hearing.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she would not have rented the premises if the internet connection were unreliable or slow or non-existent to the tenant.
The landlord never got around to providing fast or reliable internet to the tenant. This constitutes a breach of the parties’ tenancy agreement.
The tenant became increasingly distressed because her daughter could not complete schooling requirements and she could not safely use Wi-Fi calling at night.
After six weeks, she had no option but to purchase Starlink herself, creating significant financial strain.
The landlord even asked the tenant for her Wi-Fi password which was used to connect to his own security cameras and mobile phone.
There is however insufficient evidence that the landlord had promised to mount the tenant’s Starlink dish properly on the roof. The tenant had placed her Starlink dish on a picnic table, with a cable running across the concrete in front of the ranch slider.
The tenant had tripped over the exposed cable in the dark one evening, resulting in injury where she was knocked unconscious.
However, only the claim to do with failure to provide Starlink internet access is successful.
I award the tenant compensation for the landlord’s breach on provision of internet to the premises as set out in the table above.
I also find that the landlord had failed to provide basic facilities such as a clothesline which had been requested by the tenant but never provided. The landlord repeatedly said that he would “sort” but never did. I award the tenant compensation of $350.00 for this breach in relation to the clothesline.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the parties previously had a verbal agreement with the landlord (Michal) permitting the tenant’s use of the upstairs shed space. When the parties’ relationship soured, the landlord demanded immediate removal of the tenant’s belongings, causing distress and inconvenience to the tenant. I award the tenant compensation of $350.00 for loss of use of part of the shed area.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. 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.
Although it has been said that a single act of interference is unlikely to amount to harassment, there is no logical reason to doubt that it can (and should) extend to a single act of sufficient seriousness (Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667).
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
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 $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having earlier served a 90 day notice on the tenant, the landlord ought to have waited for expiry of the notice before proceeding to apply for a possession order with the Tribunal in the event the tenant failed to vacate on proper termination of the tenancy.
Here, I find that the landlord had acted in bad faith when he obtained an ex- parte protection order at the Family Court against both the tenant and her partner who were living on separate premises (the shed) to the landlord’s main dwelling in front.
The protection order was subsequently discharged and set aside by the Family Court on 8 July 2025. Judge Otene stated that “the fuller evidence available to the Court, which was not available on the making of the temporary order, raises what appears to be a significant jurisdictional issue, and indeed whether the parties are in a close personal relationship”.
While the landlord (Daniel) had developed close friendship with the tenant’s partner Carl (before their subsequent falling out), the landlord would have been aware that both the tenant and her partner were legally permitted to stay at the shed/the premises as lawful tenants and occupiers. Their tenancy and occupation of the premises could only lawfully end by order of the Tenancy Tribunal.
It was highly improper for the tenant (and her partner) to have been forced to vacate the premises due to being served with a protection order obtained without jurisdiction (of the Family Court).
Faced with the position taken by the landlord at the material time, I find that the tenant had no choice but to vacate when the police assisted the landlord to execute the protection order on the tenant and her partner.
I have viewed and considered the video recording captured by the landlord leading to the protection order being issued (ex-parte) against the tenant. It showed that the tenant’s partner and the tenant had uttered harsh words to the landlord. It warned the landlord not to come near the tenanted premises (the shed) but it does not show any assault or threat of assault alleged by the landlord.
I find that the landlord has committed the unlawful act under sections 38(3) and 60AA RTA intentionally. Having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest, I am satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages in the sum of $2,000.00 under the circumstances. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The object of exemplary damages is to punish or mark disapproval of contemptuous or outrageous conduct. The landlord’s conduct was intentional and deserving of punishment.
I also award compensatory damages to the tenant in the sum of $750.00 for the stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenant in vacating against their will on enforcement of the protection order that was clearly made without jurisdiction.
My award of exemplary damages and compensation above includes an allowance for general damages for emotional distress.
Only the amounts awarded in the table above are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I also order the suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5434298 — net $7,191.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: purchase of starlink	$300.00	purchase of starlink
Compensation: internet 10 months @ p/month	$1,880.00	internet 10 months @ p/month
Compensation: internet 6 months @ p/month	$1,068.00	internet 6 months @ p/month
Compensation: internet 4 months at p/month	$392.00	internet 4 months at p/month
Compensation: part charge for a month’s internet	$73.00	part charge for a month’s internet
Compensation: loss of amenities in not having own clothesline	$350.00	loss of amenities in not having own clothesline
Compensation: moving costs after being served with a protection order	$750.00	moving costs after being served with a protection order
Exemplary damages: harassment by service of a protection order on the tenant which tantamount to unlawful eviction	$2,000.00	harassment by service of a protection order on the tenant which tantamount to unlawful eviction
Compensation: loss of use of the shed area	$350.00	loss of use of the shed area
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,191.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,191.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Madly Trustees Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $7,191.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 July 2026. Daniel Alexander and Michal Alexander attended as trustees/directors for the landlord company.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under the parties’ tenancy agreement to provide reliable internet to the premises.
The landlord disputes that they ever promised to provide internet to the tenant, maintaining that the written tenancy agreement between the parties make no mention of provision of internet.
However, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the parties did verbally agree that the tenant would be provided with sufficiently strong internet connection as part of her tenancy. Because the premises is in a rural area, the landlord had represented to the tenant at the start of the tenancy that the landlord’s Starlink satellite internet connection would be made available to the tenant.
The landlord’s text of 13 January 2023 to the tenant supports the tenant’s evidence of the verbal agreement for provision of fast and reliable internet: We have star link. Fastest internet on the planet. I have spoken recently to my tech mate and he is able to point to point it to the shed as I have cameras that need wifi.
There was no disclaimer by the landlord that the proposed method of connection to the shed (by way of Wifi expander only) may not provide fast and reliable internet, as contended by the landlord during the hearing.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she would not have rented the premises if the internet connection were unreliable or slow or non-existent to the tenant.
The landlord never got around to providing fast or reliable internet to the tenant. This constitutes a breach of the parties’ tenancy agreement.
The tenant became increasingly distressed because her daughter could not complete schooling requirements and she could not safely use Wi-Fi calling at night.
After six weeks, she had no option but to purchase Starlink herself, creating significant financial strain.
The landlord even asked the tenant for her Wi-Fi password which was used to connect to his own security cameras and mobile phone.
There is however insufficient evidence that the landlord had promised to mount the tenant’s Starlink dish properly on the roof. The tenant had placed her Starlink dish on a picnic table, with a cable running across the concrete in front of the ranch slider.
The tenant had tripped over the exposed cable in the dark one evening, resulting in injury where she was knocked unconscious.
However, only the claim to do with failure to provide Starlink internet access is successful.
I award the tenant compensation for the landlord’s breach on provision of internet to the premises as set out in the table above.
I also find that the landlord had failed to provide basic facilities such as a clothesline which had been requested by the tenant but never provided. The landlord repeatedly said that he would “sort” but never did. I award the tenant compensation of $350.00 for this breach in relation to the clothesline.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the parties previously had a verbal agreement with the landlord (Michal) permitting the tenant’s use of the upstairs shed space. When the parties’ relationship soured, the landlord demanded immediate removal of the tenant’s belongings, causing distress and inconvenience to the tenant. I award the tenant compensation of $350.00 for loss of use of part of the shed area.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. 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.
Although it has been said that a single act of interference is unlikely to amount to harassment, there is no logical reason to doubt that it can (and should) extend to a single act of sufficient seriousness (Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667).
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
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 $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having earlier served a 90 day notice on the tenant, the landlord ought to have waited for expiry of the notice before proceeding to apply for a possession order with the Tribunal in the event the tenant failed to vacate on proper termination of the tenancy.
Here, I find that the landlord had acted in bad faith when he obtained an ex- parte protection order at the Family Court against both the tenant and her partner who were living on separate premises (the shed) to the landlord’s main dwelling in front.
The protection order was subsequently discharged and set aside by the Family Court on 8 July 2025. Judge Otene stated that “the fuller evidence available to the Court, which was not available on the making of the temporary order, raises what appears to be a significant jurisdictional issue, and indeed whether the parties are in a close personal relationship”.
While the landlord (Daniel) had developed close friendship with the tenant’s partner Carl (before their subsequent falling out), the landlord would have been aware that both the tenant and her partner were legally permitted to stay at the shed/the premises as lawful tenants and occupiers. Their tenancy and occupation of the premises could only lawfully end by order of the Tenancy Tribunal.
It was highly improper for the tenant (and her partner) to have been forced to vacate the premises due to being served with a protection order obtained without jurisdiction (of the Family Court).
Faced with the position taken by the landlord at the material time, I find that the tenant had no choice but to vacate when the police assisted the landlord to execute the protection order on the tenant and her partner.
I have viewed and considered the video recording captured by the landlord leading to the protection order being issued (ex-parte) against the tenant. It showed that the tenant’s partner and the tenant had uttered harsh words to the landlord. It warned the landlord not to come near the tenanted premises (the shed) but it does not show any assault or threat of assault alleged by the landlord.
I find that the landlord has committed the unlawful act under sections 38(3) and 60AA RTA intentionally. Having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest, I am satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages in the sum of $2,000.00 under the circumstances. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The object of exemplary damages is to punish or mark disapproval of contemptuous or outrageous conduct. The landlord’s conduct was intentional and deserving of punishment.
I also award compensatory damages to the tenant in the sum of $750.00 for the stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenant in vacating against their will on enforcement of the protection order that was clearly made without jurisdiction.
My award of exemplary damages and compensation above includes an allowance for general damages for emotional distress.
Only the amounts awarded in the table above are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I also order the suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5434298 — Exemplary damages at 439 Peach Hill Road, Ramarama, Drury 2579

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5434298 — Exemplary damages at 439 Peach Hill Road, Ramarama, Drury 2579

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions