What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5195177 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 5195177?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195177?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11757801-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5195177 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 5195177?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195177?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11757801-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5195177 — State of repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant appeared. [ redacted] Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant has made an application seeking to set aside a notice to terminate the tenancy issued on 06 March 2025, effective 11 June 2025, on the basis that it is retaliatory and therefore invalid.
The tenancy commenced on 24 December 2024 and is periodic. The tenant states that prior to the tenancy, there had been an issue securing the keys for the start of the tenancy, which was only resolved when they sought advice from Tenancy Services, which they then passed onto the property manager.
Shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, the tenant states they enquired about the trimming of a tree and the property. The property manager responded that trimming trees was at the tenant’s expense. The tenant states they referred the property manager to the agreement, which states the landlord is responsible for trees on the property. The tenant states the property manager then advised that the tree concerned was not to be trimmed.
The tenant also states that they reported an issue with the spouting. They state that a contractor who attended, reported the presence of a wasp nest. The tenant states they reported this to the landlord but ultimately dealt with the nest themselves.
The tenant further states that at the commencement of the tenancy some areas of the property had not been provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, particularly the windows, and some items of rubbish had been left by the previous tenant. The tenant states they reported this to the landlord but then on 31 December 2024 engaged their own cleaners.
The tenant states that shortly after the commencement of the tenancy an issue developed with the integrated microwave provided as a chattel. The unit stopped working on 01 February 2025, and they reported it to the property manager. On 03 February 2025, the proper manager replied that someone would come to the property to investigate. The tenant replied that no one would be home until after 5.30pm. They state the property manager did not confirm a time.
The tenant states that at around 6pm a Chinese man arrived and said he was there to look at the microwave, and asked to come in. Although surprised, the tenant allowed the male to enter. While the male was removing the microwave, the tenant discovered the male was in fact the landlord. The landlord removed the microwave and left.
The tenant states about four days later, on 07 February 2025, that the landlord arrived at the property unannounced. The tenant states that the landlord repeatedly rang the doorbell. The tenant states they were working from home at the time, were on a video call, which would have been easily observed by the landlord. Upon answering the door, the landlord attempted to step inside carrying a box. The tenant advised that no notice or warning had been given, that they were on a business call, and it was not a convenient time. The tenant states that the landlord then said, “I want to come inside my own property.” The tenant states that the landlord was clearly annoyed. The landlord put the box, which contained a replacement microwave, on the ground, and left.
The tenant states they immediately emailed the property manager. This was followed by another email concerning the microwave not fitting in the space. The tenant states they purchased their own microwave and installed it. The unit provided by the landlord was left in its box and stored in the garage.
One month later, on 06 March 2025, the landlord issued a 90 day notice to end the tenancy on 11 June 2025.
The tenant states they have the right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy and believe that by asserting this right and refusing entry they had clearly annoyed the landlord, who had then either wholly or partly been motivated by the refusal to terminate the tenancy. The tenant also states that the other matters raised before and during the tenancy may have contributed.
The property manager stated they were unaware that the landlord had been to the property on 03 February 2025, and then again on 07 February 2025, until after the fact.
The property manager stated that English was not the landlord’s first language, and that they had simply been trying to be helpful. The property manager states that the other matters where minor and had been resolved without involving the landlord. She added that it was not in the agent’s interest for the property to be no longer be offered for rent, noting that the tenant had, in their view, been good tenants met their rent obligations and maintained the property to a high standard.
The property manager denies that the landlord was motivated by the tenant’s assertion of their rights in issuing the notice. Although the notice did not specify a reason, the property manager states it had been issued because the landlord wished to place the property on the market.
The property manager produced an email from the landlord dated 06 March 2025 stating “Hi [ Property manager]. I like to put up my property on the market. Thank.”
The notice is contained in an email the subject line “Property going on the market,” followed by a hard copy. The notice is in standard form and states “No reason is now required for this notice (Changed by S.26 of the RTAA 2004)”.
The tenant denies that the landlords English is limited, stating that while at the property on 03 February 2025, the landlord had asked if they could borrow tools and spoke freely about the short comings of the previous tenant. Law
The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 reintroduces 90 day no cause termination notices for periodic tenancies, effective from 30 January 2025.
Under section 51 of the Act, a landlord may issue a no cause 90-day termination notice. The notice must comply with the requirements of section 51 and provide at least 90 days’ notice.
Section 136 of the Act sets out how any notice issued under the Act must be given or served.
Section 54 of the Act states: Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory. (1) This section applies in relation to a notice given by the landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with section 51 (or in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 61 U). (2) The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a) That in giving the notice , the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right , power , authority , or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or by any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. (b) [.....]
Subsection (b) concerns rights exercised by the chief executive.
A notice deemed retaliatory is of no effect. If the tenant wishes to seek an order that the notice is retaliatory, and of no effect, they must apply within 28 days of the notice being issued. The Tribunal may refuse to declare a notice retaliatory if the tenant’s complaint was frivolous or vexatious to such an extent that the landlord was justified in issuing the notice.
A landlord may end a periodic tenancy without stating any reason as long as the notice is not wholly or partly retaliatory.
The onus of proving that the landlord was wholly or partly motivated by the tenant exercising a right or making a complaint rest with the tenant. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish that more likely than not their act was either the sole motivating factor, or one of the motivating factors for issuing the notice.
In the case of Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988, the Court held that a notice of termination given for genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory.
An owner of rental property has a fundament right, subject to the provisions of the Act, to deal with their property.
In the case of Carver v Kiesanowski [ 2021] NZDC 3939, the Court stated that a landlord’s decision to sell the premises was not a retaliatory notice, nor was the decision to sell because it is not economical to maintain the premises. The Court stated at [43]: The purpose behind empowering the Tribunal to declare a termination notice retaliatory and of no effect is to prevent landlords from discriminating against those who assert their rights as tenants or make complaints by ending their tenancy. The provisions designed to protect tenants but not from the legitimate decision any owner may make to sell their property or no longer operate it as a rental. Decision
The notice complies with section 51 of the Act, and has been properly served on the tenant.
An owner wishing to dispose of their interest in a property is a genuine reason for a landlord to bring a tenancy to an end.
Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant has established, more likely than not, that in issuing the termination notice the landlord was wholly or partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. The landlord’s intention is to dispose of their interest in the property. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that this is not genuine and aligns with the landlord’s fundamental right to deal with their property. Accordingly, the notice to end the tenancy is not retaliatory, and the claim is dismissed. Name suppression.
Both parties seeking name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant. The tenant has produced medical evidence. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195177 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195177 — State of repair

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