What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457171 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5457171?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457171?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Illegal Lockout.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13521343-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457171 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5457171?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457171?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Illegal Lockout.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13521343-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5457171 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background and procedural history

The tenancy ended on 6 December 2025.
On 11 December, [The tenant/s] filed a Tenancy Tribunal application seeking exemplary damages under several headings. Part of [The tenant/s]’s application alleged that the premises were unlawful residential premises.
On 3 March 2026 I made an order awarding exemplary damages for several unlawful acts and also awarding a partial refund of rent on the grounds that the premises were unlawful residential premises. 1
Mr Barth filed an application for a re-hearing on 11 March. On 17 March I made an order dismissing the application for a re-hearing. 1 [Tenant] v Barth [2026] NZTT 5411778
Mr Barth filed his own application on 28 February, seeking rent arrears, rubbish removal costs, and exemplary damages.
[The tenant/s] filed a second application on 16 March.
The hearing in respect of Mr Barth’s application and [The tenant/s]’s second application took place by phone on 17 April 2026. Both parties participated in the hearing. Mr Barth’s application Law – unlawful residential premises
Section 78A(3)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states: Despite anything to the contrary anywhere in this Act – unless the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it would be unjust not to make the order, the Tribunal must not order the tenant to pay to the landlord – (i)any sum found to be owing by way of rent in arrear; or (ii)any other sum by way of damages or compensation
This provision, together with the power given to the Tribunal to refund all of the rent paid during the tenancy (or any lesser amount that the Tribunal sees fit) 2 have a clear intent and purpose – to penalise and deter landlords from renting out unlawful residential premises.
The sections give the Tribunal a discretion if there are “special circumstances”. The term “special circumstances” is not defined in the RTA.
The term has been judicially considered in the context of s 78A(4)(a)(ii), relating to the refund of rent. In While v Moffat 3 , the High Court found that a relevant consideration in terms of “special circumstances” is the timing of when the landlord became aware of the unlawfulness of the premises.
It is well established that the overall quality of the premises, and the benefit that the tenant received from the tenancy, are relevant “special circumstances” in the context of refund of rent for unlawful residential premises. 4
There are no decisions, either in the Tenancy Tribunal or in the higher courts on appeal, that provide any guidance as to what other special considerations could be relevant in terms of landlord’s claims for damages or compensation. 2 Section 78A(4)(a) RTA 3 [2026] NZHC 490, at para 71 4 Want v Parbhu [2019] NZCA 674
There are several decisions where the Tribunal simply stated that there were no special circumstances in the matter before the Tribunal, without reference to the reasoning for that conclusion. 5
In Tenant v Jenvey 6 the Adjudicator awarded the landlord cleaning costs and damages, finding that: I consider it is appropriate to make these orders notwithstanding section 78A(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. The landlord’s claims are unrelated to the unlawful status of the premises for residential use
With respect, I disagree with that reasoning. Landlord claims against the tenant are usually for costs such as cleaning, rubbish removal, and damage – costs that are very unlikely to be related to the unlawful status of the premises. If that threshold was required, it would undermine the fundamental purpose of section 78A(2)(a)(ii). Findings
Mr Barth’s application sought rent arrears, rubbish removal (bottles), and exemplary damages for [The tenant/s] blocking access for other authorised people using the land surrounding the tenanted property. The application also notes that [The tenant/s] breached the tenancy agreement by causing “wilful damage”, but does not specify the damage or the compensation sought.
On 15 April 2026, four months after the end of the tenancy and two days before the hearing, Mr Barth sent an email to the Tribunal setting out a “list of costs/estimates incurred after termination”. The costs include: Reimbursement of compensation that Mr Barth paid to locked out lessees$50.00 Loss of bananas that could not be harvested$8.22 Change of phone due to “[The tenant/s] phone terror”$300.00 Change of locks$136.00 Transport and storage of abandoned belongings$586.00 Toilet clean $254.00 Damage / “wilful damage” under several headings including “cheese and bacon stuffed in back of fireplace”
Mr Barth provided several undated photographs in support of parts of his claim.
There was no entry inspection report. 5 Harding v Field [2025] NZDD 5051217 4986492 at para 48, Tenant v Woolston [2025] NZTT 5259999 5327713 at para 91, Green & Gardiner v Tenant [2023] NZTT 4577613 4672433 6 [2025] NZTT 5272467 5295959
My findings are: a. The premises are unlawful residential premises. b. The RTA provides that if the premises are unlawful residential premises, the Tenancy Tribunal may refund to the tenant all of the rent that the tenant paid during the tenancy, and must not award the landlord any rent arrears, damages, or compensation unless there are “special circumstances”. The purpose of these provisions is to punish and deter landlords from renting unlawful residential premises by giving them all of the burdens and none of the benefits that usually come from being a landlord. c. In this instance there are no special circumstances arising from the nature of the premises. The premises were not just technically unlawful, they were defective in multiple respects, as detailed in my previous decision. d. There are no other special circumstances that are relevant. e. Section 78A(3)(a)(ii) applies. Mr Barth cannot recover the costs that he seeks from [The tenant/s].
Therefore, Mr Barth’s application is dismissed. [The tenant/s]’s application
[The tenant/s]’s second application (5469009) is essentially an aggravated complaint about the fact that Mr Barth has not paid the full amount of that I ordered in respect of [The tenant/s]’s first application (5411778).
[The tenant/s] did not need to file a second application. He can simply enforce the existing order.
[The tenant/s]’s second application (5469009) is dismissed. Name suppression
Mr Barth sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression on application to any party who has “substantially succeeded” in the proceedings. 7 Mr Barth has not substantially succeeded in this instance.
