What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5445404 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5445404?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445404?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13801233-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5445404 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5445404?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445404?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13801233-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

31B Hayr Road, Three Kings, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5445404 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445404 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ashton Nz Property Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $528.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages $500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $528.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $528.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
[The tenant/s]claim that the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice. Both parties accepted that this was the claim in her application which clearly stated: “The property manager entered the house during our tenancy without giving notice on 14 February.”
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Background
The parties agreed on the following facts which were supported by emails: a. A flatmate of the tenant gave notice to the landlord by email on 19 January 2026 that she and her partner were leaving the premises on 13 February 2026. She later emailed the landlord to correct her advice and confirm that the tenant was remaining until 22 February 2026. b. The tenant emailed the landlord’s property manager on 21 January 2026 advising: “We are writing to give notice that we are moving out of 31B Hayr Road and our last day here would be 22 February 2026. We will arrange professional cleaning before 22 February upon vacating the property.” c. The tenant telephoned the landlord’s property manager and confirmed that she would not be vacating the premises until 22 February 2026. He advised her to confirm this by email. d. The tenant therefore emailed the landlord once again on 28 January 2026 advising: “Could you please update the move‑out date to 22 February? We’re arranging for a cleaner to come on the 21st, and the rent will be paid up to that week.” e. On 14 February 2026 the tenant came home and found her garage door open and a car in the garage occupied by people she did not know. The door between the garage and the premises was also open. She discovered that the people were agents of the landlord who had arranged to hold viewings of the premises that afternoon. The tenant confirmed that she did not consent to their entry into the premises or the proposed viewing. The landlord’s agents then left the premises.
The tenant gave further evidence as follows: a. As a woman living at the premises on her own, it was very upsetting and shocking that she should come home to find her home open with an unknown car of strangers in her garage. b. She was very concerned that her cat may have been let outside as doors were open. c. This event caused her considerable distress and ongoing concern for the remainder of the tenancy. d. Her partner emailed the landlord on the day of the incident: “We are extremely disappointed and upset today. [The tenant] arrived home on the 14th of February to find all the doors and the garage left open, and our indoor only cat walking around freely. This happened despite us clearly advising that our moveout date is the 22nd of February. We received no warning that anyone would be attending the property today, and there has been no response to our emails requesting that the move-out date be updated. I also spoke directly with Mark, who advised us to contact the admin inbox to ensure the date was corrected, which we did. Unfortunately, it appears this was still ignored. This situation has caused us significant distress, and we need clarification on why access occurred without notice and why our communicated moveout date was not respected. We expect confirmation that no further entry will occur without proper notice, and that the correct move-out date of the 22nd of February is now recorded.”
The landlord responded as follows: a. Upon receipt of the notice from the flatmate, the move out date was set up in the landlord’s management system as 13 February 2026. b. When advised by the tenant that this date was incorrect, the system was not updated to the correct move out date of 22 February 2026. c. Upon arriving at the property on 14 February 2026 she gained access to the property through the front door as she did not have a garage remote. She opened the garage and parked her car there because there was no other off-street parking available. d. She was confused by the presence of furniture at the property and was telephoning to see if the tenant had moved out at the time the tenant arrived at the property. e. She recognised that the tenant was upset and left as soon as the tenant made it clear that she did not consent to the viewings. Discussion and decision
From the evidence before the Tribunal, the tenant has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord entered the premises in breach of the provisions of section 48 RTA. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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) RTA.
The landlord intended the unlawful act of entering the premises and this was done without notice. The reason no notice was given was due to a failure by the landlord to update its records to confirm the correct end date of the tenancy. The result was that the tenant was shocked and upset by the intrusion into her home of unknown and unannounced people, combined with real concern for her pet’s wellbeing.
The tenant had done all that was reasonable required of her to advise the landlord of her move out date. This situation was caused by a failure of the landlord’s professional property manager. While mistakes like this may occur from time to time, it is unacceptable that the tenant was placed in the position of coming home to unknown people in her home. The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s very real distress and ongoing concerns for the remainder of the tenancy.
It is appropriate that exemplary damages be awarded to the tenant, rather than compensation which it is difficult to calculate for intangible loss. It is in the public interest that landlords adhere to their legal obligations under section 48 RTA and that exemplary damages of $500.00 be awarded to the tenant. This is a more appropriate way to recognise the distress caused to the tenant and is one third of the maximum available.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445404 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ashton Nz Property Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $528.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages $500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $528.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $528.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
[The tenant/s]claim that the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice. Both parties accepted that this was the claim in her application which clearly stated: “The property manager entered the house during our tenancy without giving notice on 14 February.”
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Background
The parties agreed on the following facts which were supported by emails: a. A flatmate of the tenant gave notice to the landlord by email on 19 January 2026 that she and her partner were leaving the premises on 13 February 2026. She later emailed the landlord to correct her advice and confirm that the tenant was remaining until 22 February 2026. b. The tenant emailed the landlord’s property manager on 21 January 2026 advising: “We are writing to give notice that we are moving out of 31B Hayr Road and our last day here would be 22 February 2026. We will arrange professional cleaning before 22 February upon vacating the property.” c. The tenant telephoned the landlord’s property manager and confirmed that she would not be vacating the premises until 22 February 2026. He advised her to confirm this by email. d. The tenant therefore emailed the landlord once again on 28 January 2026 advising: “Could you please update the move‑out date to 22 February? We’re arranging for a cleaner to come on the 21st, and the rent will be paid up to that week.” e. On 14 February 2026 the tenant came home and found her garage door open and a car in the garage occupied by people she did not know. The door between the garage and the premises was also open. She discovered that the people were agents of the landlord who had arranged to hold viewings of the premises that afternoon. The tenant confirmed that she did not consent to their entry into the premises or the proposed viewing. The landlord’s agents then left the premises.
The tenant gave further evidence as follows: a. As a woman living at the premises on her own, it was very upsetting and shocking that she should come home to find her home open with an unknown car of strangers in her garage. b. She was very concerned that her cat may have been let outside as doors were open. c. This event caused her considerable distress and ongoing concern for the remainder of the tenancy. d. Her partner emailed the landlord on the day of the incident: “We are extremely disappointed and upset today. [The tenant] arrived home on the 14th of February to find all the doors and the garage left open, and our indoor only cat walking around freely. This happened despite us clearly advising that our moveout date is the 22nd of February. We received no warning that anyone would be attending the property today, and there has been no response to our emails requesting that the move-out date be updated. I also spoke directly with Mark, who advised us to contact the admin inbox to ensure the date was corrected, which we did. Unfortunately, it appears this was still ignored. This situation has caused us significant distress, and we need clarification on why access occurred without notice and why our communicated moveout date was not respected. We expect confirmation that no further entry will occur without proper notice, and that the correct move-out date of the 22nd of February is now recorded.”
The landlord responded as follows: a. Upon receipt of the notice from the flatmate, the move out date was set up in the landlord’s management system as 13 February 2026. b. When advised by the tenant that this date was incorrect, the system was not updated to the correct move out date of 22 February 2026. c. Upon arriving at the property on 14 February 2026 she gained access to the property through the front door as she did not have a garage remote. She opened the garage and parked her car there because there was no other off-street parking available. d. She was confused by the presence of furniture at the property and was telephoning to see if the tenant had moved out at the time the tenant arrived at the property. e. She recognised that the tenant was upset and left as soon as the tenant made it clear that she did not consent to the viewings. Discussion and decision
From the evidence before the Tribunal, the tenant has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord entered the premises in breach of the provisions of section 48 RTA. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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) RTA.
The landlord intended the unlawful act of entering the premises and this was done without notice. The reason no notice was given was due to a failure by the landlord to update its records to confirm the correct end date of the tenancy. The result was that the tenant was shocked and upset by the intrusion into her home of unknown and unannounced people, combined with real concern for her pet’s wellbeing.
The tenant had done all that was reasonable required of her to advise the landlord of her move out date. This situation was caused by a failure of the landlord’s professional property manager. While mistakes like this may occur from time to time, it is unacceptable that the tenant was placed in the position of coming home to unknown people in her home. The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s very real distress and ongoing concerns for the remainder of the tenancy.
It is appropriate that exemplary damages be awarded to the tenant, rather than compensation which it is difficult to calculate for intangible loss. It is in the public interest that landlords adhere to their legal obligations under section 48 RTA and that exemplary damages of $500.00 be awarded to the tenant. This is a more appropriate way to recognise the distress caused to the tenant and is one third of the maximum available.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445404 — Exemplary damages at 31B Hayr Road, Three Kings, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445404 — Exemplary damages at 31B Hayr Road, Three Kings, Auckland 1042

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