Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5215031 — Exemplary damages at 46A Basley Road, Owhata, Rotorua 3010
Decided 4 Aug 2025 · Published 4 Aug 2025 · Application 5215031
Mixed / unclear
- Exemplary damages
Order
- Innovative Property Management Limited As Agent For Grant Geater & Natasha Timms to pay Emily Jane Johnston and Bradley Ralph Johnston $1,300.00 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionTenant Exemplary Damages – s 45$1,000.00 Exemplary Damages – s 48$300.00 Total award$1,300.00
- The Bond Centre is to release the full bond to Emily Jane Johnston and Bradley Ralph Johnston immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The Tenants allege multiple breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by the Landlord.
- The key issues are: a. failure to maintain the premises (s 45); b. unlawful entry (s 48). Background and Findings of Fact
- The tenancy commenced on 12 August 2022 and ended on 13 March 2025. The property was a newly-built dwelling.
- Ownership transferred in March 2023 from the original landlord (the son) to his mother (the current landlord). The same professional property manager continued to act throughout.
- The entry inspection photographs show patchy top-soil with visible clay and debris. No continuous turf had established.
- The Tenants claim they repeatedly asked when the “new lawn” or “ready lawn” would be laid. I have found correspondence to support this claim. I have found not reply messages from the Landlord declining the Tenants’ request or correcting any incorrect expectation or assumption on their part regarding the Landlord’s intention to establish the turf.
- On 7 February 2024 the fifth inspection report (produced by the property manager) recorded: “The grass has grown a lot over the last few months and is still patchy in areas but does appear better than the last inspection.” The report also noted weeds through the garage fence-line and exposed pipework at the driveway entrance.
- The landlord ought to have produced this inspection report at the first opportunity – even though it did not advance their case. Withholding it and denying any prior agreement about the lawn fatally undermined the contention that they learned of the tenant’s requests only recently, and further eroded their credibility.
- No further lawn work was carried out. The landlord’s son scattered grass seed without notice (see paragraph 14). Security-sensor light
- The Tenants first complained about the exterior sensor light on 15 November 2023, stating: Also, the sensor light at the front door is not working, flicks on and off and there is no way to just turn it on manually (turning it on with the switch means it goes on and then off).
- At the hearing the Tenant said her daughter had been carrying glass bottles outside to the recycling bin when the light switched off suddenly causing her to lose her balance and fall on the steps. The Tenant thought the light only stayed on for three seconds, which was at the route of the problem. The Tenant thought the light and sensor were faulty, like the entrance door, and claimed their house and the house behind them, similar builds with similar build materials, had issues with componentry and they “affectionally termed [the premises] the AliExpress house”.
- The Landlord accepted the light was on a timer but believed it stayed on “significantly longer than three seconds”. I had no evidence from the Landlord confirming it had properly assessed and evaluated the Tenant’s concerns or had a suitably qualified electrician do so.
- The Landlord’s son, identified as the key contact for the sensor light or front-door latch, struggled to provide a calm, objective answer about either. Although he confirmed familiarity with the property, he initially denied awareness of any door issues and dismissed the Tenant’s concerns as “petty,” then proceeded to recount the manufacturers flaw in the entrance door and how it was repaired in great detail. He maintained the door repair was sound and further faults were unlikely, but eventually acknowledged that errors were possible. Front-door latch
- From June 2023 the latch failed to engage unless the door was pressed firmly into the jamb.
- The property manager considered the issue minor, reported the issue, but did not respond to the Tenant. I suspect this is because she was told not to. Back-yard debris and injury
- In April 2024 the Tenant was clearing rocks and building fragments from the soil and preparing it for reseeding by the Landlord. While doing so she sustained a metal splinter that required a tetanus shot and an X-ray.
- The general thrust of the Landlord’s reply evidence was that the yard was “adequate for a rental” and any reseeding would have been cosmetic. Exit condition
- The exit inspection found the interior in excellent order save for minor command-hook marks, which the Tenants attended to.
- The Landlord initially withheld the bond citing light concrete staining in the garage, removal of the cobblestone spa pad, and the lawn condition. Those claims were withdrawn at the hearing.
- The Landlord agreed to release the bond at the hearing. Unlawful entry
- At some point in the tenancy, I am unclear exactly when, the Landlord’s son entered the premises without notice and spread grass seed on the lawn area.
- The Landlord acknowledged the entry and agreed it was intended as a “quick fix” to the lawn issue. No notice was given under s 48(3). The Law
- Section 45 RTA requires a Landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and to comply with building-health-and-safety obligations. A breach is an unlawful act (s 45(1A); maximum exemplary damages $7,200).
- Section 48 RTA prohibits a landlord from entering except with consent, in an emergency, or after giving prescribed notice. A breach is an unlawful act (s 48(4)(a); maximum exemplary damages $1,500).
- Where an unlawful act is established the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if satisfied it is just, having regard to the factors in s 109(3): a. the intention of the party; b. the effect of the unlawful act; c. the interests of the other party; and d. the public interest. A. Failure to Maintain – s 45 – Exemplary Damages
- Lawn: The yard never achieved a safe or usable grass cover. I find the original Landlord had promised “ready lawn”. The successor landlord was aware, through both imputed knowledge and direct inspection reports, that the grass had not struck, the lawn was inadequate, and that debris remained. No substantive remediation occurred. I accept the Tenant’s evidence that the yard was muddy, that debris posed a safety risk (evidenced by her injury), and that this limited family use of the outdoor area.
- Security-sensor light: Repeated written reports went unanswered. The Landlord’s explanation that the placement of the sensor light prevents constant triggering by the movement of neighbours does not justify ignoring a safety concern at the main entrance and further investigation of the Tenant’s concerns was warranted.
- Front-door: A front entrance door that cannot be locked without manipulation is plainly outside “reasonable state of repair”. I am satisfied that the Landlord did not make sufficient efforts to evaluate the Tenant’s complaints and address them in a timely manner.
- Collectively these defects amounted to a breach of s 45. I am satisfied the breach was intentional for the purposes of s 109.
- Inspection reports, emails and texts prove the Landlord was aware of the issues and made a conscious decision not to act.
- The safety hazards (trip and security risks) were palpable. The Tenant sustained a hand injury.
- Tenants are entitled to a safe, functional home. Landlords must attend to routine maintenance promptly.
- Balancing tenant safety, public interest and the otherwise high standard of the dwelling, exemplary damages are set at $1,000 (mid-range). B. Unlawful Entry – s 48 – Exemplary Damages
- The Landlord’s son entered onto the premises without notice or consent which amounted to an intentional breach done for convenience, not emergency. The breach should be considered against the background of the Tenants’ requests and concerns, and the Landlord’s relative inaction and silence. It was a cursory and dismissive response to the Tenants’ concerns regarding the lawn.
- I am also guided by the behaviour of the Landlord’s son during the hearing, who trivialised the Tenant’s concerns, communicated through me. The Landlord also played down the Tenant’s concerns, but expressed a balanced view, that the lawns were adequate. Ultimately, the adequacy of the lawns is a matter of subjective interpretation, but I have focused on safety first, and amenity second.
- The entry invaded the Tenants’ privacy and heightened the maintenance dispute. Against that background I award $300 (lower mid-range). Compensation
- The tenants claimed a lump-sum of $3,500 but were unable to particularise losses beyond exemplary damages. No invoices or quantified expenses (e.g. carpet-cleaning, lawn reseeding) were produced. Accordingly, no separate compensatory award is made.
- I award the Tenants their application filing fee. Corrigendum
- I have corrected the amount of the award.