What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267479 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy shall end and the tenant shall give vacant possession to the

How much money was awarded in case 5267479?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267479?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267479?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12023610-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267479 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy shall end and the tenant shall give vacant possession to the

How much money was awarded in case 5267479?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267479?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267479?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12023610-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

46 Bridge Street, Bulls, Bulls 4818 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5267479 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenancy shall end and the tenant shall give vacant possession to the landlord on Thursday 17 July 2025.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s name and details are to be suppressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application was for: a. Reduction of the fixed term tenancy. See section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. Compensation and exemplary damages for: i. The landlord not paying the bond to the Bond Centre. See section 19 RTA. ii. The landlord breaching the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”). See section 45(1)(bb) RTA. iii. The landlord failing to maintain the premises. See section 45(1)(b) RTA. iv. The landlord breaching the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. See section 38 RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the tenant’s claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that his claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) RTA requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the tenant’s’ application with this requirement in mind. Reduction of the fixed term tenancy
Because the parties agreed that the tenancy will end on Thursday 17 July 2025, it was not necessary to determine the tenant’s claim under section 66 RTA. Failure to pay the bond to the Bond Centre
The tenant claimed the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The landlord agreed that the bond was eventually paid by the tenant on 22 February 2025 but was not paid to the Bond Centre until 23 April 2025. This is a period of 40 working days.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(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 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord properly accepted that she did not comply with the requirements of section 19 RTA. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
A text message from the landlord to the tenant requesting urgent payment of the bond acknowledges that she was aware of the limited time period within which the bond must be paid to the Bond Centre.
The landlord gave evidence that: a. It took the tenant three weeks and a number of reminders to pay the bond. b. She was on holiday overseas when the bond was finally paid. c. The bond remained in a separate bank account for the receipt of rent. d. The landlord was aware of her legal obligation but was slow in complying with her obligation. e. The bond was paid to the Bond Centre as soon as she realised it had not been paid.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The landlord did not intend to retain the bond in her own account permanently. b. As soon as she realised that she had not paid the bond to the Bond Centre, she did so. The delay was not lengthy and was caused by inadvertence. c. The breach was therefore technical and not an intentional act to subvert the protections afforded by this requirement of the RTA. d. She is a first-time landlord renting out her own home. e. She has since engaged a professional property manager to ensure compliance with all aspects of the RTA. Breach of the HHS
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS in relation to draughts, insulation and ventilation.
At the time the tenancy was entered into and the tenancy agreement signed, the landlord provided the tenant with a copy of an HHS report prepared by herself stating that the property was compliant.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a copy of an initial report from an HHS contractor noting that the property did not comply with the draught stopping standards but complied with all other standards.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a copy of an HHS certificate of compliance dated 18 June 2025 showing that the property fully complied with the HHS.
The tenant provided a photograph of some windows missing latches but did not provide any evidence of having brought this to the attention of the landlord. The tenant was under no legal obligation to give the landlord notice that the property did not comply with the HHS in relation to draught stopping.
No evidence was provided by the tenant in support of the claim in relation to the insulation or ventilation standards. The landlord’s evidence in the form of the HHS certificate confirms that the property complied with these HHS. The tenant’s claim that the landlord did not comply with HHS in relation to insulation and ventilation is therefore dismissed.
The tenancy started on 31 January 2025. The landlord had 120-days from that date to comply with the HHS. This date was 30 May 2025.
The landlord gave evidence that notice was given to the tenant of an inspection of the property by a newly appointed property manager and the HHS inspector to take place on 19 May 2025. This date was deferred to 29 May 2025 upon the request of the tenant. This effectively meant that the landlord could not meet the 30 May 2025 deadline.
Similarly, the landlord provided evidence that the tenant was given notice that the HHS team would be undertaking work to make the property compliant on 7 June 2025, but the tenant denied the landlord and the contractor access so that the work could only be completed on 14 June 2025. The tenant claimed that he had not received the notice. The landlord’s property manager’s records show that it was sent and opened.
It should be noted that there is no requirement that the tenant be present during an inspection or when a landlord’s contractor enters the property. If the landlord has given the notice required under section 48 RTA, the landlord is entitled to enter the property and the tenant’s consent is not required. Where a landlord has given the required notice, a tenant’s failure to allow access is an unlawful act. See section 48(4) RTA.
The property was certified as HHS compliant on 18 June 2025, 18 days after the required date. The landlord had reasonably believed the property was compliant because she had lived at the property for the previous four years. An HHS report prepared by a professional was only obtained when the landlord instructed a property manager.
The landlord was wrong in her assessment of the property only in relation to draught stopping. Once she realised this, she took prompt steps to undertake the required improvements. The cause of part of the delay was the tenant’s request that an inspection and the work be deferred. It would be unfair and unjust if the tenant were able to benefit from those delays by being awarded either compensation or exemplary damages.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the property by not repairing a manhole cover in the floor on which his partner tripped and sustained injuries. The tenant provided a photo of the uncovered manhole and an injured leg and gave evidence at the hearing that the injury required his partner to take time off work. No other evidence in support of this claim was provided.
The landlord provided evidence of a text exchange about the incident. The landlord was seeking measurements to have a more closely fitting cover made and the tenant responded: “Nah it’s fine I sorted it and it’s snug in there. That was an accident and she was walking backwards. But yeah it’s all safe.”
On a later inspection the manhole was covered and a fridge was on top of it.
The tenant has failed to persuade the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that there was a repair required to the property about which the tenant had given notice to the landlord and which the landlord failed to repair in a reasonable time frame.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed them.
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 claimed that the breaches of quiet enjoyment were: a. The landlord emailing and texting about rent arrears and the tenant’s nonpayment of the bond. b. The landlord emailing the tenant and talking to him directly about alterations which he had made to the property but for which he had not sought her consent. c. The landlord issuing a notice requiring the tenant to remove unregistered and unwarranted vehicles from the property. d. The landlord inspecting the property. e. The landlord’s property manager inspecting the property. f. The landlord’s HHS contractor inspecting the property and then undertaking the required works. g. The landlord issuing an invalid termination notice.
He claimed that the cumulative effect of these actions caused him stress and distress and made him feel that his tenancy was not secure.
The landlord provided copies of all communications with the tenant including emails, texts and her telephone records. There is nothing in those records that indicate that the landlord was doing anything other than taking reasonable steps to have the tenant remedy breaches of the tenancy agreement and to arrange for visits to the property for legitimate purposes. Taking such actions do not amount to a breach of a tenant’s quiet enjoyment or to harassment. Indeed, if the landlord did not make those communications, the landlord could be in breach of section 49 RTA regarding mitigation of loss and section 48 RTA regarding notice of entry.
At the hearing, the tenant referred to retaliatory notice. His application did not include a claim under section 54 RTA, nor did he provide any evidence in support of such a claim other than a copy of the notice. This was a fixed term tenancy and the landlord’s notice claimed to terminate the tenancy under section 51(2)(a) RTA. This ground for termination only applies to periodic tenancies. As the notice was invalid, a claim for retaliatory notice could not succeed.
At the hearing, the tenant also referred to the landlord issuing the termination notice without grounds. This is a breach of section 60AA RTA. Such a claim was not included in the landlord’s application. The landlord gave evidence that she believed she was entitled to issue the termination notice and was not aware that she could not do so under a fixed term tenancy. She cannot therefore be said to have issued the termination notice knowing that she was not entitled to terminate.
As this claim was not included in the tenant’s application nor argued by the tenant at the hearing and could not succeed, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider it further. Suppression
As the tenant’s application has been unsuccessful, it is appropriate that the landlord’s name be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267479 — Rent arrears at 46 Bridge Street, Bulls, Bulls 4818

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267479 — Rent arrears at 46 Bridge Street, Bulls, Bulls 4818

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