I granted name suppression to [The tenant/s] in the previous order. That order is referred to extensively in this decision. To preserve the existing name suppression order, I must also grant name suppression to [The tenant/s] in this decision.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background and procedural history

The tenancy ended on 6 December 2025.
On 11 December, [The tenant/s] filed a Tenancy Tribunal application seeking exemplary damages under several headings. Part of [The tenant/s]’s application alleged that the premises were unlawful residential premises.
On 3 March 2026 I made an order awarding exemplary damages for several unlawful acts and also awarding a partial refund of rent on the grounds that the premises were unlawful residential premises. 1
Mr Barth filed an application for a re-hearing on 11 March. On 17 March I made an order dismissing the application for a re-hearing. 1 [Tenant] v Barth [2026] NZTT 5411778
Mr Barth filed his own application on 28 February, seeking rent arrears, rubbish removal costs, and exemplary damages.
[The tenant/s] filed a second application on 16 March.
The hearing in respect of Mr Barth’s application and [The tenant/s]’s second application took place by phone on 17 April 2026. Both parties participated in the hearing. Mr Barth’s application Law – unlawful residential premises
Section 78A(3)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states: Despite anything to the contrary anywhere in this Act – unless the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it would be unjust not to make the order, the Tribunal must not order the tenant to pay to the landlord – (i)any sum found to be owing by way of rent in arrear; or (ii)any other sum by way of damages or compensation
This provision, together with the power given to the Tribunal to refund all of the rent paid during the tenancy (or any lesser amount that the Tribunal sees fit) 2 have a clear intent and purpose – to penalise and deter landlords from renting out unlawful residential premises.
The sections give the Tribunal a discretion if there are “special circumstances”. The term “special circumstances” is not defined in the RTA.
The term has been judicially considered in the context of s 78A(4)(a)(ii), relating to the refund of rent. In While v Moffat 3 , the High Court found that a relevant consideration in terms of “special circumstances” is the timing of when the landlord became aware of the unlawfulness of the premises.
It is well established that the overall quality of the premises, and the benefit that the tenant received from the tenancy, are relevant “special circumstances” in the context of refund of rent for unlawful residential premises. 4
There are no decisions, either in the Tenancy Tribunal or in the higher courts on appeal, that provide any guidance as to what other special considerations could be relevant in terms of landlord’s claims for damages or compensation. 2 Section 78A(4)(a) RTA 3 [2026] NZHC 490, at para 71 4 Want v Parbhu [2019] NZCA 674
There are several decisions where the Tribunal simply stated that there were no special circumstances in the matter before the Tribunal, without reference to the reasoning for that conclusion. 5
In Tenant v Jenvey 6 the Adjudicator awarded the landlord cleaning costs and damages, finding that: I consider it is appropriate to make these orders notwithstanding section 78A(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. The landlord’s claims are unrelated to the unlawful status of the premises for residential use
With respect, I disagree with that reasoning. Landlord claims against the tenant are usually for costs such as cleaning, rubbish removal, and damage – costs that are very unlikely to be related to the unlawful status of the premises. If that threshold was required, it would undermine the fundamental purpose of section 78A(2)(a)(ii). Findings
Mr Barth’s application sought rent arrears, rubbish removal (bottles), and exemplary damages for [The tenant/s] blocking access for other authorised people using the land surrounding the tenanted property. The application also notes that [The tenant/s] breached the tenancy agreement by causing “wilful damage”, but does not specify the damage or the compensation sought.
On 15 April 2026, four months after the end of the tenancy and two days before the hearing, Mr Barth sent an email to the Tribunal setting out a “list of costs/estimates incurred after termination”. The costs include: Reimbursement of compensation that Mr Barth paid to locked out lessees$50.00 Loss of bananas that could not be harvested$8.22 Change of phone due to “[The tenant/s] phone terror”$300.00 Change of locks$136.00 Transport and storage of abandoned belongings$586.00 Toilet clean $254.00 Damage / “wilful damage” under several headings including “cheese and bacon stuffed in back of fireplace”
Mr Barth provided several undated photographs in support of parts of his claim.
There was no entry inspection report. 5 Harding v Field [2025] NZDD 5051217 4986492 at para 48, Tenant v Woolston [2025] NZTT 5259999 5327713 at para 91, Green & Gardiner v Tenant [2023] NZTT 4577613 4672433 6 [2025] NZTT 5272467 5295959
My findings are: a. The premises are unlawful residential premises. b. The RTA provides that if the premises are unlawful residential premises, the Tenancy Tribunal may refund to the tenant all of the rent that the tenant paid during the tenancy, and must not award the landlord any rent arrears, damages, or compensation unless there are “special circumstances”. The purpose of these provisions is to punish and deter landlords from renting unlawful residential premises by giving them all of the burdens and none of the benefits that usually come from being a landlord. c. In this instance there are no special circumstances arising from the nature of the premises. The premises were not just technically unlawful, they were defective in multiple respects, as detailed in my previous decision. d. There are no other special circumstances that are relevant. e. Section 78A(3)(a)(ii) applies. Mr Barth cannot recover the costs that he seeks from [The tenant/s].
Therefore, Mr Barth’s application is dismissed. [The tenant/s]’s application
[The tenant/s]’s second application (5469009) is essentially an aggravated complaint about the fact that Mr Barth has not paid the full amount of that I ordered in respect of [The tenant/s]’s first application (5411778).
[The tenant/s] did not need to file a second application. He can simply enforce the existing order.
[The tenant/s]’s second application (5469009) is dismissed. Name suppression
Mr Barth sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression on application to any party who has “substantially succeeded” in the proceedings. 7 Mr Barth has not substantially succeeded in this instance.
I granted name suppression to [The tenant/s] in the previous order. That order is referred to extensively in this decision. To preserve the existing name suppression order, I must also grant name suppression to [The tenant/s] in this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457171 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457171 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions