What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244993?

The tribunal order states: Alicia Sakalia and Salman Alkurbi to pay Vicki Lambert $1,027.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5244993?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244993?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244993?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12135998-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244993?

The tribunal order states: Alicia Sakalia and Salman Alkurbi to pay Vicki Lambert $1,027.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5244993?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244993?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244993?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12135998-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 1A Henry Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5244993 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5244993 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation	$200.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$800.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,027.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5244993 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation	$200.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$800.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,027.00

Order

Alicia Sakalia and Salman Alkurbi to pay Vicki Lambert $1,027.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,027.00 from the bond of $2,280.00 (3096189-012) to Vicki Lambert immediately.
The balance of the bond of $1,253.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 10 July 2025. Ms Lambert attended together with Mr Butland, both trustees of the landlord Trust. Mr Alkurbi represented the tenants.
For ease, I have referred to the parties in the singular. Background
The tenancy started on 19 November 2022 and ended either on 6 or 12 June 2025 (the date is not determinative of the matters at issue).
The tenancy did not end well. The parties were in conflict over various matters.
The tenant lodged their application first. It appears that Ms Sakalia withdrew the application, but it was reinstated at Mr Alkurbi’s request. He does not agree that the application was ever withdrawn. Despite clear evidence that Mrs Sakalia withdrew the application the Tribunal proceeded to hear the tenant’s application anyway.
The tenant has sought compensation and exemplary damages ($25,000.00) for what they say were breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities, some of which amount to unlawful acts.
After the tenant made their application, the landlord cross-applied. The landlord sought some repair costs for door and architrave repairs and for damages that occurred to weatherboards due to water blasting. However, the landlord withdrew those claims at the hearing.
The landlord’s remaining claims are for travel costs incurred when Ms Lambert attended for a notified inspection, but Mr Alkurbi denied her entry. The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for the tenant’s failure to allow the inspection.
Mr Alkurbi sought an adjournment before the hearing and at the start of it. I declined to adjourn the application as the reasons given (the desire to provide further photos in evidence) did not justify the request. Tribunal time is a limited resource and the tenant received adequate notice of the hearing.
I did allow the tenant time to provide further photos in evidence. Mr Alkurbi said he had over 200 photos. I suggested that he provide a sample, say 20.
Mr Alkurbi then provide numerous photos in evidence. I allowed the parties to also make final submissions.
The hearing concluded on 17 July 2025 after the Tribunal had received the further evidence and submissions.
I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal – the oral and documentary evidence, the video evidence, and the parties’ submissions – even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
The Tribunal must determine the following issues: •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages against the landlord? If so, what should the Tribunal award? •Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages against the tenant? If so, what should the Tribunal award? Relevant legal considerations Statutory provisions
Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Section 48(2)(b) RTA provides that a landlord may inspect the premises on a day specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry.
Section 48(4) RTA provides that a failure by a tenant, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to inspect the premises under section 48(2) RTA is an unlawful act. 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: 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 Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages against the landlord? If so, what should the Tribunal award?
The tenant has sought a rent refund because they say that 2 bedrooms were unusable for the entire tenancy, some 2 years and 7 months. They say they were 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 confined to 1 room, and all suffered extreme discomfort and emotional distress. They say the over-crowding ‘broke their marriage’. They suffered dust allergies and respiratory problems and their children suffered developmental harm.
The tenant seeks $15,000.00 as a rent refund because the house was in an ‘appalling’ state when they moved in with 2 bedrooms having excessive dust and draughts; $3,000.00 for health impacts; $4,000.00 for marital and emotional harm; $1,500.00 for psychological distress; and $1,500 for unlawful entries.
The photographic evidence the landlord produced shows that the premises were provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. That is the extent of a landlord’s responsibility. The tenant’s photos, some from the start, but most from later in the tenancy, do not support their submission that the house was unsafe or provided in an unclean and untidy state.
If the tenant wanted further cleaning done, they had options – arrange to do it themselves and claim the cost or seek a work order from the Tribunal in which case the need for further cleaning could have been objectively assessed. To wait until the end of the tenancy and then claim a rent refund is unrealistic.
Other than state that the premises were not reasonably clean, the tenant’s evidence does not establish that when compared with the landlord’s photos from the start of the tenancy.
To claim that the 2 bedrooms were unusable is not credible. The landlord’s photos produced in evidence taken at an inspection in January 2025 show the rooms fully used, it seems as storage.
The landlord produced a certificate of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. All bedrooms were certified as compliant with the draught standard.
The landlord produced evidence (invoices) that show that any repair issues were promptly dealt with. The landlord gave evidence that it was only after notice to terminate the tenancy was given on 6 March 2025 that the tenant became obstructive.
Though the tenant states that the 2 bedrooms were unusable from the start of the tenancy, on 9 May 2023, more than 6 months after the tenancy started, the tenant wanted to renew the tenancy for another year when the initial term ended. The parties then agreed on a new (periodic) tenancy that began on 18 November 2023. These are not the actions of a tenant living in premises with 2 unusable bedrooms.
The Tribunal finds no proven breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities in this case. And if the tenant was offended by what they say was dismissive conduct or ‘retaliatory remarks’ by the landlord, the Tribunal would not award compensation. Injured feelings and taking offence do not attract compensation. The tenant’s application for compensation is dismissed.
The tenant’s allegations of 2 incidents of unlawful entry also are not proved. The first relates to a notified inspection when the landlord brought other persons, a real estate agent and people to quote for kitchen repairs and a carpet appraisal. That was to avoid continual disruptions to the tenant. Even if an annoyance, that is not something that requires sanction by the Tribunal. The inspection was notified. And the presence of the other people was not ill-intended.
The second incident was the event (the attempted inspection) on 2 April 2025 which Mr Akurbi videoed. The tenant has submitted that the landlord ‘tried to push her way in aggressively’. In fact, the video does not show that at all. The landlord acted reasonably. Mr Alkurbi did not. His own video evidence is proof of that.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for exemplary damages. The landlord committed no intentional unlawful act. Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages against the tenant? If so, what should the Tribunal award?
As I have noted, the landlord withdrew claims for repair costs. Ms Lambert said she would include those claims in a later application for vacated costs which is a sensible course of action.
The landlord sought travel costs for attending the inspection the tenant would not allow. The Tribunal seldom awards travel costs as they are considered a cost of doing business and are a claimable business expense. However, in this case, the Tribunal is persuaded to award the landlord compensation for her lost time and the inconvenience that arose from the tenant denying her access to undertake the inspection that was properly notified. The tenant has not established any reasonable excuse for not allowing the inspection. I award the landlord compensation of $200.00.
This is an unusual case where the tenant’s video evidence produced in support of their application actually supports the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages.
The video clearly shows that Mr Alkurbi had intended to prevent access for the inspection. He had set himself up at the boundary of the premises, erected a makeshift barrier, and was ready to film. Though he did not raise his voice his actions were quietly aggressive and determined: he would not agree to the inspection going ahead.
By contrast, Ms Lambert was reasoned, and her actions were reasonable. She explained that she had a right to conduct the inspection and that Mr Alkurbi was wrong to prevent the inspection taking place. But when it became clear that Mr Alkurbi would not allow the inspection, she withdrew and left the property. At no time did she force entry. She spoke to the tenant from a driveway. She did not step past the barrier he had created. She acted in a fair, professional, and respectful manner.
I have no hesitation in finding that the tenant (Mr Alkurbi) committed an unlawful act. He did so intentionally. His action had an effect on the landlord; it prevented her from completing the inspection and it was a waste of her time and effort. It was against the landlord’s interests, and it was against the public interest. Tenants are expected to comply with their statutory responsibilities (as are landlords).
For this unlawful act by the tenant Mr Alkurbi, I award the landlord exemplary damages of $800.00. Result
The tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed. The tenant has failed to prove any breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities including any breaches that would amount to unlawful acts.
The landlord’s application is successful. The tenant will pay the landlord $1,027.00 comprising compensation of $200.00, exemplary damages of $800.00, and the filing fee of $27.00.
The amount awarded to the landlord will be paid from the bond. The balance of the bond will be held at the Bond Centre until the landlord’s application for damage and vacated costs is heard.
The landlord should make their next application within 21 days after the date of this order, failing which the tenant may apply to have the balance of the bond paid to them. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244993 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 1A Henry Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244993 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 1A Henry Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

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