What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356723 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 5356723?

Rent Arrears: $5,485.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356723?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356723?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12747097-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356723 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 5356723?

Rent Arrears: $5,485.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356723?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356723?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12747097-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356723 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356723 — net $2,085.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1/11/2025	$5,485.29	Rent arrears to 1/11/2025
Net award	$2,085.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,085.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,085.29 immediately calculated as per the table below:
The claim by the tenants for compensation/exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rescheduled hearing.
On 1/10/2025 the landlord originally applied for rent arrears.
Subsequently on 6/10/2025 the tenant applied for a reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy due to end on 25/2/2026.
By interim order dated 23/10/2025 the Tribunal reduced the term of the tenancy to end on 1/11/12025.
In addition, the Tribunal extended the tenants’ claim to include compensation/exemplary damages for breach of sections 47 and 45(1)(bb).
However, the Tribunal declined to hear the claim for end of tenancy costs submitted by the landlord the day before this hearing because the tenant did not have sufficient notice of the matters claimed or time to prepare any defence. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means both parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicants, in this case both parties, to provide the necessary evidence to support their respective claims. If they fail to do so then the applications will be dismissed, whether they have merit or not.

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

The landlord sought rent arrears of $5,485.29 to the end of the tenancy on 1/11/2025.
In support of the claim the landlord provided rent records.
On the other hand, the tenant disputed the amount owed due to confusion over the initial payments made and what they believed was interference by the landlord with support agencies.
I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the tenant owes the amount of arrears claimed and an award has been made accordingly.
Although the interim order did not deal with the issue of compensation for the early ending of the tenancy the landlord confirmed they were not pursing this aspect and that the premises had been re-let.

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by not maintaining the laundry floor causing damage to several washing machines and not complying with healthy homes standards.
In support of their claim the tenant submitted that they had to purchase three different washing machines because of damage caused by an uneven floor, which the new owner of the property had told them on a visit would be fixed.
Further the tenant suggested there were issues with turning off the bathroom floor heating.
On the other hand, the landlord submitted that they were unaware of any uneven floor issue and believed the washing machines in the property inspection reports of 27/3 and 5/6/2025 were the same.
The landlord provided a Healthy Homes Standards compliance report dated 18/3/2025 which confirmed all standards complied.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with healthy homes standards.
Breaching either of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no objective evidence in the form of photographs, emails, texts or receipts, to support that the tenant advised the landlord of any uneven floor issues sufficient to damage three washing machines or that the bathroom underfloor heating was defective.
As the tenancy commenced on 26/2/2025 the compliance date for healthy homes standards for these premises was 1/7/2025.
I am persuaded by the evidence from the compliance report that the premises complied as at 18/3/2025.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The claim for compensation and or exemplary damages fails.

Did the landlord fail to advise the property was for sale?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations to tell them the premises were for sale.
In particular the tenants were unhappy because they had to leave the premises every Sunday to allow prospective purchasers to view the premises.
The tenants confirmed they had signed the tenancy agreement before viewing the premises and when they mentioned the for sale sign at the subsequent inspection the landlord “ignored” the question.
The landlord, in response, submitted that a for sale sign was visible at the property when the tenants inspected the premises before the tenancy began.
In addition, the landlord suggested that the tenant was “expressly advised” before signing the tenancy agreement that “the property would be placed on the market”.
Further the landlord advised the previous owner had confirmed that “all required notices relating to property viewings were properly issued to the tenants”.
Under section 47, a landlord must give written notice to the tenants, immediately if the premises are placed on the market. A landlord must also advise any prospective tenants if the house is on the market.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 See section 47(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While it is possible that the landlord did not inform the tenant before the tenancy agreement was signed that the premises were on the market, unfortunate as it may be for the tenant the evidence is simply not enough to move this to a probability to support their claim.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The claim for exemplary damages fails.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful in their respective claims and the filing fees cancel each other out.
Suppression is granted to both parties pursuant to section 95A because they were both largely successful with their original respective proceedings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356723 — net $2,085.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1/11/2025	$5,485.29	Rent arrears to 1/11/2025
Net award	$2,085.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,085.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,085.29 immediately calculated as per the table below:
The claim by the tenants for compensation/exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rescheduled hearing.
On 1/10/2025 the landlord originally applied for rent arrears.
Subsequently on 6/10/2025 the tenant applied for a reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy due to end on 25/2/2026.
By interim order dated 23/10/2025 the Tribunal reduced the term of the tenancy to end on 1/11/12025.
In addition, the Tribunal extended the tenants’ claim to include compensation/exemplary damages for breach of sections 47 and 45(1)(bb).
However, the Tribunal declined to hear the claim for end of tenancy costs submitted by the landlord the day before this hearing because the tenant did not have sufficient notice of the matters claimed or time to prepare any defence. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means both parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicants, in this case both parties, to provide the necessary evidence to support their respective claims. If they fail to do so then the applications will be dismissed, whether they have merit or not.

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

The landlord sought rent arrears of $5,485.29 to the end of the tenancy on 1/11/2025.
In support of the claim the landlord provided rent records.
On the other hand, the tenant disputed the amount owed due to confusion over the initial payments made and what they believed was interference by the landlord with support agencies.
I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the tenant owes the amount of arrears claimed and an award has been made accordingly.
Although the interim order did not deal with the issue of compensation for the early ending of the tenancy the landlord confirmed they were not pursing this aspect and that the premises had been re-let.

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by not maintaining the laundry floor causing damage to several washing machines and not complying with healthy homes standards.
In support of their claim the tenant submitted that they had to purchase three different washing machines because of damage caused by an uneven floor, which the new owner of the property had told them on a visit would be fixed.
Further the tenant suggested there were issues with turning off the bathroom floor heating.
On the other hand, the landlord submitted that they were unaware of any uneven floor issue and believed the washing machines in the property inspection reports of 27/3 and 5/6/2025 were the same.
The landlord provided a Healthy Homes Standards compliance report dated 18/3/2025 which confirmed all standards complied.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with healthy homes standards.
Breaching either of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no objective evidence in the form of photographs, emails, texts or receipts, to support that the tenant advised the landlord of any uneven floor issues sufficient to damage three washing machines or that the bathroom underfloor heating was defective.
As the tenancy commenced on 26/2/2025 the compliance date for healthy homes standards for these premises was 1/7/2025.
I am persuaded by the evidence from the compliance report that the premises complied as at 18/3/2025.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The claim for compensation and or exemplary damages fails.

Did the landlord fail to advise the property was for sale?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations to tell them the premises were for sale.
In particular the tenants were unhappy because they had to leave the premises every Sunday to allow prospective purchasers to view the premises.
The tenants confirmed they had signed the tenancy agreement before viewing the premises and when they mentioned the for sale sign at the subsequent inspection the landlord “ignored” the question.
The landlord, in response, submitted that a for sale sign was visible at the property when the tenants inspected the premises before the tenancy began.
In addition, the landlord suggested that the tenant was “expressly advised” before signing the tenancy agreement that “the property would be placed on the market”.
Further the landlord advised the previous owner had confirmed that “all required notices relating to property viewings were properly issued to the tenants”.
Under section 47, a landlord must give written notice to the tenants, immediately if the premises are placed on the market. A landlord must also advise any prospective tenants if the house is on the market.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 See section 47(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While it is possible that the landlord did not inform the tenant before the tenancy agreement was signed that the premises were on the market, unfortunate as it may be for the tenant the evidence is simply not enough to move this to a probability to support their claim.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The claim for exemplary damages fails.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful in their respective claims and the filing fees cancel each other out.
Suppression is granted to both parties pursuant to section 95A because they were both largely successful with their original respective proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356723 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356723 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Did the landlord fail to advise the property was for sale?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Did the landlord fail to advise the property was for sale?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions