What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5411468?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Christian Fenika-Davis and Mairieka Riana Prentice at 4/7

How much money was awarded in case 5411468?

Being: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5411468?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5411468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13121631-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5411468?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Christian Fenika-Davis and Mairieka Riana Prentice at 4/7

How much money was awarded in case 5411468?

Being: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5411468?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5411468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13121631-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4/7 Lindores Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5411468 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5411468. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
being	$1,000.00		being
exemplary damages and	$28.00		exemplary damages and

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5411468. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
being	$1,000.00		being
exemplary damages and	$28.00		exemplary damages and

Order

The tenancy of Christian Fenika-Davis and Mairieka Riana Prentice at 4/7 Lindores Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Opes Property Management South Limited as Agent for Ashley Pritchard, at 11.59pm on 17 March 2026.
Christian Fenika-Davis and Mairieka Riana Prentice must pay Opes Property Management South Limited as Agent for Ashley Pritchard $1,028 being $1,000 exemplary damages and $28 filing fee.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlords have applied for termination of the tenancy for breach and exemplary damages for the tenants’ failure to allow lawful inspections.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages for interference with their quiet enjoyment of the premises and a declaration that the landlords’ 90-day termination notice is retaliatory and invalid. Background
This tenancy began in December 2022. The premises were newly built, and this was the first tenancy of them.
The landlords conducted regular inspections and noticed in early 2024 that there was damage to the premises. They found more damage at inspections during 2024 and 2025.
On 21 October 2025 the landlords inspected the premises. They said that the tenants had not repaired the earlier damage and that there was additional damage to the premises.
They served breach notices on the tenants on 8 September and 3 November 2025 requiring them to repair the damage.
Since 21 October the landlords have served several notices of inspections of the premises, but the tenants have claimed that the notices were not properly served, and they have refused the landlords entry to the premises. They refused entry on 5 and 9 December 2025 and on 7 January 2026.
In September 2025, the landlords extended the time for the repairs to be completed to the next inspection in mid-December. At the time of the hearing, the landlords had not been able to check whether the tenants had completed the repairs because they had not been able to conduct an inspection since 21 October.
The tenants said that the landlords’ breach notices have not been detailed enough to inform them of what they need to do to comply with the breach notices. They also say that some of the damage is not their responsibility either because it was pre-existing, or it is fair wear and tear.
On 10 December 2025 the landlords served a termination notice on the tenants. The notice expires on 12 March 2026. Service and Entry
Section 136 of the residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) sets out some rules as to service of documents. It states that notices may be transmitted to the electronic address given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service.
The tenancy agreement states email addresses for both tenants as addresses “of service”. It also states that the tenants’ address for service is the same as the tenancy address.
The tenants said that they understood that their email addresses were for general communication but were not formal addresses for service.
I note that the current Tenancy Services tenancy agreement provides for a physical address for service and an email address with will be used as an address for service unless those words are struck out.
The landlords did not use the Tenancy Services template preferring one from a private provider. I don’t know why the words “of service” were used instead of “for service” but I don’t think it matters. In the context of a tenancy agreement the phrases are interchangeable in my view. There is certainly no justification for limiting an address of service to communications not involving the service of notices. The word “service” in this context plainly refers to delivering notices or other formal documents.
I also take the view that s136 is not exclusive. In other words, it does not limit the methods of service to those that are listed there. Those methods of service are sufficient, not mandatory.
One must keep in mind that the underlying rationale for the requirement for proper service of documents is to ensure, as far as possible, that the documents are received by the intended recipient and to avoid disputes about whether documents have been served. In this case, there is no dispute that the tenants received the notices and that they received sufficient notice of the inspections.
If I had found that the tenants’ email addresses were not addresses for service (to use the more formal expression), I would have found that there has been sufficient service because they did, in fact, see the notices in time. If the tenants had denied seeing the notices in time, the outcome would likely be different.
It follows that the landlords were entitled to enter the premises and carry out their inspections when they came to the premises to do so. The corollary is that the tenants were in breach of their obligation to permit the landlords entry at those times.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance.
Failure by a tenant, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises in any circumstances in which a landlord is entitled to enter, is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
I don’t accept that any tenant could reasonably believe, in these circumstances, that they had not been given sufficient notice of the inspections. All other considerations aside, they received the notices, and they knew that the landlords wanted to inspect to see whether damage to the premises was repaired. It was entirely reasonable for the landlords to want to do so, and there was no good reason for the tenants to deny them entry. Their objection was at best specious and at worst deliberately obstructive.
The tenants’ actions were unlawful acts and obviously intentional. I find that there should be an award of exemplary damages. The landlords’ right to enter to carry out inspections is an important one. It enables the landlord to check that tenants are complying with their obligations and in this case, it was especially important because there had been damage to the premises. As well, the landlords are, reasonably, concerned about the possibility of there being further damage.
The award must be enough to make it clear that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and to act as a deterrent to others. I have awarded $1,000. Termination Notice
The tenants claim that the landlord’s termination notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.
The main reason cited by the tenants is that the notice was motivated by the tenants’ lawful refusal to allow the landlords to conduct inspections. I have found that their refusal was unlawful and so that ground falls away.
If the landlords were motivated by the tenants’ refusal of inspections, that would have been justified. But the landlords said it was due to their concerns regarding damage to the premises. That too is justified and plainly it is not in response to the tenants exercising a right or complaining.
It follows that the notice is not retaliatory and therefore it is valid. Quiet Enjoyment
Aside from the landlords’ attending the premises for inspections, which I have dealt with, the tenants say that one of the landlords’ agents threatened to call the Police on them. The agent had been refused entry for an inspection and one of the tenants had closed the door in her face.
In a landlord and tenant context it is usually unjustified to invoke the Police, unless of course there has been an offence committed or apprehended. The agent said that she told the tenants she would call the Police on the spur of the moment and because she was concerned, given the appearance of intentional damage to the premises, that they might be domestic violence in the premises. She later reflected that she should not have done so.
I find the agent’s explanation credible, and I accept it. I have found below that at least some of the damage to the premises is likely to have been caused intentionally and I note that wilful damage is an offence. In all the circumstances, I find that the agent’s words, if they constituted an interference with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment, do not warrant an award of compensation. Exemplary damages are not an option because being an isolated incident, it did not amount to harassment. Termination
The landlords’ application relies on the tenants’ failure to comply with breach notices served on the tenants on 8 September and 1 December 2025. Those notices required the tenants to repair damage to the premises. Subsequently, the landlords extended the time for the tenants to comply with the first notice to December.
The obvious problem for the landlord at the hearing was that they did not have evidence to prove that the tenants had failed to comply with the notices. That is because the landlords had been unable to inspect the premises since October. As I have found, the reason for that is that the tenants have wrongfully denied the landlords entry. Even so, I could not find that the repairs had not been done without evidence.
The landlords could have sought termination on the ground of serious damage to the premises, but it would have been unfair to consider that when the tenants had not received adequate notice of such a claim.
But since the hearing, the landlords have inspected the premises, and they have filed their inspection report containing photographs of the premises. The photographs show extensive damage to the premises some of which has been repaired to some extent but not to an acceptable standard.
Given the extent and nature of the damage it is likely that the damage was caused intentionally. It is also likely that at least some of the damage that was the subject of the breach notices has not been repaired. It follows that the tenants have failed to comply with the notices. In my view that is likely to be the reason that they refused the landlord entry to inspect the premises.
The next question is would it be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy. To put that into plain English, is it fair and reasonable to terminate the tenancy?
I find that it is for the following reasons.
It would have been obvious to the tenants that much of the damage was beyond fair wear and tear and that the landlords’ notices required them to repair it.
The nature and extent of the damage suggests that there is something very worrying going on in the premises and there is an obvious risk that there will be more damage.
The tenants have had ample time to properly repair the damage, but they have failed to do so.
They have, in my view, deliberately obstructed the landlords in their attempts to inspect the premises.
I have therefore terminated the tenancy. I have allowed the tenants 14 days to vacate. Filing Fee
The landlords have succeeded and so I have awarded them the filing fee. Suppression
There is no proper basis to grant the tenants name suppression and so their request is refused.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5411468 — Exemplary damages at 4/7 Lindores Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5411468 — Exemplary damages at 4/7 Lindores Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions