What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316287 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 5316287?

Compensation: Bedroom 1: $1,370.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Bedroom 2: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Cooktop: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316287?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316287?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12586980-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316287 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 5316287?

Compensation: Bedroom 1: $1,370.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Bedroom 2: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Cooktop: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316287?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316287?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12586980-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Billabong Place, Botany Downs, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316287 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316287 — net $6,698.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bedroom 2	$1,200.00	Bedroom 2
Compensation: Bedroom 1	$1,370.00	Bedroom 1
Compensation: Cooktop	$300.00	Cooktop
Exemplary damages: s45(1A	$3,800.00	s45(1A
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,698.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,698.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316287 — net $6,698.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bedroom 2	$1,200.00	Bedroom 2
Compensation: Bedroom 1	$1,370.00	Bedroom 1
Compensation: Cooktop	$300.00	Cooktop
Exemplary damages: s45(1A	$3,800.00	s45(1A
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,698.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,698.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Five Am Realty Limited As Agent For Cheirn Chen Tsai (Ian) & Yu Lin Ku (Evelyn) Amny Lam must pay [The tenant/s] $6,698.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

This tenancy began on 25 August 2024 and was fixed for one year. The tenancy premises is a 3-bedroom brick and tile property. The landlord has owned the property for over 6 years and the property manager Ms L has managed the property for at least the last five.
The tenants lived in the property with their two teenage sons and dogs.
The tenants viewed the property before signing the agreement. The leaks
In between the last tenant’s tenancy ending and this tenancy there was a leak in the ceiling of bedroom 1. The landlord told me that this occurred on the 24 August 2024 as that was the day she did her outgoing inspection for the previous tenants. She noted in the inspection report that there was ceiling leak in the garage, and she would get someone to look at the leak. Ms L told me that she thought the leak was in the garage because there had been a previous leak in the roof of the garage in May that year. Bedroom 1 is next to the garage.
When the plumbers came to the property 1 , they noted a leak in the ceiling and gained access to it by cutting a large hole in the ceiling of bedroom 1. They repaired the leak and taped plastic to the large hole in the ceiling to ‘dry it out’.
The tenants first knew of this leak when they arrived at the property to pick up keys. Ms L was there to give them the keys and explained that there had been a leak that had been fixed, but they were waiting for the ceiling to dry out. The tenant says that Ms L also pointed out an area in the garage roof which was stained from a previous water leak and was sagging. The tenant says that they were not too concerned about the problem, as they expected that this was a ‘one off’ and the resultant damage, being the large hole in the ceiling of bedroom 1 would be fixed quickly.
The tenants then experienced another leak in the garage, only 4 weeks later on the 22 September 2024. They say it occurred on a Sunday evening, they tried to get hold of Ms L but got no reply. They had to turn off the water and sent Ms L an email telling her about the leak and telling her that they would get their plumber in the morning, which they did. [The Plumber] fixed the leak. In the plumber’s invoice for $205.56 it notes that the work that was done was: “Investigate burst pipe. Travelled to site and cut out pin holed pipework and replaced section. Customer has dux quest/original buteline. Advised them this would happen again just a matter of time. Really need to repipe the house for future proofing.” (own emphasis)
The tenant sent the invoice to the landlord for payment on 29 September. The landlord did not pay that invoice until May 2025 after the tenant asked for payment many times.
The landlord conducted a routine property inspection on the 6 November 2024. During that inspection Ms D, a different property manager noted that the property still had a large hole in the ceiling of the bedroom 1. Ms D told me that 1 There is a discrepancy about when this occurred, the plumber’s invoice is dated 22 August 2024 but Ms L tells me that the leak was not detected until the final inspection on the 24 August 2024. she visually saw that the ceiling was dry, as there was no moisture on the plastic, but she did not go into the ceiling cavity to check as she was not able to do that during inspections for Health and Safety reasons.
The landlord took no steps to remedy the ceiling damage in bedroom 1 after the November inspection, so in January when the tenant was home on holiday, he did the work and invoiced the landlord for the repairs. 2 The invoice was sent to the landlord in early February. The owner queried the amount of the invoice and told Ms L that he wanted to inspect the work that had been done before paying. The landlord and Ms L conducted an inspection of the property together with the tenant on the 3 March 2025. Ms L completed a property inspection report which the tenant signed. This was provided to the Tribunal. In that report it notes that: “The owner said they are willing to pay $700 plus GST to the tenant for the ceiling repair.” “The tenant said that the two elements of the stove worked very slowly and did not get hot enough, making cooking difficult. The owner agreed to replace it with a new one.”
The tenant did not agree to the landlord’s offer of $700 for the repair of the ceiling. The landlord says that the amount offered was the amount quoted by the owner’s contractor to do the work, but I find that this is unlikely given that the landlord never sent a contractor to look at the ceiling during the tenancy, and I was told that the ceiling leak only occurred a day or so before the tenancy began.
On the 10 April 2025 there was another leak in the ceiling of the hallway next to the garage. The tenant turned off the water and fixed this leak himself. He says that the previous plumber from [The Plumber] had told him that he should buy a crimper and some pipe, because there would be further leaks. The tenant had these tools and so the tenant fixed the hallway leak himself but not the resultant damage to the ceiling and wall. The tenant thought that he had notified the landlord of the leak as soon as it occurred, but he conceded at hearing that it appeared that he may not have.
A few weeks later there was another leak in the ceiling in the kitchen, again the tenant fixed the leak. There was no resultant damage from this leak.
On the 8 May 2025 there was a significant leak in the other bedroom (bedroom 2). The tenant again fixed this leak but notified the landlord immediately by phone because of the extent of the resultant damage. On the 9 May at 9.36am the tenant sent the following email to the property manager: 2 The tenant is not a builder but is an electrician and handy man and tells me that he has done this type of work before.
The tenant says that despite the email and phone calls to the landlord he did not receive any response from the landlord. As a result, on the 12 May the tenant send a long letter to the landlord setting out all the problems at the tenancy and his frustration at the long delays in having any work completed, the lack of payment for invoices for work the tenant had done, and reimbursement for the plumbing account. The tenant described this letter as a 14-day notice.
By June the ceiling and walls were showing mould, and the tenant says he was concerned that the landlord’s tradespeople who went to the property and painted the ceiling on or about the 11 June 2025 were literally painting over the mould rather than repairing the cause. He felt that the landlord was trying to do the cheapest job possible to remedy the damage. The tenants were by this stage extremely frustrated by the number of leaks and the lack of urgency in the landlord attending to repairs. The tenants were concerned about the effect on their health from the mould they could see. The tenants were also getting fed up with having to change where their sons slept and moving bedding and possessions around.
The landlord denies that they took too long to remedy issues and says that the tenant did not always notify the landlord of problems at the tenancy when they arose and abused the landlord’s tradespeople by making racial slurs and questioning their skills and integrity and did not lock away the dogs when asked. The landlord says that this made it difficult to get people to do the job.
The repair work to the ceiling and walls in the bedroom 2 was completed on the 21 July. The tenant says that the light fittings and carpet damage had not been addressed.
Since 31 July 2025 there have been no other leaks at the property.
On the 31 July the tenant filed this claim.
On or about the 24 August the landlord gave the tenant a 90 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenant claims this notice is retaliatory.
The tenant’s claims are: a. That the landlord provided incorrect information in the tenancy agreement on the current compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. b. That the landlord failed to maintain the property by: I.Failing to repair damage caused by the leaks. II.Failing to address the cause of the leaks. III.Failing to repair the stove elements. c. That the landlord failed to comply with Healthy Homes Standards because the house leaked and was mouldy. d. That the landlord’s agent Ms D breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment because she filmed the tenant on the 17 June 2025 whilst at the property and threatened to issue a 14 day notice against the tenant. e. That the termination notice was retaliatory
The tenant seeks $15,216.00 in compensation and exemplary damages were applicable for these claimed breaches. Did the landlord provide incorrect information in the tenancy agreement on the current compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards?
Landlords must include in the tenancy agreement certain information about the current level of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. 3
The landlord had the house assessed on the 15 March 2024 and it passed all the Standards.
The tenant say that the landlord did not provide the tenants with a copy of the tenancy agreement or the signed Healthy Homes Standards Statements. The landlord disputed this, but it became clear at the hearing that the email the landlord thought that they had sent was a draft email on the 29 August 2024 which had not been sent.
The landlord breached s13 by failing to provide the tenancy with a copy of the signed tenancy agreement and the healthy homes standards statements, but I award no exemplary damages because I do not consider that the landlord acted with intention. This was a case where the landlord thought that they had sent an email which was still in ‘draft’. It was an administrative oversight. 3 Section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The parties’ legal obligations.

A landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair taking into account the age and character of the home. 4 Tenants must notify the landlord of any damage as soon as possible. Landlords have a responsibility to investigate and repair any damage that is easily observable at inspections, or that they have notice of.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) RTA by failing to both provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition I say this for the following reasons: a. The landlord did not fix the hole in the ceiling of bedroom 1 or send around anyone to complete work, or to check that the ceiling was dry for 5 months. I do not accept the landlord’s excuse that they were waiting for it to dry out because the landlord made no effort to investigate (between August and November) whether the ceiling had in fact dried out, or to send tradespeople to test or get the work done. Even after the landlord’s property manager visually assessed that the ceiling was dry at the November inspection, the landlord did not send any tradesperson to the property to fix the damage. This was a large hole in the ceiling, it exposed the roof cavity, and whilst it was covered with plastic this was not a satisfactory state of repair for 5 months. b. The landlord did nothing to address the concerns raised by [The Plumber] in their invoice sent by the tenant to the landlord in September. The problems with older dux quest plumbing is public knowledge and is well known. By September 2024 there had been three significant leaks within five months (ceiling of the garage in May 2024, bedroom 1 in August 2024 and another garage ceiling leak in September 2024) I consider a reasonable response to this pattern of leaking and being alerted of this problem by a plumber would be for the landlord to send a plumber to investigate the dux quest plumbing situation, including whether it was necessary to replumb the house. The advice noted in [The Plumber]’s invoice in September 2024 was prescient given the leaks that followed in 2025. c. The landlord failed to respond within a reasonable time to the leak damage notified on 8 and 9 May. The fact that it took the tenant issuing a 14-day notice on the 12 May to even get a response, demonstrates the difficulty the tenant had in getting work completed in a timely manner. This was a serious leak and the damage was considerable. A reasonable response would have been for at least the property manager to come to the property 4 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. that day, and then for tradespersons to be engaged. Again, I also consider that a plumber should have also been sent to look at the pipe work and consider whether the property needed replumbing. It does not appear that the landlord sent the plumber to the property until 16 June. d. I do not consider the time it took to have the resultant damage in bedroom 2 which occurred as a result of the leak on the 8 May 2025 repaired to be reasonable. The ceiling and walls were finally repaired on the 21 July some 2.5 months after the damage occurred. In particular, I consider that the landlord failed in its obligations to repair the damage between 8 May and 26 June in a reasonable manner. The landlord obtained a quote from [Plumbing Company] on the 16 June which details the work as including replacing the Gib on the walls and the ceiling plastering and painting. The quote for this work was $5715.50. The landlord did not like this quote thinking it too high and instead got [Property Contractor] to do the work at a cost of $862.50, this quote was much lower as [Property Contractor] would only replace a 2-metre square of ceiling, which was totally inadequate to repair the damaged ceiling and walls which were already mouldy from the water infiltration. After the tenant complained about the repair of just 2 metres square of the ceiling, the landlord obtained insurance for the damage and the ceiling and walls were replaced at a cost of just over $5000. This demonstrates that the original quotation was correct both in scope and price and reiterates the tenant’s concerns that the landlord was opting for the cheapest way of fixing the problem, rather than completing the repairs that were necessary to a repair to a reasonable standard. e. I record that I do not consider that the tenant contributed to the landlord’s failure to repair. The two events that the landlord relied upon of the tenant’s obstruction of tradespeople occurred in or about June 2025, the first was that the tenant had allegedly not locked his dogs away. The tenant denies that the dogs were not locked away, but also says that he was not given proper notice. The tenant just wanted work to get done and therefore the communication about when tradespeople would come would often be by phone call. It is clear from the communication history, emails and text messages provided by both parties, that it was sometimes not clear when exactly tradespeople would be at the house. f. The second event occurred on the 17 June. The landlord says that the tenants spoke to the [Property Contractor] tradespeople in a derogatory manner and used racial slurs. The tenants deny using abusive language or racial slurs but say that they were upset and angry with the job because they thought that the tradespeople were coming that day and replacing the ceiling, walls and getting the bedroom reinstated. They were upset to learn that that tradespeople had only been authorised to replace a 2 meter square portion of the ceiling, not the total ceiling and walls. I have seen video of the tenants taken by the property manager Ms D on the 17 June. The tenants were very upset and angry. However, whilst the tenants are shouting and swearing and their behaviour would be categorised as aggressive in tone and language. the tenant’s behaviour must be seen in context. I consider that, whilst their words and tone were ill advised, their level of frustration is understandable given that by this stage they had endured 5 months of no action with a large hole in the ceiling of bedroom 1, that they had to then fix themselves and now they had not been able to use another bedroom for over a month and they believed the fix to be substandard and less that what they should be getting. g. I also am satisfied that the landlord failed to fix the elements on the stove in a reasonable time. The tenant complained that the front two elements did not work properly and would only work on low. In the March inspection it notes “Front stove elements very weak” and cooktop needs to be checked or replaced”. Yet despite these notations by the property manager the cooktop was not replaced until after the tenant issued a 14 notice on the 12 May.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Landlords are required to ensure that the property meets Healthy Homes Standards, section 45(1)(bb) RTA. There are five healthy Homes Standards. The standards are quite explicit in what is required to meet the standard.
The moisture and drainage standard has two requirements the drainage system must efficiently drains storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate outfall and in certain buildings a ground moisture barrier must be installed.
The moisture and drainage standard does not relate to leaks from plumbing systems in the home, therefore there is no breach by the landlord of the Healthy Homes Standards resulting from the failure of the Dux Quest plumbing and leaks in the home.
The tenant says that there is a problem with the internal gutters. The tenant submits that this is evident from the marks on the walls and the mould growth which follows the same line of the guttering. The tenant pointed to pictures of the mould growth and says that he believes that the gutters are failing allowing water to ingress. There were no plumbing reports on the state of the gutters. The landlord accepted that there may be some problems with the gutters but that these will be fully investigated after the tenancy ends when fully remedial work at the property will take place.
The landlord provided a Healthy Homes report that it obtained on the 15 march 2024, it confirms that the property meets all standards.
As I do not have reports from a tradesperson which challenge the Healthy Homes report on the condition of the gutters, then I cannot be satisfied that it is likely that they failing and therefore do not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant’s claim for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards therefore fails. Did the landlord breach s45(1)(c) RTA by failing to ensure that the property was free from damp?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached s45(1)(c) RTA by breaching regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 that the house must be free from damp.
I am satisfied that the house was not free from damp, because the leaks made the house damp, water infiltrated the ceiling, the insulation and the walls. These should have been dried out as soon as the leak was found. The mould growth on the ceiling in walls in bedroom 2 after the 8 May leak is proof that the house was damp and mouldy. I find that the landlord breached s 45(1)(c) RTA.

What is the remedy?

When a party breaches the Residential Tenancies Act, the Tribunal can award compensation and if the breach is an unlawful act, exemplary damages.
I have found that the landlord breached s 45(1)(b) by failing to maintain the property by not fixing the leaks, damage caused by the leaks, not investigating the faulty plumbing, and not repairing the stove. I have also found that the landlord breached s45(1)(c) RTA by failing to ensure that the property was free from damp.
Compensation should restore a party to a position that they would have been if the breach had not occurred.
Exemplary damages are more punitive, like a fine. The breaches of s45(1)(b) and s45(1)(c) are both breaches to which exemplary damages can be awarded under s45(1A). The maximum award under that section is $7,200.00.
The landlord offered the tenant compensation of $100.00 per week from the 8 May to the 31 July. In making this offer the landlord compared the bond centre information for a two bedroom property to a three bedroom property.
I have considered the bond centre information and I agree that $100 per week for lack of the bedroom 2 is appropriate. I therefore award the tenant 12 weeks compensation totalling $1,200.00 for the lack of bedroom 2.
The tenants say that they were unable to use bedroom 1 from the 24 August to 7 January, when the tenant fixed the ceiling. The landlord says that at the November inspection it appears that the bedroom is being used as a bedroom because there is furniture, clothes and a bed in the room. The tenant says that his son could not sleep in the room because if was cold and draughty from the plastic covering the large hole in the ceiling. The tenant says his son slept on a mattress in the lounge.
I consider that there probably were times that the tenant was able to use the bedroom and other times that they were not. However, during this whole time the tenant did not have the full amenity of the bedroom because of the large hole in the ceiling. I award the tenant $70 per week from 24 August to 7 January 2025. The hole was large, unsightly and draughty. This would reduce the rent to $690 over this period which was the median price for a 3-bedroom property in this area. Given the condition of the property I think that this is fair. The amount of compensation for failure to fix the repair to bedroom 1 is $1,370.00.
The tenants notified the landlord of the problems with the cooktop at the March inspection, it was not fixed until after the 12 May. I award the tenant $300 compensation for this breach.
I consider that the other breaches are best dealt with under an award of exemplary damages pursuant to s45(1A).
In considering the amount of exemplary damages to award I must consider the factors set out in section 109 (3) RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person • The effect of the unlawful act • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest.
I consider that there was a high level of intentionality by the landlord in this instance; the landlord knew that there was a large hole in the ceiling at the beginning of the tenancy and did nothing about it. In reviewing the evidence there is a pattern of the landlord not responding to the tenant’s communication, and I am of the view that had the tenant not been so proactive in fixing the repairs that it is unlikely that the repairs would have been done.
The tenant tells me that these problems have had a significant effect on his and his family’s lives. He said that his children have had to sleep on a mattress on floor, that they are constantly on alert for new leaks, that they worry about their belongings getting damaged. They have taken considerable time off work to come to the property to deal with the problems, that they have to feel like they have to fight to get anything done, and when they get annoyed, they are ‘told off’ by the property managers for being abusive or too loud. He said his whole family is stressed, angry and extremely frustrated. The tenant says that they feel like they have not been able to relax in their home and now they face moving again which is another stress. He tells me it has caused a great deal of strain on family relationships.
It is not lost on me that in the email correspondence I have seen that there appears a lack of understanding or acknowledgement by the property managers of the extreme stress and loss of enjoyment of their home that these tenants have suffered as a result of the landlord’s breaches. In none of the emails between the parties up until the landlord appointed Mr B to liaise with the tenants, was there any apology to the tenants for failing to address work, pay invoices incurred by the tenant or even an acknowledgement of the effect that the leaks had on the tenant and their family. The tenants were told that they were to notify the landlord immediately but this failed to recognise the tenants’ experience that when they had made notifications nothing happened. The landlord’s tried to blame the tenants for their lack of reminding the landlord about repairs. I made it clear to the landlord at the hearing and I make it clear here, that once a landlord is aware of a problem it is their sole responsibility to ensure that the damage is fixed, or the repair carried out, it is not up to the tenant to keep on asking for work to be done.
I consider that is in public interest that the award made here for exemplary damages recognises that these tenants have not had a warm, safe, well- maintained, stress-free home to live in. I consider the fact that this property is manged by professional property managers. When tenants take properties manged by professional property manger from large nationwide franchises, they do so expecting that the property managers will ensure adherence to the landlord’s obligations in the RTA. In saying that I recognise that the property mangers were confined by the owner’s expectations and the contractual relationship that they had with the owner, which prevented the property manager simply sending in their own tradespeople to deal with the problems. It appears that owner preferred to use his tradespeople who were often lower in cost to those preferred by the property managers.
Taking the above factors and also the nature, extent and duration of the breaches into account I award the tenant $3,800.00 in exemplary damages. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The tenant claims that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment on the 17 June by threatening them with a 14 day notice, videoing the tenant and refusing to leave the property when asked.
On the 17 June the property manager Ms D had arranged with the male tenant to bring tradespeople to the house to carry out the repair work to bedroom 2. The tenants were already in their own words ‘fed up’ with landlord and the delay in having the damage to bedroom 2 fixed. The tenants say that they believed that the landlord was now hiring unqualified people to do a substandard, cheap job, which would patch the problem rather than fix it. This opinion was further cemented the first tradespeople who the property managers had sent to do the quote and whom the tenants trusted would do a good job, were removed because they were too expensive. The tenant played me a voice recording where the original tradesperson referred to the people who were now being engaged by the landlord to do the work were ‘muppets’ who did not know what they were doing. The property manager came to the home on the 17 June, introduced the tradespersons to the male tenant and left.
At some stage the tenants became aware that the tradespeople were only instructed to remove and replace a 2x2 metre portion of the ceiling, not the whole ceiling insulation, walls as was originally scoped. The tenants were upset and angry about this. The tradespersons rang the property manager and asked her to come back to the property.
When the property manager got to the property the front door was open, the tenant says she walked in without knocking, the property manager says she stood on the front door step and called out. The tenants says that the female tenant who had not recalled meeting Ms D before, did not know who this person was in her house and asked her to leave, the tenant say that Ms D refused to leave and told them that they had been abusive to her tradespeople and to her and she would issue them with a 14 day notice. The tenant says that Ms D then began filming them.
Ms D says that she was called back to the house by her tradespeople who told her that the tenants were shouting at them and using racial slurs. She says that she did not enter the house and she was trying to explain who she was and why she was there to the female tenant who was using racist and derogatory language towards her. She says that she started filming because she wanted to record what was happening.
Almost all of what each party says happened before the property manager started filming was disputed. In such incidents of ‘he said, she said’ it is difficult, in the absence of witness accounts or other evidence, to make any findings on what was said or occurred.
I did see the video taken by the property manager, it shows tenants that are visibly upset and angry. The female tenant swears at the property manager but does not refer to anyone by their race or make racial slurs. She repeatedly asks the property manager to leave, and the property manger does retreat back to her car. The property manager says that she plans on issuing a 14 day notice because of the tenant’s behaviour.
I do not consider that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, the property manger was entitled to be at the property, and it was wise of her to come back when the tradespeople and the tenants were in dispute. It was also wise of her to video her interactions with the tenant when they were in dispute so that there was an accurate record of the interaction, the property manager did not hide that she is videoing. The property manager is outside the house the whole time.
I observe that the tenant’s conduct was confrontational and angry, but I also consider in this context that the tenant’s behaviour was understandable given the living conditions in her home and that a property manager who she believed had never met her before, was now at her home filming her in her pyjamas early in the morning and telling her to lower her voice. Given what the tenants had to endure to this point, I consider that most people in the tenants’ situation would be angry, frustrated and upset.

Was the notice given on the 24 August retaliatory?

A notice is retaliatory if when it was given 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. 5
The tenant claims that the landlord gave notice in response to its complaints about the condition of the property. The landlord says that the termination is necessary in order to investigate and repair all of the problems at the tenancy included possibly having the house replumbed and the internal gutters replaced with external guttering.
The purpose of s54 RTA is to prevent landlords from giving termination notices to tenant who raise genuine concerns or complaints about the property or the landlord’s behaviour. It is not for situations when the reasonable response to the tenant’s complaint is to terminate to allow work to be done.
Having considered all the evidence, including the emails between the property managers before termination was given, I consider that whilst the termination was given in response to the genuine concerns raised by the tenants, it was not retaliatory because it was necessary to investigate whether the property needed a full replumb (and I consider it likely that it will), and to deal with the gutters. The landlord told me that the owner would like to do all the work at once, including replacing carpets etc before re renting it.
The tenant’s claim that the notice is retaliatory is not proven and therefore dismissed. I caution the landlord, that the landlord should ensure that it 5 Section 54 RTA undertakes the work it has said it will. If it simply puts the house back on the rental market, then this is likely to lead to further claims in the Tribunal. Name suppression and filing fee.
The tenant has been mostly successful in his claims, and I award them the filing fee and grant name suppression as requested.
I do not grant name suppression to the landlord as requested or the owners of the property because: •They have been unsuccessful. •It is in the public interest because tenants who are looking to rent properties through agencies should be aware of adverse findings made against those property management firms and landlords.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316287 — Exemplary damages at 12 Billabong Place, Botany Downs, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316287 — Exemplary damages at 12 Billabong Place, Botany Downs, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

What is the remedy?

Was the notice given on the 24 August retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

What is the remedy?

Was the notice given on the 24 August retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions