What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304255 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 5304255?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304255?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13113011-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304255 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 5304255?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304255?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13113011-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8 Beaumont Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304255 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s names and identifying details.
Alan Forrest must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants with their daughter assisting them.
The tenancy began in 2005 when Mr Forrest purchased the property. The tenants had been living there for about 18 years at that time. In total they lived at the property for 38 years before they were given 90 day notice in June 2025.
The property is an old three-bedroom house (built around the 1920s) and added to over the years and a small self-contained flat.
There is no written tenancy agreement. Despite this, it is common ground that the rental always included occupancy of both dwellings.
The property is situated on low lying land in Ngongotaha that is prone to flooding with storms/heavy rain. The landlord is a plumber and said there is little that can be done about the section being prone to flooding. While the tenants questioned whether a soak hole might have allowed water to drain more efficiently the landlord said he had explored this possibility, and it was not a viable option.
The landlord served 90 day notice to end the tenancy on 22 June 2025.
The tenants filed this application for compensatory and exemplary damages after receiving the 90-day notice. They left the property by agreement on 13 August 2025.
The tenants are not seeking to have the 90 day notice set aside (and the tenancy reinstated) as they do not want to return (and could not as the property is on the market for sale).
Their first claim is for exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has issued retaliatory notice.

Retaliatory Notice?

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.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim the landlord was attempting to extract maximum rent from them until the last possible minute before the Healthy Homes Regulations (HHR) became law and gave the notice as they were insisting (as they were entitled to) that the property comply with those Regulations.
The landlord says the rental was subsidised and it was always envisaged that the property would be upgraded to comply with the HHR and then sold. He said he did not give notice to end the tenancy earlier as the tenancy had run for such a long time and he was reluctant to issue notice, until the looming regulations and confirmation of a leak at the flat, forced his hand.
The landlord claims therefore that the notice was issued as the buildings needed to be empty so that extensive renovations could be completed to ensure the property was compliant with the HHR from 1 July 2025.
He said when the tenants notified him that the flat had again started to leak in June 2025, he decided there was no other option except to give notice. He said the renovations were extensive, required vacant possession and have now been completed after the tenancy ended. The property is now fully renovated and compliant and currently listed for sale.
The landlord reiterated that he did not believe it was possible to have the property occupied during the renovations as the property had been repainted and carpeted and a new kitchen and bathroom installed.
On 25 October 2023 the tenants had sent the landlord a 14-day notice requiring a written tenancy agreement and that the dwellings comply with the HHR.
The landlord replied to the 14-day notice, requesting clarification of what specific Regulations the tenant was referring to, noting the compliance date was 1 July 2025 and that he was likely to “sell up” in any event.
I am not satisfied that the 90-day notice was retaliatory.
The landlord was aware that the compliance date for the HHR was looming, and work needed to be done so that the dwellings would comply. He had recently completed a property inspection and discovered that the flat was leaking.
His submission that the extensive remedial work required meant the property needed to be vacant for the work to occur, is accepted. The fact the property was also to be put on the market for sale and vacant possession was required for this to occur is also valid and accepted as a genuine reason for giving the 90-day notice.
I decline to award exemplary damages as the 90-day notice was issued for genuine (and not retaliatory) reasons.

Failure to maintain property and comply with Healthy Homes Regulations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, and of relevance to this case, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and condition of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with the healthy homes standards comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
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 tenants claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the property over the years and failed to comply with the healthy homes regulations and health and safety requirements with respect to the water supply to the flat.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

As the tenancy commenced in 2005 the compliance date for the Healthy Homes Regulations is 1 July 2025.
The tenancy ended on 13 August 2025. The property did not comply with the standards over this short time period from 1 July until 13 August; however, it was precisely because of the non-compliance that the landlord gave notice to end the tenancy so the property could be brought up to standard.
There is an exemption if it is not reasonably practicable to comply with each of the Regulations. Given the landlord’s substantial renovation of the property was due to commence imminently, it would not be reasonable to find the landlord deliberately intended to flout the HHR for the final weeks of the tenancy.
The tenant’s submission that the landlord intended to allow them to continue living there as long as he could, without flouting the Regulations is accepted and the reason exemplary damages are not awarded.
I have also considered the tenants submission that the insulation at the home was not compliant with the insulation regulations introduced in 2019. The landlord says insulation was installed as required at the property and the photographs provided were taken during a renovation and are misleading.
I am not satisfied there is sufficient evidence to establish that the property was not compliant with the insulation requirements introduced in 2019. Failure to maintain
The tenants also claim that the landlord has not adequately maintained the premises (either the flat or the main house) for the duration of the tenancy.
Specifically, they refer to water leaks which they say caused water to enter the house and flat and therefore they say they lived in damp, mouldy and unacceptable conditions.
The landlord says in reply that he has always attended to any maintenance issues that the tenants’ had raised and did so in a timely manner. He considers that the tenants’ failure to ventilate and properly clean the dwellings contributed to any damp and mould.
He says communication was mostly between himself and tenant Mr S and they had an informal agreement that Mr S would ring him if there were any issues that arose, and he attended to these as notified. He says that the relationship was “very friendly and amiable” during the tenancy and the issues the tenants now raise, have come as a surprise as they were either dealt with at the time they arose or not raised with him at all. He provided a text message from Mr S at the end of the text that said “many thanks...for everything.. We are sad to be leaving but fully understand your situation”.
Mr S confirmed that the communication regarding maintenance was mostly between he and the landlord, was verbal and said that over the years he had “probably become too lenient” with reporting issues. Mrs S said that if maintenance issues were raised the landlord would threaten to increase the rent and this caused them to be less inclined to raise issues.

What are the hurdles with bringing claims many years after the event?

The Limitation Act 2010 is enacted to encourage claimants to make claims for compensation without undue delay by providing defendants with a defence to stale claims (defined as older than 6 years).
The RTA contains provision for either party to serve notice on the party of alleged breaches (including of the landlord’s duty to maintain and repair premises as required). Section 56 says that if a breach is capable of remedy (which repairs and maintenance requests are), then at least 14 days’ notice of the specific breach and required remedy should be provided to the party in breach.
Serving notice (or at least putting a request in writing) provides a defaulting party with an opportunity to rectify the default and would in addition provide the Tribunal with confirmation that such requests had been made and not actioned as the tenants now allege. This is particularly pertinent in the context to the “he said she said allegations” the Tribunal is now trying to unravel, many of which relate to events many years ago.

What evidence is required to support claims?

It is important to note that a claimant who brings a claim to the Tribunal must provide supporting evidence to establish the claims they are making on the balance of probabilities (which means more likely than not) and in the absence of this evidence the claim will usually be dismissed, as the evidential onus will not be established.
The written evidence supporting the tenants’ claims is very limited.
Only the one 14-day notice was served during the tenancy. That being in October 2023.
With respect to required maintenance, the 14-day notice said only that the landlord needed to comply with HH Regulations.
The landlord was correct when he replied that the HH Regulations did not apply to the property until July 2025. The 14-day notice did not require any specific actions, with respect to any other items of required maintenance. The tenants did not respond to the landlord’s request for the tenants to provide this clarification.
The landlord’s response to all the tenant claims is that he was never notified that the maintenance was required or if he was, he attended to things in a timely manner.
Ultimately the tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims that the landlord has intentionally failed to maintain the premises despite their requests that he do so.
There is quite simply insufficient evidence that despite being notified of required maintenance or repairs the landlord deliberately failed to attend to them.
The tenants submit that it was only when they threatened the landlord with Tribunal proceedings, earlier in the tenancy, that the wood burner was replaced. The landlord said the wood burner was replaced in 2019.
The landlord had also lodged a claim with the Tribunal for the recovery of rent arrears when the rent was not paid for a considerable period.
This evidence supports a conclusion that the tenants were aware they could bring a Tribunal claim regarding maintenance or repairs. Issuing the 14-day notice in October 2023, also supports a conclusion that the tenants were aware they could issue the landlord with written notice if maintenance was required but have not done so.
Ultimately, I am unable to find the landlord has intentionally failed to maintain the property to a reasonable standard with respect to any of the claims now raised.
The Court has confirmed over the years that before exemplary damages can be awarded, there must be sufficient evidence that the landlord was actually aware of the breach and did nothing and that ‘intentional’ in the context of exemplary damages means “in the sense of deliberately and with full knowledge” of the breach.

Are the tenants entitled to compensation?

In addition to exemplary damages the tenants claim compensatory damage in the form of a rent reduction for the latter part of the tenancy as they say the flat was uninhabitable. The flat was occupied by the tenant’s son and his partner and child for about 10 years. They also seek compensation for medical costs and cleaning products/additional electricity associated with mould.
In December 2024 the tenant’s son became very unwell and was unfortunately diagnosed with cancer. He commenced chemotherapy in January 2025. The flat had developed a water leak, and he was advised not to live there because of the damp conditions (including extensive mould) that resulted. The tenant’s son and his family moved into the main house in December 2024 but continued to store their possessions in the flat.
The landlord was not made aware of this health situation, including the leak, until he attended for a house inspection at Matariki weekend which was 20 June 2025.
He offered a rent reduction of $100 per week at the inspection, which was applied for the final weeks of the tenancy and made the decision then that the tenancy needed to end so the premises could be renovated and sold.
The tenants say the rent reduction should have been larger (as the rental of the flat was $180) and a $180 rent reduction, should be applied from December 2024 until August 2025.
The landlord says the compensation offered and applied is fair as the discount applied from the time, he was made aware of the leak at the flat. He says it came as a “complete surprise” to him that the flat was leaking again in June 2025, and he discussed his surprise at the leaking, at the time with Mr S.
The landlord also says the rent for the property ($600 per week) was always subsidised. In effect the landlord submits that the entire premises were let for the average rental for a three-bedroom property in Ngongotaha with the flat being provided for no additional rent for the duration of the tenancy.
He said a recent rental appraisal, now the property had been renovated was $1,100 per week for both dwellings. He said he was always conscious that the tenants had been there a long time, did not want to pay higher rent and did not want to move. That is why he decided to delay giving them notice earlier. He had signalled his intention to sell in late 2023 and this did not really change. He did not want to “kick the tenants out” to do the renovations, until there really was no option. That was apparent in mid-2025.
Tenancy Services bond data confirms that the average weekly rent in Ngongotaha is $600 per week (data extrapolated from 381 bonds lodged between 1 June and 30 November 2025) with rents for lower quartile properties being on average $505 per week.
Had the landlord been notified of the damp conditions and that the flat was no longer fit to live in, then I would have little hesitation applying the rent reduction back to December or the date of the notification. However, for similar reasons to those provided above, I am not satisfied that it would be fair to do this retrospectively.
The tenants had an obligation to notify the landlord of water penetrating the building (as clearly this can cause additional damage if not addressed). Prompt notification would also have afforded the landlord the opportunity to rectify the leak. I am not satisfied that it would be now fair to award retrospective compensatory damages and thereby enable the tenants to benefit from their failure to notify the landlord of the leak.
In making that finding I do note that had the landlord been notified of the leak earlier, then I would have had little hesitation in awarding the compensation sought from the date of the notification.
The tenants have also claimed for compensation for their labour to remove rubbish associated with repair of a fence and cut up a tree that had fallen across the section. They also claim the occupants of the flat had to replace a dresser and couch they say the landlord’s nephew spilled paint on when he was painting at the property.
I have allowed the claim for compensation for the tenant’s time and skip bin hire costs to remove rubbish after renovation/repair work and to cut a tree up when it fell across the section.
I accept that the tenants have completed this work to clear the section, assist with fence repairs and removed rubbish after renovation work (and saved the landlord the time and expense of having to do so). While a specific request for the landlord to attend to the work should have been made, in terms of their out- of-pocket costs I am satisfied they are entitled to compensation.
The compensation sought of $500 is reasonable and awarded.
I decline to award costs to replace the couch and set of drawers as I have not been provided with sufficient evidence of the actual value of the second-hand items, or that it would be fair to now ask the landlord to meet the replacement cost given the scanty evidence and delays with bringing the claims.
The tenants claim for compensation as the landlord has provided an unlawful/unsafe drinking water supply to the flat and not repaired the sliding door are dismissed. The water is town supply and there is no evidence that it was unsafe to drink. The landlord was not notified of an issue with the door or locks and therefore said he was unaware of the issue, which he also disputed.

Unlawful entry?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant made two claims of unlawful entry. The first related to an event many years previously (the landlord says early in the tenancy) when the landlord allegedly pursued an acquaintance/whanau member of the tenants to recover money he allegedly owed.
The second alleged unlawful entry occurred when the landlord and his wife went to the property to deliver the 90-day notice by hand in June 2024. They walked around the exterior of the flat and took a photo of one of the rooms.
The landlords said they did not enter the flat. Walking around the outside, is not unlawful entry (as that requires entry into the actual premises without authorisation).
While taking the photo was unwise, the occupants were not living there, the landlords had recently been advised of a water leak and the action does not equate to intentional unlawful entry.

Breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment?

[The tenant/s] claim 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.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants claim relates to what they submit is the landlord and his nephew repeatedly attending at the property to attend to maintenance and repairs (often unscheduled). The landlord says he gave proper notice of any repair work. There was a lack of specificity in relation to actual unscheduled visits.
The October 2023 14-day notice required the landlord to give 48 hours advance notice of visits (potentially indicating there had been a problem prior to this), there is no evidence of specific breaches after this.
Tenants are required to provide access for a landlord to conduct repairs. A landlord must give notice of these repairs or at least request permission if the work must be done at short notice.
I have not been provided with sufficient details to find the landlord has deliberately entered the premises for repair work, despite not giving notice or seeking consent.
I am therefore unable to find the landlord has intentionally breached the tenants right to quietly enjoy the property and therefore committed an unlawful act.

Filing fee and name suppression?

I have approved the tenants request for reimbursement of the filing fee and name suppression as the application is partly successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304255 — Rent arrears at 8 Beaumont Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304255 — Rent arrears at 8 Beaumont Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Retaliatory Notice?

Failure to maintain property and comply with Healthy Homes Regulations?

Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

What are the hurdles with bringing claims many years after the event?

What evidence is required to support claims?

Are the tenants entitled to compensation?

Unlawful entry?

Breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment?

Filing fee and name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Retaliatory Notice?

Failure to maintain property and comply with Healthy Homes Regulations?

Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

What are the hurdles with bringing claims many years after the event?

What evidence is required to support claims?

Are the tenants entitled to compensation?

Unlawful entry?

Breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment?

Filing fee and name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions