What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5435109 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5435109?

Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5435109?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5435109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13805757-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5435109 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5435109?

Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5435109?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5435109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13805757-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 5, 9 Douglas Street, Allanton, RD 2, Mosgiel 9092 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5435109 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5435109 — net $6,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for breach of sections 19, 54, 66G & 66R	$6,000.00	Exemplary damages for breach of sections 19, 54, 66G & 66R
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,028.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5435109 — net $6,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for breach of sections 19, 54, 66G & 66R	$6,000.00	Exemplary damages for breach of sections 19, 54, 66G & 66R
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Craig William Mitchell and Rebecca Mitchell must pay [The tenant/s] $6,028.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the case conference held on 13 May 2026 and the hearing on 24/6/2026.
On 29/1/2026 the tenant sought a refund of their $440.00 bond but advised at the case conference that this had now been refunded.
In addition, the tenant claimed exemplary damages for the following: a. Discrimination, section 12, b. Tenancy agreement breach, section 13, c. Failure to lodge the bond, section 19, d. Retaliatory notice, section 54, e. Harassment and breach of quiet enjoyment, section 66G, f. Unlawful entry, section 66R,
The Boarding House tenancy began on 14/9/2025 at $220.00 rent per week and was varied verbally with the inclusion of a second tenant in May 2025 when the rent was increased to $300.00 per week.
The tenancy ended on 30/1/2026 when the landlord gave the tenant notice. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the tenant must establish, with evidence, that their claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicants to provide the necessary evidence to support their claims. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord discriminated against them.
The tenant submitted that the property manager and landlord allowed other tenants to bully them, in particular about their cooking, car parking and rent increase.
In response, the landlord agreed that the tenancy had been terminated because of complaints from other tenants but denied that only the rent of the tenant had been increased.
A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is insufficient evidence to support that the property manager or landlord discriminated against either tenant in contravention of the prohibited grounds in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of the tenancy.
As discussed below while the termination of the tenancy was unlawful the evidence does not suggest this was in particular due to ethnicity or the gender of one tenant.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and the claim for exemplary damages fails.

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord did not ensure both tenancy agreements were in writing and did not sign the initial tenancy agreement.
The tenant submitted that although the initial tenancy agreement was in writing, it was not signed by the landlord.
In addition, the tenant suggested that when the second tenant moved in no written agreement was provided.
On the other hand, the landlord pointed out that although the property manager had not signed the initial tenancy agreement on the same page as the tenant, she had done so on the second page under the insulation statement.
Further the landlord agreed the variation of the tenancy agreement was only verbal.
Section 66C provides that a boarding house tenancy agreement must comply with the requirements in section 13A and in addition contain the clauses set out in subsection(1) as follows: (a) a statement of whether the tenancy is intended to last for 28 days or more: (b) 1 or more telephone numbers at which the landlord may be contacted by the tenant at any reasonable time: (c) the room number of the boarding room to which the tenancy agreement relates: (d) a statement as to whether the boarding room that the tenant is renting is shared by other tenants and, if so, the maximum number of other tenants who may occupy the room: (e) a statement of whether the tenancy is a joint tenancy and, if so, the names of the other people who will occupy the boarding room under the tenancy agreement: (f) a statement of the services (if any) to be provided by the landlord: (g) if the premises are managed by a person other than the landlord, the name and contact address (which must include a telephone number) of that person: (h) a description of the fire evacuation procedures that apply to the premises.
Under section 13 a landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13B every variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties and a copy provided to the tenant.
I am persuaded by the evidence of the initial tenancy agreement that the landlord did sign the written document, albeit on the wrong page and did provide a copy to the tenant.
However, there is no dispute that the variation of the tenancy agreement was not in writing.
Despite the failure by the landlord to provide a written variation of tenancy agreement I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act because the breach of this obligation is not unlawful.
The claim for exemplary damages fails.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The initial tenant submitted that he paid a bond of $440.00 to the landlord in September 2024.
The landlord did not dispute that the bond had not been lodged, but the reason was because they were unaware they needed to do so, and the tenant knew the bond was not going to be lodged.
However, the landlord submitted the premises and another 9 bedroom house they owned, were let predominantly to staff working in their agricultural business as well as other tenants.
The property manager gave evidence for the landlord and confirmed that only about 20% of tenants were asked to pay bonds and in the six years she had worked for the landlord she had been told there was no need to lodge the bonds.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the evidence supports that as the bond was more than one weeks rent, the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond.

Did the landlord give the required notice to increase rent?

Although not included in the original application the tenant wished to add a claim for rent over payment, which has been treated as a claim under section 24.
The tenant submitted that the property manager advised on 16/12/2025 that the rent would increase to $400.00 per week on 5/1/2026, but they had declined to pay the increase.
The tenants believed they were the only ones who received a notice to increase their rent.
In response the landlord submitted that all the tenants had been sent a text on 14/7/2025 “warning” that as the electricity prices had increased, they were “discussing rent reviews”.
The landlord confirmed that a text was sent on 16/12/2026 increasing the rent for all tenants.
Section 24 sets out the circumstances under which a landlord may increase rent. (1)The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a)the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b) that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c) the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given; and (d) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and (e) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect.
I find the notice to increase rent given on 16/12/2025 was void because only 20 days written notice was provided being less than the minimum 28 days required by the legislation.

Was the notice to end the tenancy valid?

The tenant submitted that on 16/1/2026 the property manager gave them two weeks verbal notice to end the tenancy.
When they asked for the notice in writing the tenants suggested that the landlord on 28/1/2026 gave them written notice backdated to 16/1/2026 to end the tenancy on 30/1/2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
The landlord provided a copy of the notice to terminate the tenancy dated 16/1/2026, which recorded that the behaviour of one tenant abusing another tenant, leaving pots to burn on the stove and various other complaints from other tenants, was serious enough to end the agreement.
Under section 66U(1)(d) a landlord may terminate a boarding house tenancy without reason by giving at least 28 days notice.
Section 66U(2) sets out the requirements of the notice.
I find the notice of 16/1/2026 was invalid because it does not meet all the necessary requirements, in particular the notice period was only 14 days.

Was the notice retaliatory?

From 30 January 2025 for a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove: a. that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right, power, authority, or remedy under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord relating to the tenancy: b. that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises See section 54(2)(a)&(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant must make the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice and may apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect.
Under subsection (5) the Tribunal need not declare a notice retaliatory if satisfied that the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority or remedy or the making by the tenant of any such complaint was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving notice.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
What is at issue here is whether the notice was of any effect because in giving the notice the landlord was motivated either wholly or in part by the exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority or remedy conferred by the tenancy agreement or Act.
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 66U RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? If not, are there grounds to extend the notice period under s 96(2) RTA? In Realty House Whakatane Limited v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081, the District Court held that the time limit for filing an application is mandatory but may be extended in limited circumstances. c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
As mentioned above the notice does not comply with section 66U.
The application by the tenant was made on 29/1/2026, nine working days after the notice to terminate was issued.
The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to ... to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice.
His Honour Judge Ongley found in Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua M.A. 244/88 3 November 1988 that a notice was not retaliatory if it was given for genuine and fair reasons.
The tenant submitted that their complaints about other tenants, parking issues and repair of the extractor fan for the stove had been ignored by the property manager and landlord.
Rather the tenant believed the landlord had given them notice because of the issues they had with other tenants, in particular the parking incident on 14/1/2026.
On the other hand, the landlord and property manager suggested the complaints by the tenant and their behaviour was “silly” and led to disagreements with other tenants.
I am persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that the notice terminating the tenancy was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights to complain.
The landlord has failed to satisfy me that there were legitimate or fair and genuine reasons for giving the notice.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant submitted that their use and enjoyment of the premises was interfered with by the property manager and landlord who did not act on their complaints, intimidated them after giving notice and threatened to involve the Police if they did not vacate the premises.
In support of their claim the tenant provided a recoding of an interaction with the landlord on 28/1/2026 and an email dated 29/1/2026 where the landlord indicated they would “be bringing a police escort” to ensure the relocation on 30/1/2026 was “done properly”. If it was not the email suggested the Police would issue a “trespass notice”.
When questioned the landlord did not consider the email harassed the tenant, but rather relied on the complaints from other tenants and the property manager about the behaviour of the tenant.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 66G(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be awarded. See section 66G(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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". See MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The evidence supports that the landlord engaged in a pattern of behaviour directed towards the tenant which amounted to harassment.
In particular the recording of 28/1/2026 indicated aggressive and argumentative behaviour by the landlord, which was followed up the next day by the email threatening involvement of the Police.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Did the landlord enter the boarding room unlawfully.
On 30/1/2026 the tenant suggested that the landlord entered their room, without consent and while one of them was in the shower.
On the other hand, the landlord submitted that after knocking she only opened the door to the room to see if the tenant had moved out.
A landlord must not enter the tenant’s room during the tenancy except with the tenant’s consent, in an emergency, for providing services in the room, or after giving the required notice. See section 66R Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation or entering with the use of threat or force are unlawful acts for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be awarded. See section 66T(1)(a) and (b), and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I do not find the evidence of the landlord credible that she did not enter the boarding room after opening the door on 30/1/2026, in particular following the communications of the previous two days over the issue of the tenant moving out.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by failing to lodge the bond, issuing a retaliatory notice, harassing the tenant and unlawfully entering the boarding room, I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. The District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
That decision, which was a case about the failure to supply Healthy Homes Standards documents and Insurance details, also confirmed that “Like all citizens a landlord is deemed to know the law. Parliaments intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law.”
I consider an inference can be drawn from the evidence that the landlord intentionally failed to comply with their obligations and turned a ‘blind eye’ to the requirements for boarding houses under the Act by the way in which they rented out and administered the premises for many years.
The renting of premises is a business and indeed the landlord confirmed that the accommodation was used for staff members for their agricultural business.
However, the property manager gave evidence, which the landlord did not dispute, that the premises were also rented out to other tenants not associated with the business and tenants were secured by advertisements on places such as social media or by word of mouth.
Clearly the landlord was aware the premises were a boarding house and used an appropriate boarding house tenancy agreement. As a business owner they had an obligation to make themselves aware of and comply with all aspects of the legislation.
I have carefully considered the evidence provided by the tenants, who have clearly been significantly adversely affected by the behaviour of the landlord and the power imbalance involved during their tenancy which ended with the notice to terminate.
The legislation provides for bond money to be used for dispute resolution procedures under the Act. Non lodgement is a loss and against the public interest.
A bond is tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there is not a deterrent.
Similarly, the provisions for rent increases, notice, harassment and entry are mandatory and the egregious breaches on the scale evidenced here require a deterrent to prevent a repeat performance.
Having considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect on the tenant and the public interest I consider it just to award exemplary damages at the higher end of the scale.
The award of $6,000.00 exemplary damages is made up as follows: a. $1,000.00 for breach of section 19, b. $1,500.00 for breach of section 54, c. $2,500.00 for breach of section 66G d. $1,000.00 for breach of section 66R
As [The applicant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenants pursuant to section 95A because they succeeded with the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5435109 — Exemplary damages at Room 5, 9 Douglas Street, Allanton, RD 2, Mosgiel 9092

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5435109 — Exemplary damages at Room 5, 9 Douglas Street, Allanton, RD 2, Mosgiel 9092

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord give the required notice to increase rent?

Was the notice to end the tenancy valid?

Was the notice retaliatory?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord give the required notice to increase rent?

Was the notice to end the tenancy valid?

Was the notice retaliatory?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions