VadeLab
AllowedTenancy Tribunal·

Tenant Wins Damages Against Landlord for Failing to Appoint Agent

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tenancy Tribunal awarded $800 in exemplary damages to the tenant for the landlord's failure to appoint an agent while residing abroad for over 21 days, as required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand, failing which they may be liable for exemplary damages.

Topics

Landlord's obligationsExemplary damages

Provisions

Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 16A(1)Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 16A(6)

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal awarded exemplary damages to the tenant for the landlord's failure to appoint an agent while abroad.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tenancy Tribunal awarded $800 in exemplary damages to the tenant for the landlord's failure to appoint an agent while residing abroad for over 21 days, as required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

📚 Full judgment Official document

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5116508 1

[2025] NZTT 5116508, 5154232

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Tenant

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Landlord

TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. The [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $780.00 (5498376-003) to [NAME] immediately.

2. [NAME] must pay [NAME] $827.00 immediately.

Description Landlord Tenant Exemplary damages: Landlord out of NZ no agent $800.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $827.00 Bond $780.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $827.00

Reasons:

1. The tenant attended the hearing by video and was assisted by her daughter who was her appointed and approved representative. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

2. On the morning of the hearing the landlord sought an adjournment due to work commitments. The landlord did not provide any evidence in support of his

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5116508 2

request for an adjournment. The adjournment was declined, and the parties were advised that the hearing would proceed.

3. As the landlord did not join the video hearing an attempt was made to join the landlord to the hearing by telephone, but the call went unanswered. The hearing proceeded in the landlord’s absence.

4. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord may have a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

5. Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.

6. [NAME] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.

7. A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

8. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

9. The tenant has explained why they believed the landlord has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days. In 2023 the tenant contacted the landlord with a maintenance issue with the hot water cylinder. It was then that she discovered he was living in Australia and could not attend at the premises himself. On that occasion he arranged contractors to attend to attempt to repair and then install a new hot water cylinder. The landlord did not appoint an agent. As the landlord has not appointed an agent, they have committed an unlawful act.

10. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

11. The tenant continued to contact the landlord while he was living in Australia. She needed to make allowance for the time difference when sending text messages to the landlord.

12. When the tenant was arranging to move out of the tenancy, she had a problem with the washing machine as it could not be removed. The landlord had sealed

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5116508 3

the washing machine hose to the outlet to stop a leak and had installed a new sink which prevented the washing machine from being removed.

13. The tenant attempted to contact the landlord by text and email concerning the difficulty with removing the washing machine on 21 November 2024. The landlord did not respond to the tenant. A move out inspection was carried out on 25 November 2024 by a family member of the landlord. It was only then that the issue with the washing machine was addressed. The landlord agent agreed for the landlord to arrange for it to be removed and delivered to the tenant on the following Saturday.

14. There were other agreements reached at the exit inspection between the tenant’s agent and the landlord’s agent. Later the landlord did not agree to the agreement.

15. It is important for a landlord to appoint an agent to act if the landlord is outside New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days. This is particularly important due to maintenance issues which can arise without notice and require urgent attention.

16. In this situation the landlord’s failure to appoint an agent has had an impact on the tenant. I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $800.00 is reasonable in the circumstances.

17. [NAME] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

[NAME]

07 May 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5116508 4

Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.

Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.

You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf

Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals

Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.

Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].

Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5116508 5

A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].

Reasons:

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The landlord failed to appoint an agent while living in Australia for more than 21 days, which is an unlawful act.
  • The landlord's failure to appoint an agent impacted the tenant, making an award of exemplary damages reasonable.
  • The landlord did not file a counterclaim against the bond, so the bond was refunded in full to the tenant.
  • The tenant had to make allowances for the time difference when contacting the landlord in Australia about maintenance issues.
  • The landlord did not respond to the tenant's attempts to contact him about the washing machine issue.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tenancy Tribunal awarded $800 in exemplary damages to the tenant for the landlord's failure to appoint an agent while residing abroad for over 21 days.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the landlord's failure to appoint an agent while residing abroad for over 21 days, leading to maintenance issues and communication problems.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to award exemplary damages because the landlord failed to appoint an agent as required by law, causing inconvenience to the tenant.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 16A(1) and 16A(6) were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the landlord had been out of New Zealand for over 21 days without appointing an agent, breaching their legal obligations.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For someone in a similar situation, it means that a landlord must appoint an agent if they are out of New Zealand for over 21 days to avoid potential legal consequences.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the tenant's communications with the landlord and the landlord's failure to respond to these communications.

Official source: Tenancy Tribunal headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Tenancy Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.