How much money was awarded in case 5390001?

Compensation: $525.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,857.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390001?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12844188-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5390001?

Compensation: $525.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,857.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390001?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12844188-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5390001 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5390001 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390001. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (from 18/11/25 to 12/12/25	$2,857.00		Rent arrears (from 18/11/25 to 12/12/25
Compensation (HHS breaches		$525.00	Compensation (HHS breaches
Exemplary damages (HHS breaches		$2,000.00	Exemplary damages (HHS breaches
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,857.00	$2,553.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlords’ names and identifying details.

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends at 11:59pm on 12 December 2025.

[The tenant/s] $304.00 [The landlord/s] immediately, as calculated in the table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. _53900012

The tenant has made an application to reduce the fixed term tenancy as well as claims for compensation, several categories of exemplary damages and general damages. Originally, the tenant also sought work orders, however amended her claim seeking a reduction of the fixed term tenancy instead.

The landlord disputes most, but not all, of these claims and says that the tenant has not paid rent since 17 November 2025.

Considerable evidence has been provided, especially by the tenant, and I confirm I have reviewed and considered everything even if there is no direct reference to it. Background

The fixed term tenancy commenced on 22 September 2025 and was scheduled to end on 22 September 2026. Some furniture items were left at the property as the tenant advised she did not have any furniture; however, these were not listed as chattels and the property was not rented as furnished.

The owners of the property were based overseas with one of the owner’s mothers listed as the agent in New Zealand.

In September 2025 there was some correspondence between the parties following up on the bathroom fan and healthy homes certificate, with the owner advising that they had been liaising with a builder and that a new healthy homes assessment would be completed. On 22 October 2025 this was subsequently completed.

In early November, the tenant raised issues about the washing machine seal and on 6 November 2025 the tenant issued a 14-day breach notice for mould, structural concerns and healthy homes ventilation issues.

On 10 November 2025 the landlord advised the tenant that a property management company had been appointed and on the same day they engaged AR Plus to complete mould testing.

The landlord also advised the tenant that a professional company would be onsite the following week to install a moisture barrier (they didn’t need access to the house and would be working underneath it). The tenant declined this access.

On 18 November 2025 the tenant issued what was described as a final demand email. The underfloor insulation work was completed this same day.

No further works were completed after this date, due to the tenant advising that no further access consent would be given.

On 20 November 2025 the landlord issued a 14-day breach notice for non- payment of rent. _53900013 General legal principles

Before proceeding to consider the claims by the tenant, I first set out some relevant general guiding legal principles. Civil burden of proof

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That 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 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 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.

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 during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Exemplary damages

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, 2 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732. _53900014 like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person 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. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.

The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, 3 is that if there were multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach.

Exemplary damages may only be awarded for what the RTA defines to be an unlawful act. Tenant claims

The tenant’s updated claims at the hearing were: a. Reduction of the fixed term tenancy to 17 November 2025. b. Rent refund (seeking 100% rent abatement for uninhabitable premises from 22 September 2024 to 7 November 2025). c. Special damages (reimbursement for relocation costs, medical expenses and other receipts incurred post-eviction). d. Future damages (claims for accommodation costs for 90 days due to family displacement). e. Chattels (loss of contaminated furniture and belongings due to mould exposure). 3 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, (DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014). _53900015 f. Exemplary damages (the tenant claims for intentional breaches, including deception, harassment and what the tenant describes as spoliation). g. General damages (for stress, humiliation, and loss of amenity).

The total claims of the tenant were for $100,900.00. However, as explained at the hearing, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction cannot exceed $100,000.00. 4

The tenant confirmed that she was willing to concede a portion of the claim to ensure that the total claimed amount was under the jurisdictional limit and on that basis, I proceeded to determine the tenant’s claims. Exemplary damages

The tenant has made several claims for exemplary damages that I will now deal with in turn. Failure to provide insurance policy information

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to provide a copy of the insurance policy when it was requested.

On 15 September 2025 the tenant requested a copy of the insurance policy. The message advises that it was required as the tenant was sorting renters’ insurance and wanted the policy and the chattels provided, to correctly shop for what was missing and to ensure that the tenant’s renters policy covered any gaps.

The landlord responded that same day advising that it was just a general contents policy, and so they weren’t sure how helpful it would be. The message confirmed that contents were insured for $40,000.00 with an excess of $500.00 with nothing specifically listed. In the same message the landlord offered to create a list of furniture was in the property, if helpful.

The tenant responded, thanking the landlord for clarification and confirming that a list of the furnishings or chattels was all she needed.

Section 45(2B) of the RTA states that the landlord of premises that are insured may at any time and must within a reasonable time after receiving a request from the tenant for a copy of the insurance policy, provide to the tenant under a tenancy agreement a copy of each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. 4 See section 77(5) of the RTA. _53900016

I note that this was a request for a contents policy, rather than the policy relating to destruction of, or damage to the property.

The landlord commits an unlawful act if it fails to comply with the above section (s45(2B of the RTA), for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. See section 45(2D) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The landlord didn’t think they had to provide the policy document and were only aware of their obligations under 13(2) of the RTA and relating to information to be included in the tenancy agreement and that the tenancy agreement for this tenancy included.

On review of the tenancy agreement, the relevant information required by 13(2) of the RTA was provided.

The tenant had requested a copy of the policy; however, the purpose was to inform furniture purchasing, and the tenant appeared happy with the landlord’s response. The tenant did not confirm that she still wanted or needed to see the policy document.

I cannot see any other request for the insurance policy and accordingly, I don’t consider that based on the evidence, the landlord did breach this obligation or commit an unlawful act.

Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Healthy homes breaches

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under the RTA in relation to healthy homes standards (HHS) and that there are issues with mould at the property. The law

Section 45 of the RTA requires properties to comply with HHS standards in several different respects. The HHS requires that the premises have adequate ventilation and are free from dampness. If mould is present due to a lack of ventilation, leaks, or other repair issues, this may indicate a breach of these obligations.

For insulation, the date of HHS compliance was 1 July 2019. For other HHS requirements, compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals _53900017 i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy: or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.

The date of compliance for this tenancy was therefore 1 July 2025.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenant is also required under section 40(1)(c) of the RTA to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This includes ventilating the premises by opening windows and using extractor fans where provided. If mould is present due to the tenant’s failure to ventilate the premises, the landlord may not be liable. In other words, preventing mould developing in a house is a dual obligation of the tenant and landlord. Discussion

The tenant says she was assured at the commencement of the tenancy that there were no mould issues at the property, she advised the landlord of her underlying health condition and proceeded with the tenancy based on landlord assurances.

The landlord says that they had lived in the property themselves and had never had any issues with mould. They had spent considerable time tidying and making the property presentable for the tenant.

The tenant provided significant evidence of what she says was the health impact of living in a home that did not comply with HHS and suffered from issues with mould. The tenant says: a. There were multiple water ingress points around the property. b. There was a broken and mouldy bathroom fan. c. One of the sideboards was contaminated with mould. d. There were issues with mould (for example on the exterior deck and the window frame) that made the house inhabitable.

The tenant has provided significant medical information, including a letter from her doctor, photographs, referrals, consultation notes and blood test results. _53900018

In response to issues raised by the tenant, the landlord engaged Pro-Spect Building Reports to investigate on 22 October 2025. The report noted HHS failures with: a. The insulation – was not in reasonable condition, with sections missing and/or damaged requiring repair or replacement. b. Ground moisture barrier – was required to be installed. c. Draught stopping – there are gaps exceeding 3mm around the kitchen, window that need to be repaired.

The report noted that the property complied with heating and ventilation requirements. The landlord also obtained mould testing and analysis on 12 November 2025.

The tenant also obtained her own reports, including a mould laboratory report, 5 and a sustainable homes report from an external inspection that I have reviewed.

The tenant disputed the independence of the landlord’s mould testing report due to a professional connection between the newly appointed property manager and the owner of the testing company. I don’t accept that there was a conflict. The report was based on laboratory samples and the company is a well-known and reputable company for contamination testing in the region.

The tenant ultimately says that the premises were declared medically unfit for human habitation.

The tenant has provided a letter from a doctor advising that the tenant is particularly sensitive to allergens, especially mould and fungal spores, and that the current home is severely affected by black and other mould which was having a severe effect on the tenant and her children. I do note that this letter has a different address for the tenant than the tenancy address.

I do not consider that this is an adequate evidential link to say that the property is inhabitable more generally. None of the expert reports from those who carried out inspections at the property for either the landlord or tenant, although identifying issues, have stated that the house is not fit for habitation.

The tenant provided a photograph of a cup with a small amount of tea-like liquid in it that had formed mould, however, I consider that this would happen in any home when a liquid that is not water is left out, especially if the house is closed (due to the tenant staying elsewhere).

The Tribunal has no ability to interpret laboratory results without expert opinion on what the results mean, with clear links to any increased laboratory numbers being the result of leaks, ventilation, repair issues or RTA breach. 5 Biodet Services Limited, Amended Report, 14 November 2025. _53900019

The landlord says that at the commencement of the tenancy, the tenant was made aware that HHS compliance would be completed. At the time, the landlord believed that they had 90 days from the tenancy commencing to obtain a healthy homes certificate of compliance. They submitted, that they now know the law changed in July 2025 and that they should have been aware of it. They take full responsibility for the genuine oversight.

They say that when they did become aware, the HHS assessment was promptly obtained and attempts to achieved full compliance were quickly attended to. However, since 18 November 2025 the tenant has refused access to the property and so they have been unable to access the property.

They have completed the works for the insulation and the ground moisture barrier, however, had to cancel the builder who was arranged to carry out the draught stopping assessment and works due to the tenant’s position on access. Summary

None of the experts’ reports obtained by either the landlord or the tenant state that the property is not inhabitable. There is also no compelling evidence to link the HHS deficiencies or failure to maintain (considered further below) the property with any mould.

On review of the evidence, however, I am satisfied that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS standards.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

A landlord must be considered to know and understand tenancy law and any breach must be considered intentional.

This is supported by T.M.T New Zealand Limited (t/a as Strata Property Management) v Sweeney, 6 In this case, the landlord had failed to provide an insurance and healthy homes compliance statement. The Court held that: The obligation to provide these documents are fundamental obligations on landlords of which it appears Mr Hu was not fully aware despite their being included in the Act since 2016 and 2019 respectively. Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental 6 T.M.T New Zealand Limited (t/a as Strata Property Management) v Sweeney [2021] NZDC 16182. _539000110 documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequence for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.

There is obvious public interest in ensuring that properties are healthy for occupation, with due consideration to all factors outlined above I consider it fair and just to award exemplary damages in the sum of $2,000.00.

In addition, I consider it appropriate to award some compensation for this breach. I award a rent reduction from the commencement of the tenancy (22 September 2025) to the date that the tenant ceased allowing access for repairs to be carried out, being 18 November 2025. This amounts to around 7 weeks, at a compensation amount of $75.00 per week and totalling $525.00. I will not order a rent reduction for weeks when the landlord has not been allowed access to remedy the very breach being considered here. Failure to maintain

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The tenant says that in addition to the HHS failure, there are items that the landlord has failed to maintain.

This included evidence of a leak, a billowed ceiling, paint peeling externally on the window frames, a sanitary failure with respect to drainage off the shed, a cracked concrete path, and a rusted main anchor for electrical wires. The tenant also says in respect of furniture left at the property there was mould in the washing machine seal and a mouldy sideboard.

Breaching the obligations in section 45 of the RTA 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 RTA.

The landlord says that they were not advised about the rusted main anchor until the hearing. They say that in respect of everything else, as soon as they were advised they have endeavoured to act quickly to resolve issues. For example, they had arranged a builder to look at the window frames (until access was denied), they had disposed of the sideboard once issues were advised, and they had arranged repair of the washing machine seal.

They say that the concrete path has always been cracked, but there is no evidence of that causing any broader issues and the lounge ceiling likely did have a leak in the past, but there is no evidence of any ongoing water ingress. _539000111

On review of all the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain the property. They have endeavoured to arrange any repairs sought promptly, and were carrying out all requested repairs until access was declined.

This claim is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment

The tenant claims that the landlord breached her right to quiet enjoyment. This is based on what the tenant describes as an excessive number of requests for repairs and trades to access the property. She submits that she received approximately 14 requests for access for trades to the property and that this caused her great stress. She says that there was no schedule created for the works that were required to be done and that what occurred amounted to harassment.

Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.

The term “Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds, 7 considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3) of the RTA, rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.

In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose. 7 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010. _539000112

From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them.

Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder, 8 the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”

The tenant had issued a 14-day notice requiring urgent HHS repairs. It should not have been a surprise when investigations and the required repairs were then carried out at great pace. There was a legitimate purpose for the requests for access and repairs. There is no obligation on a landlord to create a schedule of repairs, simply that it complies with entry (considered further below).

On review of the evidence, the landlord’s actions did not reach the level of harassment, and this claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry

The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.

The tenant says that the landlord (or their agent/trade) entered the property on 18 November 2025, after consent was not granted for access to occur.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.

On review of the evidence, the landlord emailed the tenant on Friday, 14 November 2025 at 3:34pm, advising that a professional company, Bay Energy Solutions would be at the property for HHS work. This included advising that the ground moisture barrier would be installed, together with fixing some of the insulation that had moved and required repair. They were able to access under the house without any access to the house itself. This email advised that the access would commence on 18 November 2025 at 8am. It also advised that on the same day, a builder would be on site to fix some window works for the HHS compliance (draught stopping). 8 Whatiura v Shoulder, Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987. _539000113

The tenant responded declining access and so although the work under the house was completed, the builder who was scheduled to work on the windows was cancelled.

Section 48(2) of the RTA states that the landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of complying, or preparing to comply, with the healthy homes standards at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry.

The landlord also does not need to obtain consent or give notice to enter the land comprising the tenancy. Section 48 of the RTA relates to the landlord’s right of entry, with subsection one confirming that the landlord “shall not enter the premises” other than that with the consent of the tenant given at the time, or if the RTA would otherwise allow it, such as following notice.

If the landlord fails to comply with the entry requirements, then they commit an unlawful act, and therefore exemplary damages could be ordered. But the problem for the tenant, is subsection 7 which holds that “[i]n this section premises does not include land or facilities”.

The effect of that subsection 7 provision is to exclude any requirement for the landlord to obtain consent, or give notice, to enter land or facilities that otherwise comprise the premises.

In any event, I consider that the landlord either gave sufficient notice of entry for works that were intended to be carried out and/or was not required to given notice for the work under the house as it was part of the land or facilities.

Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Other claims for exemplary damages

The tenant makes other claims for exemplary damages, including (and using the tenant’s terminology): a. Destruction/spoliation of evidence. b. Obstruction of justice. c. Intentional deception. d. Breach of absent landlord procedure.

It is not clear what unlawful acts these relate to under the RTA for which exemplary damages can be awarded and these claims are dismissed. As mentioned above, exemplary damages can only be awarded for what the RTA defines to be an unlawful act. _539000114

The tenant issued a 14-day notice for healthy homes breaches, declined access and then has claimed for destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice when the evidence suggests the landlord was endeavouring to respond to the tenant’s concerns and carry out repairs.

The tenant also gave evidence about the inability of obtaining an alternative rental in the area at this time of year, and her being required to sleep in motels, tents and her car due to not being able to sleep at the house. It is difficult to understand why, in these circumstances, the tenant wouldn’t want the works carried out so she could maintain the tenancy. Compensation claims

I have already awarded compensation for a breach of HHS above and any additional claim(s) in respect of this breach are dismissed.

The tenant makes several further claims for costs incurred because of being required to move out of the property urgently.

The tenant claims for temporary accommodation of $38,275.00 for being required to move out of the property and includes a future accommodation claim. There is no obligation for a landlord to provide alternative accommodation in these circumstances, and this claim is dismissed. I also note that the landlord did offer to end the tenancy earlier.

The tenant also claims for increased living expenses of $320.00. This is an estimate, and I have inadequate evidence of the landlord’s contribution to this loss and this claim is dismissed.

The tenant claims for loss of chattels, being the replacement value of items, she says cannot be recovered due to mould exposure. The estimate provided for this is $9,500.00. I have inadequate evidence that any of these items are contaminated in any way, or even exactly what the items are and due to insufficient evidence, this claim is dismissed.

The tenant claims for her testing costs to produce reports for this dispute. However, parties are to bear their own costs in the production of evidence and this claim is dismissed.

The breach of quiet enjoyment claims also included a compensation component and as I consider this has been dealt with above, this claim is also dismissed. Reduction in fixed term tenancy _539000115

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 22 September 2026. The landlord did not oppose the fixed term tenancy being reduced.

Usually, and in accordance with section 66 of the RTA, there would be a consideration of the unforeseen change and a comparative assessment of hardship if the tenancy was to be reduced. However, as the landlord has consented to the reduction of the fixed term tenancy, I do not consider this necessary.

It is instead, only necessary for me to consider when the tenancy should be reduced to and to award any reasonable costs in accordance with section 44A of the RTA.

The tenant requests that the tenancy be ended on 17 November 2025.

However, the issue with this, is that despite the tenant saying she and her family had moved out of the property, she refused to allow the landlord, property manager or any engaged contractors to access the property to carry out any remedial works or otherwise after this date.

Accordingly, the landlord has had no ability to enter the property. It would be nonsensical to reduce the tenancy to a time where the landlord was not even allowed to access it to carry out repairs, even when notice requirements were complied with.

As a result, I find it reasonable to instead to reduce the fixed term tenancy to end at 11:59pm on 12 December 2025.

There was some discussion about goods remaining at the property. As above, I have dismissed the compensation claim relating to contaminated goods. The additional time allowed before the tenancy ends should enable to tenant to remove any items/belongings.

If any belongings remain after the tenancy ends, then sections 62, 62A and 62B of the RTA govern the disposal of goods. There was no formal application made in respect of this and so I have not considered further. Outstanding rent

The tenant has not paid any rent since 17 November 2025. Although rent was not formally claimed by the landlord, I consider that it is fair and expeditious for me to award rent. This is even more so when I have awarded compensation for a rent reduction as awarded above. See section 85 of the RTA.

It is a fundamental obligation for a tenant to pay rent when due. Any claim for a breach of an obligation by the landlord is for the Tribunal to determine. If _539000116 a breach is established, any compensation awarded may reduce the amount owed. However, until that has occurred rent must be paid by the tenant.

Although the tenant says the premises were uninhabitable, I have not found that above.

Accordingly, I have awarded rent from 18 November 2025 to the end of the fixed term tenancy being 12 December 2025.

The tenant had also applied for a bond refund, however, at the time of application and hearing, the tenancy had not ended. Therefore, I have not refunded the bond. Other matters

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Both parties sought name suppression. As both parties have had some level of success, I consider it appropriate to award name suppression to both parties. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 09 December 2025 _539000117

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390001. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (from 18/11/25 to 12/12/25	$2,857.00		Rent arrears (from 18/11/25 to 12/12/25
Compensation (HHS breaches		$525.00	Compensation (HHS breaches
Exemplary damages (HHS breaches		$2,000.00	Exemplary damages (HHS breaches
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,857.00	$2,553.00