What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5167791 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 5167791?

On Is Granted To [The Landlord/S] At…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167791?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11854265-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5167791 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 5167791?

On Is Granted To [The Landlord/S] At…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167791?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11854265-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5167791 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167791. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
on is granted to [The landlord/s] at 12.00 noon on Monday 16 June 025. 3. [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s	$27.00		on is granted to [The landlord/s] at 12.00 noon on Monday 16 June 025. 3. [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
The tenancy of at is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s] at 12.00 noon on Monday 16 June 025.
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 being the filing fee for the application.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

This tenancy began on 15 May 2015.
The landlord’s application seeks termination of the tenancy on the alternative grounds of threat to assault 1 and anti-social behaviour 2 . 1 Section 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 55A RTA
The tenants’ application raises issues relating to maintenance and compensation for work carried out on the property.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 14 May 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. The tenants were assisted by [the tenant’s support person]. Landlord application
[The landlord’s representative] provided a detailed timeline of relevant events from January and February this year.
The timeline included allegations of things that [Tenant 1] said and did that clearly constitute threats of assault and anti-social behaviour.
[The landlord/s] issued three notices of anti-social behaviour within that period.
[Tenant 1] did not dispute any of the allegations.
[Tenant 1] has sincerely apologised for his behaviour and he repeated that apology at the hearing.
It is important to acknowledge that [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] were facing health challenges at the time, and [Tenant 1] was frustrated with a perceived lack of care / response from [The landlord/s] in respect of maintenance issues, in particular the dampness / mould issue. Those circumstances provide a context for, but do not justify, [Tenant 1]’s behaviour.
The law is clear.
The Tenancy Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if the tenancy is satisfied that either: a. The tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault the landlord (a category of people that includes the landlord’s agent); or b. The tenant has engaged in anti-social behaviour in respect of the tenancy on three separate occasions with in a 90-day period and on each occasion the landlord has given the tenant written notice about the anti-social behaviour.
The Tribunal has a very limited discretion to not terminate in exceptional circumstances. 3
I accept that [Tenant 1] is genuinely remorseful and is no longer in the same state of mind that he was in January and February this year. I also acknowledge that before these events this was a long and successful tenancy. 3 Section 55(2) and 55A(3) RTA
However, it is not appropriate to refuse termination in this instance. The seriousness of [Tenant 1]’s behaviour, the fact that it came “out of the blue” and without reasonable justification, and the effect that his behaviour had on [The landlord’s representative], means that this tenancy is no longer viable.
Given the duration of the tenancy, and taking into account the positive steps that [Tenant 1] has taken in recent months to deal with what he recognises as an anger problem, I will extend the date of termination to 16 June 2025. Tenant’s application Dampness, mould
[Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1] said that although there has always been a bit of mould / dampness at the property, consistent with the age and construction of the premises, it got significantly worse in late 2024 / early 2025.
[Tenant 2] said that she noticed that her clothes in the wardrobe had mould on them. Around that time both she and [Tenant 1] began experiencing respiratory problems that they had not previously had.
They contacted [The landlord’s representative].
[The landlord’s representative] arranged to meet a plumber and builder at the property to check whether there were any obvious ‘building issues’.
The plumber and builder couldn’t find any leaks or construction issues.
[The landlord’s representative] arranged for [Healthy Homes Company] to carry out a mould test, including an air sample.
I was provided with a copy of the [Healthy Homes Company] report. The report identified some strachybotrys spores present, but at “extremely low levels”.
The tenants did not provide any photographs of mould on walls or clothing, but the report includes photographs showing “suspected visible mould spotting” in some areas. The amount of mould is minimal.
The evidence provided to me does not show a significant dampness / mould issue at the premises.
The property is in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
The landlord took appropriate and reasonable steps to investigate the mould / dampness concern that the tenants brought to their attention.
The landlord met its legal duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
There is no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages in respect of this issue. Lino in the kitchen and bathroom
There is lino on the floor in the kitchen and bathroom.
[Tenant 2] said that: a. The lino is aged. It is deteriorating and difficult to clean. The lino in the kitchen is beginning to lift at the joins, which poses a trip hazard. b. She asked several times whether the landlord would put new lino in the kitchen and bathroom. She noted that over the course of the ten-year tenancy they have asked for very little and they have been excellent tenants – paying rent without fail and keeping the property very clean and tidy. The landlord refused their requests. c. The landlord said that it would cost $3,000 to replace the lino in these areas but it is possible to do the job for half of that cost.
[The landlord’s representative] said that every time the tenants asked about the lino, she passed this on to the owner, but the owner declined the request. [The landlord’s representative] said that the lino is aged, at least 15 years old, but it is in good condition. [The landlord’s representative] provided photographs in support of this. The ‘lifting’ in the kitchen was a new concern that the tenants have not raised before.
Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, but they do not have a duty to renovate or upgrade. Chattels must be replaced if they require replacing, this might be because they no longer function, or are damaged, or are simply ‘worn out’.
Having regard to [The landlord’s representative]’s photographs, it does not appear that the vinyl needs to be replaced. It is aged, but sound and functional.
The new problem, ‘lifting’ in the kitchen, might be the catalyst for the landlord to replace the lino but it is appropriate to allow the landlord the opportunity to investigate this issue. It may be that the lifting can be repaired easily. Stove
In early January, [Tenant 2] contacted [The landlord’s representative] about a problem with the stove. The oven was running too hot. The parties disagree about whether this contact was by phone or text, but the method of contact is unimportant. The critical question is whether the landlord responded promptly and appropriately to this maintenance request.
In my view, they did. [Tenant 2] told [The landlord’s representative] that the issue was not urgent ([The landlord’s representative] was on holiday at the time, and [Tenant 2] was trying to be considerate). When [The landlord’s representative] returned to work, she sent an electrician to investigate.
The electrician reported to [The landlord’s representative] that he could not identify any fault with the stove.
The landlord replaced the stove anyway.
Nothing in this sequence amounts to a breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
There is no basis for an award of compensation of exemplary damages under this heading. Compensation for work on the property
[Tenant 1] carried out some work in the garden, what he considered to be ‘tidying up’ overgrown areas.
In February, when [The landlord’s representative] was at the property with the builder and plumber, he showed [The landlord’s representative] what he had done. [The landlord’s representative] asked him whether he wanted any compensation for his work. [Tenant 1] was not expecting, this but replied that he would be grateful.
[The landlord’s representative] took the request to the owner. [The landlord’s representative] said that not only was the owner not prepared to pay for [Tenant 1]’s work, she was shocked by what he had done.
Tenants have no right to make any alterations to the premises without the landlord’s consent. 4 Landlords cannot unreasonably withhold their consent.
In this instance [Tenant 1] did not seek the landlord’s consent.
A landlord may choose to compensate a tenant if the tenant does work without consent that the landlord considers to be beneficial. However, there is no legal obligation to compensate. [The landlord’s representative] said that she would ask the owner about compensation for [Tenant 1]’s work, which was the appropriate response at that time. The owner was entitled to deny that request.
There is no legal basis for me to require the landlord to compensate [Tenant 1]. Outcome, filing fee, name suppression
The tenancy will terminate on 16 June 2025. 4 Section 42 RTA
The landlord was successful in its application, and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00. 5
The tenants’ application was not successful.
The landlord sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the landlord was substantially successful in the proceedings. 6
Name suppression is also granted to the tenants, with the landlord’s consent. 7

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167791. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
on is granted to [The landlord/s] at 12.00 noon on Monday 16 June 025. 3. [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s	$27.00		on is granted to [The landlord/s] at 12.00 noon on Monday 16 June 025. 3. [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
The tenancy of at is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s] at 12.00 noon on Monday 16 June 025.
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 being the filing fee for the application.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

This tenancy began on 15 May 2015.
The landlord’s application seeks termination of the tenancy on the alternative grounds of threat to assault 1 and anti-social behaviour 2 . 1 Section 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 55A RTA
The tenants’ application raises issues relating to maintenance and compensation for work carried out on the property.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 14 May 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. The tenants were assisted by [the tenant’s support person]. Landlord application
[The landlord’s representative] provided a detailed timeline of relevant events from January and February this year.
The timeline included allegations of things that [Tenant 1] said and did that clearly constitute threats of assault and anti-social behaviour.
[The landlord/s] issued three notices of anti-social behaviour within that period.
[Tenant 1] did not dispute any of the allegations.
[Tenant 1] has sincerely apologised for his behaviour and he repeated that apology at the hearing.
It is important to acknowledge that [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] were facing health challenges at the time, and [Tenant 1] was frustrated with a perceived lack of care / response from [The landlord/s] in respect of maintenance issues, in particular the dampness / mould issue. Those circumstances provide a context for, but do not justify, [Tenant 1]’s behaviour.
The law is clear.
The Tenancy Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if the tenancy is satisfied that either: a. The tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault the landlord (a category of people that includes the landlord’s agent); or b. The tenant has engaged in anti-social behaviour in respect of the tenancy on three separate occasions with in a 90-day period and on each occasion the landlord has given the tenant written notice about the anti-social behaviour.
The Tribunal has a very limited discretion to not terminate in exceptional circumstances. 3
I accept that [Tenant 1] is genuinely remorseful and is no longer in the same state of mind that he was in January and February this year. I also acknowledge that before these events this was a long and successful tenancy. 3 Section 55(2) and 55A(3) RTA
However, it is not appropriate to refuse termination in this instance. The seriousness of [Tenant 1]’s behaviour, the fact that it came “out of the blue” and without reasonable justification, and the effect that his behaviour had on [The landlord’s representative], means that this tenancy is no longer viable.
Given the duration of the tenancy, and taking into account the positive steps that [Tenant 1] has taken in recent months to deal with what he recognises as an anger problem, I will extend the date of termination to 16 June 2025. Tenant’s application Dampness, mould
[Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1] said that although there has always been a bit of mould / dampness at the property, consistent with the age and construction of the premises, it got significantly worse in late 2024 / early 2025.
[Tenant 2] said that she noticed that her clothes in the wardrobe had mould on them. Around that time both she and [Tenant 1] began experiencing respiratory problems that they had not previously had.
They contacted [The landlord’s representative].
[The landlord’s representative] arranged to meet a plumber and builder at the property to check whether there were any obvious ‘building issues’.
The plumber and builder couldn’t find any leaks or construction issues.
[The landlord’s representative] arranged for [Healthy Homes Company] to carry out a mould test, including an air sample.
I was provided with a copy of the [Healthy Homes Company] report. The report identified some strachybotrys spores present, but at “extremely low levels”.
The tenants did not provide any photographs of mould on walls or clothing, but the report includes photographs showing “suspected visible mould spotting” in some areas. The amount of mould is minimal.
The evidence provided to me does not show a significant dampness / mould issue at the premises.
The property is in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
The landlord took appropriate and reasonable steps to investigate the mould / dampness concern that the tenants brought to their attention.
The landlord met its legal duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
There is no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages in respect of this issue. Lino in the kitchen and bathroom
There is lino on the floor in the kitchen and bathroom.
[Tenant 2] said that: a. The lino is aged. It is deteriorating and difficult to clean. The lino in the kitchen is beginning to lift at the joins, which poses a trip hazard. b. She asked several times whether the landlord would put new lino in the kitchen and bathroom. She noted that over the course of the ten-year tenancy they have asked for very little and they have been excellent tenants – paying rent without fail and keeping the property very clean and tidy. The landlord refused their requests. c. The landlord said that it would cost $3,000 to replace the lino in these areas but it is possible to do the job for half of that cost.
[The landlord’s representative] said that every time the tenants asked about the lino, she passed this on to the owner, but the owner declined the request. [The landlord’s representative] said that the lino is aged, at least 15 years old, but it is in good condition. [The landlord’s representative] provided photographs in support of this. The ‘lifting’ in the kitchen was a new concern that the tenants have not raised before.
Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, but they do not have a duty to renovate or upgrade. Chattels must be replaced if they require replacing, this might be because they no longer function, or are damaged, or are simply ‘worn out’.
Having regard to [The landlord’s representative]’s photographs, it does not appear that the vinyl needs to be replaced. It is aged, but sound and functional.
The new problem, ‘lifting’ in the kitchen, might be the catalyst for the landlord to replace the lino but it is appropriate to allow the landlord the opportunity to investigate this issue. It may be that the lifting can be repaired easily. Stove
In early January, [Tenant 2] contacted [The landlord’s representative] about a problem with the stove. The oven was running too hot. The parties disagree about whether this contact was by phone or text, but the method of contact is unimportant. The critical question is whether the landlord responded promptly and appropriately to this maintenance request.
In my view, they did. [Tenant 2] told [The landlord’s representative] that the issue was not urgent ([The landlord’s representative] was on holiday at the time, and [Tenant 2] was trying to be considerate). When [The landlord’s representative] returned to work, she sent an electrician to investigate.
The electrician reported to [The landlord’s representative] that he could not identify any fault with the stove.
The landlord replaced the stove anyway.
Nothing in this sequence amounts to a breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
There is no basis for an award of compensation of exemplary damages under this heading. Compensation for work on the property
[Tenant 1] carried out some work in the garden, what he considered to be ‘tidying up’ overgrown areas.
In February, when [The landlord’s representative] was at the property with the builder and plumber, he showed [The landlord’s representative] what he had done. [The landlord’s representative] asked him whether he wanted any compensation for his work. [Tenant 1] was not expecting, this but replied that he would be grateful.
[The landlord’s representative] took the request to the owner. [The landlord’s representative] said that not only was the owner not prepared to pay for [Tenant 1]’s work, she was shocked by what he had done.
Tenants have no right to make any alterations to the premises without the landlord’s consent. 4 Landlords cannot unreasonably withhold their consent.
In this instance [Tenant 1] did not seek the landlord’s consent.
A landlord may choose to compensate a tenant if the tenant does work without consent that the landlord considers to be beneficial. However, there is no legal obligation to compensate. [The landlord’s representative] said that she would ask the owner about compensation for [Tenant 1]’s work, which was the appropriate response at that time. The owner was entitled to deny that request.
There is no legal basis for me to require the landlord to compensate [Tenant 1]. Outcome, filing fee, name suppression
The tenancy will terminate on 16 June 2025. 4 Section 42 RTA
The landlord was successful in its application, and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00. 5
The tenants’ application was not successful.
The landlord sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the landlord was substantially successful in the proceedings. 6
Name suppression is also granted to the tenants, with the landlord’s consent. 7

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167791 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167791 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions