Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5536760 — Rent arrears at ORDER
Decided 9 Sept 2026 · Published 9 Sept 2026 · Application 5536760
- Rent arrears
- 14-day notice
- Exemplary damages
- Harassment
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Reasons
Background
- The tenancy began on 26 May 2026.
- The tenancy agreement required Ms Bouwman to pay a bond of $1100 (two weeks’ rent) and one week’s rent in advance.
- Ms Bouwman paid $700.00 on 25 May 2025 and $550.00 on 15 June 2026. Those are the only payments that Ms Bouwman has made.
- On 20 June, the landlords issued a 42-day notice to terminate the tenancy on 31 July 2026. The stated reason for termination was that the premises were required as a place of residence for the landlords’ daughter.
- The landlord’s application seeks an order for rent arrears and possession of the premises.
- The tenant’s application seeks an order setting aside the termination notice on the grounds that it is retaliatory, and raises issues relating to breach of quiet enjoyment and the way that the landlords handled the bond. Termination notice
- The landlords became increasingly frustrated with the rent arrears.
- On 19 June Ms Bouwman sent the landlords a message apologising for the rent arrears and commenting “will accept 90 days if need be”.
- [The landlord/s] replied giving Ms Bouman a week’s notice to end the tenancy.
- Ms Bouman replied “you as the landlord have to me 90 day without reason or 42 with a reason”.
- The next day, the landlord issued a 42-day termination notice.
- Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states that the Tribunal may set aside a termination notice if the Tribunal is satisfied that: In giving the notice the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority or remedy
- In this instance the 42-day notice came shortly after Ms Bouwman objected to the landlords’ attempt to give an unlawful 7-day termination notice. However, the lead up to this clearly shows that the reason for the termination was the persistent, and significant, rent arrears.
- There are aspects of the 42-day notice that are not entirely convincing. The notice states that “our daughter is need of urgent accommodation”. The landlord’s daughter gave evidence at the hearing. She clarified that she is currently living in a shed on the property. She has lived there for a while, previously with her partner. Her change of circumstance is that the relationship ended. She can continue staying in the shed, but would prefer to move into this property.
- However, I accept that “urgent need” is not the legal requirement for a 42-day notice. The landlord only has to “require” the premise for use as a place of residence by themselves or a member of their family. I accept that [The landlord/s] require the premises for use by their daughter.
- Ms Bouwman being in rent arrears is not the exercise of a legal right or power. This was not a retaliatory termination notice. Breach of quiet enjoyment
- Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace comfort and privacy of the tenant.
- A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act.
- Ms Bouwman said that [The landlord/s]: a. Communicated inappropriately in some of her text messages. b. Insisted on hand delivering mail to her which made her uncomfortable.
- The parties provided screenshots of many (although I understand not all) of the messages exchanged during the tenancy. There are some instances where [The landlord/s’] communication is less than professional, for instance in one message she said to Ms Bouwman “you need to be the big girl now and accept that you aren’t doing the right thing”.
- The Tenancy Tribunal should not be involved with regulating different communication styles. Context is important, and I accept that the landlords were frustrated about the lack of rent payments. [The party] of the messages were threatening or used bad language.
- Although I would certainly recommend that the landlords keep their communications entirely professional and business-like, I do not think that the threshold of harassment has been met.
- Similarly, although Ms Bouwman felt uncomfortable about [The landlord/s] delivering the mail, I accept that [The landlord/s] understood that she had to deliver it, and she was not aware that this was an issue for Ms Bouwman. Bond
- Ms Bouwman paid part of the bond ($700) on 25 May.
- On 15 June, she paid $550 (the amount of the weekly rent). The landlords took $400 from that payment and attributed it to bond. They then paid the $1100 bond to the Bond Centre.
- Ms Bouwman said that: a. The landlords should have forwarded the $700 to the Bond Centre within 23 days of receipt; and b. All of the $550 payment should have been treated as rent.
- I think that both arguments are technically correct.
- Section 19(1) RTA states that where any person pays to the landlord any amount by way of bond, the landlord must forward that payment to the Bond Centre.
- If a tenant is in rent arrears, any non-specified payment received by the landlord should be treated as rent.
- The Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages if a landlord fails to meet their obligations in respect of the bond.
- However, exemplary damages are punitive. They are intended to punish and deter intentional unlawful actions.
- It is not appropriate to award exemplary damages in this instance. [The landlord/s] have not rented out this property before. They were expecting payment of the bond in full, and were in regular communication with Ms Bouwman about payment of the bond and rent. They decided to wait until they received the full $1100 of bond and then lodge it. The fact that they did lodge it promptly after receiving $1100 shows their genuine intent. The fact that they treated part of the June payment as bond has not disadvantaged Ms Bouwman in any way. Possession, rent arrears
- Even if the landlord had not issued a termination notice they would clearly be entitled to an order for termination because of the rent arrears. 1
- At the hearing the parties agreed that the last day of the tenancy will be 26 August 2026.
- I have made the order for rent arrears to that date, with Ms Bouwman’s consent.
- The landlords were successful in their application. I will award the landlords the filing fee. 2 Name suppression is granted to the landlords. 3 N Blake, 14 August 2026 1 Section 55(1)(a) RTA 2 Section 102(4)(a) RTA 3 Section 95A(1) RTA