What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5278599 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 5278599?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278599?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12183297-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5278599 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 5278599?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278599?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12183297-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5278599 — Leaks

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 21 June 2020 for one year term running to 19 June 2025.
On 9 February 2025, the tenant gave notice to the landlord that, when being used in cooling mode, the heat pump made a buzzing noise, and requested that the unit was repaired. Later that same day the landlord responded offering to visit to inspect the heat. The tenant responded that he would prefer that a technician carried out the inspection rather than the landlord. There followed a back and forward of text correspondence, which resulted in the tenant making threats to make an application to the Tribunal if a technician did not visit immediately. An application was filed later on the dame day. I note that this correspondence occurred on a Sunday.
There followed further correspondence between the parties relating to the issue, and on 21 February 2025 a technician attended servicing the heat pump, and providing a report which states that the noise is the normal operational sound made when the heat pump is a calling function, and that the heat pump is in good condition and functioning as it should.
On 1 June 2025, the tenant noticed a crack in the bathroom vanity sink and texted a photo to the landlord stating that it appeared to be pre-tenancy damage.
On 3 June 2025, the landlord sent the tenants a 90 day termination notice. Later that same day the tenants emailed the landlord requested an explanation for the termination and, approximately half an hour later, lodged this application.
On 9 June 2025 the tenants sent a 21 day notice to terminate the tenancy to the landlord.
The tenants have brought claims against the landlord including: a. for the return of their bond; b. seeking exemplary damages for alleged failures to maintain; c. seeking exemplary damages for breaches of quiet enjoyment; and d. seeking exemplary damages for alleged retaliatory notice.
The bond issue has been settled with the landlord releasing the bond to the tenants on 3 July 2025. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The allegation made by the tenants is that the heat pump should have been replaced or repaired to eliminate the buzzing noise. The landlord argues that the buzzing noise is a normal operational noise and does not occur when the heatpump is being used to heat. She points out that landlords are not required to provide a means of cooling tenancies.
The tenants’ allegations are not made out. The issue with the noise was responded to by the landlord in a reasonably prompt manner. The landlord’s request to come and inspect the heat pump themselves was reasonable, and when the tenant refused to allow access for this to occur, the landlord organised for a technician to inspect and service the heat pump. This occurred 12 days after notice of the issue was given. The heat pump technician’s report shows that the buzzing noise is the mechanism in the heat pump for draining away condensation when set to cool. The heat pump is a new unit, as I understand it, installed briefly before the start of the tenancy, was in very good condition, and was functioning normally.
For a failure to maintain to give rise to an actionable breach, the alleged defect in the tenancy must be of a nature which affects the normal use and amenity of the tenancy. For example; a leaking roof may make a room in a tenancy unsafe or unpleasant to use in a normal manner. In such a case a failure to address the loss of amenity would be a breach of s45.
In this case the heat pump noise is a normal part of its functioning when it is used in cooling mode. The noise, while irritating to the tenants, does not prevent them from using any part of the tenancy, and so does not affect any legally protected amenity. There are alternative ways to cool the room which has fully operational windows, and the climate in Wellington is not such that such cooling could be considered essential. I must dismiss this claim. Quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenants claim that the noise made by the heat pump breached their quiet enjoyment. This claim is not made out.
I find that the noise made by the heatpump, which is discussed above, was both easily avoided by not using the heatpump in cooling mode or was a relatively minor irritation. There was no action carried out by the landlord, let alone a repeated pattern of actions, which could give rise to a finding of harassment. I must dismiss this claim. Retaliatory notice
On 3 June 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 2 September 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Viewing the notice of termination that no reason as stated in the notice. The tenants say that the retaliatory purpose of the notice is implied by the circumstances which include the history of communications between the parties the comparatively close timing, two days, between the tenants’ text regarding the cracking of the vanity basin and the service of the notice, and an allegation that the landlord and discussed renewing the term of the lease for another year.
The landlord says the motivation behind the notice was that she has decided to withdraw from being a landlord across her several tenancies, having been a landlord for over 20 years, and having experienced a number of challenging personal circumstances over the last year.
Findings of fact may be based on inference from circumstantial evidence, where the circumstances mount up to a point where it is more likely than not that he inferred fact has occurred. Where the circumstances may equally support a finding contrary to the fact asserted, the inference is not made out on the balance of probabilities.
In this case the inference that the notice was retaliatory is not made out. The brief period between the text regarding the vanity basin and the notice could be read to point towards a retaliatory act. However, the lease was due to come to term in less than three weeks from the date of notice. I accept the landlord’s reasons for terminating the lease, which are equally supported by the circumstances. I must dismiss this claim, and with the application.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 21 June 2020 for one year term running to 19 June 2025.
On 9 February 2025, the tenant gave notice to the landlord that, when being used in cooling mode, the heat pump made a buzzing noise, and requested that the unit was repaired. Later that same day the landlord responded offering to visit to inspect the heat. The tenant responded that he would prefer that a technician carried out the inspection rather than the landlord. There followed a back and forward of text correspondence, which resulted in the tenant making threats to make an application to the Tribunal if a technician did not visit immediately. An application was filed later on the dame day. I note that this correspondence occurred on a Sunday.
There followed further correspondence between the parties relating to the issue, and on 21 February 2025 a technician attended servicing the heat pump, and providing a report which states that the noise is the normal operational sound made when the heat pump is a calling function, and that the heat pump is in good condition and functioning as it should.
On 1 June 2025, the tenant noticed a crack in the bathroom vanity sink and texted a photo to the landlord stating that it appeared to be pre-tenancy damage.
On 3 June 2025, the landlord sent the tenants a 90 day termination notice. Later that same day the tenants emailed the landlord requested an explanation for the termination and, approximately half an hour later, lodged this application.
On 9 June 2025 the tenants sent a 21 day notice to terminate the tenancy to the landlord.
The tenants have brought claims against the landlord including: a. for the return of their bond; b. seeking exemplary damages for alleged failures to maintain; c. seeking exemplary damages for breaches of quiet enjoyment; and d. seeking exemplary damages for alleged retaliatory notice.
The bond issue has been settled with the landlord releasing the bond to the tenants on 3 July 2025. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The allegation made by the tenants is that the heat pump should have been replaced or repaired to eliminate the buzzing noise. The landlord argues that the buzzing noise is a normal operational noise and does not occur when the heatpump is being used to heat. She points out that landlords are not required to provide a means of cooling tenancies.
The tenants’ allegations are not made out. The issue with the noise was responded to by the landlord in a reasonably prompt manner. The landlord’s request to come and inspect the heat pump themselves was reasonable, and when the tenant refused to allow access for this to occur, the landlord organised for a technician to inspect and service the heat pump. This occurred 12 days after notice of the issue was given. The heat pump technician’s report shows that the buzzing noise is the mechanism in the heat pump for draining away condensation when set to cool. The heat pump is a new unit, as I understand it, installed briefly before the start of the tenancy, was in very good condition, and was functioning normally.
For a failure to maintain to give rise to an actionable breach, the alleged defect in the tenancy must be of a nature which affects the normal use and amenity of the tenancy. For example; a leaking roof may make a room in a tenancy unsafe or unpleasant to use in a normal manner. In such a case a failure to address the loss of amenity would be a breach of s45.
In this case the heat pump noise is a normal part of its functioning when it is used in cooling mode. The noise, while irritating to the tenants, does not prevent them from using any part of the tenancy, and so does not affect any legally protected amenity. There are alternative ways to cool the room which has fully operational windows, and the climate in Wellington is not such that such cooling could be considered essential. I must dismiss this claim. Quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenants claim that the noise made by the heat pump breached their quiet enjoyment. This claim is not made out.
I find that the noise made by the heatpump, which is discussed above, was both easily avoided by not using the heatpump in cooling mode or was a relatively minor irritation. There was no action carried out by the landlord, let alone a repeated pattern of actions, which could give rise to a finding of harassment. I must dismiss this claim. Retaliatory notice
On 3 June 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 2 September 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Viewing the notice of termination that no reason as stated in the notice. The tenants say that the retaliatory purpose of the notice is implied by the circumstances which include the history of communications between the parties the comparatively close timing, two days, between the tenants’ text regarding the cracking of the vanity basin and the service of the notice, and an allegation that the landlord and discussed renewing the term of the lease for another year.
The landlord says the motivation behind the notice was that she has decided to withdraw from being a landlord across her several tenancies, having been a landlord for over 20 years, and having experienced a number of challenging personal circumstances over the last year.
Findings of fact may be based on inference from circumstantial evidence, where the circumstances mount up to a point where it is more likely than not that he inferred fact has occurred. Where the circumstances may equally support a finding contrary to the fact asserted, the inference is not made out on the balance of probabilities.
In this case the inference that the notice was retaliatory is not made out. The brief period between the text regarding the vanity basin and the notice could be read to point towards a retaliatory act. However, the lease was due to come to term in less than three weeks from the date of notice. I accept the landlord’s reasons for terminating the lease, which are equally supported by the circumstances. I must dismiss this claim, and with the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278599 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278599 — Leaks

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