What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273462 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Tauranga Rentals Limited - As Agent For Tony

How much money was awarded in case 5273462?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach Of HHS: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $24.24 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,359.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $116.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273462?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12452112-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273462 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Tauranga Rentals Limited - As Agent For Tony

How much money was awarded in case 5273462?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach Of HHS: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $24.24 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,359.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $116.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273462?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12452112-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 164 Waihi Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5273462 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 4, 164 Waihi Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5273462 — Rent arrears | 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 5273462 — net $3,617.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 3/7/25	$5,359.12		Rent arrears to 3/7/25
Water rates: 20/11/24-07/03/25 - by consent	$116.29		Water rates: 20/11/24-07/03/25 - by consent
Cleaning: Oven cleaning - by consent	$172.50		Cleaning: Oven cleaning - by consent
Rubbish removal: by consent	$165.00		Rubbish removal: by consent
Light bulbs/batteries: by consent	$24.24		Light bulbs/batteries: by consent
Repairs: Wall damage	$100.00		Repairs: Wall damage
Repairs: Door damage - by consent	$520.00		Repairs: Door damage - by consent
Compensation: breach of HHS		$1,000.00	breach of HHS
Total award	$6,457.15	$1,000.00
Net award	$3,617.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,617.15

Claims and awards for application 5273462 — net $3,617.15 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 3/7/25

Amount: $5,359.12
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 3/7/25

Water rates: 20/11/24-07/03/25 - by consent

Amount: $116.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: 20/11/24-07/03/25 - by consent

Cleaning: Oven cleaning - by consent

Amount: $172.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: Oven cleaning - by consent

Rubbish removal: by consent

Amount: $165.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: by consent

Light bulbs/batteries: by consent

Amount: $24.24
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light bulbs/batteries: by consent

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Tauranga Rentals Limited - As Agent For Tony Cranston $3,617.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (3072604-008) to Tauranga Rentals Limited - As Agent For Tony Cranston immediately.
The balance of both parties’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Two property managers attended the hearing on behalf of the owner. For ease of reference, I will refer to the property managers as the landlord.
The landlord has applied for: a. rent arrears, b. water rates c. compensation, d. payment of the bond, and e. reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has filed a cross application. The tenant applied for: a. Compensation in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards. b. Compensation for a failure to maintain the premises. c. A declaration that the termination notice was retaliatory and compensation.
The notice of hearing in respect of the tenants’ claims said he was making a claim in respect of breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenant advised he was not making a claim in respect of breach of quiet enjoyment. Accordingly, I dismiss this claim.
The tenant also withdrew the claim in respect of an alleged failure by the landlord to maintain the stairs. Accordingly, I dismiss this claim. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... [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. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 3 The tenancy ended on 3 July 2025 following the landlord serving the tenant with a 90-day termination notice.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $5,359.12. I make an order for the full amount claimed. The rent arrears were undisputed. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 3 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided a water rates invoice which prove the amount owing from 20 November 2024 – 7 March 2025 was $116.29. This is the only water rates outstanding; the tenant having paid other water rates invoices. I make an order by consent in respect of the water rates.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 4 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 5 c. remove all rubbish, 6 d. return all keys and security devices, 7 e. leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 8 f. replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy, and 9 g. replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claimed $172.50 for oven cleaning, and I make an order in respect of this claim by consent. The claim for oven cleaning was supported with post- tenancy photographs and an invoice.
The tenant did not remove all his rubbish. The landlord had to replace light bulbs. The amounts claimed for replacing the light bulbs ($24.24) and rubbish removal ($165) were supported with a post- inspection report, an invoice and I make orders in respect of these claims with the consent of the tenant. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 5 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 6 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 7 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. 8 See section 40(1)(e)(v) of the RTA. 9 See section 40(1)(ca) RTA and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 10 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 11 Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 12
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 13 Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 14 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 15
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 16 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 17
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Tap Mixer - The landlord had applied for compensation to replace a tap mixer. This was withdrawn at the hearing and is accordingly dismissed. 10 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 11 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 12 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 13 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 14 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 15 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 16 See section 49B(1) RTA. 17 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Door damage - Two doors were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant consented to an order being made for the door damage of $520. The landlord provided post-tenancy photographs and an invoice in support of the claim. The amount ordered is proved.
Wall damage - The landlord sought compensation in respect of wall damage. A post-tenancy report with photographs of the premises was provided and an invoice was provided in support of the claim.
The landlord claimed $75.34 in respect of wallpaper damage to the stairwell walls. The landlord was unable to advise the age of the wall-paper but said it would have been over 5 years old. The tenant said the damage was fair wear and tear. In reviewing the site of the damage and in the absence of information about the age of the wallpaper I find that the landlord has not proved the damage is more than fair wear and tear and dismiss this claim.
The landlord claimed $150 in respect of three areas of damage to the walls. One area of damage the tenant acknowledged was a burn mark. I find this damage was caused during the tenancy and was likely to have been caused carelessly by the tenant’s family member. Another area of damage appears to be a cut during the wall. The tenant suggested this was fair wear and tear. I consider this damage was more likely than not careless damage caused during the tenancy. I will allow 2/3 ($100) of the invoice in respect of the wall damage. However, I am dismissing the balance of the claim as the third area of damage related to a black scuff mark, which I consider to be fair wear and tear. TENANT’S CLAIMS

MOULD

The tenant has said there was an issue with mould in the premises.
Mould is fungal growth that requires moisture, oxygen, warmth, and darkness to grow. Mould will grow where humidity is high. High levels of condensation contribute to the growth of mould. To prevent mould, surfaces must be cleaned, and excess moisture and humidity reduced.
As noted by the Tribunal in Semmens v Wadman, 18 mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. The Adjudicator explained that simply having mould in the premises would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered: 18 Semmens v Wadman [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards.
In this case the tenant claims the mould arose from the premises not complying with the Healthy Homes Standards.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). 19
The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025.
Heating standard: 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 heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/ . The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Insulation standard: The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. The HHS does provide an exemption to the required for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Ventilation standard: The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that 19 See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Draught Stopping Standard: The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard: The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. HHS – This case.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the HHS.
The tenant has provided a “Healthy Homes – current level of compliance report” (HHS report) by the House Inspector dated 2 July 2025. The HHS report includes the reports writers’ credentials as a Transitional Member NZIBS Certificate in Residential, Property Inspections Qualified LBP Builder 25+yrs, and Residential Property Inspector 10+yrs.
The tenant did not make any claim in respect of the heating standard or insulation standard. The HHS report records compliance with these specific standards in any event.
In respect of the ventilation standard the tenant said the bathroom extractor fan was non-compliant as it was not in good working order. In respect of the draught stopping standard the tenant said the windows seals had degraded and the windows had missing catches causing draughts. The report writer confirmed that otherwise the property did not have any other unreasonable gaps, which is stated in the HHS report.
The relevant aspects of the HHS report say: The Building appears to have some draughts, The building appears to have visible significant mould or signs of damp, The building has insufficient extraction units in the kitchen and/or bathroom/s.... ...INSUFFICIENT BATHROOM EXTRACTION Observation: There is no extractor fan in the bathroom, or the existing one is not functioning or venting to the outside. Impact: Inadequate ventilation in the bathroom leads to moisture buildup, which can cause condensation, mould growth, and damage to the building's structure and finishes. This fails to meet the ventilation standard of the Healthy Homes Standards, which requires that all habitable rooms have a means of ventilation, and that kitchens and bathrooms have extraction fans or windows that meet specific airflow or size requirements. Mould and dampness can also have adverse effects on occupant health. Recommendation: Install an extractor fan that vents moisture outside. For a bathroom, the fan should have a minimum extraction rate of 25 litres per second and a run-on timer of at least 5 minutes. If an extractor fan is present, ensure it is functioning correctly and ducted to the outside of the building.... ...The bathroom has a pre 2019 100 millimeter duct wall fan vinted to the exterior however it appears to be very inefficient... Very little air movement.... ...2.4.2 Ventilation

MOULD VISIBLE IN THE HOME

The presence of mould may indicate a likely breach of the Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard of the Healthy Homes Standards, as it suggests inadequate prevention of moisture accumulation. If linked to insufficient airflow, it may also impact the Ventilation Standard. Mould can pose health risks to occupants (e.g., respiratory issues, allergies) and cause property damage. Recommendation: Identify and Address Moisture Source: Urgent investigation is required to identify and rectify the underlying source of moisture (e.g., leaks, inadequate ventilation, excessive condensation). Mould Remediation: All visible mould must be professionally remediated once the moisture source is addressed. Ventilation Review: Assess existing ventilation to ensure it meets Healthy Homes Standards (e.g., functional extractor fans, adequate openable windows) and consider upgrades if necessary.... ...2.6.1 Draught Stopping

WINDOWS DO NOT SEAL PROPERLY

Windows have degraded rubber seals and missing catches, resulting in visible gaps and an inability to close securely. Impact: This causes draughts and heat loss, making the home hard and costly to heat, failing Healthy Homes heating and insulation standards. Recommendation: Replace all degraded seals and install missing window catches to ensure proper sealing and thermal performance.

The report writer was able to be phoned during the hearing and clarify some aspects of his report. He was able to clarify that the bathroom extractor fan operable louves were not all opening when the extractor fan was on, indicating it was not fully functioning. The report writer also confirmed he saw gaps in the windows frames.
The landlord said the property was healthy home compliant but did not provide the signed HHS compliance statement for the start or end of this tenancy or any assessment for HHS compliance during this tenancy. A handyman’s invoice refers to the installation of security stays in the property on 13 July 2025 which indicated they required replacement.
The HHS report writer provided detailed oral evidence and photographs in the report, and I therefore prefer the information provided in the HHS report.
I find that the property was not compliant with the HHS in respect of ventilation and draught stopping.
The report suggests the presence of mould likely indicates a breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard however does not specifically identify any defects in the systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and noted the property did have sufficient water diversion, therefore I do not find the premises breaches the HHS in respect of moisture and drainage. I also note that the failure to comply with the draught stopping standard does not result in a breach of the heating and insulations standards when they are otherwise met. Compensation
The Tribunal has the authority to award damages for stress and inconvenience. 20 Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove a breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.
Emotional harm and stress are intangible losses, making it difficult to value. However, I consider where a breach causes some inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of compensation in the realm of $200.00 to $1,000.00 may be reasonable. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety a higher award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 might be appropriate. Where the party has experienced significant hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 20 See section 77 (2) (n) of the RTA. and upwards may be appropriate. 21 However ultimately the level of compensation that might be reasonable in respect of emotional harm and stress will depend on the circumstances of the case.
The tenant claims compensation for both emotional distress and general financial hardship in relation to the HHS. I consider it appropriate to make one global order for compensation to reflect the overall impact of the breach on the tenant. I consider it would be foreseeable that the tenant would suffer some disappointment and inconvenience in the circumstances.
The tenant did not provide any documentary evidence of raising the concerns about the property formally during the tenancy (i.e. by way of a 14-day breach notice). However, I consider the tenant should be compensated for the breaches of the HHS, having regards to the landlord not formally assessing the ongoing HHS level of compliance during this tenancy.
In assessing a fair level of compensation, I consider the following factors are relevant: a. I consider the tenant has experienced inconvenience during the tenancy having a home that was not fully healthy home compliant. The impact of this would have been moderate. b. The tenant was paying for a home that was required to be healthy home compliant but was not getting what he paid for. c. The tenancy commenced on 6 December 2021 and ended on 3 July 2025; it was therefore 182 weeks long. I consider there is insufficient evidence as to the duration in which the premises was not healthy home compliant, although it does appear that in the short to medium term prior to the tenancy ending the issues with the window latches and seals would have existed, given these have deteriorated over time.
I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair for the landlord to compensate the tenant $1000. Compensation for increased electricity
The tenant claimed compensation of $1,200 in respect of increased electricity costs as a result of the breach of HHS. The tenant did not provide any evidence by way of electricity statements therefore I find there is insufficient evidence in support of this claim, and it is dismissed. 21 Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775. A v Singh [2022] NZTT Auckland 4315225 Compensation for the HHS report
The tenant claimed $375 compensation as reimbursement of the HHS report fee. The tenant did not provide the invoice in support of the claim; therefore, I consider there is insufficient evidence in support of this claim, and it is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Under section 45 of the RTA a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes, 22
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 23 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 24 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 25 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.
The tenant says during the tenancy the landlord has not maintained the curtains. The landlord said the curtains were new at the start of the tenancy. The tenant did not provide any photographs of the curtains in a poor state of repair. The curtains appear to not have sufficient hooks however I am not satisfied that amounts to a breach of the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the property. I cannot rule out that the tenant may be responsible for the lack of hooks on the curtains. Accordingly, this aspect of the claim is dismissed. 22 Section 45 (b) RTA 23 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 24 Section 40(1)(d) 25 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]

Was the notice terminating the tenancy a retaliatory notice?

The tenant claims the 90-day termination notice served on him on 2 April 2025 is a retaliatory termination notice. The tenant sought compensation for stress, rubbish removal and cleaning in relation to the claim.
Section 54 of the RTA relates to retaliatory notices. It states: 54Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1)This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U). (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 any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. (3)If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. (4)If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in subsection (2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under subsection (3), of no effect. (5)However, the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the case of subsection (2)(a), the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. (6)The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (4) to be retaliatory.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint.
The Tribunal in Easton v Marks 26 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the landlord was not incited or impelled by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal in that case noted that: “It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that the tenants gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.”
A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 27
The tenant has not applied to set aside the termination notice within 28 days of receiving the termination notice, accordingly there is no jurisdiction to declare the notice of no effect if it is declared retaliatory. There would be no practical relevance of this declaration now in any event as the tenant has vacated the premise.
Neither party suggested the termination notice did not comply with the RTA therefore for the purposes of section 54 (1) of the RTA I find the notice complies with the technical requirements of section 51.
The tenant says he raised concerns about the maintenance and mould, draughts, heating and the curtains in the premises during the routine inspection on 2 April 2025. He says that shortly thereafter he was served by email with the 90-day termination notice.
Given the short time between the tenant’s complaints about the premises and the termination notice being issued there is an inference that the landlord is at least partly motivated by the tenant’s complaint. This then puts an evidential onus on the landlord to show that he was not motivated, even in part, by the tenant exercising his right to make a complaint 28 .
The landlord said he told the tenant at the outset of the routine inspection on 2 April 2025 that the landlord was intending to undertake some renovations to the property. The landlord said it was following this that the tenant raised some concerns about maintenance and mould and I understand the landlord suggested ways to reduce the mould.
The landlord said the owner owned the block of six units on the property and was working his way through renovating the units. The landlord said following the inspection the owner told the property manager that the tenant’s premises 26 Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987 27 Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988 28 McIntyre v Just Junction 2017 NZTT 4067876. would be next for repairs and renovations and asked the landlord to serve the tenant with 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
Following the end of the tenancy the landlord attended to maintenance of the property and an invoice was provided as evidence of maintenance work being undertaken shortly after the tenancy ended. The landlord said the carpet was replaced, however the invoice provided in support of this was from 2024 and relates to a different unit, In any event I accept that the landlord was intending to undertake maintenance on the premises, that this was the intention when the termination notice was served on the tenant and the maintenance was undertaken shortly after the tenancy ended.
I do not consider it likely that in giving the notice (to use the words of section 54) the landlord was at least partly motivated by the exercise of a right, power, authority or remedy that the tenant had in relation to the tenancy, or a complaint by the tenant in relation to the tenancy. That is, I am confident in concluding that the landlord’s decision to issue the termination notice was not in part because of the tenant’s complaints about the premises at the inspection of 2 April 2025.
I find that the termination notice is not retaliatory and dismiss this claim.

What should happen to the bond?

The bond is to be paid to the landlord to off-set the amount ordered.

Should either party be reimbursed the filing fee?

If an applicant has been partly successful in their claim, the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application. 29 As both parties have been partly successful with the claim, I decline to award the filing fee to either, as they would in effect cancel each other out.

Should any order be made with respect to name suppression?

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)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 29 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA. that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant seeks name suppression, however as he has not been wholly or substantially successful in his claim or defending the landlords claim, name suppression is declined.

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 5273462 — net $3,617.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 3/7/25	$5,359.12		Rent arrears to 3/7/25
Water rates: 20/11/24-07/03/25 - by consent	$116.29		Water rates: 20/11/24-07/03/25 - by consent
Cleaning: Oven cleaning - by consent	$172.50		Cleaning: Oven cleaning - by consent
Rubbish removal: by consent	$165.00		Rubbish removal: by consent
Light bulbs/batteries: by consent	$24.24		Light bulbs/batteries: by consent
Repairs: Wall damage	$100.00		Repairs: Wall damage
Repairs: Door damage - by consent	$520.00		Repairs: Door damage - by consent
Compensation: breach of HHS		$1,000.00	breach of HHS
Total award	$6,457.15	$1,000.00
Net award	$3,617.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,617.15

Claims and awards for application 5273462 — net $3,617.15 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 3/7/25

Amount: $5,359.12
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 3/7/25

Water rates: 20/11/24-07/03/25 - by consent

Amount: $116.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: 20/11/24-07/03/25 - by consent

Cleaning: Oven cleaning - by consent

Amount: $172.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: Oven cleaning - by consent

Rubbish removal: by consent

Amount: $165.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: by consent

Light bulbs/batteries: by consent

Amount: $24.24
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light bulbs/batteries: by consent

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Tauranga Rentals Limited - As Agent For Tony Cranston $3,617.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (3072604-008) to Tauranga Rentals Limited - As Agent For Tony Cranston immediately.
The balance of both parties’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Two property managers attended the hearing on behalf of the owner. For ease of reference, I will refer to the property managers as the landlord.
The landlord has applied for: a. rent arrears, b. water rates c. compensation, d. payment of the bond, and e. reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has filed a cross application. The tenant applied for: a. Compensation in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards. b. Compensation for a failure to maintain the premises. c. A declaration that the termination notice was retaliatory and compensation.
The notice of hearing in respect of the tenants’ claims said he was making a claim in respect of breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenant advised he was not making a claim in respect of breach of quiet enjoyment. Accordingly, I dismiss this claim.
The tenant also withdrew the claim in respect of an alleged failure by the landlord to maintain the stairs. Accordingly, I dismiss this claim. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... [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. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 3 The tenancy ended on 3 July 2025 following the landlord serving the tenant with a 90-day termination notice.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $5,359.12. I make an order for the full amount claimed. The rent arrears were undisputed. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 3 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided a water rates invoice which prove the amount owing from 20 November 2024 – 7 March 2025 was $116.29. This is the only water rates outstanding; the tenant having paid other water rates invoices. I make an order by consent in respect of the water rates.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 4 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 5 c. remove all rubbish, 6 d. return all keys and security devices, 7 e. leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 8 f. replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy, and 9 g. replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claimed $172.50 for oven cleaning, and I make an order in respect of this claim by consent. The claim for oven cleaning was supported with post- tenancy photographs and an invoice.
The tenant did not remove all his rubbish. The landlord had to replace light bulbs. The amounts claimed for replacing the light bulbs ($24.24) and rubbish removal ($165) were supported with a post- inspection report, an invoice and I make orders in respect of these claims with the consent of the tenant. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 5 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 6 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 7 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. 8 See section 40(1)(e)(v) of the RTA. 9 See section 40(1)(ca) RTA and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 10 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 11 Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 12
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 13 Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 14 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 15
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 16 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 17
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Tap Mixer - The landlord had applied for compensation to replace a tap mixer. This was withdrawn at the hearing and is accordingly dismissed. 10 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 11 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 12 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 13 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 14 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 15 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 16 See section 49B(1) RTA. 17 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Door damage - Two doors were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant consented to an order being made for the door damage of $520. The landlord provided post-tenancy photographs and an invoice in support of the claim. The amount ordered is proved.
Wall damage - The landlord sought compensation in respect of wall damage. A post-tenancy report with photographs of the premises was provided and an invoice was provided in support of the claim.
The landlord claimed $75.34 in respect of wallpaper damage to the stairwell walls. The landlord was unable to advise the age of the wall-paper but said it would have been over 5 years old. The tenant said the damage was fair wear and tear. In reviewing the site of the damage and in the absence of information about the age of the wallpaper I find that the landlord has not proved the damage is more than fair wear and tear and dismiss this claim.
The landlord claimed $150 in respect of three areas of damage to the walls. One area of damage the tenant acknowledged was a burn mark. I find this damage was caused during the tenancy and was likely to have been caused carelessly by the tenant’s family member. Another area of damage appears to be a cut during the wall. The tenant suggested this was fair wear and tear. I consider this damage was more likely than not careless damage caused during the tenancy. I will allow 2/3 ($100) of the invoice in respect of the wall damage. However, I am dismissing the balance of the claim as the third area of damage related to a black scuff mark, which I consider to be fair wear and tear. TENANT’S CLAIMS

MOULD

The tenant has said there was an issue with mould in the premises.
Mould is fungal growth that requires moisture, oxygen, warmth, and darkness to grow. Mould will grow where humidity is high. High levels of condensation contribute to the growth of mould. To prevent mould, surfaces must be cleaned, and excess moisture and humidity reduced.
As noted by the Tribunal in Semmens v Wadman, 18 mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. The Adjudicator explained that simply having mould in the premises would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered: 18 Semmens v Wadman [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards.
In this case the tenant claims the mould arose from the premises not complying with the Healthy Homes Standards.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). 19
The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025.
Heating standard: 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 heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/ . The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Insulation standard: The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. The HHS does provide an exemption to the required for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Ventilation standard: The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that 19 See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Draught Stopping Standard: The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard: The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. HHS – This case.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the HHS.
The tenant has provided a “Healthy Homes – current level of compliance report” (HHS report) by the House Inspector dated 2 July 2025. The HHS report includes the reports writers’ credentials as a Transitional Member NZIBS Certificate in Residential, Property Inspections Qualified LBP Builder 25+yrs, and Residential Property Inspector 10+yrs.
The tenant did not make any claim in respect of the heating standard or insulation standard. The HHS report records compliance with these specific standards in any event.
In respect of the ventilation standard the tenant said the bathroom extractor fan was non-compliant as it was not in good working order. In respect of the draught stopping standard the tenant said the windows seals had degraded and the windows had missing catches causing draughts. The report writer confirmed that otherwise the property did not have any other unreasonable gaps, which is stated in the HHS report.
The relevant aspects of the HHS report say: The Building appears to have some draughts, The building appears to have visible significant mould or signs of damp, The building has insufficient extraction units in the kitchen and/or bathroom/s.... ...INSUFFICIENT BATHROOM EXTRACTION Observation: There is no extractor fan in the bathroom, or the existing one is not functioning or venting to the outside. Impact: Inadequate ventilation in the bathroom leads to moisture buildup, which can cause condensation, mould growth, and damage to the building's structure and finishes. This fails to meet the ventilation standard of the Healthy Homes Standards, which requires that all habitable rooms have a means of ventilation, and that kitchens and bathrooms have extraction fans or windows that meet specific airflow or size requirements. Mould and dampness can also have adverse effects on occupant health. Recommendation: Install an extractor fan that vents moisture outside. For a bathroom, the fan should have a minimum extraction rate of 25 litres per second and a run-on timer of at least 5 minutes. If an extractor fan is present, ensure it is functioning correctly and ducted to the outside of the building.... ...The bathroom has a pre 2019 100 millimeter duct wall fan vinted to the exterior however it appears to be very inefficient... Very little air movement.... ...2.4.2 Ventilation

MOULD VISIBLE IN THE HOME

WINDOWS DO NOT SEAL PROPERLY

The report writer was able to be phoned during the hearing and clarify some aspects of his report. He was able to clarify that the bathroom extractor fan operable louves were not all opening when the extractor fan was on, indicating it was not fully functioning. The report writer also confirmed he saw gaps in the windows frames.
The landlord said the property was healthy home compliant but did not provide the signed HHS compliance statement for the start or end of this tenancy or any assessment for HHS compliance during this tenancy. A handyman’s invoice refers to the installation of security stays in the property on 13 July 2025 which indicated they required replacement.
The HHS report writer provided detailed oral evidence and photographs in the report, and I therefore prefer the information provided in the HHS report.
I find that the property was not compliant with the HHS in respect of ventilation and draught stopping.
The report suggests the presence of mould likely indicates a breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard however does not specifically identify any defects in the systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and noted the property did have sufficient water diversion, therefore I do not find the premises breaches the HHS in respect of moisture and drainage. I also note that the failure to comply with the draught stopping standard does not result in a breach of the heating and insulations standards when they are otherwise met. Compensation
The Tribunal has the authority to award damages for stress and inconvenience. 20 Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove a breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.
Emotional harm and stress are intangible losses, making it difficult to value. However, I consider where a breach causes some inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of compensation in the realm of $200.00 to $1,000.00 may be reasonable. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety a higher award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 might be appropriate. Where the party has experienced significant hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 20 See section 77 (2) (n) of the RTA. and upwards may be appropriate. 21 However ultimately the level of compensation that might be reasonable in respect of emotional harm and stress will depend on the circumstances of the case.
The tenant claims compensation for both emotional distress and general financial hardship in relation to the HHS. I consider it appropriate to make one global order for compensation to reflect the overall impact of the breach on the tenant. I consider it would be foreseeable that the tenant would suffer some disappointment and inconvenience in the circumstances.
The tenant did not provide any documentary evidence of raising the concerns about the property formally during the tenancy (i.e. by way of a 14-day breach notice). However, I consider the tenant should be compensated for the breaches of the HHS, having regards to the landlord not formally assessing the ongoing HHS level of compliance during this tenancy.
In assessing a fair level of compensation, I consider the following factors are relevant: a. I consider the tenant has experienced inconvenience during the tenancy having a home that was not fully healthy home compliant. The impact of this would have been moderate. b. The tenant was paying for a home that was required to be healthy home compliant but was not getting what he paid for. c. The tenancy commenced on 6 December 2021 and ended on 3 July 2025; it was therefore 182 weeks long. I consider there is insufficient evidence as to the duration in which the premises was not healthy home compliant, although it does appear that in the short to medium term prior to the tenancy ending the issues with the window latches and seals would have existed, given these have deteriorated over time.
I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair for the landlord to compensate the tenant $1000. Compensation for increased electricity
The tenant claimed compensation of $1,200 in respect of increased electricity costs as a result of the breach of HHS. The tenant did not provide any evidence by way of electricity statements therefore I find there is insufficient evidence in support of this claim, and it is dismissed. 21 Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775. A v Singh [2022] NZTT Auckland 4315225 Compensation for the HHS report
The tenant claimed $375 compensation as reimbursement of the HHS report fee. The tenant did not provide the invoice in support of the claim; therefore, I consider there is insufficient evidence in support of this claim, and it is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Under section 45 of the RTA a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes, 22
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 23 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 24 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 25 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.
The tenant says during the tenancy the landlord has not maintained the curtains. The landlord said the curtains were new at the start of the tenancy. The tenant did not provide any photographs of the curtains in a poor state of repair. The curtains appear to not have sufficient hooks however I am not satisfied that amounts to a breach of the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the property. I cannot rule out that the tenant may be responsible for the lack of hooks on the curtains. Accordingly, this aspect of the claim is dismissed. 22 Section 45 (b) RTA 23 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 24 Section 40(1)(d) 25 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]

Was the notice terminating the tenancy a retaliatory notice?

The tenant claims the 90-day termination notice served on him on 2 April 2025 is a retaliatory termination notice. The tenant sought compensation for stress, rubbish removal and cleaning in relation to the claim.
Section 54 of the RTA relates to retaliatory notices. It states: 54Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1)This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U). (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 any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. (3)If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. (4)If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in subsection (2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under subsection (3), of no effect. (5)However, the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the case of subsection (2)(a), the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. (6)The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (4) to be retaliatory.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint.
The Tribunal in Easton v Marks 26 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the landlord was not incited or impelled by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal in that case noted that: “It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that the tenants gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.”
A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 27
The tenant has not applied to set aside the termination notice within 28 days of receiving the termination notice, accordingly there is no jurisdiction to declare the notice of no effect if it is declared retaliatory. There would be no practical relevance of this declaration now in any event as the tenant has vacated the premise.
Neither party suggested the termination notice did not comply with the RTA therefore for the purposes of section 54 (1) of the RTA I find the notice complies with the technical requirements of section 51.
The tenant says he raised concerns about the maintenance and mould, draughts, heating and the curtains in the premises during the routine inspection on 2 April 2025. He says that shortly thereafter he was served by email with the 90-day termination notice.
Given the short time between the tenant’s complaints about the premises and the termination notice being issued there is an inference that the landlord is at least partly motivated by the tenant’s complaint. This then puts an evidential onus on the landlord to show that he was not motivated, even in part, by the tenant exercising his right to make a complaint 28 .
The landlord said he told the tenant at the outset of the routine inspection on 2 April 2025 that the landlord was intending to undertake some renovations to the property. The landlord said it was following this that the tenant raised some concerns about maintenance and mould and I understand the landlord suggested ways to reduce the mould.
The landlord said the owner owned the block of six units on the property and was working his way through renovating the units. The landlord said following the inspection the owner told the property manager that the tenant’s premises 26 Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987 27 Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988 28 McIntyre v Just Junction 2017 NZTT 4067876. would be next for repairs and renovations and asked the landlord to serve the tenant with 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
Following the end of the tenancy the landlord attended to maintenance of the property and an invoice was provided as evidence of maintenance work being undertaken shortly after the tenancy ended. The landlord said the carpet was replaced, however the invoice provided in support of this was from 2024 and relates to a different unit, In any event I accept that the landlord was intending to undertake maintenance on the premises, that this was the intention when the termination notice was served on the tenant and the maintenance was undertaken shortly after the tenancy ended.
I do not consider it likely that in giving the notice (to use the words of section 54) the landlord was at least partly motivated by the exercise of a right, power, authority or remedy that the tenant had in relation to the tenancy, or a complaint by the tenant in relation to the tenancy. That is, I am confident in concluding that the landlord’s decision to issue the termination notice was not in part because of the tenant’s complaints about the premises at the inspection of 2 April 2025.
I find that the termination notice is not retaliatory and dismiss this claim.

What should happen to the bond?

The bond is to be paid to the landlord to off-set the amount ordered.

Should either party be reimbursed the filing fee?

If an applicant has been partly successful in their claim, the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application. 29 As both parties have been partly successful with the claim, I decline to award the filing fee to either, as they would in effect cancel each other out.

Should any order be made with respect to name suppression?

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)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 29 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA. that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant seeks name suppression, however as he has not been wholly or substantially successful in his claim or defending the landlords claim, name suppression is declined.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

MOULD

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

MOULD VISIBLE IN THE HOME

WINDOWS DO NOT SEAL PROPERLY

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Was the notice terminating the tenancy a retaliatory notice?

What should happen to the bond?

Should either party be reimbursed the filing fee?

Should any order be made with respect to name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

MOULD

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

MOULD VISIBLE IN THE HOME

WINDOWS DO NOT SEAL PROPERLY

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Was the notice terminating the tenancy a retaliatory notice?

What should happen to the bond?

Should either party be reimbursed the filing fee?

Should any order be made with respect to name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions