What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5097108 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5097108?

Compensation: invalid notice of term…: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: malfunctioning garage…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Owing To 9/11/2024: $347.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097108?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097108?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12452666-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5097108 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5097108?

Compensation: invalid notice of term…: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: malfunctioning garage…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Owing To 9/11/2024: $347.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097108?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097108?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12452666-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

31 Forest Lake Road, Forest Lake, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5097108 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5097108 — net $1,229.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent owing to 9/11/2024	$347.57		Rent owing to 9/11/2024
Compensation: invalid notice of termination		$1,400.00	invalid notice of termination
Compensation: malfunctioning garage door		$150.00	malfunctioning garage door
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$347.57	$1,577.00
Net award		$1,229.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,229.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5097108 — net $1,229.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent owing to 9/11/2024	$347.57		Rent owing to 9/11/2024
Compensation: invalid notice of termination		$1,400.00	invalid notice of termination
Compensation: malfunctioning garage door		$150.00	malfunctioning garage door
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$347.57	$1,577.00
Net award		$1,229.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,229.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Deborah Anderson and Jessica Anderson must pay [The tenant/s] $1,229.43 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

[The tenant/s] attended the first hearing on 12 May 2025 (with her support person). Deborah Anderson attended by telephone. Both parties attended two subsequent video hearings and Jessica Anderson attended the second hearing. Background
The tenancy started on 13 July 2023 and was for an initial fixed term of one year.
An agent company acted as the landlord’s agent until 17 January 2024.
Deborah Anderson then took over managing the tenancy.
On 17 September 2024, the landlords sent the tenant a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy. The end date was specified as 16 December 2024.
[The tenant/s] found a new place to live and requested an earlier termination date of 2 November 2024. This was declined but a notice period of 28 days was accepted. This ended on 13 November 2024.
The parties could not agree about refund of the tenant’s bond of $2,680.00.
[The tenant/s] made this application to the Tribunal on 12 December 2024 seeking refund of the bond and compensation and exemplary damages for other concerns.
The landlord refunded the full bond to the tenant after this but later applied for payment of a small amount of rent she says is owing and compensation for a stain on the carpet.
The claims made by [The tenant/s] are:- a. That the tenancy was terminated unfairly. [The tenant/s] said she was given 90 days’ notice because renovations were going to be done, but then the landlord re-rented the house to someone else almost straight away. She said it took a lot of time and caused her family stress to have to move and it doesn’t seem like it was needed. b. That she has never received a rent summary (despite asking for this) and so does not know if she has overpaid rent. She also asks whether the landlord received rent from the new tenants for days that [The tenant/s] paid rent for. c. That the house did not have heating that complied with the Healthy Homes Standards and when the tenant asked about this, the landlord told her it was unnecessary. d. That the garage door was unusable for several months and was not repaired until the end of the tenancy. e. That the landlord treated her with a lack of consideration at times, such as giving short notice when arranging inspections or visits and on one occasion bringing more than six people to view the house.
I address the issues below.

When did the tenancy end, was the rent increase valid, and is any rent owed?

