What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4761009 about?

The tribunal order states: Grant Moffitt and Denise West must pay [The tenant/s] $5,806.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4761009?

Compensation: Failed to give 60 days…: $486.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful residential p…: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4761009?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4761009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11027159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4761009 about?

The tribunal order states: Grant Moffitt and Denise West must pay [The tenant/s] $5,806.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4761009?

Compensation: Failed to give 60 days…: $486.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful residential p…: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4761009?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4761009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11027159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4761009 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4761009 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4761009 — net $5,806.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond within required timeframe	$250.00	Failing to lodge bond within required timeframe
Compensation: Unlawful entry	$300.00	Unlawful entry
Compensation: Failed to give 60 days’ notice to increase the rent	$486.00	Failed to give 60 days’ notice to increase the rent
Exemplary damages: Failed to include essential information in the tenancy agreement	$250.00	Failed to include essential information in the tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages – Failed to meet smoke alarm requirements	$500.00	Exemplary damages – Failed to meet smoke alarm requirements
Compensation: Unlawful residential premises	$4,000.00	Unlawful residential premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,806.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,806.44

Claims and awards for application 4761009 — net $5,806.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond within required timeframe

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failing to lodge bond within required timeframe

Compensation: Unlawful entry

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Unlawful entry

Compensation: Failed to give 60 days’ notice to increase the rent

Amount: $486.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failed to give 60 days’ notice to increase the rent

Exemplary damages: Failed to include essential information in the tenancy agreement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failed to include essential information in the tenancy agreement

Exemplary damages – Failed to meet smoke alarm requirements

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to

Dismissed claims

Smoke Alarms — Did the landlords fail to meet smoke alarm requirements?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Grant Moffitt and Denise West must pay [The tenant/s] $5,806.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
If it has not done so already, the Bond Centre is to refund the bond of $1000.00 to [Tenant 1].

Reasons

[Tenant 1] (the tenant) entered a tenancy agreement with Mr Moffitt and Ms West (the landlords) for the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed]. The property consisted of a main house and the tenant rented the self-contained apartment in the downstairs area. The tenancy started in October 2020 and ended on 6 March 2024. The rent was $725.00 per week and the bond was $1,000.00.
The tenant alleges the landlords have breached various obligations, and claims compensation and/or a fine (“exemplary damages”) against the landlords in relation to the following breaches: a. The landlords failed to lodge the bond within the required timeframe, in breach of section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). b. The landlords breached their obligation in relation to entering the premises while the tenant was not home. See section 48 RTA. c. The landlords failed to include the minimum information required in the tenancy agreement in breach of section 13A RTA. d. The landlords failed to include an insulation statement in the tenancy agreement in breach of section 13A(1A) RTA. e. The landlords failed to appoint an agent while the landlord was overseas for longer than 21 consecutive days in breach of section 16A RTA. f. The landlords failed to give 60 days’ notice to increase the rent in breach of section 24(1)(c) RTA. g. The landlords have failed to comply with obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (c) RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and to comply with all requirements in respect of all buildings, health, and safety under any enactment, including the Building Act and the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. h. The landlords have breached the tenant’s entitlement to quiet enjoyment of the premises and their obligation not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable, peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises under sections 38(1) and (2) RTA, including (but not limited to) watching the tenant and residents on CCTV and demanding the property be vacated when in [City]. i. The landlords have breached the tenant’s entitlement to quiet enjoyment of the premises and their obligation not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable, peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises under sections 38(1) and (2) RTA and the terms of the tenancy agreement including restriction of access - car parks, dryer, front door. j. The landlords have failed to conduct regular inspections. k. The landlords have breached their obligation arriving for inspections without proper notice in breach of section 48 RTA. l. The premises is unlawful (i.e. illegal dwelling) and the landlords have caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. m. The landlords have breached their obligation in relation to having no working locks or a locking mechanism on the doors. See section 46(1) RTA. n. The landlords’ termination notice is retaliatory in breach of section 54 RTA. o. The landlords have failed to meet smoke alarm requirements in breach of section 45(1)(ba) RTA.
Compensation may be awarded to a non-breaching party to recover expenses or loss arising from the breach or as a lump sum or reduction of rent where, for example, the use of the premises has been affected. The Tribunal can recognise non-financial loss such as inconvenience and stress, where appropriate.
Exemplary damages are like a fine or a penalty and can only be awarded when a party has intentionally committed a breach specified as an “unlawful act” (these are listed in Schedule 1A RTA). The Tribunal must decide whether it is just to award these after considering the breaching party’s intent, the effect of the act, the interests of the innocent party, and the public interest; see section109(3) RTA.
Before addressing the current claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. This is referred to as the “onus of proof”. In other words, the applicant must establish with evidence that what they are claiming is more likely than not, correct.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision.

Did the landlords fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 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 19(1), (2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant paid a $1,000.00 bond on 13 October 2020.
On 29 March 2021, the tenant called the Ministry of Business and Innovation to inquire about the bond and was informed that no bond had been lodged. By this time, the legal deadline for lodging the bond had passed, and earlier that day, the tenant says he had received threats of eviction. Feeling insecure due to these threats, the tenant hesitated to raise the issue.
The landlords explains that shortly after the tenant moved in, they went to their caravan for the summer. The caravan lacks Wi-Fi, which led to an oversight in lodging the bond. They note that while the tenant reached out to the Ministry regarding the bond, he did not communicate with them about it. The bond has since been lodged, and the landlord asserts that the tenant has not suffered any detriment as a result.
The landlords did not lodge the bond within the required timeframe. I find the landlords committed an unlawful act.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02).
The question is whether it is appropriate to award exemplary damages in this situation. I find the non-lodgement of the bond was intentional.
Failing to lodge the bond is a significant breach of the landlord’s obligations. A landlord is required to have proper systems in place to ensure the bond is lodged on time, and this failure represents a fundamental oversight. Even though the landlord eventually took steps to correct the error, the initial failure to comply is a serious matter.
The failure to lodge the bond causes considerable concern for tenants, as it compromises their ability to recover the bond at the end of the tenancy. The bond not being held with the Bond Centre means the tenant has less security in the event of a dispute, which is precisely what the legislation aims to avoid.
There is a considerable public interest in ensuring landlords comply with their obligations under the RTA. Lodging a bond is a fundamental responsibility that safeguards tenants’ rights, and exemplary damages serve to reinforce the importance of this duty.
While the landlord has taken steps to remedy the situation, exemplary damages are warranted to underscore the importance of compliance with bond lodgement requirements.
Balancing these factors, I award exemplary damages of $250.00. This amount is modest, reflecting the landlord’s corrective actions and there’s no record of prior warnings. However, it serves as a warning that future failures to lodge bonds in a timely manner may result in higher penalties.

A landlord may 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. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
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 tenant claims that the landlord entered his premises on 7 September 2023, without permission. He explained that there was a leak in the garage of the upstairs tenant, [Upstairs Tenant], and they both agreed the leak originated from her side, not his.
The tenant mentioned that the landlord was staying during the week and had texted him about the leak. The landlord asked the tenant to check for any signs of water on his side, and the tenant confirmed there were none. The tenant then offered to arrange for a plumber he knew, which the landlord accepted.
The tenant states he heard nothing from the landlord until after the plumber had visited. The landlord later texted to say the leak was found in [Upstairs Tenant]’s garage. However, the tenant reviewed his garage's security camera footage and saw the landlord entering his home with the plumber.
The tenant asserts that he was not given any notice or permission for the landlord’s entry and did not receive any follow-up message indicating that access to his unit was needed. He provided video evidence and a witness statement from the plumber to support his claim. The landlord later texted the tenant to confirm that the leak in [Upstairs Tenant]'s laundry was fixed and thanked him for arranging the plumber, but did not mention entering the tenant's premises.
In response, the landlords argue that there was no breach in entering the premises on 7 September. They state that the landlord spoke to the tenant’s partner, [Tenant 2], on 6 September and asked her to leave the internal door open for the plumber's visit the next day. They also pointed out that the tenant’s internal door is always locked. Although [Tenant 2] does not believe she had interaction with the landlord that week.
I find the landlords have breached the provisions of section 48 by entering the tenant’s premises without permission and without proper notice on 7 September 2023. The tenant has clearly stated that he did not provide permission for the landlords to enter his premises on the specified date. While the landlord may have communicated with the tenant’s partner about leaving the internal door open, this does not constitute explicit consent from the tenant. The law requires that tenants have control over their living space, and entry should only occur with their express permission unless in emergencies or when proper notice has been provided.
According to the Act, landlords are required to give reasonable notice before entering a tenant's premises, except in emergencies. The landlord did not provide any notice directly to the tenant, as evidenced by the tenant’s claim and the security footage. The tenant had arranged for the plumber to visit, but this does not imply consent for the landlord to enter without further communication or agreement.
The tenant has presented security camera footage showing the landlord entering his premises with the plumber. This video evidence is critical as it confirms the tenant’s assertion and demonstrates that the landlord acted without permission. The footage serves as a factual basis that the landlord did indeed enter the premises without the necessary consent.
After the plumber's visit, the landlord texted the tenant but did not mention entering the premises. This lack of communication indicates an oversight or disregard for the tenant's rights. Effective communication is essential in landlord- tenant relationships, and failure to address such actions raises concerns about the landlord's respect for the tenant's autonomy.
The landlord’s assertion that they communicated with the tenant’s partner on 6 September does not absolve them of responsibility. The tenant is the primary party in the tenancy agreement, and any decisions regarding access should involve direct communication with him. The lack of confirmation from the tenant regarding this arrangement further underscores the absence of consent.
The tenant has the right to the quiet enjoyment of their home, a principle embedded in tenancy law. The landlord’s unannounced entry disrupts this right and could be considered harassment, which is not acceptable under the Act.
Based on the evidence provided and the interpretations of the relevant sections of the RTA, the landlord's actions constitute a breach of section 48. But I do not consider it is appropriate to make a punitive award of exemplary damages on the grounds that the breach was lacking intention. The landlords are reminded of the necessity to obtain proper consent and to provide adequate notice before entering a tenant’s premises in the future to avoid such issues.
In this instance, the tenant was not at home when the unlawful entry occurred. The tenant was understandably upset and irritated about the unlawful entry. In the decision of the District Court in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 Judge Neave commented that “an individual has an important, fundamental, interest in preserving for themselves, access to their home”. I consider that an award of $300.00 is appropriate in the circumstances. Did the landlords fail to include the minimum information required in the tenancy agreement, including an insulation statement?
Every tenancy agreement shall contains certain essential information. This includes, but is not limited to, the names of the landlord and tenant, the contact addresses for the parties including the address for service, the address of the premises, the rent payable, the frequency of rent payments, any bond amount, and a statement regarding insulation. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure transparency and protect the rights of both parties.
A landlord must include a signed insulation statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) RTA.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) RTA.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
In this case, the tenant has identified several omissions in the tenancy agreement: • Landlord’s address: The landlords' assert that they have two residences, one in [Suburb 1] and the other in [Suburb 2]. While they maintain that the [Suburb 1] address is their primary address, the tenant has pointed out that this information is misleading. The Act is designed to ensure that tenants have a clear point of contact for legal and practical purposes. By not providing complete and accurate information can undermine that objective. • Landlord's Contact Email Address: The absence of a contact email limits the tenant’s ability to communicate with the landlords effectively, which is crucial for resolving any issues that may arise. • Amount of Bond: The agreement does not specify the bond amount, which is a fundamental aspect of the tenancy and is required for legal compliance. • Rent Payable and Frequency of Payments: The absence of these details can lead to confusion about the financial obligations of the tenant. • List of Chattels: This information is necessary for the tenant to understand what is included with the rental property. • Insulation Statement: The agreement lacks a statement regarding whether insulation is installed, along with details about its type and condition. This is a significant omission, especially given the emphasis on insulation in recent housing legislation.
The landlords have admitted that details were overlooked, which indicates an acknowledgment of the shortcomings in the tenancy agreement. Although they claim that the premises are fully insulated and that no previous tenants raised concerns, this does not negate the requirement to include necessary information in the tenancy agreement.
Based on the evidence provided, I find the landlords did breach section 13 RTA by failing to include several essential elements in the tenancy agreement. The Act’s requirements are designed to ensure that both landlords and tenants are clear about their rights and obligations, and the omissions in this case could undermine the tenant's ability to exercise those rights effectively.
In conclusion, the failure to provide accurate and complete information as mandated by section 13 constitutes a breach of the RTA. The landlords are reminded of their responsibilities under the law and the importance of including all required details in future tenancy agreements to prevent similar issues from arising.
I do consider that the failure to provide a tenancy agreement containing all of the information specified in section 13A RTA before the tenancy began should be seen as “intentional” in the sense meant by section 109 RTA In the words of Judge Harrop in TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 (at paragraph 37): Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, [the landlord is] deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
I now consider the other factors in section 109 RTA:- a. I find it probable that the landlords’ intent was not to mislead the tenant. They seem to have been unaware of the legal requirements rather than trying to avoid their obligations. b. The tenant’s interests are that a landlord fully complies with the tenancy agreement requirements so that all terms of the contract are clear, and the compliance status of the property is known. c. The effect of the breach was that the tenant was not given the important insulation information that they should have been given, were left to rely on verbal assurances from the landlord and was unsettled at the lack of complete documentation. d. The public interest is that landlords who do not meet these important obligations are noted. These are not minor matters. Tenants should not have to piece together the terms of a tenancy from a combination of documents and emails or texts. A binding contract should be clear and completed accurately and fully. Parliament has legislated to require minimum standards of insulation and the HHS and these are only effective if the tenancy agreement is complete and accurate.
I consider it just to award exemplary damages. I award $250.00 taking into account that there are no prior orders against the landlords. Have the landlords been overseas for longer than permitted by the Act without appointing an agent?
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) RTA.
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 RTA.
The tenant claims that the landlords travel out of the country each year for extended periods, and has cited the following trip dates: August to November 2022 and October to December 2023. He asserts that during these times, the landlords do not appoint a designated point of contact, which is a requirement under section 16A(1) RTA. The tenant has pointed to social media, including Facebook pages, that show the landlords' travel photos, indicating their absence from the property.
Additionally, the tenant states that there is no formal paperwork or correspondence indicating that [Upstairs Tenant] was ever designated as an agent for the landlords. In contrast, the landlords maintain that [Upstairs Tenant] has lived with them since May 2015 and has acted as their agent. They claim that the tenant was introduced to [Upstairs Tenant] on the first day of his tenancy and that he was always informed of their travel plans. The landlords assert that the tenant was advised to contact either [Upstairs Tenant] or them directly if any issues arose while they were away.
The burden of proof lies with the tenant to demonstrate that the landlords did not comply with the legal requirements. While the tenant has asserted that the landlords travel out of the country without appointing a designated contact, the landlords have countered this claim by stating that [Upstairs Tenant] has acted as their agent since May 2015 and was introduced to the tenant at the start of his tenancy. They maintain that the tenant was informed of this arrangement and that he could contact either [Upstairs Tenant] or the landlords directly during their absences.
The social media evidence, while indicative of the landlords' travels, does not directly support the claim that they failed to provide a point of contact as required by the Act.
Furthermore, the landlords have presented their perspective, asserting that they communicated their travel plans to the tenant and that [Upstairs Tenant] was available to assist with any issues during their absence. This conflicting testimony creates ambiguity regarding the actual arrangements made for tenant support when the landlords are away.
In conclusion, due to the lack of clear evidence supporting the tenant’s claims and the conflicting accounts provided, I find that the tenant has not proven his claim to the required standard. As such, there is insufficient basis to conclude that the landlords breached their obligations under section 16A regarding the appointment of a point of contact during their absences. This claim is therefore dismissed. Did the landlords fail to give 60 days’ notice to increase the rent?
A landlord must provide at least 60 days' notice for a rent increase. See section 24(1)(c) RTA. The notice must be clear and specify the date on which the increase will take effect.
In this case, the landlord issued a rent increase notice on 14 June 2023, with an effective date of the week ending 15 July 2023. However, if the landlord had provided proper notice in accordance with the Act, the effective date would have been the week ending 13 August 2023.
Since the landlord acknowledges a miscalculation in the notice period, it is clear that they did not adhere to the statutory requirement of giving at least 60 days' notice for the rent increase. The tenant is correct in calculating the shortfall resulting from this error. The days between the rent due date of 10 July and the corrected effective date of 13 August amount to 34 days, which translates to approximately 4.86 weeks. Multiplying this by the rent increase of $100.00 results in a shortfall of $486.00, which the landlord has agreed to reimburse.
In terms of whether exemplary damages can be awarded, exemplary damages are typically reserved for cases involving serious or intentional breaches, or where the landlord's conduct has been particularly egregious. Given that the landlord has acknowledged the mistake and is willing to reimburse the tenant, this indicates that the error was unintentional and not malicious.
Based on the evidence presented, I find that the landlord has indeed breached section 24(1)(c) RTA by failing to provide the required 60 days' notice for the rent increase. The landlord's acceptance of responsibility and willingness to reimburse the tenant for the shortfall is a positive step; however, the circumstances do not warrant the awarding of exemplary damages. The breach was due to miscalculation, and there is no evidence of any malicious intent or repeated violations that would justify such a penalty.
In conclusion, the reimbursement of the shortfall of $486.00 is appropriate, exemplary damages are not warranted in this instance. The landlord should take this opportunity to ensure future compliance with the notice requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Did the landlords breach their repair and maintenance obligations?

Section 45 RTA provides that landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. This includes ensuring that the premises are habitable, safe, and comply with all relevant health and safety standards. These responsibilities remain even if the tenant has notice of the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy. See section 45(3) RTA.
It is well settled law that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention in a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)). The time they have to do this should be reasonable, depending on how serious the issue is and how actively the landlord tries to address it.
Tenants also have responsibilities. They must inform the landlord of any defects or repair needs as soon as they discover them, according to section 40(1)(d). Landlords should be given a reasonable chance to fix these issues before being held responsible for not doing so. As established in the Barfoot & Thompson v Casey case, landlords aren’t in breach of their maintenance duty if they haven’t been informed of the defects.
If a landlord fails to meet this duty, the Tribunal can compensate the tenant. However, it's important to note that landlords aren't required to fix every possible problem, especially hidden ones they couldn't have anticipated i.e. a latent or hidden defect (Barfoot & Thompson v Casey (District Court Auckland, CIV 2005- 004-001762, 7 November 2007)). This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects.
Breaching any of the obligations under section 45 is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant claims that the landlords failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant says that despite repeated requests the landlords often ignored his requests or made excuses for the delay. The tenant experienced multiple maintenance issues during their tenancy including the following issues: i. deck/conservatory, ii. water coming through light sockets, iii. water coming through windows, iv. burst pipe and v. broken toilet seat
Deck/conservatory: The tenant reported significant safety concerns regarding the upstairs deck and conservatory over the course of their tenancy. On 6 September 2021, they discovered broken framing and a loose pane of glass above the swings where the tenant’s children play. Despite the tenant's efforts to address the issue, including offering to help with repairs, the tenant says the landlords failed to take timely action.
In early 2022, the tenant noticed structural issues with the deck, which builders confirmed were serious enough to risk collapse. Subsequent incidents, including a window smashing during a cyclone, exacerbated safety hazards, leading to broken glass littering the entrance area.
The tenant says throughout 2022 and into 2023, the landlords’ responses were slow, and no repairs were made, despite repeated requests from the tenant. After months of waiting and ongoing safety risks, the tenant issued a formal 14-day notice for repairs in October 2023. Following continued delays, the tenant submitted a Tenancy Tribunal application in December 2023. Finally, some remedial work began shortly after the application, although access issues persisted due to construction debris left on the property. The tenant expressed frustration over the lack of communication and urgency from the landlord throughout this period.
Water Through Light Sockets: On 22 December 2022, the tenant discovered water pouring from light sockets in the bedroom. After consulting the landlord, the tenant isolated a burst hot water line in the upstairs unit. Although the tenant offered to arrange for a plumber, the landlord did not follow up or provide any details. This incident ruined the tenant's bedding and required extensive cleanup with fans and dehumidifiers.
Water Breaching Windows: On 27 January 2023, the tenant says heavy rain caused water to breach the upstairs walls, not the window seals. The tenant noted a long-standing water tightness issue in the upstairs unit, where towels were frequently used to manage leaks. This leak was substantial enough to affect the tenant's unit below.
Burst Pipe: At the beginning of the tenancy on 31 December 2020, a pipe burst under the kitchen sink, flooding the area. The tenant had to isolate the leak and later secure repairs with their own plumbers. This incident led to persistent black mould under the kitchen island, and despite suggesting the landlords file an insurance claim, the landlords declined.
Broken Toilet Seat: Early in the tenancy, the toilet seat broke while the tenant’s brother was visiting. The landlords initially refused to replace it, leading to a temporary fix that failed. The tenant eventually purchased and installed a new toilet seat at their own expense after struggling to find a suitable replacement.
The tenant submitted that throughout these issues, communication and prompt action from the landlord were lacking, leading to frustration and ongoing problems for the tenant.
The tenant also reported ongoing general neglect of the property during their tenancy, highlighting several maintenance issues that went unaddressed. Key concerns included: • Planter Boxes: These were falling apart and needed attention. • Retaining Wall: The wall was failing, posing a structural risk. • Watertightness: The overall watertightness of the property was inadequate, leading to additional problems.
The tenant noted a lack of communication from the landlords and no motivation to carry out necessary remedial work, contributing to his frustrations regarding the property's condition. The tenant says the delay and constant attention required to have reasonable maintenance carried out had been exhausting, stressful and a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.
In response to the tenant's claims, the landlords disputed the allegations, asserting that they had taken reasonable steps to address requests for maintenance and repairs in a timely manner. They stated that they were unaware of several issues raised by the tenant and questioned the severity of the reported problems. The landlords noted that they had received no complaints from other tenants regarding their handling of maintenance requests. They provided written statements from several current and previous tenants, all affirming that the landlords were responsive and that the property was generally well-maintained, with no issues of mould or damage reported.
Regarding the deck and conservatory, the landlords rejected the tenant's claims about safety risks. They referenced a builder's report indicating that the conservatory structure posed no risk of collapse and that previous repairs had been made four years prior. Following severe weather in January 2023, there were delays in processing insurance claims due to a high volume of requests, which complicated repairs to the deck and the conservatory's aluminium frame and glass.
For the water coming through light sockets, the landlords recounted that on 23 December, the tenant notified them of water leaking from the light sockets in the bedroom. The landlords permitted the tenant to investigate, during which the tenant identified water spraying from a small hot water cylinder. The landlords communicated the situation to [Upstairs Tenant], who subsequently brought the tenant a bottle of wine as a gesture of thanks for handling the situation and returned cleaned towels. The landlords noted that the tenant did not request compensation for any damage to personal property.
Concerning the water breaching windows, the landlords claimed they were only made aware of the issue upon receiving the tenant's documentation for the Tribunal. They reached out to [Glass Company], who advised that a site visit was unnecessary.
As for the burst pipe and broken toilet seat, the landlords stated that they had not been informed of any further action required by the tenant, who indicated that they would handle those issues themselves.
In this case, the tenant has detailed numerous maintenance issues, including safety concerns with the deck and conservatory, water intrusion through light sockets and windows, a burst pipe, and a broken toilet seat. The tenant asserts that despite repeated requests for repairs, the landlords often ignored these pleas or made excuses for delays, leading to ongoing problems and frustration.
The tenant reported critical safety concerns about the deck and conservatory, including broken framing and structural issues serious enough to risk collapse. However, the landlords provided evidence that they had engaged builders and received assessments indicating that previous repairs had been sufficient. This conflicting information raises questions about the severity and urgency of the reported issues.
Regarding the water intrusion, the tenant experienced damage and cleanup due to water coming through light sockets and windows, but the landlords claimed they were not made aware of these issues until documentation for the Tribunal was submitted. They also indicated they took steps to address the tenant’s concerns once notified.
The burst pipe and broken toilet seat were indeed reported by the tenant, and while the landlord's response may have been delayed, there is a dispute about whether the tenant sufficiently communicated the ongoing nature of these issues.
Given the conflicting views and the lack of corroborating evidence supporting the tenant’s claims, I find that the evidence is in balance. The tenant has not proved their claim to the required standard. The landlords maintain that they took reasonable steps to address maintenance requests and were generally responsive, and the tenant's assertions did not establish a clear breach of obligations under section 45.
In conclusion, I find that the tenant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the landlords breached their obligations to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair under section RTA. The conflicting accounts and lack of robust evidence lead to this determination. Have the landlord’s breached the tenant’s entitlement to quiet enjoyment of the premises and privacy?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant detailed various occasions where he said the landlords breached his quiet enjoyment and privacy. He referred to a timeline of various incidents arose throughout the tenancy, including watching the tenant and residents on CCTV, demanding the property be vacated when in [City], restriction of access - car parks, dryer, front door. The tenant described a difficult relationship with the landlords, characterised by aggressive behaviour and dissatisfaction with the property's condition. Key points include: • Initial Encounter: The landlord confronted the tenant angrily about some bricks the tenant had moved from their deceased mother's house, making personal remarks and displaying aggressive body language. • Maintenance Disputes: The landlord falsely claimed the lawn was unkempt, despite the tenant hiring a lawn service. The landlord also criticised the tenant's living conditions, overlooking the tenant's recent grief and the challenges of settling his mother's affairs. • Conflicting Instructions: The landlord issued contradictory directives regarding the use of the dryer and methods for drying clothes, leading to confusion for the tenant. • Retaliation Claims: The tenant perceived the issuance of a 90-day notice as retaliatory, as it followed their complaints about property conditions and concerns raised with the landlord. • Unannounced Visits: The tenant expressed discomfort with frequent, unannounced visits by the landlord's children, which compromised their sense of privacy and security. On several occasions, the landlord’s family members appeared without prior notice, creating a feeling of intrusion. • Car Parking Issues: The tenant faced conflicts over parking arrangements. The landlord's son parked his vehicle in a way that blocked the tenant's access, and when a strange car appeared in the driveway, the tenant was met with dismissive responses from the landlords, leading to further tension over parking rights. • Communication Efforts: The tenant actively communicated his efforts to maintain the property, including hiring services, making repairs, and improving the living space. • Privacy Concerns: The tenant felt uneasy about the landlords’ frequent visits and surveillance. • House Sale Issues: During the property sale process, the tenant requested that personal items not be photographed for listings, but this request was ignored, causing additional distress.
Overall, the tenant felt disrespected and undervalued, believing his efforts to maintain the property and communicate effectively have been disregarded by the landlords. He indicates that this was compounded by the landlords’ abrasive actions. This impacted significantly on his quiet enjoyment of the premises and well-being.
The landlord denied the tenant allegations. They alleged that the tenant was either making false allegations or over exaggerating. They denied causing any deliberate disturbance or inappropriate behaviour. The landlords perceive their actions as reasonable and justifiable, aimed at protecting their property and ensuring a well-maintained rental environment. They feel misunderstood and unfairly criticised by the tenant, believing their management style and responses to concerns were appropriate.
I have carefully considered the submissions and evidence of the parties. Claims relating to a tenant's entitlement to quiet enjoyment and privacy are often difficult to determine.
A tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of a tenancy. Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of their tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord. Balanced against that, however, one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash in personality to become the sole basis for a claim for breach of this type.
Again, I must consider the evidence before me. I accept that the relationship between the parties deteriorated. However, while I accept the tenant feels genuinely aggrieved, the evidence before me, falls short in amounting to a breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

Have the landlords failed to conduct regular inspections?

As discussed during the hearing, it's important to recognise that while conducting regular inspections is considered best practice for landlords, there is no legal requirement that mandates such inspections at specific intervals.
The tenant referenced three inspection dates: 15 March 2021, 15 January 2022, and 18 December 2023. The tenant pursues no claim here other than argue that the infrequency of these inspections indicates a lack of engagement with the tenancy and a disregard for the property's condition.
While regular inspections can enhance communication and allow for timely identification of issues, the landlords’ engagement with the property can be assessed through other means, such as their responsiveness to reported maintenance concerns and the overall condition of the dwelling. Have the landlord’s breached their obligation under section 48 by arriving for inspections without proper notice?
A landlord must give a tenant at least 48 hours' notice before entering a rental property for a scheduled inspection. The notice must be in writing and specify the time and date of the entry. The landlord is allowed to enter the property without notice for emergencies or other valid reasons, but this does not extend to routine inspections. See section 48 RTA.
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 tenant says the landlord texted the tenant on 13 January 2022 to arrange a time for a flat inspection on 15 January. Although the tenant agreed, the landlord did not respond to the tenant’s confirmation, which could imply a lack of clarity or agreement on the timing of the inspection. However, the tenant was not informed of the specific time and date of entry within the 48-hour notice window.
The landlords dispute the tenant's assertion, claiming they have never arrived for an inspection without proper notice. This statement raises questions about their adherence to the notice requirement on this specific occasion.
By not replying to the tenant’s affirmative response, the landlords failed to establish a clear agreement on the inspection timing. If the tenant was unaware of the exact timing and the landlord proceeded to enter the property without having given sufficient notice, this could be interpreted as a breach of section 48.
While landlords may knock on the door or be on the property for valid reasons without notice, an inspection specifically requires compliance with the notice period outlined in the Act. If the landlord's entry was for an inspection, it must comply with the 48-hour notice requirement.
Based on the facts presented: •If the landlord did not provide the tenant with at least 48 hours' written notice specifying the time and date of the inspection, they would be in breach of section 48 RTA. •The landlord’s defence hinges on the interpretation of their communication with the tenant. The lack of a written notice and the tenant's uncertainty about the timing suggest that the landlord has not complied with the legal requirements.
Therefore, I find the evidence supports the tenant’s account that proper notice was not given, the landlords are found to be in breach of section 48.
However, I do not consider it appropriate to award exemplary damages due to a lack of intent. In the context of this situation, the landlords’ failure to follow proper notice procedures reflect poor communication practices rather than a deliberate attempt to infringe on the tenant’s rights.

Is the premises unlawful?

The tenants say the premises is unlawful (i.e. illegal dwelling) and the landlords have caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA.
Section 78A(2) RTA states: For the purposes of this Act, unlawful residential premises means residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but— (a) that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and (b) where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), ..., has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
Section 36 RTA states that: The landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes.
Section 45(1)(c) RTA states that: (1) The landlord shall – ..... (c) Comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises;
In the present case, the particular residential purposes concerned is the occupation of the premises as a second household unit, separate to the upper level of the building.
While the premises can be occupied, generally, for residential purposes, as the building as a whole has Council consent for residential use, an issue arises when looking at the division of the premises into two separate household units.
Given both limbs of section 78A(2) must be satisfied before a premises is deemed an unlawful residential premises, it is useful to consider section 36 and 45(1)(c) when considering whether the use of the premises in this particular manner is unlawful, as if the occupation of the premises is unlawful as a result of either section, it will be likely that the landlord’s failure to comply with those sections contributed to the unlawfulness of the occupation.
Section 45(1)(c), in this case, requires consideration of whether then landlord has complied with the provisions of the Building Act 2004, in particular, sections 40, 114 and 115 of that Act.
Section 40 of the Building Act states that a household unit, being a building intended for residential occupation, must have a building consent and be certified as being compliant by having a code compliance certificate.
If it has neither, or a building consent only, then pursuant to the Act, it is an unlawful residential premises.
Sections 114 and 15 deal with the change of use of consented buildings.
Section 114 of the Building Act requires the owner to give notice of a change of use of the building, and makes failure to do so an offence.
Section 115 of the Building Act provides that an owner of a building must not change the use of the building – (a) in a case where the change involves the incorporation in the building of 1 or more household units where household units did not exist before, unless the territorial authority gives the owner written notice that the territorial authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the building, in its new use, will comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the building code in all respects; and (b) in any other case, unless the territorial authority gives the owner written notice that the territorial authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the building, in its new use,— (i) will comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with every provision of the building code that relates to the following: (A) means of escape from fire, protection of other property, sanitary facilities, structural performance, and fire-rating performance: (B) access and facilities for persons with disabilities (if this is a requirement under section 118); and (ii) will,— (A) if it complied with the other provisions of the building code immediately before the change of use, continue to comply with those provisions; or (B) if it did not comply with the other provisions of the building code immediately before the change of use, continue to comply at least to the same extent as it did then comply.
To determine whether there has been a change in the use of a building, consideration must be given to the Buildings (Specified Systems, Change the Use, and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005 (“the regulations”).
Change the use is defined in the regulations as: ...to change the use (determined in accordance with regulation 6) of all or a part of the building from one use (the old use) to another (the new use) and with the result that the requirements for compliance with the building code in relation to the new use are additional to, or more onerous than, the requirements for compliance with the building code in relation to the old use.
Regulation 6 states that every building or part of a building has a use as specified in the table in schedule 2 of the regulations.
The following uses in schedule 2 of the regulations are relevant for residential purposes: SA (Sleeping Accommodations) paces providing transient accommodation, or where limited assistance or care is provided for people motels, hotels, hostels, boarding houses, clubs (residential), boarding schools, dormitories, halls, wharenui SR (sleeping Residential) attached and multi-unit residential dwellings, including household units attached to spaces or dwellings with the same or other uses, such as caretakers' flats, and residential accommodation above a shop multi-unit dwellings, flats, or apartments SH (Sleeping Single Home) detached dwellings where people live as a single household or family, including attached self contained spaces such as granny flats when occupied by a member of the same family, and garages (whether detached or part of the same building) if primarily for storage of the occupants' vehicles, tools, and garden implements dwellings or houses separated from each other by distance
The division of the building into two household units would make it an “SR – sleeping residential” use, namely 2 attached separate household units being occupied by two separate households.
Accordingly, I consider this to be a change to the use of the building to which section 115 of the Building Act applies and the owner was required to obtain written notice from the Counsel that the building, in its new use, will comply with the Building Code.
There is no evidence of such written notice, nor is there evidence that the conversion of the premises into two household units was consented by the Council or compliant with the Building Code.
On 26 February 2024, the tenant received confirmation from [City] Council stating that there is no record of a second dwelling at [Tenancy address suppressed]. It is unclear when this second dwelling was constructed, as there is no resource consent or certificate of compliance on file. The Council does not recognise the downstairs area as a lawful dwelling, describing it instead as a basement without any records of sanitation, electrical, or other amenities.
Furthermore, the landlords' own records indicate a previous breach where the Council confirmed the premises were not classified as a dwelling, yet the landlord received only a warning. This suggests that the landlord was aware of the unlawful status of the dwelling and failed to take appropriate corrective actions.
According to the Council’s assessment, the downstairs unit is unequivocally unconsented and therefore illegal. This situation raises significant concerns about tenant safety and the legality of the rental arrangement.
Accordingly, I consider that the landlords have not complied with the Building Act, and consequently have failed to comply with section 45(1)(c) RTA.
Therefore, the premises is an unlawful residential premises.
The downstairs apartment is unlawful residential premises that the landlords rented out to the tenants for nearly 3 years and 5 months. The tenant has paid a total of $31,150.00 to the landlords.
I consider that the tenant should receive some refund of rent. The purpose of the law about unlawful residential premises (section 78A RTA) is to discourage landlords from renting out unconsented or unlawful properties which have not been through the proper checks to make sure they are safe and healthy for occupation by tenants. Landlords should not be able to profit from unlawful activity.
The Tribunal may order the landlord to refund all or some of the rent the tenant has paid and can consider a broad range of factors depending on the circumstances of each case; see section 78A(4) RTA.
In the present case, I consider that the amount ordered should be reduced to take into account the fact that the tenant has had the benefit of some utility from the occupation of the premises for over 3 years. There were no serious consequences. The premises largely suited the tenant’s needs.
Rather than calculate this as a portion, I consider a global award of compensation for the unlawful nature of the premises is the best approach. I award $4,000.00 compensation to the tenant.
The Tribunal may also impose exemplary damages (a fine) where a landlord has intentionally not complied with all laws relating to buildings and safety; see section 78A(5)(c) and 45(1)(c) RTA.
I have decided that it would not be just to also award exemplary damages on this occasion due to a lack of intent. Have the landlords breached their obligation by having no working locks or a locking mechanism on the doors?
The landlord is responsible for providing secure premises, which includes ensuring that all locks are in good working order. See section 46 RTA.
The landlords assert that all locks in the property were functional when the previous tenants moved out, which contradicts the tenant's claim about the condition of the locks at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant took it upon themselves to replace the lock on the back door. While the landlord reimbursed the tenant, this action does not necessarily indicate a breach but rather a response to a maintenance issue that the tenant addressed independently.
The tenant has not demonstrated that the lack of a working door handle or locking mechanism constituted a breach of the landlords’ obligations under the Act. The landlords’ position that all locks were in working order when the previous tenants vacated presents a valid counterargument that the tenant has not effectively disproven.
In light of these factors, it is concluded that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim of a breach of section 46, leading to the determination that the landlords are not liable for failing to provide working locks at the start of the tenancy. This claim is therefore dismissed.

Was the notice to end the tenancy retaliatory?

For a notice to be deemed retaliatory, the tenant must demonstrate that the landlord was motivated, either wholly or partly, by the tenant exercising their rights under the tenancy agreement or any relevant Act, or by any complaint against the landlord (as outlined in section 54(1) of the RTA).
A notice to terminate a tenancy that is declared to be of no effect under section 54 becomes an unlawful act, and can attract an award of exemplary damages of up to $4,000.
The tenant alleges that the landlords issued termination notices on two occasions, both of which he claims were retaliatory.
First Occasion: 30 March 2021
On 30 March 2021, just a day after the landlord confronted the tenant in an angry manner, the tenant received a '90-day notice' to vacate the property. The notice stated that the tenant had not fulfilled his obligations under the tenancy agreement, and it emphasised that the home was a residential property, not a commercial or construction site. The final termination date was set for 13 June 2021.
The tenant believes this notice was retaliatory, especially since it only provided 75 days' notice instead of the required 90 days. Following this, on 17 April 2021, the tenant asked the landlord if he was being evicted, to which she responded that they had decided to retract the notice and would discuss the conditions for continuing the tenancy.
On 27 April 2021, during another conversation, the landlord specified conditions for the tenant to maintain his tenancy, including cleaning up the garden beds and taking better care of his tools.
Second Occasion: 9 January 2024
The timeline surrounding the second termination notice begins on 10 December 2023, when the tenant submitted an application to the Tenancy Tribunal. On 14 December, while the landlords were staying upstairs, a verbal altercation occurred regarding the dismantling of the conservatory. During this argument, the landlord mentioned ordering a flat inspection for 18 December.
The inspection on 18 December was the first since April 2022.
Subsequently, on 19 December, real estate agents visited the property and indicated that the landlords intended to sell the house.
On 9 January 2024, while the landlords were still residing in the property, the real estate agents delivered an updated 90-day notice to the tenant. This notice, dated 15 January, stated that the tenancy would end on 15 April 2024, citing the listing of the property for sale as the reason.
The tenant believes this notice was retaliatory, particularly given the timing in relation to his Tenancy Tribunal application. He notes that neighbours have commented on the situation, suggesting that the landlords’ actions were a direct response to his complaint to the Tribunal. Additionally, the fact that the upstairs tenant, [Upstairs Tenant], has not received a similar notice reinforces the tenant’s belief that the notice was personal. Previous instances of retaliatory notices further support his claim, establishing a pattern of behaviour from the landlords.
In response, the landlords assert that both termination notices were issued for genuine and valid reasons, and not as a result of the tenant asserting his rights, raising complaints about the tenancy, or filing the application with the Tenancy Tribunal. They claim that they informed both [Upstairs Tenant] and the tenant before leaving in October 2023 that they intended to put the house on the market.
Given the information provided, I do not find the connection between the tenant's actions and the landlords' issuance of the termination notices convincing. I believe that the timing of the termination notice was coincidental, and there is no causal link between the tenant exercising their rights under the Act and the landlords’ decision to issue the termination notices.
I do not find sufficient evidence to support the claim that the notice issued on 30 March 2021 was retaliatory. The primary reason for the notice was the landlord’s concerns regarding the condition of the property. The landlord's assertion that the tenant had not fulfilled their obligations to maintain the property is valid. Tenants have a responsibility to ensure that the rental property is clean and tidy, and this obligation underpins the landlord's decision to issue the notice.
The notice was not issued in response to tenant complaints about the property or any disputes related to the tenancy. Rather, it stemmed from ongoing frustrations regarding maintenance and upkeep, which the landlords had previously communicated to the tenant.
The fact that the notice was later retracted further weakens the argument that it was retaliatory. By choosing to withdraw the termination notice, the landlords demonstrated a willingness to reconsider the situation and engage in further discussions about tenancy conditions.
The landlords have stated that the second termination notice was issued due to their intention to sell the property, which is a legitimate reason under the RTA. This purpose does not appear to be related to the tenant's complaints or actions, but rather a business decision on the part of the landlords.
The evidence presented does not convincingly demonstrate that the landlords acted in retaliation for the tenant's complaints or for filing a Tenancy Tribunal application. The landlords maintain that they had communicated their plans to sell the property prior to the tenant's actions, indicating that the termination notice was part of an ongoing plan rather than a reaction to the tenant's rights being exercised.
The landlords' actions, including the timing of the notices and their stated intentions, appear coherent and consistent with their claims of wanting to list the property for sale. The absence of any further retaliatory behaviour, such as additional complaints or actions taken against the tenant, further supports the conclusion that the notice was not retaliatory.
Based on these reasons, I am satisfied that the landlords’ notices to end the tenancy was based on a valid and genuine reason, and therefore, there is no breach of section 54. This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlords fail to meet smoke alarm requirements?

Under section 45(1)(ba) a landlord must comply with all the requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed by the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. This requires that smoke alarms should be installed in the sleeping space or within three meters of the entrance to the sleeping space. There should also be a smoke alarm on each storey of a tenancy property.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded.
On the first day of the tenancy, the tenant reports that he was provided with a single loose smoke alarm, which did not have a battery. This alarm was one of the older 9V battery types, not a long-life model. Given the layout of the bedrooms, the tenant believes that at least two smoke alarms are necessary to ensure that there is one within three meters of each bedroom.
The tenant states that the smoke alarm remained unfitted during the landlord's inspection on 15 January 2022. During this inspection, the tenant mentioned the lack of adequate smoke alarms and requested additional alarms, complete with batteries. He asserts that the landlords did not take notes or ask questions regarding this issue, and the requested alarms were not provided. Consequently, the tenant later purchased and installed three long-life smoke alarms himself.
In response, the landlords contend that they had previously contacted their former tenants and confirmed that there was a smoke alarm located by the main bedroom/kitchen. They also point out that the tenant acknowledged receiving a smoke alarm from them in his own testimony.
Section 45(1)(ba) mandates that landlords must ensure that smoke alarms are installed in residential premises and that they are in working order at the beginning of each new tenancy. This requirement is aimed at safeguarding tenant safety and ensuring compliance with fire safety standards.
In this case, the tenant reports that on the first day of the tenancy, he was provided with a single loose smoke alarm that lacked a battery. This alarm was an older model, which raises immediate concerns about its effectiveness. Given that smoke alarms are critical for detecting fire hazards, having only one non-functional alarm does not satisfy the legal requirement for adequate fire safety measures.
The tenant’s assertion that at least two smoke alarms were necessary—one within three meters of each bedroom—aligns with best practices for smoke alarm placement. The need for multiple alarms in a dwelling, especially in a layout with multiple bedrooms, is well-recognised in fire safety standards to ensure adequate coverage and prompt detection of smoke or fire.
The tenant further claims that during a landlord inspection on 15 January 2022, he brought up the issue of inadequate smoke alarms and requested additional alarms with batteries. The landlords’ failure to take note of these concerns and their subsequent inaction to provide adequate smoke alarms is a critical point. The tenant’s decision to purchase and install three long-life smoke alarms himself demonstrates a proactive effort to rectify the situation that should have been addressed by the landlords.
The landlords’ defence, citing previous tenants’ confirmation of a smoke alarms and acknowledging the provision of one alarm, does not address the tenant's specific claims regarding the adequacy and functionality of the smoke alarms. Additionally, the mere presence of a single smoke alarm that is not properly installed or operational does not meet the statutory requirement to provide a safe living environment.
Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that the landlords failed to meet the smoke alarm requirements as mandated by section 45(1)(ba) RTA. They did not provide functional smoke alarms at the beginning of the tenancy, nor did they respond appropriately to the tenant's requests for additional alarms.
In conclusion, the landlords are in breach of their obligations under section 45(1)(ba) due to the inadequacy and non-functionality of the smoke alarm provisions in the premises. This breach not only violates the law but also jeopardises the safety of the tenant, highlighting the importance of compliance with fire safety regulations in rental properties.
The landlord is obliged to know the legal requirements for smoke alarms and apply them. There has been a clear message from Parliament that the provision of smoke alarms is the most effective method of reducing death in house fires. The Tribunal orders the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $500.00 to the tenant.

Is the tenant entitled to recover expenses?

A tenant could recover expenses for a tenancy property if the landlord authorised the expenses or the work was within the landlord’s obligation to compensate the tenant for reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where: (a) The state of disrepair did not arise from a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and was likely to cause injury to persons or property or was serious and urgent; and (b) The tenant gave the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so (section 45(1)(d) RTA).
A tenant could not recover expenses for voluntary work on a tenancy property without a landlord’s consent or where any disrepair was not within section 45(1)(a).
Here, the tenant seeks recovery of expenses for pruning trees, removing yukkas and trimming hedges, disposal of landlord rubbish (following landlord’s request) and purchase of a Wifi extender and router as the supplied WIFI from upstairs was not fit for purpose. The expenses were not authorised by the landlords and the work was not because of a state of disrepair of the property. The landlords are therefore not liable to pay these costs.
In this case, the tenant’s claims fail. Summary
The landlords have breached several legal obligations, which is particularly concerning given their ownership and management of multiple properties. Their somewhat casual approach has resulted in significant oversights. The tenant has raised valid concerns about these issues, underscoring the landlords' responsibility to ensure compliance with the law. Suppression and filing fee
Under section 95A(1) RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been substantially successful in this case and as such I grant suppression of his name and identifying details, along with his partner’s name, I also order reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlords did not successfully defend all the claims in the tenant’s application. In the circumstances, and given there are no other grounds, no suppression order is granted for the landlords. Bond
If the bond has not been refunded, I make an order that the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4761009 — net $5,806.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond within required timeframe	$250.00	Failing to lodge bond within required timeframe
Compensation: Unlawful entry	$300.00	Unlawful entry
Compensation: Failed to give 60 days’ notice to increase the rent	$486.00	Failed to give 60 days’ notice to increase the rent
Exemplary damages: Failed to include essential information in the tenancy agreement	$250.00	Failed to include essential information in the tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages – Failed to meet smoke alarm requirements	$500.00	Exemplary damages – Failed to meet smoke alarm requirements
Compensation: Unlawful residential premises	$4,000.00	Unlawful residential premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,806.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,806.44

Claims and awards for application 4761009 — net $5,806.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond within required timeframe

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failing to lodge bond within required timeframe

Compensation: Unlawful entry

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Unlawful entry

Compensation: Failed to give 60 days’ notice to increase the rent

Amount: $486.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failed to give 60 days’ notice to increase the rent

Exemplary damages: Failed to include essential information in the tenancy agreement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failed to include essential information in the tenancy agreement

Exemplary damages – Failed to meet smoke alarm requirements

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to

Dismissed claims

Smoke Alarms — Did the landlords fail to meet smoke alarm requirements?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Grant Moffitt and Denise West must pay [The tenant/s] $5,806.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
If it has not done so already, the Bond Centre is to refund the bond of $1000.00 to [Tenant 1].

Reasons

[Tenant 1] (the tenant) entered a tenancy agreement with Mr Moffitt and Ms West (the landlords) for the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed]. The property consisted of a main house and the tenant rented the self-contained apartment in the downstairs area. The tenancy started in October 2020 and ended on 6 March 2024. The rent was $725.00 per week and the bond was $1,000.00.
The tenant alleges the landlords have breached various obligations, and claims compensation and/or a fine (“exemplary damages”) against the landlords in relation to the following breaches: a. The landlords failed to lodge the bond within the required timeframe, in breach of section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). b. The landlords breached their obligation in relation to entering the premises while the tenant was not home. See section 48 RTA. c. The landlords failed to include the minimum information required in the tenancy agreement in breach of section 13A RTA. d. The landlords failed to include an insulation statement in the tenancy agreement in breach of section 13A(1A) RTA. e. The landlords failed to appoint an agent while the landlord was overseas for longer than 21 consecutive days in breach of section 16A RTA. f. The landlords failed to give 60 days’ notice to increase the rent in breach of section 24(1)(c) RTA. g. The landlords have failed to comply with obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (c) RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and to comply with all requirements in respect of all buildings, health, and safety under any enactment, including the Building Act and the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. h. The landlords have breached the tenant’s entitlement to quiet enjoyment of the premises and their obligation not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable, peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises under sections 38(1) and (2) RTA, including (but not limited to) watching the tenant and residents on CCTV and demanding the property be vacated when in [City]. i. The landlords have breached the tenant’s entitlement to quiet enjoyment of the premises and their obligation not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable, peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises under sections 38(1) and (2) RTA and the terms of the tenancy agreement including restriction of access - car parks, dryer, front door. j. The landlords have failed to conduct regular inspections. k. The landlords have breached their obligation arriving for inspections without proper notice in breach of section 48 RTA. l. The premises is unlawful (i.e. illegal dwelling) and the landlords have caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. m. The landlords have breached their obligation in relation to having no working locks or a locking mechanism on the doors. See section 46(1) RTA. n. The landlords’ termination notice is retaliatory in breach of section 54 RTA. o. The landlords have failed to meet smoke alarm requirements in breach of section 45(1)(ba) RTA.
Compensation may be awarded to a non-breaching party to recover expenses or loss arising from the breach or as a lump sum or reduction of rent where, for example, the use of the premises has been affected. The Tribunal can recognise non-financial loss such as inconvenience and stress, where appropriate.
Exemplary damages are like a fine or a penalty and can only be awarded when a party has intentionally committed a breach specified as an “unlawful act” (these are listed in Schedule 1A RTA). The Tribunal must decide whether it is just to award these after considering the breaching party’s intent, the effect of the act, the interests of the innocent party, and the public interest; see section109(3) RTA.
Before addressing the current claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. This is referred to as the “onus of proof”. In other words, the applicant must establish with evidence that what they are claiming is more likely than not, correct.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision.

Did the landlords fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 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 19(1), (2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant paid a $1,000.00 bond on 13 October 2020.
On 29 March 2021, the tenant called the Ministry of Business and Innovation to inquire about the bond and was informed that no bond had been lodged. By this time, the legal deadline for lodging the bond had passed, and earlier that day, the tenant says he had received threats of eviction. Feeling insecure due to these threats, the tenant hesitated to raise the issue.
The landlords explains that shortly after the tenant moved in, they went to their caravan for the summer. The caravan lacks Wi-Fi, which led to an oversight in lodging the bond. They note that while the tenant reached out to the Ministry regarding the bond, he did not communicate with them about it. The bond has since been lodged, and the landlord asserts that the tenant has not suffered any detriment as a result.
The landlords did not lodge the bond within the required timeframe. I find the landlords committed an unlawful act.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02).
The question is whether it is appropriate to award exemplary damages in this situation. I find the non-lodgement of the bond was intentional.
Failing to lodge the bond is a significant breach of the landlord’s obligations. A landlord is required to have proper systems in place to ensure the bond is lodged on time, and this failure represents a fundamental oversight. Even though the landlord eventually took steps to correct the error, the initial failure to comply is a serious matter.
The failure to lodge the bond causes considerable concern for tenants, as it compromises their ability to recover the bond at the end of the tenancy. The bond not being held with the Bond Centre means the tenant has less security in the event of a dispute, which is precisely what the legislation aims to avoid.
There is a considerable public interest in ensuring landlords comply with their obligations under the RTA. Lodging a bond is a fundamental responsibility that safeguards tenants’ rights, and exemplary damages serve to reinforce the importance of this duty.
While the landlord has taken steps to remedy the situation, exemplary damages are warranted to underscore the importance of compliance with bond lodgement requirements.
Balancing these factors, I award exemplary damages of $250.00. This amount is modest, reflecting the landlord’s corrective actions and there’s no record of prior warnings. However, it serves as a warning that future failures to lodge bonds in a timely manner may result in higher penalties.

A landlord may 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. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
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 tenant claims that the landlord entered his premises on 7 September 2023, without permission. He explained that there was a leak in the garage of the upstairs tenant, [Upstairs Tenant], and they both agreed the leak originated from her side, not his.
The tenant mentioned that the landlord was staying during the week and had texted him about the leak. The landlord asked the tenant to check for any signs of water on his side, and the tenant confirmed there were none. The tenant then offered to arrange for a plumber he knew, which the landlord accepted.
The tenant states he heard nothing from the landlord until after the plumber had visited. The landlord later texted to say the leak was found in [Upstairs Tenant]’s garage. However, the tenant reviewed his garage's security camera footage and saw the landlord entering his home with the plumber.
The tenant asserts that he was not given any notice or permission for the landlord’s entry and did not receive any follow-up message indicating that access to his unit was needed. He provided video evidence and a witness statement from the plumber to support his claim. The landlord later texted the tenant to confirm that the leak in [Upstairs Tenant]'s laundry was fixed and thanked him for arranging the plumber, but did not mention entering the tenant's premises.
In response, the landlords argue that there was no breach in entering the premises on 7 September. They state that the landlord spoke to the tenant’s partner, [Tenant 2], on 6 September and asked her to leave the internal door open for the plumber's visit the next day. They also pointed out that the tenant’s internal door is always locked. Although [Tenant 2] does not believe she had interaction with the landlord that week.
I find the landlords have breached the provisions of section 48 by entering the tenant’s premises without permission and without proper notice on 7 September 2023. The tenant has clearly stated that he did not provide permission for the landlords to enter his premises on the specified date. While the landlord may have communicated with the tenant’s partner about leaving the internal door open, this does not constitute explicit consent from the tenant. The law requires that tenants have control over their living space, and entry should only occur with their express permission unless in emergencies or when proper notice has been provided.
According to the Act, landlords are required to give reasonable notice before entering a tenant's premises, except in emergencies. The landlord did not provide any notice directly to the tenant, as evidenced by the tenant’s claim and the security footage. The tenant had arranged for the plumber to visit, but this does not imply consent for the landlord to enter without further communication or agreement.
The tenant has presented security camera footage showing the landlord entering his premises with the plumber. This video evidence is critical as it confirms the tenant’s assertion and demonstrates that the landlord acted without permission. The footage serves as a factual basis that the landlord did indeed enter the premises without the necessary consent.
After the plumber's visit, the landlord texted the tenant but did not mention entering the premises. This lack of communication indicates an oversight or disregard for the tenant's rights. Effective communication is essential in landlord- tenant relationships, and failure to address such actions raises concerns about the landlord's respect for the tenant's autonomy.
The landlord’s assertion that they communicated with the tenant’s partner on 6 September does not absolve them of responsibility. The tenant is the primary party in the tenancy agreement, and any decisions regarding access should involve direct communication with him. The lack of confirmation from the tenant regarding this arrangement further underscores the absence of consent.
The tenant has the right to the quiet enjoyment of their home, a principle embedded in tenancy law. The landlord’s unannounced entry disrupts this right and could be considered harassment, which is not acceptable under the Act.
Based on the evidence provided and the interpretations of the relevant sections of the RTA, the landlord's actions constitute a breach of section 48. But I do not consider it is appropriate to make a punitive award of exemplary damages on the grounds that the breach was lacking intention. The landlords are reminded of the necessity to obtain proper consent and to provide adequate notice before entering a tenant’s premises in the future to avoid such issues.
In this instance, the tenant was not at home when the unlawful entry occurred. The tenant was understandably upset and irritated about the unlawful entry. In the decision of the District Court in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 Judge Neave commented that “an individual has an important, fundamental, interest in preserving for themselves, access to their home”. I consider that an award of $300.00 is appropriate in the circumstances. Did the landlords fail to include the minimum information required in the tenancy agreement, including an insulation statement?
Every tenancy agreement shall contains certain essential information. This includes, but is not limited to, the names of the landlord and tenant, the contact addresses for the parties including the address for service, the address of the premises, the rent payable, the frequency of rent payments, any bond amount, and a statement regarding insulation. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure transparency and protect the rights of both parties.
A landlord must include a signed insulation statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) RTA.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) RTA.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
In this case, the tenant has identified several omissions in the tenancy agreement: • Landlord’s address: The landlords' assert that they have two residences, one in [Suburb 1] and the other in [Suburb 2]. While they maintain that the [Suburb 1] address is their primary address, the tenant has pointed out that this information is misleading. The Act is designed to ensure that tenants have a clear point of contact for legal and practical purposes. By not providing complete and accurate information can undermine that objective. • Landlord's Contact Email Address: The absence of a contact email limits the tenant’s ability to communicate with the landlords effectively, which is crucial for resolving any issues that may arise. • Amount of Bond: The agreement does not specify the bond amount, which is a fundamental aspect of the tenancy and is required for legal compliance. • Rent Payable and Frequency of Payments: The absence of these details can lead to confusion about the financial obligations of the tenant. • List of Chattels: This information is necessary for the tenant to understand what is included with the rental property. • Insulation Statement: The agreement lacks a statement regarding whether insulation is installed, along with details about its type and condition. This is a significant omission, especially given the emphasis on insulation in recent housing legislation.
The landlords have admitted that details were overlooked, which indicates an acknowledgment of the shortcomings in the tenancy agreement. Although they claim that the premises are fully insulated and that no previous tenants raised concerns, this does not negate the requirement to include necessary information in the tenancy agreement.
Based on the evidence provided, I find the landlords did breach section 13 RTA by failing to include several essential elements in the tenancy agreement. The Act’s requirements are designed to ensure that both landlords and tenants are clear about their rights and obligations, and the omissions in this case could undermine the tenant's ability to exercise those rights effectively.
In conclusion, the failure to provide accurate and complete information as mandated by section 13 constitutes a breach of the RTA. The landlords are reminded of their responsibilities under the law and the importance of including all required details in future tenancy agreements to prevent similar issues from arising.
I do consider that the failure to provide a tenancy agreement containing all of the information specified in section 13A RTA before the tenancy began should be seen as “intentional” in the sense meant by section 109 RTA In the words of Judge Harrop in TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 (at paragraph 37): Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, [the landlord is] deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
I now consider the other factors in section 109 RTA:- a. I find it probable that the landlords’ intent was not to mislead the tenant. They seem to have been unaware of the legal requirements rather than trying to avoid their obligations. b. The tenant’s interests are that a landlord fully complies with the tenancy agreement requirements so that all terms of the contract are clear, and the compliance status of the property is known. c. The effect of the breach was that the tenant was not given the important insulation information that they should have been given, were left to rely on verbal assurances from the landlord and was unsettled at the lack of complete documentation. d. The public interest is that landlords who do not meet these important obligations are noted. These are not minor matters. Tenants should not have to piece together the terms of a tenancy from a combination of documents and emails or texts. A binding contract should be clear and completed accurately and fully. Parliament has legislated to require minimum standards of insulation and the HHS and these are only effective if the tenancy agreement is complete and accurate.
I consider it just to award exemplary damages. I award $250.00 taking into account that there are no prior orders against the landlords. Have the landlords been overseas for longer than permitted by the Act without appointing an agent?
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) RTA.
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 RTA.
The tenant claims that the landlords travel out of the country each year for extended periods, and has cited the following trip dates: August to November 2022 and October to December 2023. He asserts that during these times, the landlords do not appoint a designated point of contact, which is a requirement under section 16A(1) RTA. The tenant has pointed to social media, including Facebook pages, that show the landlords' travel photos, indicating their absence from the property.
Additionally, the tenant states that there is no formal paperwork or correspondence indicating that [Upstairs Tenant] was ever designated as an agent for the landlords. In contrast, the landlords maintain that [Upstairs Tenant] has lived with them since May 2015 and has acted as their agent. They claim that the tenant was introduced to [Upstairs Tenant] on the first day of his tenancy and that he was always informed of their travel plans. The landlords assert that the tenant was advised to contact either [Upstairs Tenant] or them directly if any issues arose while they were away.
The burden of proof lies with the tenant to demonstrate that the landlords did not comply with the legal requirements. While the tenant has asserted that the landlords travel out of the country without appointing a designated contact, the landlords have countered this claim by stating that [Upstairs Tenant] has acted as their agent since May 2015 and was introduced to the tenant at the start of his tenancy. They maintain that the tenant was informed of this arrangement and that he could contact either [Upstairs Tenant] or the landlords directly during their absences.
The social media evidence, while indicative of the landlords' travels, does not directly support the claim that they failed to provide a point of contact as required by the Act.
Furthermore, the landlords have presented their perspective, asserting that they communicated their travel plans to the tenant and that [Upstairs Tenant] was available to assist with any issues during their absence. This conflicting testimony creates ambiguity regarding the actual arrangements made for tenant support when the landlords are away.
In conclusion, due to the lack of clear evidence supporting the tenant’s claims and the conflicting accounts provided, I find that the tenant has not proven his claim to the required standard. As such, there is insufficient basis to conclude that the landlords breached their obligations under section 16A regarding the appointment of a point of contact during their absences. This claim is therefore dismissed. Did the landlords fail to give 60 days’ notice to increase the rent?
A landlord must provide at least 60 days' notice for a rent increase. See section 24(1)(c) RTA. The notice must be clear and specify the date on which the increase will take effect.
In this case, the landlord issued a rent increase notice on 14 June 2023, with an effective date of the week ending 15 July 2023. However, if the landlord had provided proper notice in accordance with the Act, the effective date would have been the week ending 13 August 2023.
Since the landlord acknowledges a miscalculation in the notice period, it is clear that they did not adhere to the statutory requirement of giving at least 60 days' notice for the rent increase. The tenant is correct in calculating the shortfall resulting from this error. The days between the rent due date of 10 July and the corrected effective date of 13 August amount to 34 days, which translates to approximately 4.86 weeks. Multiplying this by the rent increase of $100.00 results in a shortfall of $486.00, which the landlord has agreed to reimburse.
In terms of whether exemplary damages can be awarded, exemplary damages are typically reserved for cases involving serious or intentional breaches, or where the landlord's conduct has been particularly egregious. Given that the landlord has acknowledged the mistake and is willing to reimburse the tenant, this indicates that the error was unintentional and not malicious.
Based on the evidence presented, I find that the landlord has indeed breached section 24(1)(c) RTA by failing to provide the required 60 days' notice for the rent increase. The landlord's acceptance of responsibility and willingness to reimburse the tenant for the shortfall is a positive step; however, the circumstances do not warrant the awarding of exemplary damages. The breach was due to miscalculation, and there is no evidence of any malicious intent or repeated violations that would justify such a penalty.
In conclusion, the reimbursement of the shortfall of $486.00 is appropriate, exemplary damages are not warranted in this instance. The landlord should take this opportunity to ensure future compliance with the notice requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Did the landlords breach their repair and maintenance obligations?

Section 45 RTA provides that landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. This includes ensuring that the premises are habitable, safe, and comply with all relevant health and safety standards. These responsibilities remain even if the tenant has notice of the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy. See section 45(3) RTA.
It is well settled law that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention in a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)). The time they have to do this should be reasonable, depending on how serious the issue is and how actively the landlord tries to address it.
Tenants also have responsibilities. They must inform the landlord of any defects or repair needs as soon as they discover them, according to section 40(1)(d). Landlords should be given a reasonable chance to fix these issues before being held responsible for not doing so. As established in the Barfoot & Thompson v Casey case, landlords aren’t in breach of their maintenance duty if they haven’t been informed of the defects.
If a landlord fails to meet this duty, the Tribunal can compensate the tenant. However, it's important to note that landlords aren't required to fix every possible problem, especially hidden ones they couldn't have anticipated i.e. a latent or hidden defect (Barfoot & Thompson v Casey (District Court Auckland, CIV 2005- 004-001762, 7 November 2007)). This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects.
Breaching any of the obligations under section 45 is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant claims that the landlords failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant says that despite repeated requests the landlords often ignored his requests or made excuses for the delay. The tenant experienced multiple maintenance issues during their tenancy including the following issues: i. deck/conservatory, ii. water coming through light sockets, iii. water coming through windows, iv. burst pipe and v. broken toilet seat
Deck/conservatory: The tenant reported significant safety concerns regarding the upstairs deck and conservatory over the course of their tenancy. On 6 September 2021, they discovered broken framing and a loose pane of glass above the swings where the tenant’s children play. Despite the tenant's efforts to address the issue, including offering to help with repairs, the tenant says the landlords failed to take timely action.
In early 2022, the tenant noticed structural issues with the deck, which builders confirmed were serious enough to risk collapse. Subsequent incidents, including a window smashing during a cyclone, exacerbated safety hazards, leading to broken glass littering the entrance area.
The tenant says throughout 2022 and into 2023, the landlords’ responses were slow, and no repairs were made, despite repeated requests from the tenant. After months of waiting and ongoing safety risks, the tenant issued a formal 14-day notice for repairs in October 2023. Following continued delays, the tenant submitted a Tenancy Tribunal application in December 2023. Finally, some remedial work began shortly after the application, although access issues persisted due to construction debris left on the property. The tenant expressed frustration over the lack of communication and urgency from the landlord throughout this period.
Water Through Light Sockets: On 22 December 2022, the tenant discovered water pouring from light sockets in the bedroom. After consulting the landlord, the tenant isolated a burst hot water line in the upstairs unit. Although the tenant offered to arrange for a plumber, the landlord did not follow up or provide any details. This incident ruined the tenant's bedding and required extensive cleanup with fans and dehumidifiers.
Water Breaching Windows: On 27 January 2023, the tenant says heavy rain caused water to breach the upstairs walls, not the window seals. The tenant noted a long-standing water tightness issue in the upstairs unit, where towels were frequently used to manage leaks. This leak was substantial enough to affect the tenant's unit below.
Burst Pipe: At the beginning of the tenancy on 31 December 2020, a pipe burst under the kitchen sink, flooding the area. The tenant had to isolate the leak and later secure repairs with their own plumbers. This incident led to persistent black mould under the kitchen island, and despite suggesting the landlords file an insurance claim, the landlords declined.
Broken Toilet Seat: Early in the tenancy, the toilet seat broke while the tenant’s brother was visiting. The landlords initially refused to replace it, leading to a temporary fix that failed. The tenant eventually purchased and installed a new toilet seat at their own expense after struggling to find a suitable replacement.
The tenant submitted that throughout these issues, communication and prompt action from the landlord were lacking, leading to frustration and ongoing problems for the tenant.
The tenant also reported ongoing general neglect of the property during their tenancy, highlighting several maintenance issues that went unaddressed. Key concerns included: • Planter Boxes: These were falling apart and needed attention. • Retaining Wall: The wall was failing, posing a structural risk. • Watertightness: The overall watertightness of the property was inadequate, leading to additional problems.
The tenant noted a lack of communication from the landlords and no motivation to carry out necessary remedial work, contributing to his frustrations regarding the property's condition. The tenant says the delay and constant attention required to have reasonable maintenance carried out had been exhausting, stressful and a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.
In response to the tenant's claims, the landlords disputed the allegations, asserting that they had taken reasonable steps to address requests for maintenance and repairs in a timely manner. They stated that they were unaware of several issues raised by the tenant and questioned the severity of the reported problems. The landlords noted that they had received no complaints from other tenants regarding their handling of maintenance requests. They provided written statements from several current and previous tenants, all affirming that the landlords were responsive and that the property was generally well-maintained, with no issues of mould or damage reported.
Regarding the deck and conservatory, the landlords rejected the tenant's claims about safety risks. They referenced a builder's report indicating that the conservatory structure posed no risk of collapse and that previous repairs had been made four years prior. Following severe weather in January 2023, there were delays in processing insurance claims due to a high volume of requests, which complicated repairs to the deck and the conservatory's aluminium frame and glass.
For the water coming through light sockets, the landlords recounted that on 23 December, the tenant notified them of water leaking from the light sockets in the bedroom. The landlords permitted the tenant to investigate, during which the tenant identified water spraying from a small hot water cylinder. The landlords communicated the situation to [Upstairs Tenant], who subsequently brought the tenant a bottle of wine as a gesture of thanks for handling the situation and returned cleaned towels. The landlords noted that the tenant did not request compensation for any damage to personal property.
Concerning the water breaching windows, the landlords claimed they were only made aware of the issue upon receiving the tenant's documentation for the Tribunal. They reached out to [Glass Company], who advised that a site visit was unnecessary.
As for the burst pipe and broken toilet seat, the landlords stated that they had not been informed of any further action required by the tenant, who indicated that they would handle those issues themselves.
In this case, the tenant has detailed numerous maintenance issues, including safety concerns with the deck and conservatory, water intrusion through light sockets and windows, a burst pipe, and a broken toilet seat. The tenant asserts that despite repeated requests for repairs, the landlords often ignored these pleas or made excuses for delays, leading to ongoing problems and frustration.
The tenant reported critical safety concerns about the deck and conservatory, including broken framing and structural issues serious enough to risk collapse. However, the landlords provided evidence that they had engaged builders and received assessments indicating that previous repairs had been sufficient. This conflicting information raises questions about the severity and urgency of the reported issues.
Regarding the water intrusion, the tenant experienced damage and cleanup due to water coming through light sockets and windows, but the landlords claimed they were not made aware of these issues until documentation for the Tribunal was submitted. They also indicated they took steps to address the tenant’s concerns once notified.
The burst pipe and broken toilet seat were indeed reported by the tenant, and while the landlord's response may have been delayed, there is a dispute about whether the tenant sufficiently communicated the ongoing nature of these issues.
Given the conflicting views and the lack of corroborating evidence supporting the tenant’s claims, I find that the evidence is in balance. The tenant has not proved their claim to the required standard. The landlords maintain that they took reasonable steps to address maintenance requests and were generally responsive, and the tenant's assertions did not establish a clear breach of obligations under section 45.
In conclusion, I find that the tenant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the landlords breached their obligations to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair under section RTA. The conflicting accounts and lack of robust evidence lead to this determination. Have the landlord’s breached the tenant’s entitlement to quiet enjoyment of the premises and privacy?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant detailed various occasions where he said the landlords breached his quiet enjoyment and privacy. He referred to a timeline of various incidents arose throughout the tenancy, including watching the tenant and residents on CCTV, demanding the property be vacated when in [City], restriction of access - car parks, dryer, front door. The tenant described a difficult relationship with the landlords, characterised by aggressive behaviour and dissatisfaction with the property's condition. Key points include: • Initial Encounter: The landlord confronted the tenant angrily about some bricks the tenant had moved from their deceased mother's house, making personal remarks and displaying aggressive body language. • Maintenance Disputes: The landlord falsely claimed the lawn was unkempt, despite the tenant hiring a lawn service. The landlord also criticised the tenant's living conditions, overlooking the tenant's recent grief and the challenges of settling his mother's affairs. • Conflicting Instructions: The landlord issued contradictory directives regarding the use of the dryer and methods for drying clothes, leading to confusion for the tenant. • Retaliation Claims: The tenant perceived the issuance of a 90-day notice as retaliatory, as it followed their complaints about property conditions and concerns raised with the landlord. • Unannounced Visits: The tenant expressed discomfort with frequent, unannounced visits by the landlord's children, which compromised their sense of privacy and security. On several occasions, the landlord’s family members appeared without prior notice, creating a feeling of intrusion. • Car Parking Issues: The tenant faced conflicts over parking arrangements. The landlord's son parked his vehicle in a way that blocked the tenant's access, and when a strange car appeared in the driveway, the tenant was met with dismissive responses from the landlords, leading to further tension over parking rights. • Communication Efforts: The tenant actively communicated his efforts to maintain the property, including hiring services, making repairs, and improving the living space. • Privacy Concerns: The tenant felt uneasy about the landlords’ frequent visits and surveillance. • House Sale Issues: During the property sale process, the tenant requested that personal items not be photographed for listings, but this request was ignored, causing additional distress.
Overall, the tenant felt disrespected and undervalued, believing his efforts to maintain the property and communicate effectively have been disregarded by the landlords. He indicates that this was compounded by the landlords’ abrasive actions. This impacted significantly on his quiet enjoyment of the premises and well-being.
The landlord denied the tenant allegations. They alleged that the tenant was either making false allegations or over exaggerating. They denied causing any deliberate disturbance or inappropriate behaviour. The landlords perceive their actions as reasonable and justifiable, aimed at protecting their property and ensuring a well-maintained rental environment. They feel misunderstood and unfairly criticised by the tenant, believing their management style and responses to concerns were appropriate.
I have carefully considered the submissions and evidence of the parties. Claims relating to a tenant's entitlement to quiet enjoyment and privacy are often difficult to determine.
A tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of a tenancy. Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of their tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord. Balanced against that, however, one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash in personality to become the sole basis for a claim for breach of this type.
Again, I must consider the evidence before me. I accept that the relationship between the parties deteriorated. However, while I accept the tenant feels genuinely aggrieved, the evidence before me, falls short in amounting to a breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

Have the landlords failed to conduct regular inspections?

As discussed during the hearing, it's important to recognise that while conducting regular inspections is considered best practice for landlords, there is no legal requirement that mandates such inspections at specific intervals.
The tenant referenced three inspection dates: 15 March 2021, 15 January 2022, and 18 December 2023. The tenant pursues no claim here other than argue that the infrequency of these inspections indicates a lack of engagement with the tenancy and a disregard for the property's condition.
While regular inspections can enhance communication and allow for timely identification of issues, the landlords’ engagement with the property can be assessed through other means, such as their responsiveness to reported maintenance concerns and the overall condition of the dwelling. Have the landlord’s breached their obligation under section 48 by arriving for inspections without proper notice?
A landlord must give a tenant at least 48 hours' notice before entering a rental property for a scheduled inspection. The notice must be in writing and specify the time and date of the entry. The landlord is allowed to enter the property without notice for emergencies or other valid reasons, but this does not extend to routine inspections. See section 48 RTA.
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 tenant says the landlord texted the tenant on 13 January 2022 to arrange a time for a flat inspection on 15 January. Although the tenant agreed, the landlord did not respond to the tenant’s confirmation, which could imply a lack of clarity or agreement on the timing of the inspection. However, the tenant was not informed of the specific time and date of entry within the 48-hour notice window.
The landlords dispute the tenant's assertion, claiming they have never arrived for an inspection without proper notice. This statement raises questions about their adherence to the notice requirement on this specific occasion.
By not replying to the tenant’s affirmative response, the landlords failed to establish a clear agreement on the inspection timing. If the tenant was unaware of the exact timing and the landlord proceeded to enter the property without having given sufficient notice, this could be interpreted as a breach of section 48.
While landlords may knock on the door or be on the property for valid reasons without notice, an inspection specifically requires compliance with the notice period outlined in the Act. If the landlord's entry was for an inspection, it must comply with the 48-hour notice requirement.
Based on the facts presented: •If the landlord did not provide the tenant with at least 48 hours' written notice specifying the time and date of the inspection, they would be in breach of section 48 RTA. •The landlord’s defence hinges on the interpretation of their communication with the tenant. The lack of a written notice and the tenant's uncertainty about the timing suggest that the landlord has not complied with the legal requirements.
Therefore, I find the evidence supports the tenant’s account that proper notice was not given, the landlords are found to be in breach of section 48.
However, I do not consider it appropriate to award exemplary damages due to a lack of intent. In the context of this situation, the landlords’ failure to follow proper notice procedures reflect poor communication practices rather than a deliberate attempt to infringe on the tenant’s rights.

Is the premises unlawful?

The tenants say the premises is unlawful (i.e. illegal dwelling) and the landlords have caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA.
Section 78A(2) RTA states: For the purposes of this Act, unlawful residential premises means residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but— (a) that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and (b) where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), ..., has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
Section 36 RTA states that: The landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes.
Section 45(1)(c) RTA states that: (1) The landlord shall – ..... (c) Comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises;
In the present case, the particular residential purposes concerned is the occupation of the premises as a second household unit, separate to the upper level of the building.
While the premises can be occupied, generally, for residential purposes, as the building as a whole has Council consent for residential use, an issue arises when looking at the division of the premises into two separate household units.
Given both limbs of section 78A(2) must be satisfied before a premises is deemed an unlawful residential premises, it is useful to consider section 36 and 45(1)(c) when considering whether the use of the premises in this particular manner is unlawful, as if the occupation of the premises is unlawful as a result of either section, it will be likely that the landlord’s failure to comply with those sections contributed to the unlawfulness of the occupation.
Section 45(1)(c), in this case, requires consideration of whether then landlord has complied with the provisions of the Building Act 2004, in particular, sections 40, 114 and 115 of that Act.
Section 40 of the Building Act states that a household unit, being a building intended for residential occupation, must have a building consent and be certified as being compliant by having a code compliance certificate.
If it has neither, or a building consent only, then pursuant to the Act, it is an unlawful residential premises.
Sections 114 and 15 deal with the change of use of consented buildings.
Section 114 of the Building Act requires the owner to give notice of a change of use of the building, and makes failure to do so an offence.
Section 115 of the Building Act provides that an owner of a building must not change the use of the building – (a) in a case where the change involves the incorporation in the building of 1 or more household units where household units did not exist before, unless the territorial authority gives the owner written notice that the territorial authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the building, in its new use, will comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the building code in all respects; and (b) in any other case, unless the territorial authority gives the owner written notice that the territorial authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the building, in its new use,— (i) will comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with every provision of the building code that relates to the following: (A) means of escape from fire, protection of other property, sanitary facilities, structural performance, and fire-rating performance: (B) access and facilities for persons with disabilities (if this is a requirement under section 118); and (ii) will,— (A) if it complied with the other provisions of the building code immediately before the change of use, continue to comply with those provisions; or (B) if it did not comply with the other provisions of the building code immediately before the change of use, continue to comply at least to the same extent as it did then comply.
To determine whether there has been a change in the use of a building, consideration must be given to the Buildings (Specified Systems, Change the Use, and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005 (“the regulations”).
Change the use is defined in the regulations as: ...to change the use (determined in accordance with regulation 6) of all or a part of the building from one use (the old use) to another (the new use) and with the result that the requirements for compliance with the building code in relation to the new use are additional to, or more onerous than, the requirements for compliance with the building code in relation to the old use.
Regulation 6 states that every building or part of a building has a use as specified in the table in schedule 2 of the regulations.
The following uses in schedule 2 of the regulations are relevant for residential purposes: SA (Sleeping Accommodations) paces providing transient accommodation, or where limited assistance or care is provided for people motels, hotels, hostels, boarding houses, clubs (residential), boarding schools, dormitories, halls, wharenui SR (sleeping Residential) attached and multi-unit residential dwellings, including household units attached to spaces or dwellings with the same or other uses, such as caretakers' flats, and residential accommodation above a shop multi-unit dwellings, flats, or apartments SH (Sleeping Single Home) detached dwellings where people live as a single household or family, including attached self contained spaces such as granny flats when occupied by a member of the same family, and garages (whether detached or part of the same building) if primarily for storage of the occupants' vehicles, tools, and garden implements dwellings or houses separated from each other by distance
The division of the building into two household units would make it an “SR – sleeping residential” use, namely 2 attached separate household units being occupied by two separate households.
Accordingly, I consider this to be a change to the use of the building to which section 115 of the Building Act applies and the owner was required to obtain written notice from the Counsel that the building, in its new use, will comply with the Building Code.
There is no evidence of such written notice, nor is there evidence that the conversion of the premises into two household units was consented by the Council or compliant with the Building Code.
On 26 February 2024, the tenant received confirmation from [City] Council stating that there is no record of a second dwelling at [Tenancy address suppressed]. It is unclear when this second dwelling was constructed, as there is no resource consent or certificate of compliance on file. The Council does not recognise the downstairs area as a lawful dwelling, describing it instead as a basement without any records of sanitation, electrical, or other amenities.
Furthermore, the landlords' own records indicate a previous breach where the Council confirmed the premises were not classified as a dwelling, yet the landlord received only a warning. This suggests that the landlord was aware of the unlawful status of the dwelling and failed to take appropriate corrective actions.
According to the Council’s assessment, the downstairs unit is unequivocally unconsented and therefore illegal. This situation raises significant concerns about tenant safety and the legality of the rental arrangement.
Accordingly, I consider that the landlords have not complied with the Building Act, and consequently have failed to comply with section 45(1)(c) RTA.
Therefore, the premises is an unlawful residential premises.
The downstairs apartment is unlawful residential premises that the landlords rented out to the tenants for nearly 3 years and 5 months. The tenant has paid a total of $31,150.00 to the landlords.
I consider that the tenant should receive some refund of rent. The purpose of the law about unlawful residential premises (section 78A RTA) is to discourage landlords from renting out unconsented or unlawful properties which have not been through the proper checks to make sure they are safe and healthy for occupation by tenants. Landlords should not be able to profit from unlawful activity.
The Tribunal may order the landlord to refund all or some of the rent the tenant has paid and can consider a broad range of factors depending on the circumstances of each case; see section 78A(4) RTA.
In the present case, I consider that the amount ordered should be reduced to take into account the fact that the tenant has had the benefit of some utility from the occupation of the premises for over 3 years. There were no serious consequences. The premises largely suited the tenant’s needs.
Rather than calculate this as a portion, I consider a global award of compensation for the unlawful nature of the premises is the best approach. I award $4,000.00 compensation to the tenant.
The Tribunal may also impose exemplary damages (a fine) where a landlord has intentionally not complied with all laws relating to buildings and safety; see section 78A(5)(c) and 45(1)(c) RTA.
I have decided that it would not be just to also award exemplary damages on this occasion due to a lack of intent. Have the landlords breached their obligation by having no working locks or a locking mechanism on the doors?
The landlord is responsible for providing secure premises, which includes ensuring that all locks are in good working order. See section 46 RTA.
The landlords assert that all locks in the property were functional when the previous tenants moved out, which contradicts the tenant's claim about the condition of the locks at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant took it upon themselves to replace the lock on the back door. While the landlord reimbursed the tenant, this action does not necessarily indicate a breach but rather a response to a maintenance issue that the tenant addressed independently.
The tenant has not demonstrated that the lack of a working door handle or locking mechanism constituted a breach of the landlords’ obligations under the Act. The landlords’ position that all locks were in working order when the previous tenants vacated presents a valid counterargument that the tenant has not effectively disproven.
In light of these factors, it is concluded that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim of a breach of section 46, leading to the determination that the landlords are not liable for failing to provide working locks at the start of the tenancy. This claim is therefore dismissed.

Was the notice to end the tenancy retaliatory?

For a notice to be deemed retaliatory, the tenant must demonstrate that the landlord was motivated, either wholly or partly, by the tenant exercising their rights under the tenancy agreement or any relevant Act, or by any complaint against the landlord (as outlined in section 54(1) of the RTA).
A notice to terminate a tenancy that is declared to be of no effect under section 54 becomes an unlawful act, and can attract an award of exemplary damages of up to $4,000.
The tenant alleges that the landlords issued termination notices on two occasions, both of which he claims were retaliatory.
First Occasion: 30 March 2021
On 30 March 2021, just a day after the landlord confronted the tenant in an angry manner, the tenant received a '90-day notice' to vacate the property. The notice stated that the tenant had not fulfilled his obligations under the tenancy agreement, and it emphasised that the home was a residential property, not a commercial or construction site. The final termination date was set for 13 June 2021.
The tenant believes this notice was retaliatory, especially since it only provided 75 days' notice instead of the required 90 days. Following this, on 17 April 2021, the tenant asked the landlord if he was being evicted, to which she responded that they had decided to retract the notice and would discuss the conditions for continuing the tenancy.
On 27 April 2021, during another conversation, the landlord specified conditions for the tenant to maintain his tenancy, including cleaning up the garden beds and taking better care of his tools.
Second Occasion: 9 January 2024
The timeline surrounding the second termination notice begins on 10 December 2023, when the tenant submitted an application to the Tenancy Tribunal. On 14 December, while the landlords were staying upstairs, a verbal altercation occurred regarding the dismantling of the conservatory. During this argument, the landlord mentioned ordering a flat inspection for 18 December.
The inspection on 18 December was the first since April 2022.
Subsequently, on 19 December, real estate agents visited the property and indicated that the landlords intended to sell the house.
On 9 January 2024, while the landlords were still residing in the property, the real estate agents delivered an updated 90-day notice to the tenant. This notice, dated 15 January, stated that the tenancy would end on 15 April 2024, citing the listing of the property for sale as the reason.
The tenant believes this notice was retaliatory, particularly given the timing in relation to his Tenancy Tribunal application. He notes that neighbours have commented on the situation, suggesting that the landlords’ actions were a direct response to his complaint to the Tribunal. Additionally, the fact that the upstairs tenant, [Upstairs Tenant], has not received a similar notice reinforces the tenant’s belief that the notice was personal. Previous instances of retaliatory notices further support his claim, establishing a pattern of behaviour from the landlords.
In response, the landlords assert that both termination notices were issued for genuine and valid reasons, and not as a result of the tenant asserting his rights, raising complaints about the tenancy, or filing the application with the Tenancy Tribunal. They claim that they informed both [Upstairs Tenant] and the tenant before leaving in October 2023 that they intended to put the house on the market.
Given the information provided, I do not find the connection between the tenant's actions and the landlords' issuance of the termination notices convincing. I believe that the timing of the termination notice was coincidental, and there is no causal link between the tenant exercising their rights under the Act and the landlords’ decision to issue the termination notices.
I do not find sufficient evidence to support the claim that the notice issued on 30 March 2021 was retaliatory. The primary reason for the notice was the landlord’s concerns regarding the condition of the property. The landlord's assertion that the tenant had not fulfilled their obligations to maintain the property is valid. Tenants have a responsibility to ensure that the rental property is clean and tidy, and this obligation underpins the landlord's decision to issue the notice.
The notice was not issued in response to tenant complaints about the property or any disputes related to the tenancy. Rather, it stemmed from ongoing frustrations regarding maintenance and upkeep, which the landlords had previously communicated to the tenant.
The fact that the notice was later retracted further weakens the argument that it was retaliatory. By choosing to withdraw the termination notice, the landlords demonstrated a willingness to reconsider the situation and engage in further discussions about tenancy conditions.
The landlords have stated that the second termination notice was issued due to their intention to sell the property, which is a legitimate reason under the RTA. This purpose does not appear to be related to the tenant's complaints or actions, but rather a business decision on the part of the landlords.
The evidence presented does not convincingly demonstrate that the landlords acted in retaliation for the tenant's complaints or for filing a Tenancy Tribunal application. The landlords maintain that they had communicated their plans to sell the property prior to the tenant's actions, indicating that the termination notice was part of an ongoing plan rather than a reaction to the tenant's rights being exercised.
The landlords' actions, including the timing of the notices and their stated intentions, appear coherent and consistent with their claims of wanting to list the property for sale. The absence of any further retaliatory behaviour, such as additional complaints or actions taken against the tenant, further supports the conclusion that the notice was not retaliatory.
Based on these reasons, I am satisfied that the landlords’ notices to end the tenancy was based on a valid and genuine reason, and therefore, there is no breach of section 54. This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlords fail to meet smoke alarm requirements?

Under section 45(1)(ba) a landlord must comply with all the requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed by the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. This requires that smoke alarms should be installed in the sleeping space or within three meters of the entrance to the sleeping space. There should also be a smoke alarm on each storey of a tenancy property.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded.
On the first day of the tenancy, the tenant reports that he was provided with a single loose smoke alarm, which did not have a battery. This alarm was one of the older 9V battery types, not a long-life model. Given the layout of the bedrooms, the tenant believes that at least two smoke alarms are necessary to ensure that there is one within three meters of each bedroom.
The tenant states that the smoke alarm remained unfitted during the landlord's inspection on 15 January 2022. During this inspection, the tenant mentioned the lack of adequate smoke alarms and requested additional alarms, complete with batteries. He asserts that the landlords did not take notes or ask questions regarding this issue, and the requested alarms were not provided. Consequently, the tenant later purchased and installed three long-life smoke alarms himself.
In response, the landlords contend that they had previously contacted their former tenants and confirmed that there was a smoke alarm located by the main bedroom/kitchen. They also point out that the tenant acknowledged receiving a smoke alarm from them in his own testimony.
Section 45(1)(ba) mandates that landlords must ensure that smoke alarms are installed in residential premises and that they are in working order at the beginning of each new tenancy. This requirement is aimed at safeguarding tenant safety and ensuring compliance with fire safety standards.
In this case, the tenant reports that on the first day of the tenancy, he was provided with a single loose smoke alarm that lacked a battery. This alarm was an older model, which raises immediate concerns about its effectiveness. Given that smoke alarms are critical for detecting fire hazards, having only one non-functional alarm does not satisfy the legal requirement for adequate fire safety measures.
The tenant’s assertion that at least two smoke alarms were necessary—one within three meters of each bedroom—aligns with best practices for smoke alarm placement. The need for multiple alarms in a dwelling, especially in a layout with multiple bedrooms, is well-recognised in fire safety standards to ensure adequate coverage and prompt detection of smoke or fire.
The tenant further claims that during a landlord inspection on 15 January 2022, he brought up the issue of inadequate smoke alarms and requested additional alarms with batteries. The landlords’ failure to take note of these concerns and their subsequent inaction to provide adequate smoke alarms is a critical point. The tenant’s decision to purchase and install three long-life smoke alarms himself demonstrates a proactive effort to rectify the situation that should have been addressed by the landlords.
The landlords’ defence, citing previous tenants’ confirmation of a smoke alarms and acknowledging the provision of one alarm, does not address the tenant's specific claims regarding the adequacy and functionality of the smoke alarms. Additionally, the mere presence of a single smoke alarm that is not properly installed or operational does not meet the statutory requirement to provide a safe living environment.
Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that the landlords failed to meet the smoke alarm requirements as mandated by section 45(1)(ba) RTA. They did not provide functional smoke alarms at the beginning of the tenancy, nor did they respond appropriately to the tenant's requests for additional alarms.
In conclusion, the landlords are in breach of their obligations under section 45(1)(ba) due to the inadequacy and non-functionality of the smoke alarm provisions in the premises. This breach not only violates the law but also jeopardises the safety of the tenant, highlighting the importance of compliance with fire safety regulations in rental properties.
The landlord is obliged to know the legal requirements for smoke alarms and apply them. There has been a clear message from Parliament that the provision of smoke alarms is the most effective method of reducing death in house fires. The Tribunal orders the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $500.00 to the tenant.

Is the tenant entitled to recover expenses?

A tenant could recover expenses for a tenancy property if the landlord authorised the expenses or the work was within the landlord’s obligation to compensate the tenant for reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where: (a) The state of disrepair did not arise from a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and was likely to cause injury to persons or property or was serious and urgent; and (b) The tenant gave the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so (section 45(1)(d) RTA).
A tenant could not recover expenses for voluntary work on a tenancy property without a landlord’s consent or where any disrepair was not within section 45(1)(a).
Here, the tenant seeks recovery of expenses for pruning trees, removing yukkas and trimming hedges, disposal of landlord rubbish (following landlord’s request) and purchase of a Wifi extender and router as the supplied WIFI from upstairs was not fit for purpose. The expenses were not authorised by the landlords and the work was not because of a state of disrepair of the property. The landlords are therefore not liable to pay these costs.
In this case, the tenant’s claims fail. Summary
The landlords have breached several legal obligations, which is particularly concerning given their ownership and management of multiple properties. Their somewhat casual approach has resulted in significant oversights. The tenant has raised valid concerns about these issues, underscoring the landlords' responsibility to ensure compliance with the law. Suppression and filing fee
Under section 95A(1) RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been substantially successful in this case and as such I grant suppression of his name and identifying details, along with his partner’s name, I also order reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlords did not successfully defend all the claims in the tenant’s application. In the circumstances, and given there are no other grounds, no suppression order is granted for the landlords. Bond
If the bond has not been refunded, I make an order that the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4761009 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4761009 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Did the landlords breach their repair and maintenance obligations?

Have the landlords failed to conduct regular inspections?

Is the premises unlawful?

Was the notice to end the tenancy retaliatory?

Did the landlords fail to meet smoke alarm requirements?

Is the tenant entitled to recover expenses?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Did the landlords breach their repair and maintenance obligations?

Have the landlords failed to conduct regular inspections?

Is the premises unlawful?

Was the notice to end the tenancy retaliatory?

Did the landlords fail to meet smoke alarm requirements?

Is the tenant entitled to recover expenses?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Did the landlords enter the premises without consent or notice?

Did the landlords breach their repair and maintenance obligations?

Have the landlords failed to conduct regular inspections?

Is the premises unlawful?

Was the notice to end the tenancy retaliatory?

Did the landlords fail to meet smoke alarm requirements?

Is the tenant entitled to recover expenses?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Did the landlords enter the premises without consent or notice?

Did the landlords breach their repair and maintenance obligations?

Have the landlords failed to conduct regular inspections?

Is the premises unlawful?

Was the notice to end the tenancy retaliatory?

Did the landlords fail to meet smoke alarm requirements?

Is the tenant entitled to recover expenses?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions