Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5482820 — Tenancy dispute at 289 Kepa Road, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071
Decided 9 June 2026 · Published 9 June 2026 · Application 5482820
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
- Healthy homes
- Smoke alarms
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Greene
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,113.71
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $1,113.71
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Refund 2 weeks’ rent paid in advance | $800.00 | Refund 2 weeks’ rent paid in advance | |
| Refund 5 days' rent | $285.71 | Refund 5 days' rent | |
| Reimburse filing fee | $28.00 | Reimburse filing fee | |
| Net award | $1,113.71 | ||
| Bond | $1,600.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $1,113.71 |
Claims and awards for application 5482820 — net $1,113.71 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Refund 2 weeks’ rent paid in advance
- Amount
- $800.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Refund 2 weeks’ rent paid in advance
Refund 5 days' rent
- Amount
- $285.71
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Refund 5 days' rent
Reimburse filing fee
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Reimburse filing fee
Net award
Tenant $1,113.71
Bond
Tenant $1,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $1,113.71
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Ioana Chinan must pay Lance Wilson $1,113.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (BN-00169998) to Lance Wilson immediately.
- By consent, the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Lance Wilson at 289 Kepa Road, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 is reduced and now ends immediately today.
- The landlord’s application for power costs, advertising fees, and an agency fee is dismissed.
- The tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by video/phone. Background
- The tenancy started on 27 October 2025. It was a fixed term tenancy until 27 October 2026.
- Following a dispute about liability for power costs, and the landlord’s desire to negotiate a rent increase, the tenant vacated the tenancy on 15 April 2027. He has continued to pay rent.
- The premises are the downstairs self-contained area of a larger house where the landlord resides upstairs. There is no dispute that the premises are residential tenancy premises for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- The tenancy was negotiated by an agent for the landlord who charged a fee of $460.00 which was deducted from the 2 weeks’ rent the tenant paid in advance. Unlike most rent paid in advance which is then credited to ordinary rent, the tenant’s rent started immediately, and the 2 weeks’ rent paid in advance is in effect a rent credit.
- Both parties now seek the termination of the tenancy. The landlord seeks costs that are sometimes referred to as a break lease fee – costs for advertising and the agent’s fee for locating a new tenant. She also seeks additional power costs from the tenant.
- The parties had some discussions around the cost of power and the tenant made offers to the landlord. They could not reach an agreement.
- The tenant wants the reimbursement of the rent he paid since he vacated, and compensation for moving costs as well as exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide a Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) report/ statement. Issues
- The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Should the tenancy be terminated? •Should the landlord be reimbursed for additional power costs? •Should the landlord receive costs for finding a new tenant? •Should the tenant be reimbursed rent and awarded compensation and/or exemplary damages? Law
- The following sections of the RTA are relevant: •Section 66(1) RTA which sets out the law that applies to the reduction of a fixed term tenancy. •Section 13A RTA which sets out what a tenancy agreement must contain. •Section 24 RTA which sets out the law that applies to rent increases. •Section 39 RTA which sets out the law as it applies to the responsibility for outgoings. •Section 38 RTA which provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. Compensation and exemplary damages
- The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
- Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
- In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
- Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
- In Birch, the Court said this: 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion
Should the tenancy be terminated?
- Both parties want the tenancy to end. I have therefore made a termination order by consent, and I have granted the landlord possession immediately.
- That the parties have agreed to end the tenancy means that the Tribunal is not required to make a decision addressing the section 66(1) RTA criteria – an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances and a weighing of the respective hardship of the parties.
- The landlord sought an order requiring the tenant to pay rent until a new tenant is found. In the circumstances of this tenancy, I decline to make that order. The tenancy will end now.
Should the landlord be reimbursed for additional power costs?
- This claim cannot succeed for two reasons. First, the tenancy agreement provided that the rent included lawns, gardens, power, and water. It further provides that if power usage becomes excessive the landlord ‘will discuss with the tenant’. That clause does not provide any legally enforceable covenant, nor does it impose any obligation to pay additional power.
- Second, the reason for the increased power costs is not known. In evidence, the landlord said she had since installed a separate meter for the flat and that ‘she was slowly finding a solution to the high power prices’.
- The Tribunal received no evidence to establish any behaviour or fault by the tenant that caused the higher power prices for the period in question (the increase happened from the end of March 2026). Mr Wilson noted that there has been a 20% increase in the cost of power. He made offers to the landlord to pay more, offers she rejected.
- In hindsight, she should have accepted the offers Mr Wilson made. There is no legal basis on which the Tribunal could find Mr Wilson liable for additional power costs.
- Further, since he vacated the tenancy on 15 April 2026, the landlord has had almost 2 months when he has used a negligible amount of power.
- I dismiss the landlord’s claim for additional power costs.
Should the landlord receive costs for finding a new tenant?
- When the Tribunal reduces the term of a fixed term tenancy, it may award the landlord compensation for the loss of the contract.
- Here, the Tribunal is not reducing the term of the tenancy by applying the provisions of section 66(1) RTA. Rather, the termination is by consent.
- There are other reasons why it would not be just for the Tribunal to award the landlord the costs she seeks. First, the costs have not yet been incurred so are not known. Second, the landlord committed breaches of her statutory responsibilities that in other circumstances might have resulted in an award of compensation and/or exemplary damages to the tenant.
- It would be unjust to award the landlord compensation while at the same time denying the tenant compensation for proven breaches by the landlord. I will discuss that further below.
- I dismiss the landlord’s claim for any costs incurred finding a replacement tenant in this case. Should the tenant be reimbursed rent and awarded compensation and/or exemplary damages?
- The tenant sought reimbursement of 6 weeks’ rent from the time he vacated the tenancy ($2,400.00) and moving expenses ($312.38).
- The tenant made the decision to vacate the tenancy. Because it was a fixed term tenancy, he remained liable for rent. There is no proper basis for the Tribunal to reimburse him for past rent. The landlord’s breaches were not so egregious as to justify that.
- The tenant paid 2 weeks’ rent in advance to the landlord’s agent who deducted a fee. The tenant is not liable for that fee. The amount paid has not been credited to rent. I order reimbursement of that amount ($800.00) to the tenant.
- The tenant has paid rent in advance to 14 June 2026. As I have terminated the tenancy with immediate effect, the landlord must reimburse the tenant 5 days’ rent ($285.71).
- The cost of moving would have been incurred whenever the tenant chose to vacate. In that sense it was not an additional or unexpected cost.
- The tenant has proved that the landlord did not provide a compliant working smoke alarm from the start of the tenancy, something that was remedied following an inspection when the person who accompanied the landlord pointed out the smoke alarm issue. Nor did she provide the required statements in the tenancy agreement detailing HHS standards, insurance and insulation compliance. These are all defined unlawful acts.
- By not doing so, the landlord exposed herself to considerable exemplary damages.
- My assessment of the landlord was that she acted negligently, rather than intentionally. In other words, she did not ‘turn her mind to the unlawful acts and deliberately set about to commit them’ as stated in Birch.
- Eventually, when asked for a statement of HHS compliance she provided one which she had completed. That is all the RTA requires; a third party contracted assessment is not a statutory requirement.
- While I find that the landlord acted negligently in this case, she is on notice that should she fail to provide the necessary compliance statements in the future, the Tribunal would likely conclude that her omissions were intentional.
- This is not a case where the Tribunal is persuaded to award exemplary damages, the necessary element of intent being absent. Nor does the Tribunal award the tenant compensation. Considering the factors outlined in Birch, the tenant has suffered no objective loss by the landlord’s omissions.
- I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages. Result
- By consent, the tenancy is terminated. Possession is granted to the landlord immediately.
- The landlord will pay the tenant $1,113.72 comprising a refund of the 2 weeks’ rent paid in advance at the start of the tenancy that has not been applied to rent; a refund of 5 days’ rent between today and the end of the current rent period which the tenant has paid; and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- The landlord’s application for power costs, advertising costs, and any agent fees for finding a new tenant is dismissed.
- The tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.
- The bond will be paid to the tenant. Name suppression
- The tenant did not seek a name suppression order.
- The landlord sought name suppression but is not entitled to an order as her application and her defence to the tenant’s application are mostly unsuccessful 2 .
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109, s11, s13A, s24, s38, s39, s66(1), s9, s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: smoke alarms
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5482820?
The tribunal order states: Ioana Chinan must pay Lance Wilson $1,113.71 immediately, calculated as
How much money was awarded in case 5482820?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Refund 2 Weeks’ Rent Paid In Advance: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Refund 5 Days' Rent: $285.71 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5482820?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5482820?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13719800-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.