The termination of the tenancy was initiated by the landlord. The written notice said that the tenancy was being terminated because extensive alterations were to be done and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to live there while that happened.
At the time of the notice, a landlord could not terminate a tenancy by notice unless one of the reasons permitted in section 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applied.
The reason given was one of the permitted reasons.
However, there are problems with the notice.
The first problem is that it did not give the minimum 90 days’ notice. The notice was emailed after 5pm on 17 September 2024. The tenant texted in the evening of 18 September 2024 to confirm she had received it. The notice period commenced the next day, on 19 September 2024; see s136(8) and s136A RTA. There are 88 days from 19 September 2024 to 16 December 2024.
The District Court has said that the “90 day” requirement is mandatory. 1 It cannot be shortened. It is possible for a tenant or the Tribunal to agree to the landlord giving an amended notice which does then give the correct minimum period, but a landlord must apply to the Tribunal to allow this; s51(7) RTA.
In this case, the landlord’s termination notice was invalid because it did not give the full 90 days of notice to the tenant.
The landlord and tenant did not know this, so they relied on the notice. The tenant found a new place to live and had moved out by the time of these hearings.
The tenant asked the landlord to agree to a shorter notice period (so that she did not have to pay double rent for both this house and the new property). The landlord did not agree to this and required the tenant to give the minimum period of notice which, at this time, was no less than 28 days; s51(2A) RTA. The tenancy was to end on 13 November 2024.
The tenant says the landlord gave the next tenants possession of the property before this date and she is not exactly sure which date the landlord claims rent to as she was not given a rent ledger.
I made an oral finding in the hearing that the tenancy ended on 9 November 2024 because both parties agreed to the tenant handing over the keys on that date and the landlord accepts that she allowed the next tenants access to the property from 10 November 2024. 1 Charan v Barfoot & Thompson Limited DC MAN CIV 2010-092-002100
The landlord provided rent records for the duration of the tenancy for the purposes of these proceedings. These show that the tenant paid rent of:- a. $18,090.00 to the agent managing the property for the landlord, and b. $28,251.00 to the landlords.
Total rent paid is $46,341.00.
The tenancy started on 13 July 2023 and ended on 9 November 2024.
The landlord increased the rent from $670.00 per week to $680.00 per week as from 18 January 2024, the date she took over management of the tenancy.
The parties were unsure exactly how the rent increase came about however there is no evidence the landlord gave the tenant at least 60 days’ written notice to do so, as is required by section 24 RTA.
That section also provides that rent cannot be increased during the term of a fixed term tenancy unless the tenancy agreement allows this, and that rent must not be increased within 12 months of the commencement of the tenancy or the date the last increase took effect; s24(1)(g) RTA.
The tenancy agreement includes the restriction on a rent increase
This means the rent increase charged by the landlord is invalid.
The tenant agreed in the final hearing to accept calculation of a rent increase from the first date the landlord would have been legally entitled to give notice of this. This is from 13 July 2024.
I have calculated the correct rent payable below:
Total rent due over the tenancy is $46,688.57. The total rent paid by the tenant was $46,341.00.
This means there is rent owing by the tenant of $347.57. I have made an order for this amount.
I note that the landlord miscalculated the rent paid on her rent summary by counting the “1 week rent paid in advance” twice. 2 Unfair termination of the tenancy
[The tenant/s] says that the termination of her tenancy was unfair and unjustified. She says the landlord did not do renovations and readvertised the house for rent only days after she notified the landlord she had found a new home. A copy of the rental listing was supplied and confirms the property was relisted for rent on 18 October 2024.
The landlords’ evidence is that the termination notice was given for a genuine reason at the time but that they changed their minds and, instead, re-rented it to new tenants. The new rent was $720.00 per week which is $40.00 more per week than was being charged to [The tenant/s].
I have already decided (above) that the notice of termination was invalid because it did not give the full 90 days of notice required.
After considering the evidence, my decision is that the notice was also invalid because the reason given (extensive alterations) did not meet the legal requirements. I explain this further below. a. At the time the landlord gave the notice of termination, the law allowed this if “extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner and – (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.”; s51(2)(f)(i) RTA (as at 17 September 2024). b. I accept that the landlords did genuinely consider alterations or redevelopment of the property and their evidence supports this. They made enquiries of a builder and the council about the costs of converting the garage into a minor dwelling. Draft building plans were drawn up. However, the proposed work shown in the building plans is to the garage at the property which is separate from the main house. [The tenant/s] said, and I agree, that it would have been possible for her and her family to remain living in the main house while the work was being undertaken. The landlords say this would not have been acceptable to them because of likely noise and disruption to [The tenant/s]. However, the question is not 2 It is common for people to misunderstand how “rent in advance” works. The easiest way to check whether any rent is owing is to calculate the total amount of rent due over the whole tenancy (taking account of the correct dates for any rent increases), then add up all rent paid by the tenant and this will tell you whether any rent is owed by one party to the other. Usually, any rent in advance is used up by the end of the first week of living in the property. In this case, the tenant paid $670.00 on 10 July 2023 which was rent for the first week from 13 July to 19 July 2023. She then made her next payment on 19 July 2023 which was for the week 20 to 26 July 2203. whether it would be acceptable to the landlords but whether it would be “reasonably practicable”. The terms of [The tenant/s] tenancy would have had to be renegotiated because the garage was included in her tenancy but, in my view, the landlords should have given her this option and, if she agreed to alter the terms of her tenancy to exclude the garage, then they could not have terminated the tenancy. I find the notice of termination was invalid because this tenancy could have continued while the proposed work was undertaken. c. I also find the notice is invalid because the work was not to begin, or material steps be taken, within 90 days of the termination date. The landlords say they changed their minds about the garage redevelopment after finding out the full costs of this and that they realised they had to re- rent the property because they could not afford to have the house empty if they were to do any building work. This means they gave the termination notice too hastily. A landlord cannot terminate a tenancy because they might do alterations or sell. They must have firm plans to do so. d. The landlords’ say they were also considering selling the property and their evidence shows they did obtain real estate appraisals in April 2024 and again on 2 September 2024. However, this was not the reason they gave in the notice of termination so it cannot validate that.
The fact that the termination of this tenancy was invalid means the landlords have breached s51 RTA (as it was at the time).
I also consider whether the landlords have breached s60AA RTA.
A landlord must not give a notice to terminate a tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. [my underlining] See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
This section is aimed at a landlord who intentionally sets out to terminate a tenancy knowing they do not have a lawful reason for doing so.
The evidence does not show that the landlords did this. I accept that they genuinely thought they had a lawful reason to terminate the tenancy at the time they gave the notice.
The landlords have not breached s60AA RTA. This means they have not committed an “unlawful act” so exemplary damages (which are like a fine) do not apply.
However, they have breached s51 RTA. The termination of the tenancy was invalid.
The facts in this case also raise the question of whether a landlord can give a notice to terminate a tenancy for a genuine reason and then later change their minds.
Other Tribunal decisions have concluded that if the situation changes or the landlord changes their mind before the tenancy has ended, then they must notify the tenant of this and, if necessary, retract the termination notice; see Madhavan and Singh v The Worx Property Management Limited [2025] NZTT 4891840.
The landlords did not notify [The tenant/s] that they had changed their minds. Instead, they swiftly relisted the property and for a higher weekly rental. Quite probably, [The tenant/s] would have moved anyway as she was by then contractually committed to her new property, but this does not mean the landlords were free to change their minds without consequence.
Terminating the tenancy disrupted [The tenant/s] and her family. They had to find somewhere else to live and incurred costs and inconvenience to do so. The landlords have benefitted from the invalid termination as they have charged more rent.
I have decided it is fairest to require the landlords to compensate the tenant by paying her the amount of the increased rent they have received from the end of her tenancy (10 November 2024) until the date that her rent could have been increased which is 13 July 2025. This is 35 weeks. The landlords received an additional $40.00 per week which is increased rent over this time of $1,400.00.
I award this amount. Healthy Homes Standards – heating requirement
[The tenant/s] has raised a concern that the landlords disregarded the need for them to comply with the heating requirements of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
[The tenant/s] provided an email from the previous agent to the landlords sent on 27 October 2023. This includes a ‘Healthy Homes Standards report’ done on 26 November 2020. The report states that the heater in the living room of the house was an unflued gas heater which failed the Healthy Homes compliance requirements.
The HHS say that open fires and “unflued combustion heaters” are unacceptable heaters; regulation 9 HHS.
This was a cause of confusion during the tenancy. The landlords supplied evidence at the hearings that the HHS company made an error in their report and the gas fire in the living room is a “flued” appliance which met the required capacity of 6.8 kilowatts. I accept this evidence.
This claim is dismissed. Garage door not usable
A landlord must maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair and is expected to repair things within a reasonable time; s45(1)(b) RTA.
[The tenant/s] says she was never provided with a working remote for the automatic garage door so operated it throughout the tenancy using a button in the house. This stopped working in about May 2024 at which point she began to enter the garage through the side door and operate the main door by a control button in the garage. The side door lock then fell apart.
My findings are that the landlord arranged for the side door to the garage to be fixed promptly but the inconvenience to the tenant of having to go into the garage to push a button to open the main door was never resolved. The landlord did apologise during the tenancy for overlooking this and the tenant accepts that she did not make a fuss about it and “made do”.
I accept there was inconvenience but note that the communication from the tenant about the problem could have been clearer. I award modest compensation of $150.00. Short notice of inspections
[The tenant/s] says the landlord was at times inconsiderate about arranging inspections.
A landlord has a legal right to enter tenancy premises in an emergency, with the consent of the tenant, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The notice periods are no less than 48 hours for inspections and no less than 24 hours for repairs, maintenance, or healthy homes standards reasons (and entry must be between 8:00am and 7:00pm on any day).
A tenant has no right to refuse entry and does not have to be present when a landlord enters premises. It is usual for a landlord to try to arrange a time that suits a tenant, but it is not legally required.
The law does not specify a notice period when a landlord wishes to enter premises for the purposes of showing the premises to prospective tenants or purchasers, or to a valuer, real estate agent or other expert who appraises or evaluates houses. The landlord must obtain the prior consent to entry for these purposes and a tenant cannot unreasonably refuse – although a tenant can impose reasonable conditions; s48(3) and (3A) RTA.
What this often means is that tenants give consent to open homes or viewings on a certain number of days per week or within certain timeframes so that they still have private and undisturbed time.
I have reviewed the evidence provided by [The tenant/s] and it seems that she may have preferred to be present when the landlord came to the house. I understand that however it is not legally required.
I agree that the text from the landlord advising of an agent visit should have asked for consent rather than saying “we will be coming”. I find there to be no breach in the circumstances as the tenant did not decline consent or object at the time.
This claim is dismissed. Carpet stain
The landlord claims compensation relating to a pink stain left on the carpet in the lounge during the tenancy. She claims the amount of her insurance excess which is $400.00.
The tenant accepts the stain happened but says it is relatively minor.
The landlord has accepted a cash settlement from her insurer of $2,662.08 based on a quoted cost of $400.00 more than this to replace the carpet. The landlord has not yet replaced the carpet.
My decision is that the stain is careless damage caused during the tenancy, but the landlord has not shown that she has suffered a loss. She has not replaced the carpet and retains the insurance funds to put towards this if she chooses to in the future. Her photographs do not show more than a minor stain. I do not award compensation. Filing fee and suppression of names
The tenant has raised valid concerns and been partially successful. No significant claims have been proven against her. I suppress her name to ensure she is not prejudiced in obtaining future tenancies.
The rent increase and notice of termination given by the landlords have been shown to be invalid. The public interest outweighs their interests in privacy. I do not suppress their names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097108 — Tenancy dispute at 31 Forest Lake Road, Forest Lake, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097108 — Tenancy dispute at 31 Forest Lake Road, Forest Lake, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end, was the rent increase valid, and is any rent owed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end, was the rent increase valid, and is any rent owed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions