What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379741 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 9

How much money was awarded in case 5379741?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379741?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12931468-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379741 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 9

How much money was awarded in case 5379741?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379741?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12931468-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 Fairview Place, Te Puke, Te Puke 3119 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379741 — Mould & damp

Order

The Tribunal declares that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 9 October 2025 is not a retaliatory termination notice, so the notice is valid.
The remaining claims are to be considered at an in-person hearing on 20 January 2026, commencing at 9:30 am, at the Tauranga District Courthouse.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. There are a number of claims from the tenant, but this decision relates only to the claim that a termination notice was retaliatory. There is urgency to hear this, as the parties need to settle whether the tenancy is coming to an end this week. For the reasons I will set out, I find the termination notice was not retaliatory, so it is valid. The remaining claims will be considered at the next hearing scheduled on 20 January 2026.

BACKGROUND

This is a tenancy of long duration – nearly some 30 years. The landlord is [The tenant/s] landlord/s], and the tenant is [The tenant/s] tenant/s].
The evidence is that the tenant had concerns around work not being completed by the landlord in a timely way.
On 14 March 2023, Ms Olding’s son wrote to the landlord on his mother’s behalf, making various requests, including that the landlord address mould on the bathroom walls, and peeling paint, and install a bathroom extractor fan.
There was a further request in September 2025 for work to be undertaken, including installing a kitchen extractor fan, repairing the kitchen benchtop, repairing a stove element, and installing a stair handrail.
The landlord’s position is that the above-requested work was either completed or well on the way when the termination notice was issued.
On 9 October 2025, Mr Alexander issued a 90 day termination notice ending the tenancy: Dear Jane, You have been our tenant for 27 years, which is amazing. You have been a great tenant Jane, as well as a lovely friend. We have reached the stage in our lives where we want to free up some money and do a few things we’ve always wanted to. Unfortunately, we have decided to sell the house. The tenancy requirements are that we give you 90 days notice. The house will not be on the market while you are still in it. We are really sorry that we have to do this and know it will be a big upheaval for you. We will endeavour full heartedly to try and find you another place if you want us to. Allowing for the 90 days, the vacate day will be Thursday 8 th January 2026. If you find another place before then we are happy for you to move at any time that suits you.
On 17 October 2025, the tenant issued a 14-day notice in relation to failure to replace the stove top element, kitchen benchtop or install extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
The tenant’s claims were scheduled for a hearing on 16 December 2025 in Tauranga. Adjudicator ter Haar issued a decision that same day. The Adjudicator records that there was no appearance by the tenant, but both Mr and Mrs Alexander attended. The Adjudicator notes that there had been an adjournment request, but that attempts had been made to contact the tenant to have a short hearing in relation to the retaliatory notice matter. That was not successful. The Adjudicator dismissed the application for retaliatory notice.
The tenant applied for a rehearing, and the Adjudicator granted that on 23 December 2025, advising that the retaliatory notice claim would be reheard by a different adjudicator by telephone at 9:30am on 6 January 2026.
I convened a telephone hearing today. In attendance was Ms Olding, and also Mr and Mrs Alexander. As I explained, the only matter I would be deciding is whether the termination notice was retaliatory, and therefore could be set aside, and that I would be starting the hearing of that matter from scratch – I would not be influenced by the earlier Tribunal decision on the matter.

TENANTS CASE

Ms Olding submits that the termination notice was retaliatory.
Ms Olding confirmed that she has lived in the tenancy for some 30 years and is in her 80s.
Ms Olding’s position is that the notice to terminate was motivated by the request to undertake work and to bring the premises up to a Healthy Home Standard, and to undertake other work at the premises. While the landlord has more recently undertaken some work to the premises, that is so it will be HHS compliant for the next tenant.
It was submitted that it has only been this claim which has motivated the landlord to get on and get the necessary work completed.
Ms Olding notes that the landlord has not raised with her any desire to sell the house prior to the termination notice being issued, and further that is not consistent with having received a notice to increase her rent in June 2025.
The tenant seeks an order declaring the termination notice to be invalid.
I record that Ms Olding raises some matters that would not be relevant for this particular claim, such as disputes around the tenancy agreement and bond.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord disputes that the termination notice was retaliatory.
The landlord set out the background to the works needed at the premises, and the dates on which this work was undertaken. The short point being that the work that the tenant requested either was undertaken, or well in process of being completed.
The landlords note they are in their 70’s, and are planning for retirement, and the sale of the premises is in line with that.
The landlords state that around June 2025 they considered the sale of the premises, but at the time decided to await that sale until a property at the back of the dwelling was first sold (it was on the market). The landlord states they agreed to undertake some work on the shared property with the neighbour, because that would assist with the sale of their property.
Ultimately, the neighbouring property sold in August 2025, with settlement occurring on 20 October 2025.

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 applicant), establish their 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

The only issue I must determine is whether the termination notice was retaliatory. 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, then the notice would be retaliatory. A notice of termination given for genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory.
In this case, Ms Olding considers that the requests they made to the landlord to undertake work were the reason the termination notice was given.
The only work requests that are relevant to this application for retaliatory notice are the requests the tenant or her family made prior to the 90-day notice being issued on 9 October 2025. I summarise the requests and the landlord’s actions as follows: DateTenants requestLandlords action March 2023Peeling paintAgreed to repaint bathroom and paint windowsills in bedroom, completed by painter in March 2024. Mould in bathroomBathroom repainted in March 2024. Extractor fan in bathroom Completed in November 2025 (landlord states this was overlooked when first raised). April 2024Heat pump installed September 2025 Extractor fan in kitchenCompleted November 2025. Kitchen benchtopRepair completed in late October. Stove elementDelay due to part needing to be ordered, but completed in November 2025. Stair handrailI am not sure if this was completed, but note that a landlord would only be required to install handrails if needed under the Building Code.
When I consider that history, I consider that the landlord has undertaken the work the tenant has requested. I express no view as to whether that work was timely, because that is a matter to be considered at the next hearing, but the work has been completed. Accordingly, this is not a case of a landlord simply refusing to undertake requested or required works. To put that another way, the history supports a finding that the landlords have been responsive with getting work completed at the tenancy when requested (again expressing no view on timeliness).
It is important to recognise that the law is clear, that when a landlord issues a 90-day termination notice, they do not need to give the tenant a reason for that notice. Providing the notice is not retaliatory or discriminatory, then the landlord can terminate the tenancy on 90 days’ notice.
In this case however, the landlord did give a reason to terminate the tenancy, which was that they wished to sell the property. This was given on the termination notice, and also stated in evidence by the landlord at the hearing. I have no reason not to accept the landlord’s evidence that they wished to sell the property to free funds for their retirement (noting their ages also).
Ms Olding submitted that the landlord did not raise with her, an earlier desire to sell or end the tenancy. I accept that, but there is no requirement on the landlord to inform the tenant of a potential future termination of the tenancy.
Ms Olding also submitted that the landlord’s decision to increase the rent in June 2025 is not consistent with a desire to shortly thereafter end the tenancy. That may be an inference, but the decision to increase rent (as the landlord can lawfully do annually), is not necessarily related to a decision on whether the tenancy would continue or not. In this case the landlords state that they discussed the sale in “late June”, but decided they would hold off selling until after the neighbouring property was sold, which would have been an indeterminate period of time, so it is not necessarily surprising that the landlord decided to proceed with a rent increase over the interim period.
I also note that the termination notice does not suggest the termination was decided maliciously. Not only does the landlord explain why the tenancy was ending (the house sale), but confirmed that they would not undertake marketing while the tenant was living there, and also offered to assist with finding somewhere else for the tenant to live. The landlord was not required to do either of those things.
I conclude that the evidence does not support that the termination notice was a retaliatory termination notice. I am not persuaded that the notice was issued even in part, in response to Ms Olding’s requests around maintenance or work to the tenancy. I consider the evidence supports the reason for the notice was in order to sell the property, which is a lawful action on the part of the landlord.
What this means is that the tenancy will end as of 8 January 2026.

NEXT HEARING

As discussed at the hearing today, the remaining claims from the tenant are being heard at a hearing on 20 January 2026, at 9:30am, at the Tauranga District Courthouse. For the avoidance of doubt, that is an in-person hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379741 — Mould & damp at 30 Fairview Place, Te Puke, Te Puke 3119

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379741 — Mould & damp at 30 Fairview Place, Te Puke, Te Puke 3119

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NEXT HEARING

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NEXT HEARING

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.