What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452838 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 5452838?

Compensation: Breach Quiet Enjoyment: $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 5452838?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13738484-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452838 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 5452838?

Compensation: Breach Quiet Enjoyment: $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 5452838?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13738484-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452838 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452838 — net $2,328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: breach quiet enjoyment	$300.00	breach quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: wrong notice	$2,000.00	wrong notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,328.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Trust Property Management Limited As Agent For Rebecca Metcalfe & Lorenzo Lavatelli Lorenzo Lavatelli and Rebecca Metcalfe must pay [The tenant/s] $2,328.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, including one of the owners and a representative for the property management company.
The landlord gave the tenants a 42 day notice to end their tenancy. The reason set out in the notice was that the owners would be moving back from overseas and would need to live in the house. The tenants have claimed compensation and exemplary damages because instead of moving in the owners put the house on the market for sale. The questions I have to decide include: • Were the tenants given the correct notice? • Did the owners enter the house unlawfully? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Should I allow compensation for losses? • Should I allow suppression?

Were the tenants given the correct notice?

The owners do not live in New Zealand. At the hearing the owner said that a 42 day notice to end the tenancy was given because the owner and members of the owner’s family intended to use the house as a principal place of residence to support a family member undergoing cancer treatment.
The law allowing landlords to give a 42 day notice is set out in section 51(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That section states that a 42 day notice can be given if the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination of the tenancy, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days, for the owner or a member of the owner’s family. The notice was given to the tenants on 18 December 2025 and they moved out at the end of January 2026.
The owners returned to their home overseas on 31 December. At the end of the tenancy the property manager discovered a serious leak from the hot water cylinder in the laundry. The leak had affected the adjoining rooms. The owner’s insurers paid a lump sum and paid for Chemdry’s services. Repairs were made. The owner said that the cost of repairing this leak meant she could no longer return to New Zealand within the 90 days and use the house as a principal place of residence as stipulated by section 51(2) RTA. The owner said the decision was made to put the house on the market instead, and the house was first marketed on 17 March 2026.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have considered the written statements made by the owner’s family. The mother lives in a different city. She intended to use the house when the family member was being treated in Wellington. The sister planned to stay periodically because she also lives in another city. The brother lives in another country and was planning to stay occasionally. Based on the evidence provided I find that no family member intended to use the house as their principal place of residence for 90 days after the end of January.
This leaves the owners. The owners were in another country. They did not return after the repairs. No one lived in the house within the 90 day period. I was provided with bank statements and copies of bills to support the submission that their financial position was so changed they could no longer live in the house. However, the only relevant change was the leak and the subsequent repair, for which they had insurance. The submission they could no longer afford to live in the house because of the repairs in February is not persuasive. It seems most likely to me the owner had no intention of using the house as their principal residence when they gave notice.
Giving the wrong notice is a breach of section 60AA RTA, which provides that a landlord must not give a notice to terminate or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord 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.
I have seen the emails between the landlord and the owners when the instructions were given for the 42 day notice. The landlord checked the owners knew about the requirement to live in the house for 90 days within the 90 day period. I find the owners acted intentionally. The effect for the tenant was amplified because the notice was given just before the Christmas holidays, and he needed to find somewhere to live that allowed the dog. It is in tenants interests that landlords give the correct notice. There is public interest in the landlord paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2000, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the owners.

Did the owners enter the house unlawfully?

The tenant claims the owner entered the premises without consent or notice, which is a breach of section 48 RTA. The owner’s provided copies of emails which show the tenants agreed to the owners having access to the house for about an hour to look at things they had in storage. I find there was no unlawful entry. This claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims the landlord breached his quiet enjoyment by conducting an unscheduled inspection during their hour inside the house, and allowing gardeners to come to the house during a birthday, when they were specifically asked to stay away.
Landlords must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of tenants in their use of the premises. 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. 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 section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA and MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have seen the email the owners sent to the landlord after their hour in the house. They have examined blinds, skylights and some cushions, taken photos and asked the landlord to make sure the tenants address these issues before the end of the tenancy. This was highly inappropriate and not at all why they were allowed access.
In January there was a request for a gardener to come and assess tree trimming and other work over two days. The tenant said no to the first day because it was his son’s birthday. The landlord sent a clear message to the owners recording that only one day was suitable. Whether the owners got the message in time to stop the gardeners given the difference in time zones is not the most relevant thing for me. I find there was a loss of quiet enjoyment for the tenant and his family after a reasonable request.
I am not persuaded these two incidents amounted to harassment by the owner so the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. However, I will allow a small amount of compensation for the loss of quiet enjoyment on those two days.

Should I allow compensation for losses?

The tenant has claimed compensation for the cost of moving, the costs of storage and the cost of a dog sitter. The owner submitted that these costs would have been payable even if they had given a 90 day notice, so no compensation should be allowed. My usual position on the cost of moving sooner than expected is that the costs were inevitable. I accept the timing made things stressful for the tenant and the dog had to live elsewhere for a time. However the tenant had a periodic tenancy, so there was always the possibility they would have to leave within 42 or 90 days. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that there was an additional cost because of the shorter notice. The claims for compensation are dismissed.

Should I allow suppression?

There is an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenant’s name is suppressed because he is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA. Other
Orders are made against both the landlord and the owner. It is up to them to sort out who, between the two of them, will pay the tenant.
I have made an order reimbursing the filing fee because the tenant is the most successful party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452838 — net $2,328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: breach quiet enjoyment	$300.00	breach quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: wrong notice	$2,000.00	wrong notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,328.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Trust Property Management Limited As Agent For Rebecca Metcalfe & Lorenzo Lavatelli Lorenzo Lavatelli and Rebecca Metcalfe must pay [The tenant/s] $2,328.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, including one of the owners and a representative for the property management company.
The landlord gave the tenants a 42 day notice to end their tenancy. The reason set out in the notice was that the owners would be moving back from overseas and would need to live in the house. The tenants have claimed compensation and exemplary damages because instead of moving in the owners put the house on the market for sale. The questions I have to decide include: • Were the tenants given the correct notice? • Did the owners enter the house unlawfully? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Should I allow compensation for losses? • Should I allow suppression?

Were the tenants given the correct notice?

The owners do not live in New Zealand. At the hearing the owner said that a 42 day notice to end the tenancy was given because the owner and members of the owner’s family intended to use the house as a principal place of residence to support a family member undergoing cancer treatment.
The law allowing landlords to give a 42 day notice is set out in section 51(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That section states that a 42 day notice can be given if the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination of the tenancy, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days, for the owner or a member of the owner’s family. The notice was given to the tenants on 18 December 2025 and they moved out at the end of January 2026.
The owners returned to their home overseas on 31 December. At the end of the tenancy the property manager discovered a serious leak from the hot water cylinder in the laundry. The leak had affected the adjoining rooms. The owner’s insurers paid a lump sum and paid for Chemdry’s services. Repairs were made. The owner said that the cost of repairing this leak meant she could no longer return to New Zealand within the 90 days and use the house as a principal place of residence as stipulated by section 51(2) RTA. The owner said the decision was made to put the house on the market instead, and the house was first marketed on 17 March 2026.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have considered the written statements made by the owner’s family. The mother lives in a different city. She intended to use the house when the family member was being treated in Wellington. The sister planned to stay periodically because she also lives in another city. The brother lives in another country and was planning to stay occasionally. Based on the evidence provided I find that no family member intended to use the house as their principal place of residence for 90 days after the end of January.
This leaves the owners. The owners were in another country. They did not return after the repairs. No one lived in the house within the 90 day period. I was provided with bank statements and copies of bills to support the submission that their financial position was so changed they could no longer live in the house. However, the only relevant change was the leak and the subsequent repair, for which they had insurance. The submission they could no longer afford to live in the house because of the repairs in February is not persuasive. It seems most likely to me the owner had no intention of using the house as their principal residence when they gave notice.
Giving the wrong notice is a breach of section 60AA RTA, which provides that a landlord must not give a notice to terminate or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord 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.
I have seen the emails between the landlord and the owners when the instructions were given for the 42 day notice. The landlord checked the owners knew about the requirement to live in the house for 90 days within the 90 day period. I find the owners acted intentionally. The effect for the tenant was amplified because the notice was given just before the Christmas holidays, and he needed to find somewhere to live that allowed the dog. It is in tenants interests that landlords give the correct notice. There is public interest in the landlord paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2000, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the owners.

Did the owners enter the house unlawfully?

The tenant claims the owner entered the premises without consent or notice, which is a breach of section 48 RTA. The owner’s provided copies of emails which show the tenants agreed to the owners having access to the house for about an hour to look at things they had in storage. I find there was no unlawful entry. This claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims the landlord breached his quiet enjoyment by conducting an unscheduled inspection during their hour inside the house, and allowing gardeners to come to the house during a birthday, when they were specifically asked to stay away.
Landlords must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of tenants in their use of the premises. 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. 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 section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA and MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have seen the email the owners sent to the landlord after their hour in the house. They have examined blinds, skylights and some cushions, taken photos and asked the landlord to make sure the tenants address these issues before the end of the tenancy. This was highly inappropriate and not at all why they were allowed access.
In January there was a request for a gardener to come and assess tree trimming and other work over two days. The tenant said no to the first day because it was his son’s birthday. The landlord sent a clear message to the owners recording that only one day was suitable. Whether the owners got the message in time to stop the gardeners given the difference in time zones is not the most relevant thing for me. I find there was a loss of quiet enjoyment for the tenant and his family after a reasonable request.
I am not persuaded these two incidents amounted to harassment by the owner so the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. However, I will allow a small amount of compensation for the loss of quiet enjoyment on those two days.

Should I allow compensation for losses?

The tenant has claimed compensation for the cost of moving, the costs of storage and the cost of a dog sitter. The owner submitted that these costs would have been payable even if they had given a 90 day notice, so no compensation should be allowed. My usual position on the cost of moving sooner than expected is that the costs were inevitable. I accept the timing made things stressful for the tenant and the dog had to live elsewhere for a time. However the tenant had a periodic tenancy, so there was always the possibility they would have to leave within 42 or 90 days. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that there was an additional cost because of the shorter notice. The claims for compensation are dismissed.

Should I allow suppression?

There is an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenant’s name is suppressed because he is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA. Other
Orders are made against both the landlord and the owner. It is up to them to sort out who, between the two of them, will pay the tenant.
I have made an order reimbursing the filing fee because the tenant is the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452838 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452838 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Were the tenants given the correct notice?

Did the owners enter the house unlawfully?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should I allow compensation for losses?

Should I allow suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Were the tenants given the correct notice?

Did the owners enter the house unlawfully?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should I allow compensation for losses?

Should I allow suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions