What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5494911 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 5494911?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5494911?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5494911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14055839-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5494911 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 5494911?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5494911?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5494911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14055839-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8, 224 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5494911 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5494911 — net $4,328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages (Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Exemplary damages (Failure to lodge bond
Compensation: Bond held by landlord	$1,800.00	Bond held by landlord
Exemplary damages (Unlawful entry	$500.00	Exemplary damages (Unlawful entry
Exemplary damages (Unlawful termination	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages (Unlawful termination
Net award	$4,328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,328.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5494911 — net $4,328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages (Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Exemplary damages (Failure to lodge bond
Compensation: Bond held by landlord	$1,800.00	Bond held by landlord
Exemplary damages (Unlawful entry	$500.00	Exemplary damages (Unlawful entry
Exemplary damages (Unlawful termination	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages (Unlawful termination
Net award	$4,328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,328.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay Nerrisa Singh the sum of $4328.00 immediately, being compensation, exemplary damages and filing fee as calculated and set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a tenancy that commenced on 8 March 2026. The tenant had previously been a tenant at this property some years earlier when the property was used for emergency housing.
The tenant found herself in need of a permanent home and so went to the office at the property to enquire about obtaining a tenancy at the property. The tenant advised that there were no other means of communicating with the property other than direct face to face contact, as there were no email or phone contact details available.
The landlord confirmed that the only method available to obtain accommodation at the complex was through direct face to face contact or through lawyers. The landlord advised that no ordinary member of the public would come to book a night or two at the complex. The property had been catering for longer term clients on bail or those released from jail and needing a current address.
The landlord advised that once he had received a referral, he would provide a tenancy agreement to be used for the purposes of obtaining WINZ assistance with the rent and bond payment.
The landlord described the complex as 21 self-contained units, some with kitchens and some without. At the time that this tenancy commenced he had approximately 10-11 other tenants residing at the property.
The landlord stated that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter as the property is a business and a motel. Therefore, the landlord says the property is excluded under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I must first determine the jurisdiction issue before considering the tenants application before the Tribunal. Jurisdiction:
There is a preliminary issue I must determine, namely whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim. Section 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the RTA applies. Section 4 confirms that the RTA applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) of the RTA defines a “landlord” as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises, and a “tenant” as the grantee of the tenancy.
“Residential premises” means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
“Tenancy” means the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent, and “tenancy agreement” means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises.
Section 5 of the RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Section 10 provides that, where a party contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention.
In this case, the landlord claims the premises are a motel and therefore outside the RTA.
However, the evidence shows the landlord provided the tenant with an MBIE standard form tenancy agreement before the tenancy commenced. That tenancy agreement claims to be a periodic tenancy and outlines the provisions of the RTA, records the names and details of the parties, the weekly rent and bond to be paid. The insurance details were included and both parties signed and dated the agreement.
Once receiving the tenancy agreement, the tenant took it to WINZ to apply for a loan to pay for rent 2 weeks in advance, ($900.00) and the bond of $1800.00. WINZ paid both amounts on 6 March 2026 to the landlord.
The tenant intended to stay for a significant period, and the arrangement was not for short-term or transient accommodation. The premises were a self-contained unit with its own bathroom, toilet, and bedroom, and there were no shared facilities.
The tenant’s rent and bond were paid to the landlord by WINZ, as directed by the landlord, for the tenant’s residential purpose. This indicates clearly that this was to be an ongoing arrangement rather than a week by week living arrangement.
When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied. This approach is supported by Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto [NZHC 1265], where the High Court emphasised that the substance of the arrangement and the actual use of the premises are determinative. The Tribunal is to take a generous approach to jurisdiction and a strict approach to exceptions.
Section 5 of the RTA sets out specific circumstances where the Act does not apply. Relevant to this case, section 5(1)(k) excludes premises where the tenant is provided with accommodation in a hotel, motel, or boarding house, except where the premises are let for a period of more than 28 days and are not subject to a tenancy agreement that is terminable at will by the landlord.
However, section 10 of the RTA provides that where a party contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention.
Further, in Zan Investments and Reeves v MBIE [NZHC 254], the High Court confirmed that the exclusion for emergency or transitional accommodation under section 5(1)(y) is fact-specific and that payment of rent by WINZ as a redirection to the landlord does not, by itself, meet the exclusion requirements.
In the facts, the arrangement appears to be a residential tenancy to which the RTA applies. The landlord has not established that any of the exclusions in section 5 apply, particularly as the tenancy was not short-term, was for residential purposes, and was subject to a standard tenancy agreement. Accordingly, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The tenant has claimed the following: -The landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. -The landlord interfered with the power (services) at the property. -Unlawful entry by the landlord. -Unlawful termination of the tenancy. -Exemplary damages and compensation. Landlord claim:
The landlord has stated that he was advised by Tenancy Services that he could have his claims dealt with under the tenant’s application, rather than filing his own application. This is not correct.
Under section 86 of the RTA, proceedings before the Tribunal must be commenced by filing an application in the approved form, with any prescribed fee. The Tribunal can only consider claims that have been properly filed as applications.
If the landlord wishes to pursue any claims against the tenant, he must file his own application with the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot consider or determine claims raised informally or in response to a tenant’s application unless a formal application has been lodged. This ensures that both parties are given proper notice of the claims and the opportunity to respond, in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Act.
The landlords’ claims are not before me, and I have not considered them. Refund of the tenant’s bond:
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
The landlord is to pay the tenant $1800.00 immediately for the bond amount paid to him from WINZ. The tenant is repaying the debt to WINZ; therefore, the bond money is to be refunded to her directly and not WINZ. Failure to lodge the bond:
[The tenant/s] claims 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord received the bond directly from WINZ for this tenancy. He has not lodged the bond with the bond centre.
The landlord claims the property is excluded from the RTA and therefore did not lodge the bond. However, the landlord has previously brought claims against tenants at this property to the Tribunal, which indicates he has treated the arrangement as a residential tenancy covered by the RTA.
Section 77(1) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 confirms the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded, and the burden is on the party claiming exclusion to prove it (Section 10).
The landlord’s repeated use of the Tribunal process for this property undermines his claim of exclusion. Accordingly, the landlord was required to lodge the bond under Section 19 of the RTA, and failure to do so is an unlawful act.
I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Lodging the bond ensures that the funds are securely held by an independent government agency, protecting both the landlord and the tenant. This process provides transparency and fairness in the handling of bond money and ensures that the bond can be properly refunded or allocated at the end of the tenancy according to the Tribunal’s decision or the agreement of both parties.
Failure to lodge the bond is an unlawful act and may result in exemplary damages being awarded against the landlord.
I consider that exemplary damages are appropriate in this case. This is an experienced landlord and has tenanted the self-contained unit to other tenants in the past.
I award the tenants $500.00 in exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond. Unlawful entry:
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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.
The tenant advised that on at least two occasions that she was aware of, the landlord entered her unit without notice or her consent. On one occasion the tenant came home from work to find the curtains in her room had been opened and tied back. The tenant had left the curtains closed when she left to ensure no one was able to look into her unit and see her possessions.
The landlord acknowledged that he came into the unit without the tenant’s knowledge and without notice. He said there was a plumbing issue relating to other units in the complex and he wanted to check if there was a problem with this unit.
On 25 March 2026, the tenant came home from work to find her curtains open again and a note from the landlord on her bed. Again, there was no notice given. The landlord said he suspected that the tenant may have been smoking in the room.
On both these occasions the landlord had not told the tenant, after the fact, that he had been in the room. The tenant realised he had been in the room because of the curtains and the note.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages for unlawful entry under section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 48(1) of the RTA provides that a landlord must not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant’s consent at or immediately before the time of entry, or in the circumstances described in section 48(2)– (3), which require advance notice.
The landlord did not obtain the tenant’s consent or provide the required notice before entering the premises. The reasons given (checking plumbing, leaving a note) do not exempt the landlord from the notice requirements.
Section 48(4)(a) of the RTA declares entry by the landlord other than as permitted to be an unlawful act.
Section 109(3) of the RTA sets out the statutory test for awarding exemplary damages. The Tribunal must consider:
In this case, the landlord intentionally entered the premises without notice or consent. The effect on the tenant was a loss of privacy and security in her home. The interests of tenants generally, and the public interest, require that landlords comply with the law regarding entry to tenanted premises.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord’s actions were intentional, as the landlord entered the premises knowing that notice or consent was required but failed to comply.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act by entering the premises without notice or consent, in breach of section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord is to pay exemplary damages to the tenant in the sum of $500.00 pursuant to section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Interfering with services:
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises by interfering with the electricity at the unit.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant advised that in the days before she left the property the power was not on. She was unable to cook or use any appliances at the unit. The tenant attributed the power loss to be the fault of the landlord. She says that the landlord would turn off the lights to the outside of the property at night to save power. Furthermore, the landlord and tenant were in the middle of a dispute about the tenancy, and she believed that turning off the power was the landlord trying to put more pressure on her to leave.
The landlord absolutely denies that he was involved in the interruption to the power at the unit and said it was likely a fuse. However, the tenant did not raise it with him and so he was unaware of the problem. The tenant accepts that she did not raise thew situation with the landlord. Standard of proof:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant 3 to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I find the tenant does not have evidence to prove that the landlord was involved in any way with interfering with the power to her unit.
Therefore, I must dismiss the claim. Unlawful termination:
The tenant claims the landlord unlawfully terminated her periodic tenancy by text message, alleging rent arrears. The landlord did not provide proof of arrears despite repeated requests. The tenant was not in three weeks’ rent arrears at the time of the termination notice. The landlord’s actions resulted in the tenant becoming homeless. Section 51 RTA:
S51 RTA sets out the grounds and notice periods required for terminating a periodic tenancy. A landlord must give written notice and can only terminate on specific grounds (e.g., rent arrears, owner moving in, anti-social behaviour, etc.). Section 55(1)(a) RTA:
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for rent arrears only if, at the date the application is filed, the rent is at least 21 days in arrears. Section 60AA RTA:
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to give or purport to give a notice to terminate the tenancy, or to apply to the Tribunal for termination, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Section 109 RTA:
The Tribunal may award exemplary damages if satisfied that an unlawful act has occurred, considering the intent, effect, interests of the parties, and public interest.
The tenancy was a periodic tenancy under the RTA. The landlord did not follow the required process for termination. No proper written notice was given, and the grounds for termination (rent arrears) were not substantiated.
The landlord’s text message purporting to end the tenancy was not lawful under the RTA. Furthermore, the tenant was not in 21 days’ rent arrears at the time of the purported termination.
The landlord’s actions amount to an unlawful act under section 60AA RTA.
The Tribunal may award exemplary damages for an unlawful termination (section 60AA and section 109 RTA). In considering exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: -The intention of the landlord (whether the act was deliberate) -The effect on the tenant (in this case, homelessness) -The interests of the parties -The public interest in ensuring landlords comply with the law.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act by purporting to terminate the tenancy without grounds and without following the correct process under the RTA.
The landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages to the tenant. (The maximum for this unlawful act is currently $7,200. The amount awarded should reflect the seriousness of the breach, the impact on the tenant, and any mitigating or aggravating factors.)
The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant exemplary damages of $1500.00, pursuant to sections 60AA and 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, for the unlawful termination of the tenancy. Bond/Filing Fee/ Suppression:
The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. The bond is being held by the landlord. The landlord is directed to refund the tenants bond to her immediately into her personal Co-Operative Bank account 02 1248 0924770 001.
As the tenant has been substantially successful with her claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant has applied for suppression of her name and details and as she has been successful, I am granting suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5494911 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 8, 224 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5494911 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 8, 224 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.