What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360891 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 5360891?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $3,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360891?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13131900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360891 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 5360891?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $3,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360891?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13131900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

93 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5360891 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5360891 — net $4,728.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain	$3,200.00	44. The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach.
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$1,500.00	61. Considering all of these factors, I order the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,728.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,728.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5360891 — net $4,728.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain	$3,200.00	44. The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach.
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$1,500.00	61. Considering all of these factors, I order the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,728.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,728.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Premium Rental Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,728.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 February 2026.
On 16 November 2020, Premium Rental Property Management Limited entered into a tenancy with [The applicant/s] for the premises at 93 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610. The tenant is a social housing provider who sublets the premises with the landlord’s permission. The tenant claims the subtenant is experiencing issues with the fuse in the overhead power supply continuously blowing. The tenant claims this is because the service lead is 6mm and only able to support 32amp of electricity being delivered to the premises. The tenant claims the premises should be able to receive 60amp of electricity and the service lead needs to be upgraded to 16mm. The tenant claims the landlord has failed to investigate and remedy the issue within a reasonable timeframe.
On 16 December 2025, the landlord sent the tenant with a 90-day termination notice. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory and issued in response to their complaints about the electricity at the premises. The landlord denies this and states it has been issued because they have sold the premises. The tenant claims the landlord failed to give them reasonable notice of the fact the premises had been put on the market.
The issues I must determine are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? b. Should a work order be made? c. Should exemplary damages be ordered? d. Is the 90-day termination notice retaliatory? e. Did the landlord fail to give the tenant written notice, as soon as practicable, of the fact the premises were put on the market? Standard of proof
As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

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 and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 2 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 3
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 4 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant has sub-tenanted the premises to different people since 19 November 2020. They have not experienced issues with the electricity at the premises until the latest subtenant moved in around late July 2025. Since August 2025, the tenant claims the fuse in the overhead power supply has blown four times. The tenant claims that Vector have attended the premises on each occasion to replace the fuse. The tenant claims Vector have recommended that the service lead be changed from 6mm to 16mm to enable Vector to replace the 32amp fuse in the overhead power supply with a 60amp fuse. The tenant claims that the advice received from Vector is that every residential premises should have a service lead capable of supporting a 60amp fuse. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 3 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 4 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenant first reported the issue to the landlord on 4 August 2025. They raised it a further four times on 28 August 2025, 15 September 2025, 18 September 2025 and 26 September 2025. The communication sent on 18 September 2025 was in the form of a 14-day notice. The tenant claims the landlord has not taken appropriate steps to investigate and remedy the issue.
The landlord claims the reason the fuse in the overhead power supply keeps blowing is because there are 9 – 10 people living in the premises, when there should only be 4 - 5. The landlord claims the premises are being used in an unreasonable way, because of the number of people living there. The landlord also claims that the use of appliances is unreasonable such as, the use of four heaters at once. The landlord claims the fact that no previous subtenants have experienced issues with the fuse in the overhead power supply blowing indicates the problem is with this particular subtenant and the way in which they are using the premises.
The landlord accepts the electrical installations in the premises are old, but claims they are safe and compliant. The landlord relies on an email and Electrical Certificate of Compliance & Electrical Safety Certificate (ECOC & ESC) from a licensed electrician confirming the same.
The landlord claims there is no defect with the electrical installations and there is nothing for the landlord to fix. The landlord claims the tenant is requesting an upgrade to the premises, which the landlord is not required to do under the RTA. Further, the landlord claims that they have responded to complaints about the electricity in a timely manner.
The first issue I must determine is whether the electrical system at the premises is in a reasonable state of repair. If it is not, then the second issue I must consider is whether the landlord has investigated and remedied the problem within a reasonable timeframe.

Is the electrical system at the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Insufficient evidence was submitted to convince me that the subtenant is using the premises in an unreasonable way. The tenancy agreement between the landlord and tenant does not stipulate a maximum number of occupants the tenant may sublet the premises to. The premises have 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The landlord claims it is only reasonable to have 4 – 5 people living at the premises however, I disagree. It is not unusual for bedrooms to be occupied by two people, either as a couple or shared by children. Arguably, it is reasonable for a premises with 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms to be occupied by 6 – 7 people, comprising of both adults and children.
The landlord claims there are 9 – 10 people living at the premises however, I am not convinced of this. The landlord has not completed inspections at the premises themselves to verify this claim. The rely on what they have been told by various tradespeople.
The first tradesperson the landlord referred to is “Charlie.” The landlord does not know Charlie’s last name, but claims he is an electrician the landlord sent to the premises shortly after receiving the tenant’s email on 26 September 2025. The landlord claims Charlie told him there were 10 people living at the premises. The landlord did not call Charlie as a witness and no written evidence from Charlie was submitted. The evidence of what Charlie apparently observed and told the landlord is hearsay. Its strength and reliability could not be tested by way cross- examination. For these reasons, I attach very little weight to it.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Hot Water Fast Fix dated 14 November 2025. The tradesperson who attended the premises appears to have been a person called S.J. Suckling. The invoice records “there is more than 4 people living there so I’d say they are always running out of hot water.” The exact number of people allegedly living at the premises is not mentioned. Arguably, if 6 – 7 people were living there at the time, this would not unreasonable. The invoice also does not mention the basis upon which the conclusion there were more than 4 people living at the premises was reached. It is not clear whether this was something that was verified with the subtenant or whether Mr Suckling simply observe more than 4 people present at the time. Just because a certain number of people might have been present, does not mean they were all living at the premises. They may have been visiting for the day or staying for a couple of nights. Noone from How Water Fast Fix was called as a witness by the landlord. This evidence is also hearsay and was unable to be tested. For these reasons, I attach very little weight to it.
The landlord called Ethan Pieterse as a witness. Mr Pieterse gave evidence that he is an electrician who works at Rapid Electrical Limited. Mr Pieterse visited the premises on 3 February 2026 with a colleague. Mr Pieterse gave evidence that there are too many people living in the premises, which is causing the fuse in the overhead power supply to blow. Mr Pieterse gave evidence that he observed 4 – 5 adults and 3 – 4 children at the premises when he visited on 3 February 2026. He claims that if there were 4 people living at the premises, the fuse in the overhead power supply would not blow, because the amount of electricity being used would most likely not exceed 32amp.
The fact that Mr Pieterse observed a total of 7 – 9 people at the premises when he visited does not mean that the were all living there. Some may have been visiting for the day or staying for a couple of nights. Mr Pieterse’s observations are confined to what he saw over a couple of hours on one day. He has not visited the premises before or since. For these reasons, Mr Pieterse’s evidence alone is insufficient to convince me there is an unreasonable number of people living at the premises.
Kim Quinn is the property manager who manages the subtenancy. Ms Quinn gave evidence at the hearing that she deals directly with the subtenant and conducts regular inspections at the premises. Ms Quinn gave evidence that there are 4 adults and 1 baby living at the premises, although the subtenant sometimes has their grandchildren stay in the weekend and on school holidays.
I prefer the evidence of Ms Quinn to the evidence of the landlord’s tradespeople. This is because Ms Quinn’s evidence is firsthand evidence about what she has seen at the premises. Further, her evidence is not confined to one visit, but multiple visits over a long period of time. As the property manager, Ms Quinn also deals directly with the subtenant on a regular basis. Ms Quinn gave evidence that the subtenant has confirmed with her that there are 4 adults and 1 baby living at the premises.
I find Ms Quinn’s evidence about the living situation at the premises more reliable than the landlord’s tradespeople. On the balance of probabilities, I find there are 4 adults and 1 baby living at the premises, with the subtenant’s grandchildren visiting some weekends and in the school holidays.
The number of people living in the premises is not unreasonable and the fact the subtenant has her grandchildren to stay with her from time to time does not render the use of the premises unreasonable either. People should be able to accommodate guests and grandchildren at their homes for short periods of time.
The landlord also claims that the use of appliances at the premises is unreasonable. For example, the use of four heaters and the heat pump at the same time. I disagree. There are 4 bedrooms inside the premises and the heat pump is located in the main living area. In winter, the occupant of each bedroom should be able to heat their bedroom with a heater or cool it with a fan. This is not an unreasonable expectation in 2026, whether the heaters are turned on at the same or different times.
The landlord also claims the tenant is plugging multiple high voltage appliances into one socket however, no evidence of this was submitted. I also struggle to see how this could be the case, when one of the main issues causing the fuse to blow is the fact that 4 heaters are operating at the same time in 4 different bedrooms.
Mr Pieterse’s evidence about why the fuse in the overhead power supply keeps blowing was not solely confined to his observations about the number of people present at the premises, but also the fact that modern appliances, such as heat pumps, use more electricity than older ones. Mr Pieterse gave evidence that whilst 32amp of electricity was the standard in terms of consumption in the past, newly built premises today are, by default, wired in such a way so as to be capable of receiving 60amp of electricity.
Erin Grimshaw-Jones, Customer Resolutions Specialist at Vector, gave similar evidence. Ms Grimshaw-Jones gave evidence it is common and standard for Vector to provide 60amp of electricity at the point of supply on the boundary. Ms Grimshaw-Jones claims that whilst 32amp of electricity used to be sufficient to support a standard household in the past, most households today require access to up to 60amp. Ms Grimshaw-Jones gave evidence that if the premises had a heat pump, which they do, more than 32amp of electricity was likely to be required to operate other appliances at the same time.
The evidence of Mr Pieterse and Ms Grimshaw-Jones leads me to conclude that the number of occupants living at the premises is not the only reason the fuse may be blowing. Another reasonable possibility is that the premises are occupied by a reasonable number of people who are using multiple, everyday appliances at once. They are living in a way that is consistent with modern day living, however, the electrical set up is old and incapable of supporting this reasonable use.
Similar arguments to those advanced by the landlord in this case were advanced by the landlord in The Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment v James (Oai) Truong [2025] NZTT 4915895. This case concerned a premises that were consented for use as a three bedroom premises, but were unlawfully operating as an unconsented boarding house. The electricity being used exceeded 63amp and the fuse on the power supply kept blowing. To try to prevent this from happening, the landlord had an electrician install a 50amp fuse on the main switchboard in the house. The hope was that the fuse in the house would trip first if the power demand exceeded 50amp and would protect the fuse in the power supply. After this change, the fuse in the power supply did not blow however, the electricity in the house kept tripping.
The landlord argued that the electrical work was safe and compliant however, the Tribunal held that just because the electrical work complied with the necessary electrical codes and requirements, this did not mean it did not breach the RTA. 5
The landlord also argued that the reason the electricity kept tripping was because the tenant’s use was unreasonable. The landlord claimed the tenants were using too many appliances at once. The Tribunal disagreed and stated the following: 6 ...that argument must fail. As I explained to the landlord at the hearing, the tenants pay him rent, and had the reasonable expectation that they would be able to use a reliable power supply at the premises...I cannot see any compelling argument that that the landlord could make to expect tenants to limit their 5 The Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment v James (Oai) Truong [2025] NZTT 4915895 at [204]. 6 At [210]. power consumption around basic living expectations. The tenants had a right to reasonable power use, and the landlord has not convinced me that what they were doing was unreasonable.
The claim against the landlord in The Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment v James (Oai) Truong was that they had interfered with the supply of electricity to the premises. It was not a claim that the landlord had failed to maintain the premises however, in an obiter statement, the Tribunal relevantly held that this was most likely the case as well: 7 I make the observation here, that I consider when the fuse was regularly blowing, the landlord had an obligation to have increased the power supply to the premises, under his obligations around repair and maintenance, and also his contractual obligations with the tenants to supply reliable power...
As in The Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment v James (Oai) Truong, I am not convinced that the tenant is using the premises in an unreasonable way, either by having an unreasonable number of people living in it or by using an unreasonable number of appliances at once. The electrical system is safe and compliant, as evidenced by the EOC & ESC however, this does not mean that it complies with the requirements under the RTA.
The evidence of Mr Pieterse and Ms Grimshaw-Jones convinces me that it is common and normal for modern day households to use up to 60amp of electricity. In this case, the subtenant is only able to use 32amp. The electrical system in the premises is old and the subtenant cannot use standard appliances as would reasonably be expected in a residential tenancy. For this reason, I find the electrical system is not in a reasonable state of repair.

Did the landlord investigate and remedy the problem within a reasonable timeframe?

The tenant first raised the issue with the landlord in an email dated 4 August 2025. The landlord claims they sent an electrician called “Mike” to the premises about one week later. The landlord claims Mike did not observe any issue with the power tripping at the premises. The landlord did not submit an invoice, written report or email from Mike. This lack of evidence means I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the landlord sent an appropriately qualified electrician to the premises shortly after 4 August 2025.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Full Sail Services Limited dated 18 August 2025. It states: 7 At [216]. Repaired 3 window latches in lounge 1 – repaired 1 window latch broken in bed room 1 and 1 window latch broken in lounge 2 – replaced 1 broken power outlet in lounge 1 – repair the laundry room door lock
The name and qualifications of the person who completed these repairs was not provided. The work undertaken seems to fall within the scope of work generally completed by a handyman, rather than an electrician. Whilst 1 broken power outlet in the lounge was replaced, I am not convinced a proper investigation into the electrical issue was conducted at this time. For this reason, I am also not convinced the landlord responded appropriately on 18 August 2025.
On 18 September 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a 14-day notice. The landlord claims they sent an electrician called “Charlie” to the premises approximately one week later. The landlord claims Charlie checked all of the appliances, including the oven and waited for some time to see if the electricity turned off. When it did not, Charlie left. The landlord claims they called the tenant to discuss Charlie’s findings, but the tenant could not recall any such phone call. The landlord did not submit an invoice, report or email from Charlie. This lack of evidence means I am also not convinced the landlord sent an appropriately qualified electrician to the premises shortly after 18 September 2025 either.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Hot Water Fast Fix dated 14 November 2025. Under the heading “job description” it states, “check water heater at 93 McLeod Road, Te Atatu.” From the invoice, the purpose of Hot Water Fast Fix’s visit appears to have been to determine whether there was an issue with the hot water cylinder, rather than to investigate the issue of the fuse on the overhead power supply continually blowing. I am not convinced the purpose of the visit by Hot Water Fast Fix was to investigate the electrical issue complained about by the tenant and I do not find their visit to the premises was an appropriate response either.
The only evidence the landlord submitted of an appropriately qualified electrician visiting the premises to investigate the state of the electrical system was an email from Ethan Pieterse and ECOC & ESC dated 3 February 2026. These documents confirm that an appropriately qualified electrician visited the premises on this date.
I find 3 February 2026 to be the date the landlord appropriately responded to the tenant’s complaint.
There is a delay of approximately 25 - 26 weeks between 8 August 2025 and 3 February 2026. A fuse that continually blows on the overhead power supply is an important issue that requires swift investigation. By waiting 25 – 26 weeks to send an appropriately qualified professional to investigate the issue, I find the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach. I find $3,200.00 to be reasonable, having regard to the following factors: 8 a. The nature of the breach. I find the nature of the breach to be serious. This is because when the fuse on the overhead power supply blows, Vector is required to repair it. This takes time and is not a quick fix. The premises are without power whilst waiting for Vector to replace the fuse. Further, Vector only completes three, free non-network callouts. After this, they generally begin to charge. In this case, the fuse has blown on 4 August 2025, 7 August 2025, 27 August 2025 and 12 September 2025. Fortunately, Vector has not charged the tenant yet however, Ms Grimshaw-Jones indicated that a charge would most likely be applied if Vector were required to replace the fuse again. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured for approximately 25 - 26 weeks by the date of the hearing. c. The effect of the breach. The tenant gave evidence that the subtenant is required to actively monitor their use of appliances and is essentially not using an entire area of the house to prevent the withdrawal of more than 32amp of electricity. This reflects a significant inconvenience and loss in amenity. The tenant is at risk of being sued by the subtenant for the landlord’s failure to investigate and remedy the problem within a reasonable timeframe. For reasons discussed below, I am not going to issue the landlord with a work order however, this means that the situation will endure for a further 7 weeks until the end of the tenancy on 23 March 2026. This additional delay must be factored into any order for compensation.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $3,200.00. This equates to approximately $100.00 per week from 8 August 2025 – 23 March 2026 when the tenancy is due to end.

Should a work order be made?

The Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction, make a work order. 9
The tenant has asked the Tribunal to make a work order requiring the landlord to replace the 6mm service lead with a 16mm service lead. This would enable Vector to replace the 32amp fuse with a 60amp fuse at the point of supply.
Mr Pieterse gave evidence that the repairs required to enable 60amp of electricity to be supplied to the premises are not small. Mr Pieterse claims an electrician will 8 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 78(1)(e). need to upgrade the main switchboard and most likely move it inside the premises. Mr Pieterse claims that Vector will also need to be engaged to replace the fuse on the power supply. Mr Pieterse claims that the costs incurred for the electrician alone could be anywhere between $2,500.00 - $7,000.00 plus GST and that further costs will be incurred for the work that Vector is required to do.
The premises have been sold and the landlord has sent the tenant a 90-day termination notice. The tenancy will end on 23 March 2026 and it appears the purchaser most likely intends to be develop the premises. This is because they have purchased the premises sight unseen and sent a land surveyor to assess the area. I am told that the section is relatively large and flat.
The Tribunal is not required to make a worker when asked to do so. It has a discretion. In this case, I decline to issue a work order because the cost of the repairs is significant, the tenancy is due to end shortly, and the premises have been sold with likely plans for redevelopment. In these circumstances, it would not be reasonable or practical to require the landlord to undertake substantial repairs when the tenancy is about to end, and the property will no longer be used for residential purposes. The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case. 10 In this situation, the balance of fairness does not support making a work order for repairs that will have little or no benefit to the outgoing tenant.
For these reasons, the tenant’s application for a work order is dismissed.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

The law

Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 may be ordered.
The purpose of exemplary damages is to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines an unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85(2).
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 11 Before an award for 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.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.
The usual approach of the Tribunal is to award one third of the maximum of exemplary damages unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 12 Analysis
I find the landlord acted intentionally by failing to send an appropriately qualified electrician to investigate the issue until 3 February 2026. The tenant communicated with the landlord numerous times about the issue and the landlord was well aware of it. The landlord did not submit any supporting evidence to confirm that they sent an electrician to the premises before 3 February 2026, and I am not convinced they did. The landlord is a professional property management company, which knows its rights and obligations under the RTA. This is not a case of negligence, mistake or oversight.
Considering the following matters, I find it just to order exemplary damages: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. 11 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 12 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. b. The effect of the unlawful act. The fuse on the overhead power supply has blown four times, leaving the premises without power for extended periods. The subtenant has had to modify their use of appliances or not use part of the house to limit their power consumption. The tenant is at risk of the subtenant filing a claim in the Tribunal against the tenant as a result of the landlord’s breach. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in ensuring that future maintenance issues are properly investigated and remedied within a reasonable timeframe. The tenant also has an interest in taking appropriate steps to mitigate their loss and decrease the risk of the subtenant potentially bringing a claim against the tenant in the Tribunal. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are encouraged to respond to complaints about maintenance by sending appropriately qualified professionals in a timely manner.
Considering all of these factors, I order the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.

Is the 90-day termination notice retaliatory?

The law

The tenant complained to the landlord about the electricity at the premises on 4 August 2025, 28 August 2025, 15 September 2025, 18 September 2025 and 26 September 2025.
On 16 December 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a 90-day termination notice, which the tenant claims is retaliatory.
When determining whether a notice to end the tenancy is retaliatory, the Tribunal must consider the following matters: 13 a. Whether the notice to end the tenancy complies with section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U); b. Whether the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenancy by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy; and 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54. c. Whether the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. Analysis
The termination notice complies with section 51 RTA. I note that whilst the notice states the tenancy will end on 16 March 2026, the parties have agreed to extend this date to 23 March 2026.
There is delay of 3 – 4 months between the different dates the tenant complained to the landlord about the electricity and the date the termination notice was sent.
There is a delay of 2 months between 16 October 2025, which is the date the tenant filed their application with the Tribunal and the date the termination notice was sent.
There is some proximity between the date the tenant complained about the electricity and filed their application, and the date of the termination notice however, the landlord has submitted evidence to support their claim that there is a credible, alternative reason for ending the tenancy. This is the fact that they have sold the premises.
The landlord submitted a copy of a signed, unconditional sale and purchase agreement dated 2 December 2025. It notes the premises must be sold with vacant possession.
The fact that the termination notice post-dates the sale and purchase agreement, supports the landlord’s claim that the motivating reason for ending the tenancy is the fact the premises have been sold. The negative inference that would ordinarily be drawn from the proximity between the date of the tenant’s actions and the date of the termination notice is sufficiently displaced.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by the RTA, or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
For these reasons, the tenant’s application to have the termination notice declared retaliatory is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to give the tenant written notice, as soon as practicable, of the fact the premises were put on the market? The law
Section 47 RTA states: 47Landlord to give notice to tenant if premises put on market (1)If, at any time after entering into a tenancy agreement, the landlord puts the premises on the market for the purposes of sale or other disposition, the landlord must, as soon as practicable, give written notice of that fact to the tenant. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims that the phrase “put the premises on the market for the purposes of sale or other disposition” should be given a wide interpretation and include the situation where a landlord accepts a private offer to purchase the premises. The tenant claims the purpose of section 47 is to notify the tenant of the fact that the premises may be sold in the near future, and allow the tenant time to arrange their affairs, including finding a new tenancy.
The landlord claims the phrase should be given a narrow meaning, so as to only relate to situations where the landlord has taken steps to market the premises for sale to the public. Analysis
I find the natural and ordinary meaning of the phrase “put the premises on the market for sale or other disposition”, requires the landlord to take active steps to make the premises available for sale to the public. It does not include the situation where a landlord receives a random, private offer from a member of the public. I prefer this narrow interpretation over the wide interpretation advanced by the tenant for the following reasons: a. If Parliament intended section 47(1) to apply broadly to any situation where the landlord had received an offer to purchase the premises, then the section would have been drafted in this way. The fact that it has not, suggests that Parliament did not intend section 47(1) to be interpreted widely. b. The tenant’s concerns about the importance of receiving notice in order to be able to prepare for the possible termination of the tenancy is already provided for in section 51 RTA. Section 51(2)(b) RTA requires a landlord to give the tenant 42 days’ notice to end the tenancy if the premises have been sold under an unconditional sale and purchase agreement, and vacant possession is required at settlement. A wide interpretation of section 47(1) is not required to give effect to this purpose, which is already provided for in another section of the Act. c. Where a landlord takes active steps to make the premises available for sale to the public, the tenant needs to prepare not only for the fact that the tenancy may end, but also for the fact that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment will be disturbed during the process. This is because advertising of the premises will generally need to occur, as well as visits from real estate agents and prospective purchasers during open homes. I find the purpose of section 47(1) is most likely directed at ensuring the tenant is prepared for this type of disruption and able to exercise their rights regarding access and privacy.
No evidence was submitted that the landlord took any steps to actively market the premises for sale to the public. The evidence given at the hearing was that the landlord was approached by a buyer’s agent on behalf of the purchaser.
The landlord did not list the property with a real estate agent, advertise the premises for sale online, promote the premises in any way to attract potential buyers or arrange open homes or viewings with prospective purchasers. The landlord accepted a private, unsolicited offer to purchase the property. I find they did not put the premises on the marks and there was no breach of section 47 RTA.
For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee & suppression
Because the tenant has been substantially successful in their application, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant the tenant’s request for name suppression.
I have a discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
Publication of the landlord’s name in this decision might negatively affect their reputation however, that is an ordinary consequence of the proceedings. It is not unusual or special.
I have considered the interests of the landlord and weighed these against the public interest. I find the public interest in publication outweighs the landlord’s interest in suppression. For this reason, I decline to grant the landlord name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360891 — State of repair at 93 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360891 — State of repair at 93 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Is the electrical system at the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the landlord investigate and remedy the problem within a reasonable timeframe?

Should a work order be made?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Is the 90-day termination notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Is the electrical system at the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the landlord investigate and remedy the problem within a reasonable timeframe?

Should a work order be made?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Is the 90-day termination notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions