Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5312785 — Exemplary damages at 8 Lumber Rise, Swanson, Auckland 0614
Published 4 May 2026 · Application 5312785
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Woodhouse
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,620.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $380.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carpet Cleaning: Rent arrears | $1,120.00 | Carpet Cleaning: Rent arrears | |
| Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry | $500.00 | Unlawful entry | |
| Exemplary damages: Healthy Home Standards | $1,000.00 | Healthy Home Standards | |
| Total award | $1,120.00 | $1,500.00 | |
| Net award | $380.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $380.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5312785 — net $380.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Carpet Cleaning: Rent arrears
- Amount
- $1,120.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning: Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: Healthy Home Standards
- Amount
- $1,000.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Healthy Home Standards
Total award
Landlord $1,120.00 · Tenant $1,500.00
Net award
Tenant $380.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $380.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Jimmy Zhao must pay Xiangyu Mao $380.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre to release the bond of $1,120.00 to the tenant immediately.
Reasons
- The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant and landlord.
- Both parties appeared at the hearing in Waitakere today. Both parties were supported by interpreters.
BACKGROUND
- The tenancy started on 19 July 2025.
- The tenancy is in the same house as the landlord. The tenancy is on the bottom floor, the landlord lives above.
- No formal written tenancy agreement was provided for this tenancy. The landlord says that the tenants would not agree to sign a written agreement, so the parties agreed to end the tenancy and get new tenants in.
- The tenant was only in the premises for a few days before moving out.
- Both parties have filed claims against each other. I will consider those below, and in doing so, discuss the relevant background for each claim then.
TENANTS CLAIMS
- At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Bond b. Failure to lodge bond c. Unlawful entry d. Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards
LANDLORDS CLAIMS
- At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears b. Repair costs c. Damage to a bed
RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
- 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. Exemplary damages
- The Tribunal must consider a claims for exemplary damages.
- Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
- 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.
- Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
- The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
ANALYSIS
- I will now proceed to consider the parties’ claims: Tenants claims Claim 1 – Bond refund
- The tenant says that $1,120.00 was paid for bond to the landlord. Analysis
- Because the tenancy has ended, the bond gets released to the parties based on their level of success at the hearing. Claim 2 – Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond
- The tenant claims exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond in the Bond Centre.
- The landlord's position is that the bond was lodged in late July, very soon after it was received. Analysis
- At the hearing, I contacted the Bond Centre, which confirmed that the bond of $1,120.00 was received in late July, which would be very soon after the tenant paid it.
- The law requires that the bond be lodged within 23 working days, and the landlord has achieved that.
- To be fair to the tenant, the Bond Centre confirmed there was a problem with the paperwork, which is why the Bond was not recorded against this tenancy, hence being told there was no bond lodged. But the Bond Centre confirmed the bond money is safely lodged with the Bond Centre.
- There is no breach established in this case around bond lodgement, so this claim is dismissed. Claim 3 – Exemplary damages for unlawful entry
- The tenants position is that the landlord has entered the premises without giving adequate notice on two occasions.
- The first occasion was on 21 July 2025. The tenant said he went to work, and his partner was at home by herself. The tenant said he was on the phone with her partner at the time, and he could hear the landlord had come into the property and said that she could not use the heater. The tenant then messaged the landlord about not entering without consent.
- The second occasion was on 23 July 2025. The tenant and his partner were not home, and the landlord had messaged to say the landlord would bring in other potential tenants. When they arrived home they found signs that doors had been opened, and the landlord confirmed that they had entered the premises without consent.
- In response the landlord says that on 21 July in the morning, their power meter was alarming saying something was wrong, so the main power switch was turned off, which stopped the alarm. After this was turned back on, the alarm started again. The landlord notes that the tenancy uses the same power meter as the main house. The landlord knocked on the door and window and there was no response. About two hours later, the alarm started again, so the landlord went back, knocked on the door and window, and when no response was received. The landlord says a window was open and he could smell something burning, and he treated it as an urgent matter so used a spare key to go into the dwelling. The landlord said that in the tenants bedroom there were two heaters that were operating, and the heaters had burned the carpet and bed. The landlord then turned off the power immediately. The landlord then said to the tenants partner she was not allowed a heater in the bedroom and he then left the room.
- In relation to the second event, the landlord says that there was a prospective tenant who wanted to view the tenancy, so the tenant was advised of this and he was agreeable to this viewing. Nevertheless, the landlord says no one entered because the prospective tenants wanted a standalone property.
- In conclusion the tenant says that this is just a situation of the landlord being concerned about the power usage as an excuse for coming into the tenancy for the first entry. For the second entry, the tenant said that when they left the house, they had locked the door, but the door had been unlocked. Further their belongings in the room had been moved. Further their bedroom door was shut when they left but it was open on their return.
- The landlord responded again disputing the prospective tenants went in the house. Analysis
- Section 48 of the RTA relates to a landlord’s right of entry to the premises. Broadly, this provision provides three circumstances when a landlord can enter the premises: a. At any time in the case of an emergency (consent or notice is not needed); or b. When the landlord provides notice to the tenant as set out in section 48, which for an inspection of the premises is 48 hours notice, whereas if the landlord intends to show the premises to a prospective tenant, then the tenant’s consent is first needed; or c. Following the consent of the tenant, freely given at or immediately before the entry.
- Section 48 also confirms that it is an unlawful act for a landlord to enter the premises without the necessary authority.
- In this case the tenant states that the landlord has twice entered the premises, once on 21 July, and then on 23 July to show the tenancy to a prospective tenant.
- In relation to the entry on 21 July, I consider it more likely than not that the landlord did unlawfully enter the premises. I am not persuaded that the landlord smelt a burning smell outside the dwelling, therefore entering on the grounds of an emergency. The evidence is that the tenant’s partner was at home at the time, and it seems unlikely that there would have been something burning without her noticing that situation. In terms of the claim the power meter was alarming, I have received no evidence from an electrician or other qualified person support this, or that the alarm was indicative of an emergency in the tenancy.
- I think the more likely situation is that the tenant was using a heater, and the landlord was displeased with that. In that regard I note a message sent by the landlord to the tenant as follows (the original message in Chinese, this being an electronically interpreted version):
- A plain reading of that message supports the concern over electricity usage, not any burning smell or fire concern.
- In relation to the claimed entry on 23 July, I find that has not been proven. There is insufficient evidence to support the tenant’s assessment of someone entering the tenancy, over the landlord’s statement that nobody entered the premises, that the prospective tenant wanted a separate property, so did not need to see inside. As noted above, the onus is on the person making the claim (the tenant) to establish the claim, and I find that the tenant has not achieved that in this case.
- However, for the reasons above, I find the tenant has established that the landlord unlawfully entered the premises on 21 July. 48 hours’ notice was required, but not provided. I am not convinced there was an emergency situation arising. The landlord has therefore committed an unlawful act of unlawful entry. The question then becomes whether exemplary damages should be ordered.
- The first consideration is whether the unlawful act was intentional, and I believe it was. The landlord’s actions are almost certainly deliberate; it is generally well known by landlords that they cannot simply enter tenants' properties without proper authority. I have no reason to believe that the landlord was unaware of that expectation. The effect for the tenant is that his privacy has been breached. There are strong interests for tenants, and the public generally, that landlords do not unlawfully enter premises. It would, in this case, be just to make an order.
- The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for a breach of section 48, is $1,500.00. In this case, I have determined that an order at 1/3 of the maximum would be reasonable, that is $500.00. Claim 4 – Exemplary damages for failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards
- The tenant’s position is that the premises do not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, because there was no heater provided - at all. Because of that the tenants purchased their own heater, but the landlord said they could not use the heater, but wear warm clothes to bed.
- The landlord disputes that he told the tenants to wear warm clothes. The landlord also said he did not refuse permission to use the heater, only that they would be responsible for the power bill, and there was an agreement pay $20.00 per week toward the power charges. The landlord says that the house had air conditioning, but the landlord agrees the tenants could not control it. Analysis
- The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
- The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
- Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00.
- All tenancies in New Zealand needed to comply with the HHS from 1 July 2025, so that applies to this tenancy.
- The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
- The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
- The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances but I cannot see that they would apply here.
- In this case, the landlord has not provided any form of heating for the tenants. The landlords position is that the property has air-conditioning, but that was not available for these tenants to control. The evidence suggests that the tenants were cold, hence they purchased their own heater to heat the dwelling. The Tribunal can accept that the requirement to provide a heater must naturally mean a heat source that can be controlled by the tenants.
- The landlord has not provided the tenants a qualifying heater so has committed in a lawful act.
- Again taking the section 109 factors into account, I consider that the landlord’s decisions around heating would be intentional, and again I have no reason to believe that the landlord would have been unaware of his obligations to comply with the HHS. The government has provided very significant levels of information about the HHS, which was really available to the landlord. In this case I accept that the tenants were cold, that is not acceptable in a residential tenancy in New Zealand. There are very strong interests for tenants, landlords, and the public generally, that Tenancy premises be warm, dry, and healthy. That is achieved by the landlord complying with their obligations under the HHS. I consider it would be just to make an order in this case.
- While the maximum level of exemplary damages is $7,200, in this case I make an order of $1,000. I have taken into account that this was a tenancy was of very short duration, only a matter of days. It is a breach for which the landlord should be accountable, but I do not consider that ordering a high value of exemplary damages would be proportionate in this case. Landlords claims Claim 1 – Rent arrears
- The landlord seeks an order for rent arrears of $1,120.00, which is two weeks’ rental.
- The tenant said that he left early because of the actions of the landlord, which made the tenant feel unsafe.
- The landlord disputes that the tenant was forced to move out early. Analysis
- The evidence is that the tenant paid the first week of rent only, and then, following a dispute with the landlord, moved out early.
- The tenancy was a periodic tenancy, which means that the tenant needed to give 21 days’ notice to the landlord to end the tenancy. I am not persuaded that the landlord has waived his right to receive that 21-day notice period.
- In this case the landlord only seeks an order that the tenant pay 2 weeks of rent, which is a more generous outcome for the tenant than could have been claimed. The 2 weeks’ rent in lieu of notice is ordered. Claim 2 – Repair costs (bed and stove)
- The landlord states that the tenants used a heater which has burned the bed, and parts needed to be ordered from China to repair the bed. The landlord considers the reasonable repair cost to be $500.
- The second repair cost related to the unblocking of a gas stove, which the landlord considers was required because of the way the tenants were cooking. The landlord says that the repair cost was $325.
- In response, the tenant disputes that he caused this damage during the two days they were living there. The heater was a small heater and would not have caused this damage claimed.
- The landlord believes that something has boiled over on the stove, which has caused the blockage, based on what the plumber said. Analysis
- With any claim for compensation for damage, the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and was beyond fair wear and tear. If the landlord establishes those two things, then the onus will shift to the tenant to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage.
- As it relates to the bed, I find the landlord has not established this claim. There is insufficient evidence to show that this damage was caused during this tenancy. No pre-tenancy inspection photographs have been presented to prove the damage occurred during this tenancy. I see no reason to prefer what the landlord says above what the tenant says.
- In relation to the cooktop, again the landlord has not established this claim. The invoice from the plumber is dated 3 August 2025, sometime following the tenancy ending. Furthermore, while the invoice says that there was a blocked injector, there is insufficient evidence to link that situation to this tenancy, particularly given the tenancy lasted only days.
- The landlord’s compensation claims are dismissed.
NAME SUPPRESSION
- The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have requested name suppression, but I find that their respective levels of success are not sufficient to find that name suppression can be ordered, so these applications are declined.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s10, s109, s13, s18, s20, s23, s34, s44, s45(1), s46, s48, s57, s60, s67, s8, s9
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5312785?
The tribunal order states: Jimmy Zhao must pay Xiangyu Mao $380.00 immediately, calculated as shown
How much money was awarded in case 5312785?
Rent Arrears: $1,120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312785?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312785?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13538205-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.