What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291785 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 5291785?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291785?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291785?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12238561-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291785 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 5291785?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291785?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291785?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12238561-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5291785 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s]’s names and identifying details.
The notice to terminate the tenancy dated 3 June 2025 is declared retaliatory and of no effect.
A further day should be allocated for the next hearing date and set down at this Court before any adjudicator.
If any party intends to produce any further documents at the next hearing (in this case submissions), they must no later than 5 working days before the next hearing either: a. Upload the documents to the electronic file; or b. Email the documents to aucklandmetrotenancy@justice.govt.nz and copy in the other party; or c. File and serve the documents in person with the Tribunal.
If the parties fail to comply with the filing order in paragraph 4 above, no further documents or evidence will be accepted or admitted into evidence for the hearing.
The hearing for compensation and exemplary damages is adjourned.

Reasons

[The tenant/s], the tenant, attended the hearing.
[The property manager], the property manager from [Property management agency], attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
[The tenant/s] filed further written submissions after the hearing. I did not read these submissions, as I did not invite the parties to file further material. Accordingly, I have not taken the late submissions into account in this decision.
The hearing was held on 05 August 2025. References to “today” refer to 5 August 2025.
In this decision, the tenant is [The tenant/s]. The in-house adviser from [Property management agency] is [The in-house adviser]. They are not related. I refer to their [roles] to avoid confusion. Introduction
The hearing concerns [The tenant/s]’s application challenging a 90-day termination notice issued by the landlord, [The landlord/s], on 3 June 2025, pursuant to s51(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). [The tenant/s] contends that the termination notice is retaliatory within the meaning of s54(2)(a) of the Act. [The property management company] acting as agent for the landlord, denies that the notice was retaliatory.
At the outset, [The tenant/s] indicated that her retaliatory notice claim was based on a longstanding tree dispute and actions taken by her neighbour, [The neighbour], in and around January and June 2025. During the hearing, attention shifted to emails sent by the property owner, [The landlord/s] on 3 June 2025 and 1 August 2025 to the property manager, [The property manager]. The 3 June 2025 email instructed the issuance of the 90-day termination notice and expressed the owner’s frustration with ongoing issues relating to the property [The tenant/s] occupies. The 1 August 2025 email further detailed [The landlord/s]’s mental journey with the tenancy over 8½ years.
[The property manager] applied to adjourn today’s hearing, citing late receipt of documents and unavailability. [The tenant/s] opposed the adjournment but offered that the hearing was confined to her challenge to the lawfulness of the 90-day termination notice.
After receiving written submissions from both parties, I declined the adjournment. My reasons were grounded in the procedural consequences of delay: under the Act, a 90-day termination notice operates by force of law unless formally revoked by consent under s51(6)(a) of the Act or declared retaliatory and of no effect under s54(2)(a) of the Act. Allowing an adjournment would mean the notice would continue to run, potentially terminating the tenancy by 1 September 2025, before [The tenant/s] 's challenge could be heard. The urgency and irreversible impact of such a termination weighed in favour of [The tenant/s] to proceed to hear the matter as scheduled.
I also considered that [The tenant/s] had made considerable personal and financial arrangements in reliance on the scheduled date. These included cancelling travel plans, foregoing work, and enduring considerable emotional strain. Additionally, I noted that while [The property manager] had indicated preparation difficulties, they had received notice of the hearing by 7 July 2025 and had access to the core materials needed to address the specific claim regarding the retaliatory nature of the notice.
Accordingly, the hearing today is limited solely to [The tenant/s]’s claim that the termination notice was retaliatory. All other claims, including those relating to maintenance, compensation, and Healthy Homes standards, are adjourned to a later date.
Before the hearing formally commenced, at the request of [The in-house adviser], I asked [The tenant/s] if she would consent to the revocation of the termination notice. [The tenant/s] said she would prefer the hearing to continue. See s51(6)(a) of the Act. The law
On 3 June 2025, [The property manager], on [The landlord/s]’s instruction, issued a 90-day termination notice under s51(1) of the Act to [The tenant/s] via email, effective 1 September 2025. [The tenant/s] claims that the notice is retaliatory.
Section 54(2)(a) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory, and of no effect, if: [I]n giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised 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.
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s51 of the Act? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days after receiving the 90-day termination notice? c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to ... to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice. The tenant’s submissions
[The tenant/s] had lived at the property for 8½ years — the longest tenancy she had ever maintained as a single mother of four children. Having moved between multiple homes over the years, she had come to value this property as a place of stability. From the beginning, however, the tenancy was not without its challenges.
Throughout the tenancy, [The tenant/s] raised ongoing concerns about the condition of the property. These included persistent roof leaks that soaked the carpets, black mould, a leaking ceiling, collapsing structural elements such as the balcony, cracked flooring, and a toilet that had not been repaired. Rats had infested the roof space, and water regularly leaked into her bedding. Despite repeated emails, phone calls, and photographic evidence submitted to the property manager during the tenancy, many of these maintenance issues remained unresolved. I note that different property managers managed the property over the years.
In addition to the physical state of the home, [The tenant/s] encountered increasing tension with her neighbour, [The neighbour]. [The neighbour] lived next door. According to [The tenant/s], [The neighbour] regularly asked her to cut back vegetation on the property and, on multiple occasions, took it upon herself to do so without authorisation. [The tenant/s] was particularly wary of these requests because of a prior incident in 2017, when she had pruned some tree branches (with agent approval) to prevent rat access. Despite the apparent permission, she received a warning from the landlord, who had previously taken another tenant at another property to the Tribunal over similar issues. Since that event, [The tenant/s] had feared that even engaging with tree maintenance might risk eviction.
Tensions escalated again in January 2025. [The neighbour] issued [The tenant/s] with 24 hours’ notice that she would be entering the property to remove five trees, allegedly with the owner’s consent. Unsure of the legal basis for this, [The tenant/s] contacted the property manager, [The property manager], who declined to intervene and advised that the matter was between neighbours (tree issue vs tenancy issue). [The tenant/s] felt exposed because she was once again placed in the middle of a dispute without support or guidance from the landlord.
In February 2025, after a deck partially collapsed shortly following a property inspection, [The tenant/s] made further requests for repairs and also formally asked that [The neighbour] no longer be allowed to enter the property unannounced. She expressed concern for her family's safety and privacy, especially given prior conflicts. This request, too, received no reply.
The situation deteriorated further on the weekend of 31 May to 1 June 2025. After [The neighbour] had garden waste dumped in [The tenant/s]’s section, [The tenant/s] returned a small portion of it to the neighbour’s gate. In response, [The neighbour] launched into a verbal tirade, shouting abuse and threatening remarks. [The tenant/s] said she was visibly shaken and retreated into her home. Two days later, on 3 June, she was issued a 90-day termination notice.
[The tenant/s] contacted [The property manager] to ask for an explanation. [The property manager] told her that the notice was “due to the altercation with your neighbour at the weekend.” No further detail was provided. [The property manager] did not seek [The tenant/s]’s version of events.
That same day, 3 June, [The landlord/s] sent [The property manager] an email. In it, she wrote: “I’ve just had another complaint from the neighbour of the tenant... I’m really fed up with all of her nonsense. It has been going on for years already. I believe that I am now entitled to give a tenant notice of 90 days without cause but we all know what the cause is. Please can you implement this asap as I don’t need any further aggravation.”
In [The tenant/s]’s view, this email confirmed what she suspected — that the notice was not a neutral act but a direct response to her conduct, including her ongoing complaints and attempts to assert her rights. She believed [The landlord/s] had grown tired of her persistence in raising safety concerns and engaging with management about repeated trespass and harassment by the neighbour.
By the time of the hearing, [The tenant/s] stated she had endured weeks of sleepless nights, anxiety, and emotional distress. She described being deeply shaken by the incident and devastated by the prospect of losing her home, one which she had maintained as best as she could, despite its deteriorating condition. The landlord’s submissions The property manager, [The property manager]’s submissions
[The property manager] had only recently taken over management of the property, having started at [The property management agency] in December 2024. When she stepped into the role, she inherited a tenancy with a long history and a complex file involving numerous complaints and tenant–neighbour disputes.
According to [The property manager], she did not have full access to the tenancy file until late July 2025. She explained that although she received a text from [The tenant/s] on 6 June and again on 21 July referencing attached documentation, she did not actually receive the full application and supporting documents until 4:18 p.m. on 23 July. This was due to an incorrect email address initially being provided. As a result, she argued that she had limited time to prepare her response and requested an adjournment of the hearing, which I declined the application because [The tenant/s]’s challenge to the 90- day termination notice needed to be determined.
[The property manager] confirmed that the 90-day termination notice was issued on 3 June 2025, after she received an email from [The landlord/s], the owner. The email instructed her to issue the notice and referenced [The landlord/s]’s frustration over yet another complaint from [The tenant/s]’s neighbour, [The neighbour]. [The property manager] explained that this was not the first time [The landlord/s] had expressed distress about ongoing conflict involving [The tenant/s].
In relation to the specific weekend incident (31 May – 1 June), [The property manager] stated she received a text from [The neighbour] regarding the altercation, and shortly after, [The landlord/s] issued the instruction to serve notice. [The property manager] said she followed that instruction. She also confirmed that she did not engage in a detailed inquiry into the facts of the incident or seek a statement from [The tenant/s] before acting. However, she emphasised that the landlord’s right to issue a 90-day termination notice under s51(1) of the Act without reasons.
[The property manager] also clarified her view of the January 2025 tree incident. She said [The landlord/s] had given [The neighbour] permission to prune trees on the shared boundary, and therefore saw no issue with the neighbour entering the land. In her submission, [The property manager] described [The neighbour] as effectively acting as [The landlord/s]’s agent during that tree work, and she believed her own role was simply to notify [The tenant/s] as a matter of courtesy. Because the neighbour had the owner’s permission, [The property manager] did not believe the incident involved a breach of rights or warranted her intervention.
With regard to the termination notice, [The property manager] acknowledged that it followed the altercation between [The tenant/s] and [The neighbour], but stated that it also coincided with [The landlord/s]’s longer-term desire to sell the property. She believed the owner had reached a point of stress and wanted to regain possession to consider her options, thereby avoiding issues with [The tenant/s] over open home hours.
Although the situation was difficult, [The property manager] maintained that the decision to issue the notice was not retaliatory. It was, in her view, a response to cumulative factors and a desire to move on from a long-standing and complex tenancy. In-house adviser for [The property management agency], [The in-house adviser]’s Submissions
[The in-house adviser], acting as the in-house legal adviser for [The property management agency], submitted written arguments on behalf of the landlord. Her primary position was that the termination notice issued on 3 June 2025 was lawful, and not retaliatory under section 54 of the Act.
[The in-house adviser] acknowledged that the timing of the notice, just days after an altercation between [The tenant/s] and her neighbour, might appear problematic. However, she urged me to consider the broader context. According to her, the property owner had been contemplating selling the property for some time. Discussions had reportedly taken place with real estate agents over the prior 6–9 months. The decision to issue the termination notice was motivated by these longer-term plans and the landlord’s desire to regain control of the property, not by any specific complaint or exercise of rights by [The tenant/s].
[The in-house adviser] emphasised that under section 51 of the Act, a landlord is permitted to issue a 90-day notice without having to provide a reason. She acknowledged that if the notice were found to be retaliatory, it could be invalidated — but argued that the statutory test under section 54 had not been met.
In her analysis, for a notice to be retaliatory, it must be motivated wholly or partly by: a. The tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or legislation; or b. The tenant making a complaint against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
[The in-house adviser] submitted that neither of those applied here. In her view: a. The June 2025 altercation between [The tenant/s] and Hannah was a personal dispute, not a legal issue under the tenancy. b. [The tenant/s] was not exercising a tenancy right during that confrontation. c. The landlord did not know the details of the incident until after the fact. d. There were no recent formal complaints from the tenant that could have prompted a retaliatory motive.
[The in-house adviser] further addressed the January 2025 tree dispute, arguing that the event was too far removed in time from the 3 June notice to be considered a motivating factor. Even if [The tenant/s] had exercised her rights then, the gap of more than five months made it unreasonable to link that incident to the termination.
In an effort to resolve the matter, [The in-house adviser] also noted that the landlord had offered to revoke the notice — provided [The tenant/s] consented. An email was sent to [The tenant/s] on 4 August 2025 requesting her agreement. [The tenant/s] did not respond to the email. [The in-house adviser] argued that this offer demonstrated the landlord’s openness to resolving the issue amicably and undermined any claim of retaliatory intent.
Ultimately, [The in-house adviser] submitted that while the circumstances were unfortunate, the termination notice was issued lawfully, without retaliatory purpose, and should be upheld. Analysis
The 90-day termination notice may be declared retaliatory if, 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.”
The test does not require [The tenant/s]’s actions to be the sole reason for the notice — only that they were a motivating factor. The evidential threshold is whether the landlord’s decision to issue the notice was motivated, even in part, by the tenant’s exercise of legal rights or by complaints relating to the tenancy. See Whakatihi v Rent Assured NZ Limited [2019] NZHC 2873.
In this case, [The tenant/s] had consistently raised maintenance concerns over the course of the tenancy, including complaints about a leaking roof, unsafe balcony, black mould, pest infestations, and other health and safety issues. These concerns were expressed in multiple emails and were at least partially unresolved at the time of the termination. What is clear is that these concerns were persistently raised over the course of more than eight years.
On 3 June 2025, [The landlord/s], sent an email to the property manager, [The property manager], shortly before the termination notice was issued. In that message, [The landlord/s] wrote: “I’ve just had another complaint from the neighbour of the tenant... I’m really fed up with all of her nonsense... It has been going on for years already. I believe that I am now entitled to give a tenant notice of 90 days without cause but we all know what the cause is. Please can you implement this asap as I don’t need any further aggravation.”
This email suggests that the termination notice was issued in direct response to a neighbour complaint, but also in the context of [The landlord/s]’s mental journey over the tenant’s long history of complaints and correspondence. Her phrase, “... we all know what the cause is,” reinforces that the decision was not made in isolation from that broader history.
On 1 August 2025 at 4:05 p.m., [The landlord/s] sent a more detailed and emotionally expressive email, reflecting on her long history with the tenancy. She described [The tenant/s]’s conduct over the years and expressed significant emotional fatigue. She began: “... for the past 8½ years. She has continuously complained about every single detail of the house knowing that it was an old house and having seen what condition it was in when she moved in.”
She went on to state: “She asked to remove all the carpets in the house because she didn’t like them (yes they are old) which I eventually agreed because I was so fed up of her complaints.”
Regarding maintenance issues, she wrote: “This last thing about compensation has made me feel absolutely ill. It’s beyond tolerable. I have been enormously patient with all her complaints over the years – I am beyond stressed. I feel I have done everything to look after the house as well as possible.”
[The landlord/s] also expressed frustration about what she saw as boundary- pushing conduct: “I also know that she banned one of your agents from entering the property... I don’t know on what grounds ... did she have the right to do that?”
She described an incident involving a Camellia tree, recalling: “That [Camellia] tree was chopped down in two stages. She first chopped the whole of the top off at about a metre tall... And when it died she removed the rest of it and planted her veggie garden. As far as I’m concerned that is not acceptable and she needs to replace that tree.”
She also said the neighbour complained about [The tenant/s] on more than one occasion. She concluded with a strong expression of her emotional state: “I am so sick and tired and stressed with her nonsense.”
She then firmly rejected the tenant’s allegation: “I think I’ve been incredibly tolerant and patient, so the tenant’s claim that her notice has been in retaliation is absolute nonsense as there have been so many many time when I would’ve liked to give her notice in the past.”
These two emails together show a landlord acting from a place of accumulated stress and emotional fatigue. The 3 June email indicates a direct trigger from the neighbour’s complaint, while the 1 August email presents a broader narrative of long-standing frustration with what the landlord saw as difficult and unreasonable tenant conduct.
While [The landlord/s] denies that the termination was retaliatory, her own words demonstrate that her decision was shaped, at least in part, by [The tenant/s]’s past conduct and the frequency of complaints. Section 54(2)(a) does not require malice or deliberate punishment; it is enough that [The tenant/s]’s complaints about the tenancy were one of the motivations for giving notice.
I accept that the dispute between [The tenant/s] n and the neighbour may not, on its own, amount to a tenancy-related matter. However, [The landlord/s]’s response, namely, serving notice in direct reaction to that altercation, coupled with accumulated frustration over [The tenant/s]’s prior conduct (which includes complaints about the tenancy), indicates that [The tenant/s]’s past and ongoing complaints played a role in [The landlord/s]’s decision-making.
Even if [The landlord/s] also had broader intentions, such as possibly selling the property, section 54(2)(a) requires only partial motivation. On the evidence available, I find that the termination notice was motivated, at least in part, by [The tenant/s]’s complaints relating to the tenancy.
There is no dispute that the termination notice complies with s51 of the Act and the application was made within 28 working days after receiving the notice.
I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] had discharged the burden of proof that [The landlord/s] was motivated partly by [The tenant/s]’s complaints (past and present)
This hearing is concerned solely with the nature of the 90-day termination notice. I have not heard substantive submissions regarding the tenant’s complaints. However, [The tenant/s] has filed photographic evidence in support of her claims. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the complaints were, or would be, vexatious or frivolous as to justify [The landlord/s] in issuing the termination notice.”
I find that the 90-day termination notice issued on 3 June 2025 was retaliatory within the meaning of section 54(2)(a) of the Act.
Accordingly, the termination notice is declared retaliatory and of no effect. Exemplary damage
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 of the Act.
Under section 54(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord who gives a retaliatory notice commits an unlawful act. Section 109 of the Act permits the Tribunal to award exemplary damages where an unlawful act has been committed intentionally, and where it is appropriate to do so having regard to: a. the intent of the person, b. the effect of the unlawful act, c. the interests of the tenant, and d. the public interest.
While I have found that the 90-day termination notice was retaliatory under section 54(2)(a), I am not prepared to award exemplary damages in this case.
I accept that [The landlord/s]’s frustration was understandable. This tenancy spanned over 8½ years, during which [The tenant/s] regularly raised concerns about the property. While many of those concerns were legitimate and involved [The tenant/s] exercising her rights under the Act, the volume and persistence of complaints, whether resolved or not, clearly became a source of stress for [The landlord/s] over time.
[The landlord/s]’s decision to issue the termination notice appears to have been prompted by a culmination of factors rather than a calculated or targeted act of reprisal. In her 3 June 2025 email to the property manager, [The landlord/s] expressed a desire to end what she saw as a long-standing and difficult tenancy. The phrase “we all know what the cause is” suggests frustration more than malice.
If [The landlord/s] genuinely intended to retaliate in a vengeful or punitive way, she could have exercised her right to serve a 90-day termination notice earlier in the tenancy, such as on 30 January 2025. This is the date the Act permits a landlord to issue a no-cause termination notice. The fact that [The landlord/s] did not do so suggests her decision was based on the neighbour dispute, which she saw was the final straw.
This is, in my view, an unusual case. While the termination notice was retaliatory in legal terms, it does not reflect a deliberate or sustained disregard of [The tenant/s]’s rights. Rather, it appears to be a case of “the last straw,” where accumulated tension led [The landlord/s] to instruct the termination.
Having weighed the relevant statutory factors, I do not consider that exemplary damages are appropriate in this instance.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act under section 54(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by issuing a retaliatory termination notice.
However, no exemplary damages are awarded. Name suppression
[The landlord/s] has applied for name suppression in relation to this proceeding. The application is supported by written submissions from [The in-house adviser].
[The in-house adviser] submits that name suppression is appropriate given the unusual factual background of the case and the absence of deliberate misconduct. She argues that publication of [The landlord/s]’s name could lead to unnecessary reputational harm and emotional distress, particularly where the landlord acted out of accumulated frustration rather than ill will. She also notes that the landlord had managed a long and complex tenancy and had offered to revoke the termination notice prior to the hearing, further demonstrating good faith.
I accept those submissions.
As I have set out above under the heading Exemplary Damage, this is not a case involving ill intent. Although I have found that the termination notice was retaliatory within the meaning of section 54(2)(a) of the Act, it arose from a situation where [The landlord/s] had reached a breaking point following 8½ years of regular (and at times unresolved) complaints from [The tenant/s]. [The landlord/s]’s conduct, while technically an unlawful act, was not of a nature that demonstrated deliberate or wilful disregard of [The tenant/s]’s rights.
In these circumstances, I consider that the potential harm caused by publication of [The landlord/s]’s name outweighs the public interest in identifying her. There is a real possibility that publication could aggravate tensions between the parties and cause further distress, particularly given the emotionally charged nature of the events leading to the termination notice.
The application for name suppression is granted. The landlord’s name will not be published in connection with this decision, nor will the tenant’s name.. Adjournment
The remaining issues are to be dealt with after 31 October 2025 when [The tenant/s] returns to New Zealand from visiting her family in the UK.
The parties will be notified in writing by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291785 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291785 — Mould & damp

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