Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5446589 — Exemplary damages
Decided 27 May 2026 · Published 27 May 2026 · Application 5446589
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
- [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $811.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- Janelle Raffe must pay the bond of $2,380.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 13 March 2026 and 1 May 2026. 5446589, 54394562
- The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and power and water arrears.
- The tenant made a cross-application compensation and exemplary damages for: a. Incorrectly executed tenancy agreement; b. Unlawful clauses in the tenancy agreement; c. Unlawful rent increase; d. Healthy Homes Standard (“HHS”) non-compliance and failure to maintain the premises; e. Unlawful dwelling configuration; f. Power supply and metering breaches; g. Unlawful water charges; h. Failure to lodge the bond; i. Failure to appoint an agent; j. Breach of quiet enjoyment; k. Unsafe gas installation; l. Unlawful insurance requirement; and m. Retaliatory notice.
- At the first hearing, I had found that the termination notice given by the landlord was not given in retaliation and that there was no unlawful rent increase. I had ordered the termination of the tenancy as of 17 March 2026.
- At the second appearance, I was able to go through the remainder of the claims from both parties.
- I deal with the landlord’s application first. Landlord’s application
- The landlord was able to prepare a rent summary that captured all the payments made by the tenant during the tenancy.
- I find that the landlord has proven that the tenant had $1,344.28 in rent arrears at the end of the tenancy. I order the tenant to pay this amount to the landlord.
- The landlord also sought for power and water arrears. The tenant opposed this as there was no submeter to measure the usage for power and water for the tenanted area upstairs. There was a downstairs area where the landlord or the landlord’s guest used during the tenancy. The landlord accepted that there were no separate submeters. 5446589, 54394563
- Even when no one was occupying the premises upstairs, the landlord’s whiteware including the fridge had been running. The landlord accepted that there had been guests using the upstairs area during the duration of the tenancy, albeit for limited periods only.
- Under section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and are incurred for common facilities.
- As there was no submeter to measure the tenant’s usage, I do not grant the landlord’s claims for power and water arrears.
- Instead, I grant the tenant’s application for compensation for power paid by the tenant throughout the tenancy. The tenant paid $1,305.97 for power which included the power used for the non-tenanted areas. Under section 39 RTA, the tenant is not liable for this. Therefore, the landlord must reimburse the tenant $1,305.97 for power. Tenant’s cross-application
- I now consider the tenant’s cross-application. Incorrectly executed tenancy agreement
- The tenant claimed that the landlord required the tenant’s son to sign on the tenancy agreement when the tenant was the only named person in the tenancy agreement.
- The landlord is not a professional landlord and was only helping the tenant out when the tenant required somewhere urgently. The tenancy originally came about as a result of their mutual friend informing the landlord of the tenant’s situation at the time.
- This mistake is trivial, and it is unclear why this is even a claim.
- I dismiss this claim. Unlawful clauses in the tenancy agreement
- The tenant claimed that the tenancy agreement contained unlawful and unenforceable clauses including: a. Clauses regarding gas notices where no legal requirement applied; b. Clauses restricting how many nights the tenant’s guests may stay; and 5446589, 54394564 c. Incorrect termination-notice provisions.
- The landlord would have been prohibited to enforce these clause as they were not allowed under the RTA.
- When the landlord tried to give termination notice as per the tenancy agreement instead of the RTA, the tenant corrected the landlord on the requirements on under the RTA. The landlord promptly corrected herself and gave a subsequent notice in accordance with the RTA.
- As there were no actual issues that arose from the unlawful and unenforceable clauses in the tenancy agreement, I do not order anything against the landlord for this claim. Unlawful rent increase
- The tenant claimed that the rent was $595.00 per week and that the landlord unlawfully increased the rent to $650.00 per week after three months of the tenancy.
- Under section 24 RTA, rent cannot be increased in the first 12 months of the tenancy.
- However, there was evidence that the initial $595.00 was a discount of rent provided by the landlord and not an actual increase of rent. This was clarified in the tenancy agreement in addition a letter written by the landlord for the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy.
- Therefore, I do not find that there had been any wrongdoing by the landlord. I dismiss this claim. HHS non-compliance and failure to maintain the premises
- The tenant claimed the premises was not compliant with HHS and did not meet the habitability and safety standards during the tenancy.
- The tenant claimed that there was no fixed heating source in the main living area.
- The landlord produced a HHS report dated 14 April 2026 that confirmed that the premises was HHS compliant when tested on 31 March 2026.
- The premises had a wood burner that was compliant with HHS. However, at the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord had told the tenant not to use it as it needed maintenance before it could be used. Regardless, the tenant did try to use it but was told not to when she did. As a result, the tenant went and purchased an oil heater instead. 5446589, 54394565
- Under the HHS and regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, a landlord must provide a source of heating for the tenant. As this was not done, I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $100.00 as a nominal acknowledgment of this breach.
- The tenant also claimed that there were structural defects and exposure to roof cavity – specifically that there was a large hole in the hot water cupboard exposing the roof cavity creating draughts. The tenant also observed rats in the roof cavity, creating serious health and sanitation risks. The landlord’s handyman, who lived next door, did pest control by putting baits and cages for rodents. A hole in the wall was also fixed by the handyman. The HHS report did not mention any draught issues. I do not find that this claim is proven.
- The tenant also claimed that the landlord had failed to fix the leaking laundry taps. This was first raised to the landlord on 30 September 2025 but was not fixed until 16 December 2025. When the landlord’s handyman went around to fixing it, it turned out to be a relatively easy fix.
- As a result of the leaking laundry taps, the tenant had to use the laundromat for washing. I grant the tenant compensation of $150.00 for the loss of use of the laundry.
- The tenant also claimed for compensation for mould, dampness and persistent odour. The tenant claimed that there was black mould in the bathroom and that there was damp air and odour travelling into the tenant’s living space. I do not find that there was any evidence of dampness provided to prove this claim. The HHS report did not support this claim. I dismiss this claim.
- The tenant claimed that there were no smoke alarms. The landlord said that there had been smoke alarms installed before this tenancy but was only notified by the tenant that there were no working smoke alarms on 30 September 2025. The landlord arranged for the Fire Department to install new smoke alarms between 5 and 8 October 2025. I find that this was a swift response by the landlord. I do not order any compensation or exemplary damages for this. Unlawful dwelling configuration
- The tenant raised issues with the “unlawful dwelling configuration” of the property. The property was a two-level house with the tenant renting the upstairs area while the downstairs was blocked off for the landlord or the landlord’s guests.
- The landlord said that no renovations had taken place since the house was purchased. There was no full kitchen facility downstairs. There was no evidence provided by the tenant to show any non-compliance with the current Council consent. 5446589, 54394566
- I do not find the tenant has proven that this was an unlawful dwelling. I dismiss this claim. Power supply and metering breaches (including water charges)
- The tenant raised issues with there being no submeter for the power and water.
- This was dealt with as part of the landlord’s claim for water and power arrears.
- Therefore, there is nothing further to deal with for these. Failure to lodge the bond
- The tenant claimed that the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
- A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
- 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 RTA.
- 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 accepted having not paid the bond with the Bond Centre. She said that she was unable to lodge it as she was based overseas. She did not have a New Zealand agent to manage her tenancy affairs.
- The landlord said that that she tried multiple different ways to lodge the bond but that she could not.
- I find that her explanation is simply not good enough. She could have had her New Zealand based family or friends to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre if need be.
- I consider that there is public interest in denouncing this conduct. I order the landlord to pay $500.00 as exemplary damages for her failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. Failure to appoint an agent
- The tenant claimed the landlord has been overseas for longer than the RTA permitted without appointing an agent. 5446589, 54394567
- A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) RTA.
- 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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The landlord accepted that she had been out of the country for more than 21 consecutive days without properly appointing an agent. However, the landlord did provide details of the landlord’s handyman for urgent repairs. However, it was not made clear that the handyman was the agent of the landlord with full permission and responsibilities. If that had been the case, the lack of lodging the bond or the delay in having the laundry taps fixed would not have happened. I find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages for this failure. I order the landlord to pay $100.00 as exemplary damages.
- The tenant also raised issues with the landlord failing to notify change of agent with the Tenancy Services and no written notice being given to the tenant in accordance with the RTA. This is at odds with the claim of “failing to appoint an agent”. If there was no official agent, then there cannot be any failure to notify change of agent.
- As I had found that there was no formal appointment of an agent, I do not find there is anything to consider in failing to notify change of agent. Breach of quiet enjoyment
- The tenant claimed that the landlord’s handyman breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
- 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) RTA.
- 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".
- The tenant claimed that the landlord’s handyman, who lived next door, yelled outside the tenant’s window saying “oi”, entered the property via a connecting gate and attended to the premises without notice or consent.
- However, it seemed that they were responses to the tenant’s actions. There was evidence of the tenant cutting down a tree with significant sentimental value to the landlord without any permission and the tenant using the fireplace when she had been told that it was unsafe to do so. I do not find that the actions 5446589, 54394568 of the landlord’s handyman amounted to harassment or breach of quiet enjoyment.
- I dismiss this claim. Unsafe gas installation
- The tenant claimed that the way the LPG gas bottle was installed at the premises was unsafe and unreasonable.
- However, she had no evidence to support that the installation was unsafe, unreasonable or against any regulations.
- Therefore, I do not find that this claim is proven to the required standard. This claim is dismissed. Unlawful insurance requirement
- The tenant raised issues with the landlord insisting that the tenant obtain business and contents insurance.
- The landlord had her own insurance.
- The tenant was going to conduct business at the premises, and it would not have been covered by the landlord’s insurance. There is nothing wrong with insisting the tenant get insurance for the tenant’s business and contents.
- I dismiss this claim. Retaliatory notice
- The tenant claimed that the termination notice given to the tenant was retaliatory.
- For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
- 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(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The tenant claimed that the termination notice was given after the tenant requested water bills, asked where the power and water meters were, and raised issues about HHS, safety and compliance. 5446589, 54394569
- The landlord maintained that she gave the notice to come back to New Zealand because she had been unwell. The premises was her primary residence in New Zealand and is used by her while in New Zealand.
- Having read the correspondences between the parties, I find that the landlord had tried to be accommodating as possible for the tenant, by going above and beyond from the beginning until the end of the tenancy.
- When the tenant raised issued, the landlord tried to respond positively and to get the issue fixed. Most of the times, the tenant was asked to liaise with the handyman to ensure that they get fixed.
- I do not find that the tenant has proven this claim. Refund of the bond
- As the tenant is entitled to the refund of the bond, in addition to the amount ordered above, the landlord must refund the entirety of the bond to the tenant immediately.