What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5227352?

The tribunal order states: Darren Williams must pay Niral Chandrakant Dedhia and Jagdev Singh Tarlok

How much money was awarded in case 5227352?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5227352?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5227352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12363451-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5227352?

The tribunal order states: Darren Williams must pay Niral Chandrakant Dedhia and Jagdev Singh Tarlok

How much money was awarded in case 5227352?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5227352?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5227352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12363451-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

54 Chippendale Crescent, Birkdale, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5227352 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5227352 — net $2,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$1,800.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge the bond	$500.00	Failing to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages: Disposing of the tenant's goods	$500.00	Disposing of the tenant's goods
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,827.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,827.00

Order

Darren Williams must pay Niral Chandrakant Dedhia and Jagdev Singh Tarlok Singh Sinder $2,827.00 immediately, as per below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 July 2025.
The tenancy was from 1 May 2023 until 22 April 2024.
The relationship between the parties were described as having been fine until towards the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that the relationship soured when the landlord started demanding money for compensation for broken stays and other items that the tenant was not responsible for. The tenant said that they were not wanting to stay any longer especially with any potential rent increase.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond and exemplary damages for the bond not being lodged with the Bond Centre, retaliatory notice, discrimination, breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, unlawful entry, requiring unlawful payment and unlawful disposal of the tenant’s goods.
The tenant sought $3,000.00 as compensation for mental harassment and distress, emotional distress due to racial comments, violation of privacy and aggressive actions and for claiming for deductions from the bond without evidence. The tenant also sought a further $300.00 as compensation for the tenant’s property disposed or damaged by the landlord.
I deal with the bond claim first. Bond not being lodged
The tenant had paid a bond of $1,800.00 to the landlord during the tenancy. The tenant applied for refund of the bond and for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
The landlord accepted not having lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. The landlord was unable to provide any good explanation for his failure.
The landlord tried to claim $1,250.00 from the bond for a broken vacuum cleaner, two broken stays, bench ring, curtains, low quality paint and water rates. The tenant denied responsibility for any of those items.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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.
In this case, because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. As the bond money is still with the landlord, the landlord must pay this amount directly to the tenant.
Further to that, I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the 23 working days as required by section 19(1)(b) RTA.
I find that this was an intentional failure and has impacted the Tenancy Services by the failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. There is public interest in denouncing this failure. I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 as exemplary damages. Discrimination and retaliatory notice claims
The tenant claimed that the landlord had applied psychological pressure and used manipulative language, made baseless accusations and made racists comments such as “go to Mumbai”, “why did you vote for National”, “now go to Winston Peters” as well as other derogative remarks about the tenant’s parents and their nationality.
The tenant’s specific claims were that the landlord had unilaterally disposed of the tenant’s slippers and pot plants from the deck while only their parents were at home, the landlord entered their house without permission despite clear instructions not to do so, threatened to enter the house using keys without the tenant being present and that the landlord frequently visited the property on weekends on the pretence of house maintenance.
The tenant provided evidence of all the communications between the parties and there were indeed references to Koreans, Chinese, India, National Party, Winston Peters and Auckland Council. The landlord also alleged that the tenant was “playing games” and that the landlord was able to move in to the property himself.
The messages from the landlord can be best described as rambling accusations and conspiracy-theory type remarks.
In relation to discrimination claim, section 12(1) RTA states that a landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999.
The landlord provided context in each of those texts and again inappropriate and unprofessional, there was no actual discrimination that has occurred against the tenant.
Regarding retaliatory notice claim, the tenants ended the tenancy and not the landlord. Hence, that claim is not made out. Unlawful entry
Regarding the unlawful entry claim, section 48(1) RTA states that a landlord must 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.
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 RTA.
The landlord had emailed the tenant on Wednesday 26 March 2025 at 6:20 pm about going to the tenancy premises to take a video. The tenant told the landlord to come on Friday.
The following day on Thursday 27 March 2025, the landlord went to premises. The female tenant opened the door and told him that her husband had told him to come on Friday.
The tenant denied giving the landlord permission to enter at that stage. The landlord said that she had left the door open and did not say whether he was allowed to come in or not.
The landlord did not give the full 48 hours’ notice but I find that the landlord may not have believed that there was no clear rejection to enter. I make this finding on a combination of how I had found the landlord to be at the hearing together with the rambling communication that was in the evidence.
Therefore, I do not find that there was an intentional breach by the landlord and I declined to make any exemplary damage orders against the landlord. Breach of quiet enjoyment
For exemplary damages claims to be awarded for the landlord breaching the quiet enjoyment of the tenant’s premises, the tenant must prove that the landlord interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. Further to that, the landlord’s actions must amount to harassment, showing a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards the tenant.
Although the text messages and correspondences could cause concern, I view them in light of the somewhat evident mental condition that the landlord must have been in. I do not find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages against the landlord when the messages demonstrate that the landlord may had mental health issues at the time. Requiring unlawful payment
In relation to unlawful increases of rent, the tenant had correctly pointed out to the landlord the lawful requirements under the RTA for rent increase and that had put an end to the unlawful rent increase. I do not find that justifies any exemplary damages.
The items listed by the landlord for deductions form the bond does not for basis of “requiring unlawful payment”. Seizing or disposing of the tenant’s goods
The one claim I do find that justifies exemplary damages is the landlord having either seized or disposed of the tenant’s goods.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the RTA. See section 33(1) and (4) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
On 16 March 2025, the landlord had visited the premises for maintenance purposes. The tenant had been out and only their parents were home. When the tenant returned, the tenant found that their pot plants were on the ground thrown from the top deck and a pair of very expensive slippers had gone missing. The landlord admitted to having removed the pots from the deck without notifying the tenant. The landlord said that he had removed them as the deck just rots in winter and reiterated that they were removed for property maintenance purposes. The landlord denied having done anything to the slippers and the tenant could not provide evidence that the landlord had.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that the landlord had removed the pot plants and the slippers without the tenant’s permission. I find that he has committed an unlawful act.
I find that the landlord had done this intentionally and I am satisfied that it would be just to order exemplary damages against the landlord for this. The tenant had their belongings tampered with and has created a hostile environment for the tenant to continue to stay in. This is a serious invasion to the tenant. There is public interest in denouncing such actions.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 in exemplary damages for this. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant had substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5227352 — net $2,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$1,800.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge the bond	$500.00	Failing to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages: Disposing of the tenant's goods	$500.00	Disposing of the tenant's goods
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,827.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,827.00

Order

Darren Williams must pay Niral Chandrakant Dedhia and Jagdev Singh Tarlok Singh Sinder $2,827.00 immediately, as per below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 July 2025.
The tenancy was from 1 May 2023 until 22 April 2024.
The relationship between the parties were described as having been fine until towards the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that the relationship soured when the landlord started demanding money for compensation for broken stays and other items that the tenant was not responsible for. The tenant said that they were not wanting to stay any longer especially with any potential rent increase.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond and exemplary damages for the bond not being lodged with the Bond Centre, retaliatory notice, discrimination, breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, unlawful entry, requiring unlawful payment and unlawful disposal of the tenant’s goods.
The tenant sought $3,000.00 as compensation for mental harassment and distress, emotional distress due to racial comments, violation of privacy and aggressive actions and for claiming for deductions from the bond without evidence. The tenant also sought a further $300.00 as compensation for the tenant’s property disposed or damaged by the landlord.
I deal with the bond claim first. Bond not being lodged
The tenant had paid a bond of $1,800.00 to the landlord during the tenancy. The tenant applied for refund of the bond and for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
The landlord accepted not having lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. The landlord was unable to provide any good explanation for his failure.
The landlord tried to claim $1,250.00 from the bond for a broken vacuum cleaner, two broken stays, bench ring, curtains, low quality paint and water rates. The tenant denied responsibility for any of those items.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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.
In this case, because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. As the bond money is still with the landlord, the landlord must pay this amount directly to the tenant.
Further to that, I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the 23 working days as required by section 19(1)(b) RTA.
I find that this was an intentional failure and has impacted the Tenancy Services by the failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. There is public interest in denouncing this failure. I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 as exemplary damages. Discrimination and retaliatory notice claims
The tenant claimed that the landlord had applied psychological pressure and used manipulative language, made baseless accusations and made racists comments such as “go to Mumbai”, “why did you vote for National”, “now go to Winston Peters” as well as other derogative remarks about the tenant’s parents and their nationality.
The tenant’s specific claims were that the landlord had unilaterally disposed of the tenant’s slippers and pot plants from the deck while only their parents were at home, the landlord entered their house without permission despite clear instructions not to do so, threatened to enter the house using keys without the tenant being present and that the landlord frequently visited the property on weekends on the pretence of house maintenance.
The tenant provided evidence of all the communications between the parties and there were indeed references to Koreans, Chinese, India, National Party, Winston Peters and Auckland Council. The landlord also alleged that the tenant was “playing games” and that the landlord was able to move in to the property himself.
The messages from the landlord can be best described as rambling accusations and conspiracy-theory type remarks.
In relation to discrimination claim, section 12(1) RTA states that a landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999.
The landlord provided context in each of those texts and again inappropriate and unprofessional, there was no actual discrimination that has occurred against the tenant.
Regarding retaliatory notice claim, the tenants ended the tenancy and not the landlord. Hence, that claim is not made out. Unlawful entry
Regarding the unlawful entry claim, section 48(1) RTA states that a landlord must 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.
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 RTA.
The landlord had emailed the tenant on Wednesday 26 March 2025 at 6:20 pm about going to the tenancy premises to take a video. The tenant told the landlord to come on Friday.
The following day on Thursday 27 March 2025, the landlord went to premises. The female tenant opened the door and told him that her husband had told him to come on Friday.
The tenant denied giving the landlord permission to enter at that stage. The landlord said that she had left the door open and did not say whether he was allowed to come in or not.
The landlord did not give the full 48 hours’ notice but I find that the landlord may not have believed that there was no clear rejection to enter. I make this finding on a combination of how I had found the landlord to be at the hearing together with the rambling communication that was in the evidence.
Therefore, I do not find that there was an intentional breach by the landlord and I declined to make any exemplary damage orders against the landlord. Breach of quiet enjoyment
For exemplary damages claims to be awarded for the landlord breaching the quiet enjoyment of the tenant’s premises, the tenant must prove that the landlord interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. Further to that, the landlord’s actions must amount to harassment, showing a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards the tenant.
Although the text messages and correspondences could cause concern, I view them in light of the somewhat evident mental condition that the landlord must have been in. I do not find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages against the landlord when the messages demonstrate that the landlord may had mental health issues at the time. Requiring unlawful payment
In relation to unlawful increases of rent, the tenant had correctly pointed out to the landlord the lawful requirements under the RTA for rent increase and that had put an end to the unlawful rent increase. I do not find that justifies any exemplary damages.
The items listed by the landlord for deductions form the bond does not for basis of “requiring unlawful payment”. Seizing or disposing of the tenant’s goods
The one claim I do find that justifies exemplary damages is the landlord having either seized or disposed of the tenant’s goods.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the RTA. See section 33(1) and (4) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
On 16 March 2025, the landlord had visited the premises for maintenance purposes. The tenant had been out and only their parents were home. When the tenant returned, the tenant found that their pot plants were on the ground thrown from the top deck and a pair of very expensive slippers had gone missing. The landlord admitted to having removed the pots from the deck without notifying the tenant. The landlord said that he had removed them as the deck just rots in winter and reiterated that they were removed for property maintenance purposes. The landlord denied having done anything to the slippers and the tenant could not provide evidence that the landlord had.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that the landlord had removed the pot plants and the slippers without the tenant’s permission. I find that he has committed an unlawful act.
I find that the landlord had done this intentionally and I am satisfied that it would be just to order exemplary damages against the landlord for this. The tenant had their belongings tampered with and has created a hostile environment for the tenant to continue to stay in. This is a serious invasion to the tenant. There is public interest in denouncing such actions.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 in exemplary damages for this. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant had substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5227352 — Exemplary damages at 54 Chippendale Crescent, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5227352 — Exemplary damages at 54 Chippendale Crescent, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions