What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5334583 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 5334583?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5334583?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5334583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13057777-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5334583 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 5334583?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5334583?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5334583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13057777-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

44 Havill Street, Takaro, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5334583 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5334583. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and reimbursement of the filing fee of	$28.00		and reimbursement of the filing fee of

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5334583. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and reimbursement of the filing fee of	$28.00		and reimbursement of the filing fee of

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Sharon Turner must pay [The landlord/s] $250.86 immediately, being rent arrears to 9 October 2025 of $222.86 and reimbursement of the filing fee of $28.00.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 to the landlord immediately in reduction of the rent arrears awarded to the landlord under the Tribunal’s prior order of 30 September 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the all-day hearing.
The landlord’s application is for rent arrears from 6 October to 9 October 2025 when the landlord obtained vacant possession.
The tenant’s application is for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord: a. Failing to provide a healthy homes statement as required by section 13(1)(1CA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. Failing to provide an insurance statement as required by section 13(2) RTA. c. Failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness under section 45(1)(a) RTA. d. Failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises required under section 45(1)(b) RTA. e. Failing to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016. See section 45(1)(ba) RTA. f. Failing to comply with the healthy homes standards under section 45(1)(bb) RTA. g. Breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises under section 38 RTA. h. Issuing a retaliatory notice. See section 54 RTA.
The tenant’s specific claims are those listed in the Tribunal’s prior order and include some added by the tenant in her submissions and during the hearing. It was necessary to consider some of her claims under different or alternative provisions of the RTA once she had tried to clarify them and provided her verbal evidence. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be decided.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) RTA.
It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reason for its decisions. Landlord’s claim for rent arrears
The landlord was awarded rent arrears of $6,240.00 for the period to 6 October 2025 under the Tribunal’s interim order of 30 September 2025.
The tenant agreed at the hearing on 30 September 2025 that she had the arrears available and that she would pay them in one lump sum no later than 2 October 2025. She did not do so.
The tenant did not pay any further amounts of rent.
The landlord advised that when the tenant failed to pay the lump sum and the first instalment of rent, it tried to contact the tenant’s representative, but its telephone calls were not returned. The landlord therefore visited the property on 9 October 2025 and discovered that the tenant had left the property.
The tenant advised the Tribunal that she vacated the property on 3 October 2025 and assumed that the tenancy and her liability would therefore end. She confirmed that she did not return the keys or tell the landlord that she had vacated. She claimed that her representative had told the landlord by telephone that she had vacated.
The tenant’s representative was telephoned and gave evidence that the landlord telephoned him to enquire as to the nonpayment of rent. He told the landlord to follow that up with the tenant. He confirmed that he did not tell the landlord that the tenancy had ended and there was “no way” he told the landlord that the tenant was no longer living at the property.
While the landlord denied that this telephone conversation with the tenant’s representative took place, it is evidence that the landlord was not advised that the tenant had left the property as claimed by the tenant.
As the tenant did not return the keys or inform the landlord that she had vacated the property, the landlord is entitled to rent until it was able to take possession on 9 October 2025. Tenant’s claim: failure to provide a healthy homes statement
The tenant claimed that the landlord breached its obligation under section 13(1)(1CA) RTA which provides: “The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— (a) that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).”
At the hearing the tenant accepted that the healthy homes statement was included with the tenancy agreement signed at the start of the tenancy but claimed that it was misleading or inaccurate. The tenant also claimed that the landlord had a duty to provide an updated healthy homes statement but did not provide any legal authority in support. Section 13(1)(1CA) RTA requires the landlord to supply the statement in the tenancy agreement. There is nothing in the section requiring the landlord to update it.
Both the landlord and the tenant provided a copy of the tenancy agreement including the healthy homes statement in evidence. It confirms that the landlord complied with section 13(1)(1CA) RTA.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim: failure to provide an insurance statement
The tenant claimed that the landlord breached its obligation under section 13(2) RTA which provides: “The landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a) if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b) if the premises are insured, a statement— (i) setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii) informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).”
The tenant confirmed that an insurance statement was included in the tenancy agreement submitted in her evidence. However, the insurance statement having confirmed that the property was insured, stated that the insurance type was “TBA” and the excess information was left blank. The tenant claimed that the landlord’s failure to include the insurance type and excess meant that the landlord had failed in its obligations under section 13(2) RTA.
The landlord explained that a copy of the insurance policy was later supplied to the tenant when it was requested which included all the information omitted from the insurance statement.
The landlord has not met its obligations under section 13(2) RTA as it has not provided a statement containing the required information. The requirement for an insurance statement is so that the tenant knows that the property is insured and knows the tenant’s potential liability for careless damage which is often the insurance excess.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The breach of the RTA took place on 28 August 2023 when the tenancy agreement was signed. The tenant made her application to the Tribunal on 26 August 2025. Section 109(2) RTA provides that a tenant may not apply for exemplary damages 12 months after the date of commission of this unlawful act.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award exemplary damages more than 12 months after the commission of an unlawful act.
The tenant has not provided evidence that she suffered any loss by the absence of the required information which was supplied to her at a later date upon her request. The tenant acknowledged at the hearing that the landlord’s failure to provide the fully completed insurance statement was “not a big deal”.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
During the hearing the tenant also claimed that the landlord did not provide a copy of the insurance policy when she requested it.
Section 45(2B) RTA provides: “The landlord of premises that are insured may at any time, and must within a reasonable time after receiving a request from the tenant for a copy of the insurance policy, provide to the tenant under a tenancy agreement a copy of each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises.”
The landlord provided a copy of the landlord’s bank’s confirmation of cover within a reasonable time of its request. This contained the relevant important information. It was not relevant that the landlord deleted the owner’s name.
For completeness’ sake, the Tribunal confirms that the landlord complied with section 45(2B) RTA and any claim the tenant had in relation to the landlord’s compliance is dismissed. Tenant’s claim: failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness
The tenant claimed that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness as provided in section 45(1)(a) RTA. She provided photographic evidence and claimed that: a. There was an untidy compost heap and lawn clippings left at the premises. b. There was dust on parts of the hot water cupboard door. c. A cupboard under the kitchen sink was unclean. d. There were hairs on a ledge. e. A sink plug was unclean. f. The toilet was unclean. g. Dust and hairs on a telephone junction box, an electrical socket, blinds. h. Windows were unclean. i. A gas hob and an oven tray were unclean. j. Fluff or some other item on carpets. k. Photographs of rodent dropping and a partially eaten banana. l. The previous tenants had a cat and the carpets should have been professionally cleaned. She claimed that the carpets were contaminated by cat’s urine, although this only became apparent over a year after the start of the tenancy in December 2024.
The tenant sent an email to the landlord on 31 August 2023 stating: “I see what you mean about not being spotless. I have a fair amount of cleaning before my things can come out of boxes!”
The tenant found evidence of rodent droppings and so put out rat poison she found at the premises. This did not appear to be working and so on 8 October 2023 the tenant emailed the landlord asking that the issue be dealt with.
The landlord advised that the premises were provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provided in support a copy of the ingoing inspection report together with photographs. These showed the same fluff on some carpets and some dust on some surfaces.
The landlord confirmed that the previous tenants had a cat and that the tenants had cleaned the carpet with a rug doctor. The landlord confirmed that the tenant did not complain of any cat urine smell until May 2025. The landlord was unaware of any rodent issue until notified by the tenant when it took prompt action to engage a professional contractor.
There is no definition of a reasonable state of cleanliness or reasonably clean and tidy in the RTA. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. e. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
From the evidence submitted by both parties, the Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness for the following reasons: a. The tenant’s photographs show some areas that required further cleaning, but they do not show that overall the premises were not left in an acceptable state. While there were some areas requiring some further cleaning, as noted above, there is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be in a reasonable state of cleanliness. It is acceptable that some areas were not “perfect” or to the standard one would expect in a motel or hotel. b. The issue of the cat urine smell was not detected by the tenant until over a year from the start of the tenancy. If she was unaware of it and did not draw the landlord’s attention to it, it is reasonable that the landlord was unaware of it also. The landlord has no duty to remedy a defect or clean something of which neither it nor the tenant has any knowledge. c. The landlord had no knowledge of the rodent issue and took prompt steps to eradicate them once advised of it. This issue relates more to the tenant’s claim regarding the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises and will be dealt with more fully later in this order. d. The Tribunal has consistently declined claims by landlords for a full spring clean of premises including the wiping of all skirting boards, light switches, junction boxes and window cleaning because that is cleaning to a higher standard than that required under the RTA. The tenant may have felt more comfortable to undertake further cleaning, but that does not mean or prove that the landlord has breached its obligation.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim: failure to maintain
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the property by: a. Not resolving the rodent issue promptly. b. Not repairing the sewage and wastewater system. c. Not providing a refrigerator or washing machine as listed in the tenancy agreement. d. Not addressing her concerns regarding leaking gas from the gas fire in the lounge. e. Not resolving the cat urine smell issue. f. Not repairing or replacing curtains.
The tenant notified the landlord that she had been unable to deal with the rodent issue by email on 8 October 2023. The landlord advised the tenant that it would send its professional contractor the next day and provided a copy of an invoice from the contractor for its services dated 10 October 2023.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that the landlord responded promptly to the tenant’s complaint regarding rodents and took the necessary steps within a reasonable time frame. The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s evidence was that there was an issue with the kitchen and bathroom sinks not draining quickly from the start of the tenancy and she notified the landlord of the issue on 13 September 2023. The tenant confirmed that the landlord sent its contractor “pretty much straight away” and the issue appeared to be fixed. However, the tenant notified the landlord on 6 October 2023 that the issue was not resolved. The tenant advised that once again the landlord responded promptly and the issue was fixed. The landlord provided a copy of a work order issued on 9 October 2023 and copies of invoices dated 18 September 2023 and 5 November 2023 confirming the work had been completed in a timely manner.
The tenant experienced issues with the wastewater from the bath overflowing the outside drain and notified the landlord of the issue on 15 November 2024. The landlord provided a copy of an invoice for clearing the drain of roots dated 27 November 2024.
The tenant notified the landlord that the toilet was blocked on Sunday 27 April 2025. The tenant supplied in evidence a copy of the landlord contractor’s statement dated 11 September 2025 which confirmed that the contractor attended on 27 April 2025 and made the toilet operational. The toilet blocked again in early May and the contractor confirmed his attendance on 8 May 2025 to remove roots from the drain. The tenant confirmed at the hearing that the issue was “fixed straight away”. The tenant’s claim in relation to the waste water system is dismissed.
The tenant was concerned that the tenancy agreement included a fridge/freezer and a washing machine in the chattels provided in the tenancy. She raised this with the landlord who agreed that they were not included, the premises were not advertised with them included and that their inclusion was an error. The tenant’s emails confirm her satisfaction that this was resolved. She confirmed at the hearing that the landlord was correct that these items were not included in the tenancy and the landlord had confirmed this with the tenant. Nonetheless, the tenant’s claim included for the loss of food caused by not having a fridge/freezer. The amount claimed was unsupported by any evidence. The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
There are two gas heaters at the premises: one in the lounge and one in the hallway. The tenant claimed at the hearing that both heaters were leaking at the start of the tenancy, there was a gas leak throughout the tenancy and that the gas heaters were unsafe. The landlord provided copies of work orders dated 18 September 2023 and 9 October 2023 to check the gas heaters. It provided a copy of an invoice from its contractor dated 5 November 2023 for attendances in relation to the gas heater in the hallway. The tenant claimed that they had told her that the heaters were “condemned”. No evidence was supplied supporting this statement. The landlord confirmed at the hearing that no gas leak was detected in relation to the lounge heater by its contractor.
On 4 July 2025 the tenant contacted the landlord’s contractor to enquire as to whether the lounge heater was flued or unflued. Because of the ongoing concern of the tenant regarding the gas heaters and the many issues which the tenant had been raising, the landlord advised the tenant on 7 July 2025 that its contractor would be coming to check the gas heater in the lounge. The tenant advised the Tribunal that she cancelled this visit on 9 July 2025 because she did not trust the landlord and their contractors.
An email from the tenant to the landlord dated 7 July 2025 claimed that the heaters were “unlawful and were condemned and decommissioned in 2023.” The landlord responded correctly pointing out that only the hallway heater was decommissioned and that it wanted to have the lounge heater checked after the tenant contacted the landlord’s contractor and because of issues the tenant had recently raised about the adequacy of the heating which will be discussed more fully under the tenant’s claims in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”).
The tenant then instructed her own contractor to inspect the gas heaters and produced in evidence an invoice dated 15 September 2025. This recorded: “Hallway heater has been disconnected. Flued heater in lounge has a split heat exchanger and not flame protected. Shoudn’t be used.”
The tenant advised the Tribunal that she did not know what a split heat exchanger was or how the heater was not flame protected.
The tenant claimed in her written submission which she read to the Tribunal that her contractor turned on the lounge heater and a flame appeared. She also confirmed that she had used this heater for around a month in September and October 2023. She claimed that her contractor found that there was a crack causing a leak.
There is no evidence from the contractor regarding any crack or any leak. It is reasonable to deduce that if the contractor had detected a gas leak, he would not then have lit the gas fire as he would have had to have had concerns regarding the amount of flammable gas in the atmosphere.
On 1 December 2025 the tenant notified Worksafe which asked the landlord’s contractor for its NZ Gas Safety Certificate in relation to its attendances in relation to the heaters back in 2023. This was supplied and a copy was sent to the tenant. It records that the work undertaken was “gas heater in hallway leaking cap gas line and remove heater”.
The landlord provided a copy of an email from its contractor to Worksafe dated 10 September 2025 confirming that the tenant had complained of a gas smell and that he went to the property and tested and identified it as coming from the hallway heater. The gas line to the hallway heater was capped and the heater removed. The installation was then retested.
The tenant maintained that the contractor needed to provide a further Safety Certificate in relation to the lounge heater. She could not provide any legal basis for this claim, nor any evidence that Worksafe were concerned by this or taken any further action against the contractor.
The tenant claimed that “the lounge heater was never safe from the start of the tenancy”. She claimed that there is an “obligation in New Zealand law that it is an offence to provide an unsafe gas appliance, knowing it is unsafe”. She could not direct me to her legal authority, nor did she produce any evidence that supported her claim that the lounge heater was unsafe from the start of the tenancy.
She also claimed during the hearing that the invoice of her contractor stated that the heater was leaking. This is incorrect.
On 9 May 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord to complain of a smell of cat urine. In that email and at the hearing the tenant claimed that the smell became obvious in early December 2024 and then became stronger on 22 December 2024 and had “got bad” by February 2025. The tenant explained that she did not notify the landlord earlier because she feared that she would be blamed for it.
The landlord engaged its professional contractors to investigate the tenant’s complaint and provided a copy of an invoice dated 14 May 2025 for their services together with copies of email correspondence including one dated 10 June 2025 regarding the required works which were “lift the carpet, remove any underlay that is affected and treat the floorboards with hydrochloric acid and then paint and seal the floorboards. When you can relay the underlay and carpet, we can then spot clean the affected areas of the carpet to finish off with.” The landlord supplied a copy of its contractor’s invoice dated 30 June 2025 for work to date in accordance with its proposal.
Work was started by the landlord’s contractor and the tenant emailed the landlord on 26 June 2025 asking why it was taking so long to remedy the issue.
The landlord gave evidence that because of issues with the tenant granting access to its contractors to complete the work and other work required by the tenant’s complaints as well as to provide carpet quotes, the work was stopped in July 2025.
The tenant supplied photographs of curtains at the property, a copy of emails to the landlord on 6 June 2025 complaining that the gliders were not gliding and hooks were coming off and a copy of an email on 26 June 2025 complaining that the landlord had said it would look at the issue at the next inspection in mid- August 2025.
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. The landlord’s obligation is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. What timeframe is reasonable depends on the gravity of the problem. A tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant must promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the landlord did not respond to the requests by the tenant in relation to the rodents, the wastewater system, the chattels list in the tenancy agreement, concerns around gas leaks and cat urine smells in anything but a timely manner. That all the issues towards the end of the tenancy could not be resolved was not the landlord’s fault.
There is insufficient evidence that the curtains required urgent repair or that the damage was not caused by the tenant. Nor is there evidence that the landlord failed to try and remedy the issue. The tenant’s own evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 8 and 9 May, and 11 June 2025 to try to fix the curtains to the tenant’s satisfaction. The raising of yet another issue by the tenant after making no complaint for nearly two years indicates a willingness by the tenant to pile demand on demand on the landlord while making it more and more difficult for the landlord to have access to investigate or make repairs.
The correspondence shows that as the tenant began making more and more frequent complaints, she also started trying to impose restrictions on when and how the landlord could access the premises. As discussed at the hearing, provided the landlord gives adequate notice as provided under section 48 RTA, the tenant must allow such access and has no right to be present or to have a support person. The tenant’s ultimate step of denying access to all members of the landlord’s property management company and trespassing property managers were unlawful acts. See section 48(4)(b) RTA. The landlord restricted its application to the rent arrears and a refund of the bond. Had it included a claim for exemplary damages for the tenant’s refusals to allow access, on the evidence before the Tribunal, its claim would have been successful.
If the Tribunal were to determine that the landlord had failed to investigate the lounge gas heater or repair the curtains within a reasonable timeframe, it would not be just for the Tribunal to award either compensation or exemplary damages because of the tenant’s unreasonable and unlawful attitude to access by the landlord and its contractors. Under increasingly difficult circumstances caused by the tenant, the evidence shows that the landlord did its best to investigate and undertake the repairs.
All the tenant’s claims for failing to maintain the premises are dismissed. Tenant’s claim: failing to comply with smoke alarms regulations
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to comply with all requirements in relation to smoke alarms under the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016 (“the regulations”), in particular Regulation 7(1)(a).
The tenant gave evidence that the smoke alarms were inactive from the start of the tenancy. She originally believed that they were not present and emailed the landlord on both 6 October 2023 and 22 October 2025 regarding their absence. The tenant was incorrect and had simply failed to identify them.
Towards the end of July 2025, the tenant arranged to have the Fire Service inspect them. The Fire Service identified that two of the three smoke alarms had battery isolation tabs still in place and so were not activated.
The landlord gave evidence that at the end of the previous tenancy, the landlord noted that not all the fire alarms were the same and therefore chose to install three new smoke alarms. The landlord provided photographic evidence of the fire alarms at the property from the ingoing inspection report and an invoice from its contractor for the installation dated 11 September 2023 confirming three smoke alarms were installed. The landlord provided a signed statement from the contractor dated 22 November 2025 confirming that he installed three new smoke alarms at the property, removed the tags and checked to see that they were all working. The landlord advised that the contractor’s opinion is that the two smoke alarms which were not activated were not the ones he installed.
The tenant doubted that the statement signed by the contractor was genuine and claimed that the expiry date of the alarms in 2031 indicated they were purchased in 2021 and not 2023. She said that she had rung various suppliers who confirmed this. Such assertions without any evidence have no probative value.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the tenant has not proven that the landlord was in breach of the Regulations. The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim: failure to comply with the HHS
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to comply with the heating standard in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
As this tenancy started on 29 August 2023, the landlord had 120 days to comply with the HHS, that is 6 December 2023.
The landlord provided a copy of the HHS Statement dated 29 August 2023 and forming part of the tenancy agreement together with a Healthy Homes Assessment completed by an independent contractor dated 11 September 2023 (“the assessment”).
The assessment recorded three areas requiring attention for the property to be compliant with the HHS: a. Guttering and spouting required cleaning. b. Draught stopping was required. c. A moisture barrier needed to be installed.
The landlord provided as proof that the works had been completed: a. An invoice for the vacuum cleaning of the spouting. b. An invoice for the purchase and installation of a new heat pump. c. An invoice for the completion of the draught stopping dated 11 September 2023. d. An invoice for the installation of the vapour barrier dated 17 November 2023. e. A certificate of compliance issued by its contractor on 18 May 2025 confirming that the property now complies with all the HHS.
The tenant’s evidence of contractor visits confirms that the landlord’s HHS contractor inspected the property after the remedial works were completed.
The tenant’s claim is that despite the certificate of compliance, the heat pump did not comply because its capacity was only 9.0 kw. The landlord’s contractor’s report noted that a heat pump of 10.39 kw was required.
The landlord’s contractor confirmed that the heat pump was compliant at the time of its inspection in 2023 because the heat pump present at the time was at least 80% of the 10.39 kw required. This heat pump was replaced by the landlord in October 2023.
The landlord advised that it believed the heat pump combined with the gas heater in the lounge, which the tenant acknowledged using at the hearing, allowed it to meet the heating regulation. It also advised that a 9.0 kw heat pump was the largest available at that time.
Existing gas fires may only be counted if they meet the definition of a "qualifying heater" under the regulations. As the gas fire in the lounge is a flued, fixed gas heater, it may be counted as a qualifying heater if it meets the efficiency and safety requirements. The landlord has provided no evidence that the gas heater meets those requirements.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it accepts that the landlord has failed to meet the heating standard. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The RTA sets out a statutory test that must be applied when considering applications for exemplary damages, that is found at section 109(3). That requires consideration of the following factors: a. Whether the person committing the unlawful act intended to commit the act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court discussed the intention consideration as follows: “In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: “Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.” This statement makes it clear that negligence or carelessness is not sufficient. Thus, an inadvertent failure or mistake would not be enough. The Tribunal may draw reasonable inferences of intent from all the evidence and can probably infer intent from recklessness. However, recklessness on its own is not intent. Recklessness involves a greater degree of fault than negligence but less than intent. Recklessness has an objective element – would a reasonable person know that the action or inaction would likely lead to the outcome - whereas intent involves a subjective test, it does not have the objective element. The issue for the Tribunal (and Courts) will be determining whether there is sufficient evidence of a high degree of carelessness or recklessness to draw a reasonable inference of actual subjective intent from an objective perspective.”
In the circumstances of this case, the landlord was careless in not considering adequately whether the gas heater was a qualifying heater. It had addressed its legal requirements by going to the considerable expense of replacing the existing heat pump with a new and powerful heat pump, but it was careless in not determining whether it now met the HHS regulation.
Because the landlord lacked the necessary intent not to comply with the heating standard, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages.
The tenant claimed that the landlord did not comply with HHS regulation 26 in relation to draught stopping. She supplied numerous photographs of windows and doors in support of her claim. She denied the validity of the landlord’s invoice from its contractor which was supplied as evidence that additional draught stopping was completed in September 2023. She claimed that it was “fishy” or false. She supplied no evidence in support of her serious allegation.
The tenant’s photographs indicate daylight around several windows and doors. They also indicate the presence of draught stopping material. No measurements of the gaps were provided by the tenant, nor has the tenant provided an assessment completed by a suitably qualified contractor which disputes the certificate of compliance issued by the landlord’s suitably qualified contractor.
It is not therefore possible for the Tribunal on the evidence before it to conclude that, contrary to the landlord’s evidence of having paid a contractor to complete the work and having a certificate confirming compliance, that the gaps are unreasonable as required by the HHS regulation or that the landlord has failed to comply with them. The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim: breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her right to quiet enjoyment.
She claimed that this amounted to “constructive eviction”. She was unable to provide any reference to such a concept or any legal authority that it exists. As with a number of the tenant’s claims, the Tribunal has had to determine exactly what the tenant’s claim constitutes and under which provision of the RTA the tenant is seeking a remedy. As discussed at the hearing, this aspect of the tenant’s claim that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment is best considered under section 38 RTA as an allegation by the tenant that the landlord has harassed her.
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.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: “Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.”
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them.
At the hearing the tenant claimed that the landlord had breached her quiet enjoyment by: a. Taking photographs during routine inspections. She supplied copies to the Tribunal at the hearing. This was not a claim raised in the tenant’s application or at the hearing on 30 September 2025. The Tribunal determined that it was expedient to hear the tenant’s additional claim. b. The property manager calling her names and making the tenant sick in her interactions with her. c. Initiating the work to eradicate the smell of cat urine which involved the use of hydrochloric acid. The tenant claimed that these fumes were toxic and caused her to be sick. She supplied no proof of these allegations. d. Having multiple contractors attend the premises. She claimed that the landlord’s contractors had visited the property 22 times between May and July 2025 and provided a list of those visits.
The landlord gave the following evidence: a. It was its practice to take such photographs at regular property inspections so that the property manager can forward them to the owner who can see how the property is being cared for by the tenant. b. It denied that any property manager called the tenant names and provided evidence in emails of the property manager’s concern for the tenant’s wellbeing which was rebuffed by the tenant. Because the tenant was making such a constant stream of demands and allegations in the last few months of the tenancy and the tenant’s communications were becoming increasingly hostile and “personal”, the property manager appointed a senior property manger to deal with the tenant in future. c. The treatment of the floorboards was instigated by the tenant’s complaint regarding the cat smell. The tenant did not complain of the “toxic fumes” during the tenancy. d. It was because of the tenant’s multiple complaints about the property that the landlord had to engage multiple contractors to attend the property to investigate the issues, provide quotations and carry out remedies. The landlord engaged seven contractors only. The tenant’s evidence of contractor contact confirms that she denied access to contractors on six occasions.
The Tribunal’s Order 4689409 contains a full consideration of the issues involved in the widespread practice of property managers taking photographs during inspections. It is not necessary to include the detailed exposition of this issue undertaken by Adjudicator Kee.
For the sake of brevity, it is necessary only to agree with his conclusion that a landlord may take photographs of the premises during routine property inspections for the purposes of recording the premises’ state of repair, tidiness, and cleanliness. In taking photographs, a landlord must take no more photographs than are necessary and must take reasonable steps to avoid capturing images of the tenants’ personal belongings or information about the tenants that are not necessary for the purposes mentioned. In taking photographs, storing them, disclosing them, or otherwise dealing with them, a property manager as agent for the owner must comply with the Information Privacy Principles set out in section 22 of the Privacy Act 2020.
The photographs that the tenant supplied do not disclose any intention by the landlord other than the documentation of the current state of repair, tidiness and cleanliness. Inevitably those photographs include the tenant’s personal possessions but not sufficiently closely to reveal any discernible detail. The tenant’s claim in relation to the photographs is accordingly dismissed.
The tenant has not provided evidence of any property manager calling her names. On the contrary, the evidence shows that while sorely tried by the tenant’s barrage of demands and unlawful behaviour in refusing access to the property managers and their contractors, the property managers tried to express their concern for her. The tenant’s claim in relation to the property manager’s behaviour is dismissed.
There is no evidence that the tenant complained of the hydrochloric acid treatment fumes, that it was toxic or that it caused the tenant’s illness. If there was a danger to the public’s health, it is reasonable to assume that the landlord’s contractor would have required to have the tenant leave the premises while the treatment was carried out. The treatment was undertaken at the cost of the landlord because of the tenant’s complaints. It is therefore difficult to see that the treatment was aimed at harassing the tenant. The tenant’s claim in relation to this treatment is dismissed.
The tenant’s evidence shows that contractors attended the property on 16 occasions, including the gardener employed by the landlord to come regularly and mow the lawns. The evidence also records that the tenant denied access to contractors on six occasions.
It is absurd that having raised as many complaints about the property as she could over a brief period of time, the tenant should complain about contractors coming to the property to fix the issues raised and to suggest that this amounted to “constructive eviction”. Having raised these issues, the landlord had a legal obligation to investigate them and fix them as appropriate. There is no evidence that the contractors came to the property more often than was reasonable.
The tenant’s claim in relation to the contractors’ attendances at the property for valid reason and upon legal notice is dismissed.
The tenant’s claim for breach of her quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Tenant’s claim: retaliatory notice
The tenant claimed that the 90-day termination notice issued to the tenant by the landlord on 28 July 2025 was retaliatory.
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) RTA.
As the tenancy was ended by the tenant breaching the Tribunal’s Order of 30 September 2025, there are three issues for the Tribunal to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with section 51 RTA? b. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? c. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
The termination complies with the requirements of section 51 RTA.
Having considered the possibility that the tenant may claim it was retaliatory, the landlord gave evidence that it believed it had no choice but to issue the termination notice for the following reasons: a. The tenant had stopped paying rent on 1 July 2025 and was two weeks in arrears at the date the notice was issued. This had the tenant’s failure to any rent from that day to the end of the tenancy placed the landlord in a serious financial situation. b. The tenant had refused to allow the landlord’s contractors access to complete the works she had requested and which had been partly completed made it impossible for the tenancy to continue. c. The tenant refused to allow the property managers access to the property for an inspection and then issued trespass notices to them. d. The tenant had refused and ceased to communicate with the property managers. e. The landlord saw no other way forward given the multiple issues it was facing.
The tenant has asserted many rights against the landlord in the lead up to the landlord issuing the termination notice. The evidence is that the landlord has done its best to investigate and remedy those matters brought to its attention. It was only when the landlord was thwarted by the tenant’s unreasonable and unlawful behaviour in refusing lawful access to the property and her refusal to pay rent, that it felt compelled to terminate the tenancy. The Tribunal concludes that the landlord was not motivated to give the notice in retaliation but for good reason: the tenant was in serious breach of her obligations under the RTA and the landlord needed to gain possession of the premises. A notice of termination given for genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory.
It is also significant that of the many claims made in the tenant’s application, none have been successful, nor is there any evidence that the landlord did not try to remedy the tenant’s claims despite their ever-growing abundance. The Tribunal also dismisses the tenant’s claim under section 54(5) RTA because the tenant’s complaints were vexatious to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice.
The tenant’s final claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has been wholly successful in his or her claim, the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application. See section 102(4)(a) RTA. Suppression
As the landlord has been wholly successful in its application, it is entitled to name suppression.
As the tenant has not been successful in her application, no order for suppression is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5334583 — Rent arrears at 44 Havill Street, Takaro, Palmerston North 4410

Tenancy Tribunal case 5334583 — Rent arrears at 44 Havill Street, Takaro, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions