What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340543 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 25

How much money was awarded in case 5340543?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340543?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12635172-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340543 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 25

How much money was awarded in case 5340543?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340543?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12635172-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

49B Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340543 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal declares that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 25 August 2025 was not a retaliatory termination notice.
The application to set the termination notice aside is dismissed.
The matter is returned to Tenancy Services to schedule a hearing to consider the remaining claims from the Tenant.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant. The tenant’s application is extensive, but one of the claims is that the landlord issued a retaliatory termination notice, which would see the tenancy terminate on 23 November 2025. Obviously, there is some urgency with that particular claim, so an urgent video hearing was scheduled on 23 October 2025, only to consider whether the termination notice was retaliatory. If the notice is deemed to be retaliatory, then it would be set aside.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a periodic tenancy on 29 September 2023.
Having reviewed the evidence available, it is clear that things have not gone smoothly at this tenancy. It is apparent that both parties have an understanding or expectation of how the tenant-landlord relationship would proceed, and they have not been on the same page with many aspects of that relationship.
The tenant has described various health-related factors, that she is strongly of the view the landlord has not adequately taken an account of, or accommodated. I will not set those out further in this decision but I am aware of them.
A further issue has risen in relation to inspections of the premises. I will set out a summary of the evidence in relation to those inspections more fully below, but in summary, the landlord’s position is that the tenant has been unreasonably obstructive in allowing inspections of the premises, which has made their ability to adequately manage the premises difficult, if not impractical.
The tenant on the other hand, has made various complaints to the landlord, and her view is that the landlord acts to penalise tenants who complain, and it is her view that the later termination notice arose from those complaints.
Ultimately, on 25 August 2025 the landlord issued a 90-day termination notice. No reasons were given on the termination notice, but by law, the landlord was not obligated to give reasons. The notice confirmed that the tenancy would terminate as of 23 November 2025.
The tenant has filed a range of claims in the Tribunal.
As indicated above, given the urgency around the claim of a retaliatory termination notice, an urgent video hearing was scheduled for 23 October 2025, solely to hear the claim of a retaliatory termination notice. In attendance at the hearing that was Ms Herewini, and representing the landlord, Mr Read and Ms Quinn.
At the hearing the tenant advised she had additional documents that she wanted considered, that she had not filed. I agreed that any additional documents could be filed within 24 hours of the hearing, and that applied to both parties.
Both parties have provided further submissions and supporting evidence.

TENANTS CASE

The tenant’s position is that the termination notice is retaliatory, which should be set aside.
The tenant submits that a complaints were made to the landlord in early August, which was the reason why her tenancy was terminated. The tenant in her further written submission has referred to a privacy breach around clinical notes.
A significant theme of concern from the tenant is that she considers the landlord’s usual response to being challenged, or a tenant standing up for themselves by asserting their rights, is to act in a retaliatory way.
The tenant refers to the documentation on the Tribunal’s file, and documents she advised would be sent through, as proving this.
In this case, the tenant considers that the landlord has not adequately accommodated her health needs.
In response to the landlord submission, the tenant says that what the landlord argued (as below), that she is a difficult tenant to manage, makes the termination retaliatory.
The tenant says that the very means by which the landlord has tried to get into the premises for inspections is traumatising, and they are not undertaking a trauma-informed practice.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord disputes that the termination notice was retaliatory. The landlord states that the tenant has refused to allow inspections, and that the situation has reached the stage, where the landlord is unable to properly manage the tenancy.
The landlord states that it has gotten to the point, where the landlord is unable to meet its obligations with the insurer, which requires regular inspections.
The landlord gave an example of a property inspection, where the landlord arrived at the tenancy for an inspection, only to be told by the tenant that she was not ready and needed 20 more minutes, so they drove around the block, but when they returned, the tenant declined the inspection proceeding.
The landlord states that there are frequent changes to inspection times, which would result in rescheduling after rescheduling.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the tenant in this case), establish her claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Retaliatory notice
Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 holds that the Tribunal may declare a notice to terminate a tenancy of no effect, and retaliatory if: In giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power , authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right.
A notice of termination given for genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. For example, in Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988, Judge Ongley upheld the Tribunal’s decision that the notice was not retaliatory. Judge Ongley stated he was: ... quite satisfied that Mrs Woodman acted reasonably on the basis of the information known to her. She found that Mr Kerr was not a suitable tenant for those flats because he could not tolerate activities by other tenants which Mrs Woodman believed were unavoidable. She believed that she was faced with the alternatives of either having continuous disputes among tenants, or otherwise bringing Mr Kerr’s tenancy to an end. I am not called upon to decide whether the complaints were justified, only to decide whether Mrs Woodman gave notice in retaliation or for genuine and fair reasons.
Section 54(2) also provides some protection to a landlord. It provides that the Tribunal may decline to declare the notice retaliatory if it finds that the tenant’s action “was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice”. Inspections
Landlords have a statutory right to inspect the premises. The landlord’s right of entry is confirmed in section 48 of the RTA, and as far as inspections are concerned, the landlord must give at least 48 hours’ notice to the tenant, and inspections cannot occur any more frequently than once every four weeks.
I note the tenancy agreement includes in clause 18, the details relating to a landlord’s right of entry, and is consistent with section 48 above, noting that inspections cannot occur more frequently than once every four weeks.

ANALYSIS

The question I must determine, is whether the landlord acted in a retaliatory way, when issuing the 90-day termination notice to the tenant on 25 August 2025.
There are various ways in which a landlord can terminate a tenancy, but one is a termination notice under section 51. The RTA confirms that a landlord can give 90 days notice to a tenant, a landlord does not need to have any reason to give that notice, and the law is clear, that the landlord does not need to explain why the tenancy is terminated if the termination is by way of a 90 day notice.
However, when a tenant claims that a notice is retaliatory, from a practical perspective, landlords will often explain why the notice was given, and that is the case here. The landlord states that the tenancy was terminated because it was unable to effectively manage the premises, as it was unable to access the property for inspections.
The tenant’s position is that the real reason the landlord terminated her tenancy was because of the complaints she had made, or the various requirements that she had in relation to her specific needs.
Just because a tenant has made complaints or demands, and then around that time the landlord issues a termination notice, it does not automatically follow that the termination notice was given for retaliatory reasons. Coincidences in time can exist when tenancies are terminated for even genuine reasons. In order to determine what the likely reason for the termination was, it is necessary to carefully consider the contemporaneous evidence available. The parties have provided extensive communications, which I summarise as follows. Timeline a. 29 September 2023, tenancy commences. b. 25 February 2025, property manager emails with an introduction of herself, including a link to the Tenancy Services website for general tenancy information. c. 25 February 2025, tenant emails landlord, displeased at inspection frequency, seeking policy change for landlord. d. 28 February 2025, landlord responds setting out its expectations around inspections. Link to Tenancy Services website for inspections provided. Notes that there is an insurance requirement for inspections every 13 weeks. Recognises that the tenancy agreement restricts inspections to no more frequently than every 4 weeks. Recognises tenants’ right of quiet enjoyment. Encouraged the tenant to engage with support navigator. e. 28 February 2025, tenant responded seeking information about the support navigator. f. 4 March 2025, landlord responded with information on who the tenants support navigator was. g. March 2025, I am not entirely sure of the date, but an inspection was completed in March 2025. h. 17 June 2025, landlord emails tenant noting her next inspection was coming due, and asking the tenant to propose a date between 27 June and 4 July 2025. i. 17 June 2025, tenant emails the landlord, seeking to delay inspection until 14 July 2025 as she was involved with her studies. j. 17 June 2025, landlord emails tenant to ‘pencil’ in an inspection on 14 July, noting it was “not too far over our 13 week mark”. k. 8 July 2025, landlord contacts tenant asking for a day and time the following week for an inspection, noting the inspection has already been extended. l. 8 July 2025, Tenant replies “Ok let’s go with Friday next week 1pm onward just turn up.” m. 8 July 2025, landlord replies, thanking the tenant. n. 16 July 2025, landlord issues notice for an inspection on 25 July 2025. o. 25 July 2025, property inspection could not proceed. Landlord records in office notes (31 July 2025) that “Scheduled inspection for 25/07/2025 has to be rescheduled as tenant not home and would not permit me to enter property”. Inspection rebooked for 31 July 2025. p. 31 July 2025, landlord emailed tenant sating she was looking to undertake an inspection that day, asking if a time between 2 and 4pm suited the tenant. In the property managers office notes, the manager records contacting the tenant about the inspection that day, and that the tenant said she thought the inspection was the following day. The landlord asked if the tenant was refusing an inspection, to which the tenant swore at her and hung up the call. The manager records texting the tenant for an inspection the following day at 2pm, and that the tenant replied “yeah”. A copy of the text message proposing 2pm has been provided. q. 1 August 2025, tenant emails landlord stating “I can’t do this inspection today. I am not gonna justify it. Can you Jonas [support worker] to call me”. r. 4 August 2025, tenant files a complaint with landlord on various grounds around a view that the property manager was not complying with health related needs or rights, and how it is engaging with the tenant. s. 4 August 2025, a fulsome email from the landlord in relation to inspections, and the difficulty the landlord has had getting access, raising that an application to the Tenancy Tribunal for an access order may be needed. Offering to work with support person. t. 7 August 2025, property manager responds, advising that the tenant could forward him any complaint and he would process it. Otherwise, property manager discussed importance of inspections, and requesting that the tenant engage respectfully. Email concludes “please also let me know when we can do our overdue inspection”. u. 7 August 2025, tenant emails property manager, asking if he was “still gaslighting Hamish? It’s been a few years now, have you not learned a different approach”, and asking for a complaint form. v. 7 August 2025, landlord asks tenant when they could come for an inspection. w. 7 August 2025, further complaint related email, claiming landlord gaslighting the tenant, and seeking accommodation of her needs. x. 8 August 2025, Property manager replied advising that the tenant’s concerns had been escalated to management. Notes the tenants request for another tenancy manager was declined due to staff numbers, and advising he was happy to work with support worker to facilitate an inspection y. 8 August 2025, tenant emails landlord, dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach, asking how an inspection can proceed that accord with Treaty principles. Claiming a power imbalance, and raising a claim in the Tenancy Tribunal to resolve matters. z. 12 August 2025, property manager emails discussing support person assistance, and that he would get a colleague to get in touch regarding an inspection time. aa. 12 August 2025, tenant responds, proposing “Thursday”, and that “if it goes OK we can get the inspection done then n there”. bb. 12 August 2025, landlord confirms an inspection on Thursday, asking what time suited the tenant. cc. 13 August 2025, tenant replies saying anytime after 3pm was good with her, or on Friday afternoon. dd. 14 August 2025, tenant emails landlord seeking to defer inspection to Friday. ee. 14 August 2025, landlord emails tenant following a call from the tenant, agreeing to carry out the inspection at 3pm tomorrow (15 August 2025). I presume that inspection did not proceed. ff. 19 August 2025, property manager emails tenant, advising that tenant tenant-supplied photographs are not an approved form for inspection. Requesting the tenant to advise of a suitable time that week to undergo an inspection, and noting the tenant could have a support person present. gg. 19 August 2025, tenant replied “Come now let’s get it over n done with”. hh. 19 August 2025, landlord replied that she could not make it that day, proposing Thursday. ii. 21 August 2025, while I have not seen records of this, the landlord states that an agreement was reached with the tenant for an inspection on 21 August 2025, at 1pm. The landlord reports that when they arrived, the tenant requested they come back 20 minutes later, and when the landlord returned after 20 minutes, the tenant refused them entry to the premises. jj. 21 August 2025, tenant emails landlord stating she needed to leave, proposing the next day. kk. 25 August 2025, landlord issues 90 day termination notice. ll. 4 September 2025, tenant applies to the Tribunal for orders. Assessment of timeline
Having considered the timeline, there is an inescapable conclusion that the landlord has had real difficulties in accessing the property for inspections. This is not a situation where the landlord has simply contrived a reason for terminating the tenancy, there is ample contemporaneous record of real difficulties for the landlord. There is a frustration that the landlord with being refused inspections.
In my assessment, a reasonable landlord when faced with the difficulties in access that this landlord has faced, would contemplate whether to terminate the tenancy.
Is important to remember that the landlord has a statutory right to inspect the premises. I also accept that if inspections are not undertaken, that the insurance policy would be in jeopardy; it is a common expectation with rental insurance policies that regular inspections are undertaken.
It is also important to recognise that the landlord is able to inspect the premises every four weeks if it should wish to do so; not only is that permissible under the RTA, but it is a term of the tenancy agreement in this case.
It is reasonable to observe that I am not persuaded that the landlord has not made efforts to accommodate the tenant’s needs. In my assessment, the communications show that the landlord has made real efforts to meet the tenants’ needs, and to engage with the tenants’ support person to assist with that.
I accept without reservation, that in the middle of all of this, the tenant has made a number of complaints against the property managers and landlord. But the real question is whether the evidence favours a conclusion that the landlord was even partly motivated in terminating the tenancy, because of those complaints, or some other right that the tenant had or proposed to exercise. I find there is no evidence to support that situation.
The tenant submits that there is a connection in time, given her complaints in early August, and the termination notice. I am not sure about that. The termination notice was issued some three weeks after the complaints were first made, and the connection in time is reasonably tenuous. But there is a strong connection in time between the landlord attending for the agreed inspection on 21 August 2025, and again being refused entry, after being told to come back after 20 minutes. That points to the likely basis for the termination being access issues.
Ultimately, I find the evidence falls short of establishing to the balance of probabilities, that the termination notice issued by the landlord, would meet the criteria of being a retaliatory termination notice under section 54. The result must be, that the tenant’s application to have the termination declared as retaliatory, and the notice set aside, is dismissed.
For the avoidance of doubt, this means that the termination notice is valid so the tenant will need to vacate the premises by 23 November 2025.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340543 — Tenancy dispute at 49B Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340543 — Tenancy dispute at 49B Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions