What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5440533 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 5440533?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440533?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440533?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13794242-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5440533 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 5440533?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440533?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440533?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13794242-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11A Canary Place, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5440533 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5440533 — net $212.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$287.50		Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$287.50	$500.00
Net award		$212.50
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$212.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agents For Deborah Gibson must pay [The tenant/s] $212.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for painting due to wall damage is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 22 June 2026.
The tenancy began on 28 September 2024 and ended on 17 January 2026.
The landlord applied for cleaning and painting due to wall repairs.
The landlord produced photographs showing some areas that required cleaning after the tenancy ended. These included the bathroom shower drain filter, the dishwasher filter, the bathroom extractor fan and the oven door. The landlord produced a work order for these issues and a few others that were less clear in the photographs.
The tenant denies that further cleaning was required although when questioned she acknowledged that some areas may have been missed.
The tenant questioned the invoice for the cleaning because it has the address for the landlord (11 Canary Place) on the invoice rather than the tenancy address (11A Canary Place). Also, the invoice has a description of “One off cleaning” rather than detailing the issues contained in the work order.
The landlord had obtained two quotes for the cleaning. Both quotes contained some detail of what needed to be cleaned. The company that carried out the cleaning was a different company to those who provided quotes.
On the evidence before me I am satisfied that further cleaning was required. The landlord said that neither of the companies who provided the quotes were available to clean on the day required. The invoice is only slightly more than the two quotes so I am satisfied that it would have been for the cleaning as set out in the quotes. The cleaning amount of $287.50 is awarded to the landlord.
The landlord claimed for painting a bedroom wall which was damaged by the tenants. The tenants have carried out repairs to an extent that the damage is not visible in photographs produced by both the landlord and the tenant.
The landlord obtained a quote which records that the wall has not been repainted, just sanded. The invoice records a description including, “remove flaking paint of back bedroom wall, fill any cracks and holes, sand down ready for paint, supply and apply 1 primer coat...& apply 2 top coats...paint to match existing”.
The tenant submits that the damage has been repaired. The landlord submits that there is a variation in the paint colour used by the tenants.
The damage is not clear in any of the evidence produced. There is no flaking paint or cracks and holes and any variation in colour of the paint used is not obvious. As the claim is for damage caused by the tenant, I am unable to award the claim because there is no damage that is visible. The claim is dismissed.
The tenant claims for exemplary damages. In the tenant’s submissions filed she refers to sections 38, 45, and 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
After hearing evidence from the tenant, I consider that the most appropriate section for this situation is section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenant referred to several incidents where the landlord or her agent (contractor) has attended at the property without notice. I acknowledge that the landlord lives next door but repeated, uninvited, or intimidating contact by a landlord – even if they live next door can amount to harassment if it interferes with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
On 30 September 2025 the landlord attended at the tenant’s door to discuss the tenancy. The tenant had just come out of the shower and despite no visit being arranged the landlord continued to knock until the tenant answered the door.
In November 2025 the landlord appointed a property manager but continued to contact the tenant directly even after the tenant had asked for contact to only be with the property manager.
On 27 November 2025 the tenant reports that the landlord yelled at her from her deck and then came over to the small gate separating the two properties. She was angry about the pre-inspection report that the property manager asked the tenant to fill in. After the interaction the tenant emailed the property manager saying, “...She approached me when I got home this evening and was pretty hostile about this timing thing for Graham to come and look...”
On 1 December 2025 the landlord approached one of the tenants while he was cleaning his car in the driveway. The tenant again emailed the property manager in relation to this incident as follows, “Her and Graham approached my husband today while he was cleaning the car in our driveway. They said they wanted to come in now and look so he let them.” The tenant said that her husband was caught off guard and wanted to avoid conflict.
While a landlord can enter the premises with the consent of the tenant 1 , that consent must be freely given. If the tenant feels pressured, intimidated, or unable to refuse, the consent is not considered “freely given”. 1 Section 48(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
On 8 December 2025 there was communication from the landlord to the tenant late at night in relation to a contractor for the windows. There was confusion as to whether this was being arranged by the owner or the property manager. It turned out that the contractor attended without appropriate notice being given.
The tenant referred to other incidents during December 2025 where the landlord approached the tenant without notice. In an email to the property manager the tenant said, “Unfortunately I had another unsolicited and unpleasant encounter with Deb today.”
The incidents referred to by the tenant have clearly caused upset and has interfered with the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy. The landlord’s appointment of a property manager should have addressed issues in relation to landlord entry but it seems that the landlord has relied on the tenancy location to have direct contact with the tenant when they should have had quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.
The landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where 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.
I have taken account of the intent of the landlord, the impact on the tenant and the public interest. I consider that exemplary damages of $500.00 is reasonable in the circumstances.
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5440533 — net $212.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$287.50		Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$287.50	$500.00
Net award		$212.50
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$212.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agents For Deborah Gibson must pay [The tenant/s] $212.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for painting due to wall damage is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 22 June 2026.
The tenancy began on 28 September 2024 and ended on 17 January 2026.
The landlord applied for cleaning and painting due to wall repairs.
The landlord produced photographs showing some areas that required cleaning after the tenancy ended. These included the bathroom shower drain filter, the dishwasher filter, the bathroom extractor fan and the oven door. The landlord produced a work order for these issues and a few others that were less clear in the photographs.
The tenant denies that further cleaning was required although when questioned she acknowledged that some areas may have been missed.
The tenant questioned the invoice for the cleaning because it has the address for the landlord (11 Canary Place) on the invoice rather than the tenancy address (11A Canary Place). Also, the invoice has a description of “One off cleaning” rather than detailing the issues contained in the work order.
The landlord had obtained two quotes for the cleaning. Both quotes contained some detail of what needed to be cleaned. The company that carried out the cleaning was a different company to those who provided quotes.
On the evidence before me I am satisfied that further cleaning was required. The landlord said that neither of the companies who provided the quotes were available to clean on the day required. The invoice is only slightly more than the two quotes so I am satisfied that it would have been for the cleaning as set out in the quotes. The cleaning amount of $287.50 is awarded to the landlord.
The landlord claimed for painting a bedroom wall which was damaged by the tenants. The tenants have carried out repairs to an extent that the damage is not visible in photographs produced by both the landlord and the tenant.
The landlord obtained a quote which records that the wall has not been repainted, just sanded. The invoice records a description including, “remove flaking paint of back bedroom wall, fill any cracks and holes, sand down ready for paint, supply and apply 1 primer coat...& apply 2 top coats...paint to match existing”.
The tenant submits that the damage has been repaired. The landlord submits that there is a variation in the paint colour used by the tenants.
The damage is not clear in any of the evidence produced. There is no flaking paint or cracks and holes and any variation in colour of the paint used is not obvious. As the claim is for damage caused by the tenant, I am unable to award the claim because there is no damage that is visible. The claim is dismissed.
The tenant claims for exemplary damages. In the tenant’s submissions filed she refers to sections 38, 45, and 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
After hearing evidence from the tenant, I consider that the most appropriate section for this situation is section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenant referred to several incidents where the landlord or her agent (contractor) has attended at the property without notice. I acknowledge that the landlord lives next door but repeated, uninvited, or intimidating contact by a landlord – even if they live next door can amount to harassment if it interferes with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
On 30 September 2025 the landlord attended at the tenant’s door to discuss the tenancy. The tenant had just come out of the shower and despite no visit being arranged the landlord continued to knock until the tenant answered the door.
In November 2025 the landlord appointed a property manager but continued to contact the tenant directly even after the tenant had asked for contact to only be with the property manager.
On 27 November 2025 the tenant reports that the landlord yelled at her from her deck and then came over to the small gate separating the two properties. She was angry about the pre-inspection report that the property manager asked the tenant to fill in. After the interaction the tenant emailed the property manager saying, “...She approached me when I got home this evening and was pretty hostile about this timing thing for Graham to come and look...”
On 1 December 2025 the landlord approached one of the tenants while he was cleaning his car in the driveway. The tenant again emailed the property manager in relation to this incident as follows, “Her and Graham approached my husband today while he was cleaning the car in our driveway. They said they wanted to come in now and look so he let them.” The tenant said that her husband was caught off guard and wanted to avoid conflict.
While a landlord can enter the premises with the consent of the tenant 1 , that consent must be freely given. If the tenant feels pressured, intimidated, or unable to refuse, the consent is not considered “freely given”. 1 Section 48(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
On 8 December 2025 there was communication from the landlord to the tenant late at night in relation to a contractor for the windows. There was confusion as to whether this was being arranged by the owner or the property manager. It turned out that the contractor attended without appropriate notice being given.
The tenant referred to other incidents during December 2025 where the landlord approached the tenant without notice. In an email to the property manager the tenant said, “Unfortunately I had another unsolicited and unpleasant encounter with Deb today.”
The incidents referred to by the tenant have clearly caused upset and has interfered with the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy. The landlord’s appointment of a property manager should have addressed issues in relation to landlord entry but it seems that the landlord has relied on the tenancy location to have direct contact with the tenant when they should have had quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.
The landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where 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.
I have taken account of the intent of the landlord, the impact on the tenant and the public interest. I consider that exemplary damages of $500.00 is reasonable in the circumstances.
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5440533 — Exemplary damages at 11A Canary Place, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5440533 — Exemplary damages at 11A Canary Place, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions