What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367532 about?

The tribunal order states: The application to reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5367532?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367532?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12741667-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367532 about?

The tribunal order states: The application to reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5367532?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367532?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12741667-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

132 Tucker Beach Road, Lower Shotover, RD 1, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5367532 — 14-day notice

Order

The application to reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone and video conference with Ms Bonn and Ms Clark representing the landlord.
The tenants have applied for termination of the fixed term tenancy for breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair.
The tenancy started on 29 September 2025 and is not due to expire until 28 September 2026.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the breach is capable of remedy the tenant must first serve a notice on the landlord requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The first issue is to establish whether the landlord is in breach of their cleaning and maintenance obligations. Under sections 45 (1)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, comply with all relevant enactments in relation to health and safety and comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS).
Section 40(d) RTA imposes an obligation on tenants to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. Once notified, the landlord has an obligation under section 45(1)(b) to maintain. It is well accepted that the landlord’s duty is to investigate and put right any defect in a reasonable time frame. As to what is a reasonable time depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Therefore, a tenant should 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.
The alternative basis for terminating a fixed term tenancy is under section 66 RTA. Under that section, the Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: all of the following criteria are met: there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) RTA. Background facts
The tenants found the premises advertised as a 2-bedroom; 2-bathroom furnished property. Mrs Stanton attended a viewing on 15 September 2025. The property manager was not exactly sure when the property would be ready for let because the owner was intending to replace the floor in the west ensuite bathroom. This would mean that the west bedroom and ensuite bathroom would be unavailable for use while builders completed the work.
The tenants were in need of a tenancy reasonably quickly as a previous tenancy was about to end. After discussion with the owners, the property manager advised the tenants that the property could be made available for them from 29 September with the east bedroom and ensuite bathroom able to be used only, and the west bedroom and ensuite bathroom ready by 4 October 2025. On 22 September, the parties entered a tenancy agreement to start on 29 September, on the basis that the west bedroom and bathroom would not be available until 4 October. Rent was reduced accordingly while only one bedroom and bathroom was unavailable for use.
On 29 September, the move in day, Ms Clark met both tenants at the property to hand them the keys. They also completed a walk-through of the property at which she says the tenants seemed happy and no issues of concern were raised. Prior to this date, the property manager had taken photos of the premises (except the west bedroom and bathroom) to record the condition of the property and emailed the report to the tenants on 29 September. The covering email asked the tenants to advise the landlord within 7 days if they disagreed with any of the information in the report or if they wished to add to it. They also asked the tenants to include any photos they wished to place on the file, otherwise they would assume that the landlord’s photos represented the condition of the property.
The west bedroom and bathroom were available from 4 October. Prior to the west bedroom and bathroom being handed over to the tenants, the owner completed a thorough clean of the areas and took photos of their condition. However, the landlord asked the tenants not to use the shower because there had been a delay with delivery of the shower glass. This was finally installed on 10 October. Some further minor work to complete the flashing took place on 31 October.
Except for the heating not working on move-in day, the tenants did not raise any issues of concern (regarding cleanliness or maintenance) with the premises until they sent an email to the landlord on 12 October 2025 at 11.34 pm asking to terminate the tenancy. In this email, the tenants advised that in the 2 weeks that they had inhabited the property they had experienced multiple serious issues about the habitability and cleanliness of the property and went on to list several issues including: cleaning issues found at the start of the tenancy; items left behind by previous tenants; a strong persistent odour in the house; insect and pest issues; rusty toaster and fry pan provided; and issues with ventilation and privacy in the east bathroom.
By email to the tenants dated 13 October 2025 at 11.26am, the landlord acknowledged the tenants’ complaints and request to terminate the tenancy. However, the landlord explained that as this is a fixed term tenancy, it can only be ended via the break lease process. They then responded to each complaint raised.
By a second email to the tenants dated 13 October at 11.27 am, the landlord sent the break lease process guidelines to the tenants. It was noted that the tenants would be liable for rent until new tenants are secured and the for the landlord’s reasonable costs associated with the process. However, the tenants did not proceed with this.
Mrs Stanton moved out of the property and stayed in motel accommodation before then entering a flat share arrangement which started on 20 October 2025. Mr Stanton has remained in the premises. The claims and submissions
The tenants allege that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair in breach of sections 45(1)(a) and (b) RTA. They also claim that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards regarding ventilation and heating was not working at the start of the tenancy in breach of the HHS. Complaints in the 12 October email Strong odour
The tenants claim that from day one, there was a strong and persistent odour throughout the house. They say they did not report it earlier because they tried to ventilate the house first to get rid of it, which did not work. They claim it has significantly affected Mrs Stanton’s comfort and quality of life and well-being and she is not comfortable in the house. They state that she is particularly sensitive to smell.
The landlord’s evidence is that there is no odour that they can smell and the tenants did not complain of any odour when walking through the premises with Ms Clark on 29 September. They also say that Mr Stanton later advised that he could not smell an odour. The landlord also provided supporting statements from cleaners and builders who worked at the property stating that they did not smell any odour. However, in an effort to meet the concerns, they offered in their email on 13 October to have the carpets professionally cleaned. The tenants have not taken up this offer. Cleaning issues
The tenants claim that on day one (29 September), they found a paper towel in the downstairs toilet bowl which they had to pick out. They placed it in a plastic bag. This made them question if the toilet had been cleaned before they moved in. They provided a photo of the paper towel placed in the bag.
They also found that the kitchen cupboard was dirty, the toaster and non-stick fry pans were rusty; there were stains on the carpet, marks on the walls and stains on the vanity.
The tenants claim that they found items belonging to the previous tenants at the premises. They found a pair of male slippers under the bed in the west bedroom, which they say they only discovered on 12 October after the room was made available to them on 10 October. Also on 12 October they found an eye mask in the freezer, and male underwear beneath the side table in the east bedroom. Mrs Stanton says she only discovered the items in the bedrooms because she was moving furniture around. She said that she hadn’t previously used the freezer so did not discover the eye mask sooner.
The landlord advised the tenants by email dated 13 October that the property was professionally cleaned before they moved in and provided a copy of the cleaning receipt dated 13 September 2025. However, they apologised if anything was missed and immediately went and collected the items which the tenants left out for them in a plastic bag. They also immediately replaced the toaster, fry pans and a kettle, notwithstanding that these items were not on the chattels list for the premises.
Since their initial response, the landlord has reflected on the matters raised. One of the owners, Mrs Paterson provided a statement in which she disputes that the previous tenant’s belongings could have been missed by both the professional cleaners and her. The professional cleaners provided a statement confirming that they completed a deep clean of the premises on 13 September in all areas which included moving furniture and cleaning underneath. They say they did not see any slippers or underwear.
Mrs Paterson confirmed in her statement that she thoroughly cleaned and checked the property again before it was handed to the tenants on 29 September. She spent hours cleaning the east bedroom which included moving furniture and vacuuming the floors underneath several times. She says that the underwear found in that room (which the landlord collected from the premises) was not male underwear as alleged by the tenants and was a women’s small sized garment (as proved by a photo), that she believes would not have fitted the previous occupant of the room.
Mrs Paterson also says that she cleaned the downstairs area including every glass, plate, and cupboard. She disputes that the kitchen cupboards were dirty on 29 September or that carpets were dirty. She notes that the carpet in the east bedroom has faded from the sun and there are a few odd areas with some minor staining within the definition of fair wear and tear. In any event the landlord’s offer to clean the carpets was not taken up by the tenants
The owner says she also cleaned the west bedroom and ensuite after the builders had finished their work prior to it being made available to the tenants on 4 October. Therefore she disputes that there could have been slippers left under the bed. She relies on the photos produced in evidence showing the condition of the premises after the two separate cleans and says that the premises were spotless.
The landlord also provided evidence that the west bedroom and ensuite was available for the tenants to use from 4 October (not 10 October as the tenants claimed), although, the shower could not be used as the shower glass was only installed on 10 October and some minor flashing on 31 October. Insects
The tenants allege there was a problem with insects stating: on 29 September there was an insect crawling on the bed; on 9 October Mrs Stanton saw a large insect on the bedroom ceiling; on 10 October there was an insect on the bedside table; on 11 October there was a big insect at the window and a moth on the bed sheet. They provided photos that showed a few small insects in the bedroom. Mrs Stanton says this was causing her distress and overall concerns about cleanliness. She could not sleep and felt anxious.
The landlord advised on 13 October that given the property’s location near a pond, occasional insects can be expected. However, they offered to seek professional advice and recommended the tenants use insect spray as a practical short-term measure. Extractor fan in east bathroom
The tenants complain that the extractor fan is not located above the toilet and should be inside the shower, noting that shower is fully enclosed.
The landlord provided evidence that the fan meets HHS requirements. East bathroom window
The tenants complain that the shower window faces the street with only reflective glass and no privacy barrier.
The landlord noted that they are not required to provide window coverings and no concerns had been raised by previous tenants. They also dispute that people inside the bathroom are visible from the road. However, they subsequently obtained the owner’s approval to the tenants installing a window covering if they wish. This would be at the tenants’ cost and would have to be removed when the tenancy ended with any damage remediated.
Overall, the landlords consider that the tenants have not provided a credible explanation as to why they did not discover and/or raise these issues before 12 October. Additional complaints raised in Tribunal application dated 20 October Heating
On the move in day, the tenants say the diesel heating was not working and they froze for 5 days until it was fixed. However, they acknowledged in evidence that the heater was fixed on 2 October.
The landlord advises that the diesel boiler was not operating for the first couple of days due to a safety issue. They arranged for a technician to come and, in the meantime supplied the tenants with three electric heaters. The technician met the tenants at the premises on 2 October 2025 and showed them how to use the diesel heating. He also gave them his contact details if there were any future problems. He reported that the system was functioning when he visited. The landlord also covered the electricity costs for the first week of the tenancy. West bathroom
The tenants say that the west bathroom has the same issues as the east bathroom with the extractor fan in the wrong place and no window covering.
Again, the landlord provided evidence that the fan complies with HHS; window coverings do not have to be supplied by the landlord; and the tenants have approval to install a covering if they wish on condition it is removed at the end of the tenancy and any damage remediated. Additional complaints raised in submissions dated 10 November 2025
Other issues were raised by the tenants in additional submissions they submitted on 10 November, only 3 days before the hearing. They state that the outside steps are slippery and covered in algae, and there is a gap in the skirting boards of one of the bedrooms which is allowing insects inside. I consider that the landlord must be given a reasonable opportunity to investigate and repair those issues if necessary. The landlord has stated that they will do so.
I am not prepared to consider the tenants last-minute claims for compensation for hotel use and breach of quiet enjoyment and these are unlikely to have merit given the outcome of this decision. In relation to the claim for compensation for the tenants being unable to use the west bathroom and bedroom, it would be unfair to allow the claim to be pursued at such a late stage before the scheduled hearing. In any event, the landlord should be given an opportunity to consider the claim and respond to the tenant. If matters are not resolved, the tenant may file a further claim. Additional complaints raised in submissions dated 12 November 2025
Other issues were raised by the tenants in additional submissions they submitted on 12 November, the day before the hearing. They say that the HHS compliance report obtained by the landlords expired well before the tenancy; the TV was not tuned in; and they don’t believe that the diesel tank for the heating was full before the tenancy started because the invoice is dated 13 September, 2 weeks prior to the tenancy starting when they believe the previous tenants were still there using the heating.
The landlord maintains the diesel was full. The previous tenants organised the deep clean on 13 September by which time they had mostly vacated except for some of their belongings present when the tenants viewed the premises on 15 September. However, the landlord advised that the previous tenancy ended on 15 September.
The landlord explained that the TV was mistakenly included as a chattel. However, as it is on the chattel list, they will need to investigate and put right this issue if necessary.
The landlords also provided evidence from the Healthy Homes assessor that the expiry date on their report is an internal policy. They correctly advise that the HHS does not stipulate a specific time frame for re-assessments. Regulation 6 HHS records that the landlord has an ongoing obligation to ensure that any installed or provided item is maintained in good working order or replaced within a reasonable time if required. In that regard, there is no evidence provided by the tenants to prove that the home is not HHS compliant.
In summary, the owner believes that the tenants want to exit the property for other personal reasons which were canvassed at the hearing but which it is not necessary to document in this decision. It is also noted that Mrs Stanton has entered an agreement to flat elsewhere. However, Mrs Stanton insists that the cleaning and maintenance issues (particularly the odour and insects) are causing her anxiety and inability to sleep. She also mentioned that she has a fracture on her spine and the exterior steps at the property are too slippery and difficult to use. Discussion and findings
I am satisfied on the evidence that the issues raised by the tenants have either been resolved, are able to be resolved, or are not proved.
The complaint about the heating was resolved quickly and I am satisfied that the landlord provided alternative heating for the three days that the diesel boiler was not operating.
If there is an odour (which I am not certain is proved), the landlord offered to clean the carpets but the tenants have not taken up this offer. The landlord has satisfactorily addressed the matter.
I am not persuaded that the cleaning complaints are justified based on the landlord’s evidence about cleaning, which I prefer. I am also not entirely persuaded that the landlord missed any items left by the previous tenants. However, even If I’m wrong, the items have been removed and the issue is resolved.
The complaints about insects are minor and to be expected. I am not persuaded that the tenants have proved that there is a problem with pests (such as fleas, rats, mice, or he like). It is normal for any house to have insects (like spiders and moths) inside occasionally.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the extractor fans in both bathrooms are HHS compliant and the landlord is not obliged to provide window coverings. They have however given the tenants approval to install window coverings. The issue is therefore resolved.
I am satisfied that the landlords were not obliged to supply a toaster, kettle or frying pans because they are not included in the written chattels list. However, it is clear that these items were left behind by the tenants and in poor condition. They have now been removed and new chattels supplied. The landlord has reasonably remedied this issue.
Other issues raised by the tenant as part of the proceedings on 10 and 12 November (and not notified to the landlord sooner) including, the exterior steps, skirting in the bedroom and TV tuning, are matters capable of remedy and the landlord must be given an opportunity to address those matters before being liable for any failure to do so. Termination under s 56 RTA
Termination under s56 is only available if the landlord fails to remedy a breach of the RTA. Where a breach is capable of remedy, the tenant must serve a 14 day notice on the landlord detailing the breaches and give the landlord not less than 14 days to investigate and remedy the problem if required. If the tenant does not serve a 14 day notice, and does not prove that the landlord has failed to remedy the breach, then the tenancy cannot be terminated under s56.
The tenants have not served a 14 day notice on the landlord at any stage. Therefore, termination under s56 is simply not available to them. Despite their failure to follow the process, I have spent some time addressing and determining the tenants’ claims regardless so that both parties have the benefit of the Tribunal’s findings.
Even had the tenants followed the correct process under s56 and proved that breaches were not remedied in the required time frame, the Tribunal has a discretion to consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the Tenancy. None of the issues that have been raised by the tenants in this case in my view justify a termination as they are reasonably minor and easily addressed. The Tribunal will usually issue work orders before it will consider termination unless the breaches are seriously affecting the health and safety of tenants or amount to some emergency situation. That is not the case here and termination would be a disproportionate remedy. Termination under s66 RTA
As set out in paragraph 8 above, the first ground to establish under s66 is for the tenants to prove that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. Secondly, the change must be causing severe hardship.
The tenants complaints concern the cleaning and maintenance of the premises. Some have been addressed; some are capable of remdy and some are not proved. The particular matters which Mrs Stanton is concerned about are the odour in the premises and the insects. I have found that the odour is likely not proved, but also capable of remedy with the landlord offering to clean the carpets. The insect issue is not in my view a pest issue (such as rats, mice, fleas or similar) which the landlord must address.
Mrs Stanton presented a letter from her Doctor dated 13 October 2025 stating that “Francisca recently moved into a new house. There have been a few incidents at the new property that are affecting [her] mental and physical well- being. We kindly request your assistance in helping [her] find a new property”
This letter does not disclose a particular diagnosis/condition that was unforeseen when entering the tenancy and caused by the issues raised by the tenants about the house. The reference to “incidents” and what these are is not explained and is vague.
The suggestion she is sensitive to smell was not disclosed to the landlord. If she is sensitive to smell, there is in my view no adequate explanation as to why she didn’t raise the issue immediately after moving in, nor later accept the landlord’s offer of carpet cleaning. She says that she is not confident that she can sleep safely in the house, in particular because of the odour and insects.
I find that the matters of complaint here are in essence relatively minor and capable of amelioration or mitigation. In that case, it could not be considered a severe hardship to continue the tenancy. Nor could the circumstances come within the definition of “an unforeseen change.” The decided case law shows that to come within the definition there must be something which was well outside the contemplation by the parties at the time the tenancy agreement was entered into, and matters of minor maintenance could never fall within that definition. 1
For the above reasons, I consider there are no grounds to reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy within the applicable law and that claim must be dismissed.
As the tenants have not succeeded with their claims, they are not entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details as requested under s95A RTA. The landlords did not seek suppression. K Stirling, 21 November 2025 1 See the comment of Carruthers, J in Davies v Clarke & Snead [2017] NZDC 21608 at [32-41]

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367532 — 14-day notice at 132 Tucker Beach Road, Lower Shotover, RD 1,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367532 — 14-day notice at 132 Tucker Beach Road, Lower Shotover, RD 1,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions