What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328980 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $815.88 from the bond, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 5328980?

Electricity And Gas 19/08 - 05/09: $61.04 awarded to landlord; Electricity, Gas, Internet 17/07 - 1…: $401.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Failing To Allow Inspection Without…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Internet 19/08 - 05/09: $27.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $325.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328980?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328980?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12648251-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328980 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $815.88 from the bond, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 5328980?

Electricity And Gas 19/08 - 05/09: $61.04 awarded to landlord; Electricity, Gas, Internet 17/07 - 1…: $401.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Failing To Allow Inspection Without…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Internet 19/08 - 05/09: $27.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $325.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328980?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328980?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12648251-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328980 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328980 — net $815.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 05 September 2025	$325.71		81. Section 85(2) of the Act requires the Tribunal to act in a manner that is fair and just, and to have regard to the substantial merits and justice of the ca…
Exemplary damages failing to provide HHS	$150.00		Exemplary damages failing to provide HHS
Electricity and gas 19/08 - 05/09	$61.04		Electricity and gas 19/08 - 05/09
Internet 19/08 - 05/09	$27.25		Internet 19/08 - 05/09
Electricity, gas, internet 17/07 - 18/08	$401.88		Electricity, gas, internet 17/07 - 18/08
Failing to allow inspection without reasonable		$150.00	Failing to allow inspection without reasonable
Total award	$965.88	$150.00
Net award	$815.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$815.88

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328980 — net $815.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 05 September 2025	$325.71		81. Section 85(2) of the Act requires the Tribunal to act in a manner that is fair and just, and to have regard to the substantial merits and justice of the ca…
Exemplary damages failing to provide HHS	$150.00		Exemplary damages failing to provide HHS
Electricity and gas 19/08 - 05/09	$61.04		Electricity and gas 19/08 - 05/09
Internet 19/08 - 05/09	$27.25		Internet 19/08 - 05/09
Electricity, gas, internet 17/07 - 18/08	$401.88		Electricity, gas, internet 17/07 - 18/08
Failing to allow inspection without reasonable		$150.00	Failing to allow inspection without reasonable
Total award	$965.88	$150.00
Net award	$815.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$815.88

Order

The table in the order dated 3 November 2025 contained a calculation error. The exemplary damages awarded against the tenant for failing to allow an inspection are $150.00, not $250.00. The table is amended accordingly. No other changes are made.

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $815.88 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $ 815.88 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $1,464.12 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The property manager/s] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. The Tribunal was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
The tenancy commenced on 01 July 2025 and is for a fixed term to end on 30 June 2026. On 19 August 2025, the tenant filed an application to reduce the fixed term. The application was made on the basis that the landlord had failed to provide and maintain the property and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), resulting in excessive mould causing significant health issues for the occupants.
The tenant also claims that the landlord has failed to provide the grounds in a reasonably tidy condition, failed to maintain the oven and carpet in a reasonable condition, failed to lodge the bond, failed to provide an HHS compliance certificate with the tenancy agreement, and to allow a pre tenancy inspection before the signing the agreement.
In addition to an order reducing the fixed term, the tenant also seeks compensation of $7,000.00 and exemplary damages.
There have been two hearings, the first on 05 September 2025, and the second on 09 October 2025. At the commencement of the first hearing, the tenant advised that they had vacated the property on 22 August 2025. The tenant stated the landlord was aware that they had left. The landlord maintained that the hearing was the first occasion on which they had been made aware of this fact. Although the termination date would ultimately be a matter to be determined by the Tribunal, the tenant stated that they did not intend returning to the property. To enable the landlord to mitigate any potential loss, the Tribunal granted them immediate possession.
At the commencement of the first hearing, both parties produced evidence not previously filed. The tenant produced a specialist mould report, which had not been provided to the landlord.
The Tribunal heard evidence on those claims not relating to the Healthy Homes Standards (oven, carpet, bond, and HHS statement). As the report may have had a significant bearing on the outcome of the HHS claims, an adjournment was appropriate.
After the hearing, the landlord filed a counterclaim alleging that the tenant had unreasonably refused entry to the property, failed to leave the kitchen reasonably clean and the grounds reasonably tidy, had failed to pay electricity, gas, and internet charges, and owed rent to 05 September 2025.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the party making them. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. Each party must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Tenant’s claims Failing to maintain the oven.
The tenant has produced a photograph of the oven door, which they state had a spider web in between the double glass. The tenant also stated that the oven timer was not working properly, which affected the oven’s functionality. The tenant state they sent the landlord an email listing issues, including the oven. The tenant states that soon after, the landlord visited the property and investigated the oven. The tenant states the owner said they would return to fix the timer. While they did return the timer was not fixed. The tenant also stated that the owner said they would provide a manual timer but had not done so.
The landlord stated that the oven issue was raised for the first time around 06 July 2025, and that they visited the property with the owner on 13 July 2025. The landlord accepted that the timer was malfunctioning and, although the owner had tried to repair it, they could not, and it remained unresolved. The landlord stated that the spider web had not been previously raised and the first they became aware of it was when it was included in the tenant’s application on 19 August 2025. The landlord also stated that they had attempted to repair the oven but had been denied entry.
The tenant stated that they had raised the issue of the spider web via [Messaging app] but was unable to provide evidence of this. The tenant denied denying the landlord entry. Failing to maintain the carpet
The tenant has produced a photograph of the carpet in front of the ranchslider leading into the dining room. The carpet shows signs of deterioration relative to its age. The tenant stated that the damage had been covered by a mat and was not obvious at the pre-tenancy inspection. The tenant also stated that the carpet contained insects. The tenant stated that they removed the mat and disposed of it because it was dirty. The tenant stated they had raised the issue on 06 July 2025. The tenant also stated that the landlord had viewed the matter as unimportant and was not motivated to address it.
The landlord accepted that there had been a mat belonging to the previous tenant covering the area, but that it had not been used the “conceal” any damage. The landlord stated that the carpet was over twenty years old and showed obvious signs of wear and tear. The landlord stated that it may have been raised on 06 July 2025. As they had not accompanied the owner on 13 July 2025, they could not confirm whether it was also raised then. The landlord stated however, that there had been no mention of insects until the application. Grounds
The tenant claims the grounds and gardens were not provided in a reasonably tidy condition. The tenant produced a short video they state was taken on the second day of the tenancy. The lawns appear to have been roughly mown. The edges along the fence have not been done.
The landlord disputed the claim, noting that the video was undated. They suggested that it may not have been taken at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord produced a still photograph taken on 18 September 2025 from a CCTV camera installed at the property after the Tribunal granted possession on 5 September 2025, showing the tenant entering the driveway and using their phone to take either photographs or a video. Another image shows the tenant removing items from the property. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant states that the window in the toilet does not close, causing a draught. The property was constructed in the 1970s. Although no photograph has been produced, the window has been described by both parties as a permanently open louvre window, which is a common feature in properties from that era. The tenant states that, despite raising the issue, the matter was not addressed.
The landlord has produced an HHS report from October 2023, which does not cite the window as being a draft issue. The landlord states that on 13 July 2025, they offered to replace the window, but the tenant declined as it would be too disruptive.
The tenant accepted that the matter had been investigated but denied that they had declined the offer to replace the window. Mould and moisture
The tenant alleges that the property suffers from excessive moisture and dampness, which has caused ill health to themselves and their young child. The tenant claims that these issues amount to a change in their personal circumstances and seeks a reduction in the term of the tenancy. The tenant argues that continuing with the tenancy would cause severe physical and mental hardship.
The tenant stated that shortly after moving in, they discovered a patch of mould inside a built-in wardrobe. A photograph showing the mould has been produced. They stated that they advised the landlord, who attended the property a few days later and wiped the mould off. There was no further investigation. The tenant stated that the landlord advised them to use mould remover, which they did on the area inside the wardrobe and another area they claim was in the bathroom. The tenant stated despite a rigorous daily cleaning regime that the mould returned. They state the odour was overpowering, causing the occupants to seek medical intervention and, in the tenant’s case psychological counselling.
The tenant engaged a mould assessor who attended the property on 21 August 2025 to investigate. The assessor prepared a report. In the report they state the tenant was advised to close the house up for an hour before the inspection. The report states: “Upon entry into the premises, the Assessor noted a very sharp mould odour was present and that the air in the residence felt very humid.”
A copy of the report was provided to the tenant on 25 August 2025 and has been produced. The report includes photographs and comments on the poor condition of the carpet. The summary concludes there were high levels of mould spores throughout the property, along with areas of visible mould on walls and ceilings, including a patch of black mould in the hallway cupboard. The assessor recommended: “Immediate vacation of the premises to allow for the scoping of mould remediation works by appropriately experienced and qualified remediation professionals.”
The tenant self-reported to the assessor that they had suffered respiratory illness. The tenant state they vacated the property on 22 August 2025.
The tenant provided some medical records and details of counselling appointments.
The landlord stated that they had visited the property on 06 July 2025 to investigate several matters raised by the tenant, including the presence of mould in the wardrobe in the third bedroom, which is the smallest. That they removed the mould using household mould remover. They state the tenant did not point out any other areas of concern. The landlord stated that the owner attended again on 13 July 2025, but again no issues were raised.
The landlord stated that five weeks then elapsed with no issues being raised. The landlord states that the first time they were made aware that mould might be an ongoing issue was on 17 August 2025, when they received an email listing several issues the tenant considered unresolved, including mould.
On 18 August 2025, the landlord called and discussed the matter with the tenant. The tenant stated that they wished to end the tenancy once they had found a new place to stay. The landlord agreed that the tenancy could end, accepting 21 days’ notice. Although the parties agreed in principle to end the tenancy, they could not agree on the terms.
The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection report which includes photographs.
The landlord stated that they made a request to investigate the matter and, on 20 August 2025, gave notice of their intention to do so on 22 August 2025. Upon receiving the notice on 20 August 2025, the tenant declined the inspection unless the landlord brought with them an inspector approved by the tenant and the visit was video recorded.
The landlord stated that the tenant had used a wet vacuum on the carpet during the tenancy, which may have contributed to any moisture issues. The landlord stated that, after receiving the tenant’s report with the application, they had consulted their own expert, and did not dispute the contents. Upon gaining possession, the landlord began conducting remedial work on the property. This is not disputed. However, the landlord maintains that they were not given the opportunity to properly investigate the matter, they had not been provided with a copy of the report, and that the terms imposed by the tenant were unreasonable, effectively denying the landlord the right of entry.
The tenant accepted that the landlord had been at the property on 06 July 2025 and that the owner had visited on 13 July 2025. They stated that the landlord had promised to return but had not done so. The tenant accepted that they had not raised any mould issues on 13 July 2025. The tenant stated that they had sent the landlord messages via [Messaging app] but were unable to produce them. The tenant produced the user manual for the wet vacuum, stating that it cleaned the carpet using minimal water, dried quickly, and therefore would not have contributed to moisture levels. The tenant denied that their terms for the inspection were unreasonable, referring to an email from the landlord on 19 August 2025 stating that, if they could, the landlord would remedy the matter themselves with cleaning, which the tenant viewed as inadequate. The tenant accepted that they had not raised any issues for five weeks, stating that they were too busy, and that they had not provided a copy of the report. Law
Under section 45(1) (a) of the Act the landlord must provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness. This includes the grounds which must be reasonably tidy.
The Act does not require the premises or the grounds to be provided in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act), the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019 (HHS), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.
The remaining HHS requirements covering heating, ventilation, drainage, moisture ingress, and draught stopping for this tenancy took effect on 01 July 2025.
Regulation 26 of the HHS states that premises must be free from gaps and holes that are not intentional parts of construction (such as drainage and ventilation openings).
Under section 45(1)(c) of the Act, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety, such as those contained in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR).
Regulation 15 of the HIR provides that every house shall be free from dampness.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence.
Failure to meet the obligation in section 45(1)(b) and (c), and comply with the HHS under section 45(1)(bb), is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded. Analysis and decision
The pre-tenancy photographs show that the interior of the property was provided in a reasonably clean condition.
I am not satisfied that the spider’s web between the glass in the oven door was brought to the attention of the landlord. It is a minor fault that could have easily been overlooked at the pre-tenancy inspection.
The pre-tenancy inspection report shows the lawns and gardens to be in a generally reasonable condition.
The timer was faulty and not repaired during the tenancy. However, I am not satisfied that it was more than a minor inconvenience.
While the carpet by the ranchslider was in poor condition and was a potential trip hazard, it was covered by a mat which the tenant chose to remove.
The louvre window in the toilet is a common feature in a property of this era and is therefore an intentional part of its construction. On this basis, it does not constitute a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.
In dealing with the claim that the property suffered from excessive mould and moisture, the issue in this case is whether the landlord was properly advised of the problem and whether they failed to respond appropriately.
Under section 40(1)(d) of the Act, the tenant must notify the landlord of any defects as soon as possible after discovery. Failure to do so may result in the tenant’s liability for any subsequent damage that could have been avoided.
The tenant spent time at the property on 30 June 2025, during which no moisture issues were detected. I cannot rule out that the use of the wet vacuum by the tenant may have contributed to the issue, nor am I satisfied that the tenant, as claimed, properly ventilated the space.
I am not satisfied that any issues were raised with the owner on 13 July 2025.
Despite the tenant’s claim that the moisture and mould were causing extreme physical and emotional harm, there is no evidence that the matter was raised by the tenant for five weeks. When the matter was eventually raised, the tenant impeded the landlord’s investigation. While the property did suffer from some mould issues, it cannot be ruled out that the delay in reporting the matter contributed to the extent of the problem shown in the mould assessor’s report dated 25 August 2025.
The mould assessors report it was not provided to the landlord.
The pre-tenancy inspection report does not show any issues and confirms that any problems would not have been obvious to either party.
The mould assessors report it was not provided to the landlord.
I prefer the landlord’s evidence and find it to be more reliable than the tenant’s.
In conclusion, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations, and the claim is dismissed. Failure to lodge bond
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to lodge the bond.
The tenant claimed that they had been told by the landlord that the bond had been lodged but suspected that it had not.
The landlord stated that they lodged the bond on 08 July 2025. Law
Under section 19(1) of the Act, a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act. Analysis and decision
The Bond Centre records the bond as lodged on 14 July 2025, within 23 days of it being received. The claim is dismissed. Failing to provide an HHS compliance certificate with the tenancy agreement
Under section 13A(1CA) of the Act, a landlord must include an HHS compliance statement with every new, renewed, or varied tenancy agreement, confirming the property’s compliance status with each of the Healthy Homes Standards.
The statement must specify whether the property complies with each of the five HHS (heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping), or if not, what work is required and by when compliance will be achieved.
Section 13(1F) (a) of the Act provides that if a landlord fails to include the required information (including the HHS compliance statement), they commit an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750 may be awarded.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109(3) of the Act.
In awarding exemplary damages, the Tribunal shall consider:
The intent of the person committing the unlawful act.
The effect of the unlawful act.
The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed.
The public interest; and
Whether it is just to make the award
The landlord accepted that they had not provided an HHS compliance statement and stated that this was an oversight. The landlord also stated that, shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, the tenant had requested, and the landlord had provided an HHS report. Analysis and decision
By failing to provide the HHS compliance statement with the tenancy agreement, the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Considering the factors in section 109(3) of the Act, I award the tenant exemplary damages of $150.00. Failure to allow pre tenancy inspection before signing.
The tenant claims that they were refused an inspection of the property before entering the agreement. The tenant stated that, as a result, they had been unaware of defects, in particular issues with mould and dampness.
The tenant viewed the property with others at a group viewing on 19 June 2025. The property was occupied at the time. The tenant made an offer. The agreement was unable to be signed at the property and was signed at the nearby University. There was a walk-through on 30 June 2025. The landlord states the tenant spent an hour inspecting the property, after which the tenant was given the keys.
Although it would be prudent, there are no provisions in the Act obliging the parties to conduct an inspection of the property before entering into a tenancy. I also note the tenant spent time at the property on 30 June 2025, after which they were given the keys. The claim is dismissed. Reduction of fixed term
The tenant submits that property suffered excessive moisture and mould causing physical and emotional harm, and that to refuse a reduction of the fixed term would result is severe hardship. The tenant argues that the tenancy should end when they vacated on 22 August 2025. Law
The usual legal position with a fixed-term agreement is that the term will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. One of those circumstances is found in section 66 of the Act, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
Section 66(1) of the Act states: 66 Reduction of fixed-term tenancy (1) On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant's circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
An unforeseen change in circumstances is one that was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the tenancy agreement was entered. Analysis and decision
As stated, while the property may have suffered from mould at the commencement of the tenancy, which was not detected until shortly afterward, the five-week delay in reporting the issue to the landlord was likely a significant contributing factor in the mould assessor’s findings on 21 August 2025.
Section 85(2) of the Act requires the Tribunal to act in a manner that is fair and just, and to have regard to the substantial merits and justice of the case. In light of this, I consider it would be unfair to allow the tenant to now rely on this as a change in personal circumstances. Landlord’s claims Rent arrears
As stated, although the parties may have disagreed as to the reasons, they nevertheless agreed in principle to end the tenancy but could not agree on the terms.
At the first hearing on 5 September 2025, the tenant advised the Tribunal that they had vacated the property on 22 August 2025. They also stated that they had informed the landlord. The landlord denied having been advised. On the material before me, I am not satisfied that the tenant did so. In fact, the evidence suggests that the tenant concealed their departure. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the first time they were told the tenant was no longer at the property was on 5 September 2025, when advised at court.
The landlord is claiming rent to that date. In this case, I confirm the date of possession as the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has provided an up-to-date rent summary showing that the tenant had paid rent to 1 September 2025. The landlord now seeks rent to 5 September 2025. For the reasons set out above, I consider this to be justified and award the 3 days’ rent as claimed. Failing to leave the interior of the property reasonably clean, failing to leave the lawns reasonably tidy, and to remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the kitchen reasonably clean and has provided a photograph of the oven and the fridge (a chattel).
There is another property at the rear of the tenant’s, which is located nearest the road. There are no fences between the two properties, and they share a driveway. The tenant was responsible for the lawn and gardens at the front and to the side of their property. The landlord has provided photographs of the areas of lawn and garden for which the tenant was responsible, which they state have not been left reasonably tidy. The landlord has also provided photographs showing a small amount of rubbish and gardening items left outside.
The landlord has produced a quote and is claiming $120.00 to clean the kitchen, $80.00 to remove rubbish, and $90.00 to maintain the lawns and gardens. Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and replace missing light bulbs. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Analysis and decision
The comparison photographs of the lawns and grounds at the commencement and end of the tenancy show little difference.
The oven and fridge have not been returned in at least the same state of cleanliness as they were at the commencement of the tenancy, and there are some items left around the exterior of the property.
The landlord states that these issues delayed their ability to re-let the property. However, the landlord also states that soon after regaining possession, the owner undertook remedial work before the property was offered for rental again. While the tenant may have failed to clean the oven and fridge and remove rubbish, I am not satisfied that there has been any loss, and I decline to award any compensation. Refusal to allow entry
The landlord states that after raising issues about mould on 17 August 2025, between 18 August 2025 and 27 August 2025, despite making repeated requests to conduct an inspection and investigate the matter, the tenant denied them entry.
The tenant accepted that they had received the request to conduct an inspection and stated that they would only allow the inspection if an independent and suitably qualified third-party specialising in mould testing was present, and the inspection was recorded. The tenant believed they were justified in imposing these conditions, stating that they were concerned the landlord would simply attempt to clean the mould without properly investigating the cause, and in doing so, would remove evidence the tenant sought to rely on in support of their claim.
The landlord claims that these conditions amounted to a denial of their right to conduct an inspection. Law
Section 48 of the Act states that 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, repairs, or maintenance. To conduct an inspection, the landlord must give at least 48 hours’ notice.
The tenant is required to allow the landlord entry if the landlord has complied with the notice requirements and the entry is for a lawful purpose under section 48.
A tenant who unreasonably fails to allow the landlord access after being given valid notice commits an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
Section 48(5) of the Act states that notwithstanding valid notice the landlord shall not use force or a threat of force to enter or attempt to enter while the tenant is inside the property. Analysis and decision
The issues in this case are whether the inspection notice was valid, whether the tenant denied the landlord access, and, if so, whether they had a reasonable excuse for doing so.
I am satisfied that the landlord gave valid notice of their intention to conduct an inspection. The landlord was legally entitled to investigate the issue themselves. I also note that they had not been provided with a copy of the tenant’s report. The landlord could not force entry while the tenant was present. The tenant’s conduct effectively amounted to a denial of access. Denying entry to preserve evidence is not a reasonable excuse. I find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
The tenant’s denial of access was intentional. As stated, the delay in reporting the issue was likely a factor in the problem becoming worse. Refusing an inspection also caused further delay. Taking these factors into account, I award the landlord exemplary damages of $150.00. Electricity, gas, and internet charges
The electricity, gas, and internet for the property are all with the same provider. At the commencement of the tenancy, the account was in the landlord’s name. The internet portion is a fixed amount and is shared with the property located at the rear of the tenant’s property. The landlord states that the tenant was aware of this arrangement at the commencement of the tenancy. It was anticipated that the account would be transferred to the tenant, but this did not occur. The landlord has provided the relevant accounts. The landlord states that the tenant paid the first account covering the period 17 June 2025 to 16 July 2025, but has failed to pay the account for the period 17 July 2025 to 18 August 2025, which is $401.88, and their share of the account for the period 19 August 2025 to 5 September 2025, being $61.04 for electricity and gas, and $27.25 for the internet. Law
Under section 39 of the Act, the tenant is responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises, such as electricity, gas, telephone, and water charges (if separately metered). Analysis and decision
The charges claimed are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises and are awarded. Costs
Under section 102 (4) of the Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to reimburse the filing fee of a party that has been partly successful with their claim.
As both parties have been partly successful, any reimbursement to one would be cancelled by the award to the other. No orders are made. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the parties name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
While not the result of the landlord breaching their obligations, I accept that the matter in general has caused significant stress and has had a negative impact on the tenant’s emotional wellbeing. I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and to exercise the discretion in subsection 95A (4). Accordingly, the Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328980 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328980 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions