What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287002 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5287002?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287002?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287002?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12534221-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287002 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5287002?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287002?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287002?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12534221-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Terrace Gardens, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287002 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference. I also made contact with two of the other five tenants that remain in occupation who participated in the hearing. The other tenants failed to answer their phones to take part in the hearing. Background:
The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy that commenced on the 20 December 2024 that was to come to an end on the 18 January 2026.
There are a total of seven tenants under the one tenancy agreement, all jointly and severely liable. They are all students.
The tenant, Ms Suter, filed this application to the Tribunal seeking to terminate her fixed term tenancy. The evidence is that she paid the required amount of rent up until the 29 August 2025 however vacated the tenancy on or about 28 th July 2025.
The tenant seeks termination on a number of grounds where the tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as a landlord. Exemplary damages for such alleged breaches were not sought. The tenant advised the tenants and the landlord when she was going to stop paying rent.
A fixed term tenancy can be terminated on limited grounds. It can ended by mutual agreement, or an application can be made to the tribunal to end the fixed term tenancy if there is a severe, unexpected change in the tenants circumstances that would result in significant hardship.
There was no such claim made by the tenant. The tenant moved out and stopped paying rent. The remaining tenants paid an extra $45.00 per week to cover the rent that the applicant tenant stopped paying when she should not have.
There is no evidence that the property was unhabitable, the remaining tenants remained in occupation and continue to do so.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant, whilst not relying on the correct sections of the Act to seek an early termination of the lease, claims that the landlord has breached their obligations and this is why she sought termination.
The claim appears to fall under the following sections, and I shall outline them to show what would have been needed to prove such breaches. However, I reiterate that these breaches are not always reasons given for termination of a fixed term tenancy. The claim for such breaches is normally in relation to Exemplary damages and work orders being sought. This was not the case here.
The tenant claimed that the reason she wanted to terminate the tenancy was because there was an ongoing mould issue, the landlord was slow to react to complaints, that the Healthy Homes certification was incorrect, and that there was a breach of the Healthy Homes standards in relation to drafty window, and further that she tried her best to find a replacement for her.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 claim is that there was a hole in her floor and mould and dampness issues in the bathroom and in her bedroom. One of the other tenants issued a 14 day notice in relation to this concern.
There is no evidence of complaints that the landlord has ignored.
However, on the evidence I am satisfied that the landlords have carried out their obligations. That is, that they had not long owned the property and whilst they were notified of issues in May they arranged renovations to be carried out that were completed in July this remedied the issues as far as the remaining tenants were concerned. That included a new roof and renovations to the bathroom. The remaining tenants remined during this time with a reduction in their rent. The applicant tenant was aware of this, but moved out before the renovations and did not return.
There is no further evidence or reports that the certification is false.
The applicant tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
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.
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).
The remining tenants did not appear to have issues with the premises and in fact stated that the drafty window, in a common area of the house was not even bought to their attention. However, the first that the landlord knew of the draft was when they saw the photo in the tenant’s application and arranged it to be fixed immediately.
The tenants advised that they did not know of the reasons the tenant is now raising as the reason for her leaving and believed it was more a relationship issue with the other tenants. They have continued to pay the applicants tenants rent as a result.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that her claim is successful, that being that the alleged breaches occurred and are therefore grounds to end a fixed term tenancy.
In relation to the claim that she has done everything to find a replacement, that is not a reason to allow the termination.
On that bases the claim is dismissed and the tenant remains liable for the payment of rent until the tenancy is able to come to an end or another tenant is found. This maybe an issue for the remaining tenants given that they are all liable for the rent to this landlord jointly and severely.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference. I also made contact with two of the other five tenants that remain in occupation who participated in the hearing. The other tenants failed to answer their phones to take part in the hearing. Background:
The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy that commenced on the 20 December 2024 that was to come to an end on the 18 January 2026.
There are a total of seven tenants under the one tenancy agreement, all jointly and severely liable. They are all students.
The tenant, Ms Suter, filed this application to the Tribunal seeking to terminate her fixed term tenancy. The evidence is that she paid the required amount of rent up until the 29 August 2025 however vacated the tenancy on or about 28 th July 2025.
The tenant seeks termination on a number of grounds where the tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as a landlord. Exemplary damages for such alleged breaches were not sought. The tenant advised the tenants and the landlord when she was going to stop paying rent.
A fixed term tenancy can be terminated on limited grounds. It can ended by mutual agreement, or an application can be made to the tribunal to end the fixed term tenancy if there is a severe, unexpected change in the tenants circumstances that would result in significant hardship.
There was no such claim made by the tenant. The tenant moved out and stopped paying rent. The remaining tenants paid an extra $45.00 per week to cover the rent that the applicant tenant stopped paying when she should not have.
There is no evidence that the property was unhabitable, the remaining tenants remained in occupation and continue to do so.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant, whilst not relying on the correct sections of the Act to seek an early termination of the lease, claims that the landlord has breached their obligations and this is why she sought termination.
The claim appears to fall under the following sections, and I shall outline them to show what would have been needed to prove such breaches. However, I reiterate that these breaches are not always reasons given for termination of a fixed term tenancy. The claim for such breaches is normally in relation to Exemplary damages and work orders being sought. This was not the case here.
The tenant claimed that the reason she wanted to terminate the tenancy was because there was an ongoing mould issue, the landlord was slow to react to complaints, that the Healthy Homes certification was incorrect, and that there was a breach of the Healthy Homes standards in relation to drafty window, and further that she tried her best to find a replacement for her.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 claim is that there was a hole in her floor and mould and dampness issues in the bathroom and in her bedroom. One of the other tenants issued a 14 day notice in relation to this concern.
There is no evidence of complaints that the landlord has ignored.
However, on the evidence I am satisfied that the landlords have carried out their obligations. That is, that they had not long owned the property and whilst they were notified of issues in May they arranged renovations to be carried out that were completed in July this remedied the issues as far as the remaining tenants were concerned. That included a new roof and renovations to the bathroom. The remaining tenants remined during this time with a reduction in their rent. The applicant tenant was aware of this, but moved out before the renovations and did not return.
There is no further evidence or reports that the certification is false.
The applicant tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
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.
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).
The remining tenants did not appear to have issues with the premises and in fact stated that the drafty window, in a common area of the house was not even bought to their attention. However, the first that the landlord knew of the draft was when they saw the photo in the tenant’s application and arranged it to be fixed immediately.
The tenants advised that they did not know of the reasons the tenant is now raising as the reason for her leaving and believed it was more a relationship issue with the other tenants. They have continued to pay the applicants tenants rent as a result.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that her claim is successful, that being that the alleged breaches occurred and are therefore grounds to end a fixed term tenancy.
In relation to the claim that she has done everything to find a replacement, that is not a reason to allow the termination.
On that bases the claim is dismissed and the tenant remains liable for the payment of rent until the tenancy is able to come to an end or another tenant is found. This maybe an issue for the remaining tenants given that they are all liable for the rent to this landlord jointly and severely.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287002 — 14-day notice at 11 Terrace Gardens, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287002 — 14-day notice at 11 Terrace Gardens, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.