What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393483 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 5393483?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393483?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393483?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13299637-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393483 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 5393483?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393483?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393483?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13299637-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1 Old Parua Bay Road, Parahaki, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5393483 — State of repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 10 April 2023 and ended on or around 17 February 2026.
The property is a four-bedroom home. The landlord rents the property on a ‘room-by-room’ basis.
The parties entered into a written “tenant / boarder” agreement.
The landlord gave notice on 19 November 2025 to terminate the tenancy on 17 February 2026.
[The tenant/s]’s application raises maintenance issues and seeks exemplary damages on the grounds that the landlord’s termination notice was a retaliatory notice.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 13 March 2026. Both parties participated in the hearing. Type of tenancy / jurisdiction
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes arising from tenancies that are subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The RTA applies to all residential tenancies, except for certain types that are specifically excluded under section 5 of the RTA.
One of the excluded types of tenancies is where the principal use of the premises during the tenancy is as a home for the landlord. Although the parties entered a house sharing / boarding agreement, Mr & Mrs Whyte clarified that they do not live at this property.
The RTA includes particular ‘rules’ for boarding house tenancies. The room-by- room arrangement (where tenants have exclusive use of a bedroom and shared use of the other facilities) shares some commonalities with boarding houses. However, part of the definition of a boarding house is that it is occupied, or is intended to be occupied, by more than 6 tenants. 1
Mr & Mrs Whyte confirmed that they have no more than four tenants at a time at this property.
Therefore, this a ‘standard’ residential tenancy, the RTA applies, and the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Maintenance issues
Landlords have a duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 2
The landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises is not a warranty that the premises will not suffer any defect during the tenancy. Rather, it is an obligation on the landlord to respond promptly and appropriately to any repair issues that come to their attention. 3
[The tenant/s] raised the following issues at the hearing: a. Deck. b. Blown lightbulbs. c. Carpet 1 Section 66B RTA 2 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 3 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 Deck
[The tenant/s] said that the deck was unsafe and in need of repairs.
He first raised the issue formally with the landlords in a text message on 5 November 2025. The landlords received this message as they were about to travel overseas for a holiday.
The landlords were aware that the deck was deteriorating. They had work done on the deck in February 2025. It was getting to an age where it needed more regular repairs.
After they returned from holiday they arranged for a builder to attend in early December to assess the deck. That builder had to pull out of the job. They found another builder, who viewed the deck and advised Mr & Mrs Whyte that although they could carry out repairs, it was perhaps time to replace the deck. Mr & Mrs Whyte agreed, and this was completed in March 2026.
My finding is that the landlords met their maintenance obligation in respect of the deck. They acted promptly and appropriately in response to [The tenant/s]’s message in early November. There is no evidence to show that they failed to carry out necessary repairs to the deck in a timely manner. Blown bulbs
[The tenant/s] said that bulbs blew regularly at the house, and this indicated an electrical fault issue.
Mr Whyte supplied new lightbulbs to the tenants. His view was that the bulbs did not blow any more frequently than is ‘normal’, and no more frequently than he experiences in his own property.
In response to the tenant’s concern, he had an electrician inspect the light fittings and power points throughout the home and no problems were found.
There is no proven breach of the landlord’s maintenance duty under this heading. Carpet
[The tenant/s] said that the carpet is aged and worn, and in need of replacement.
The carpet is original from when the house was built in the late 1990s.
I was not provided with any photographs showing the condition of the carpet.
[The tenant/s] was aware of the condition of the carpet when he accepted the tenancy.
All chattels have a lifespan, and the time will come when the carpet is deteriorated to the point that the landlord is obliged to replace it. There is no evidence to show me that the carpet is currently at, or past, that point. Retaliatory notice
The Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $6,500 if the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord issued a retaliatory notice of termination.
A retaliatory notice is one where, in issuing the notice, the landlord was motivated by the tenant exercising a legal right or power or making a legitimate complaint to the landlord about a tenancy matter. 4
[The tenant/s] argued that the landlords issued the notice because he raised a complaint about the deck. He sent a text message about the deck on 5 November 2025. The landlords were about to go overseas for a holiday. Immediately upon their return, they called for a meeting with [The tenant/s], and they gave him the termination notice at that meeting.
Mr & Mrs Whyte said that this was not the reason why they gave the notice.
They said that they gave the notice because of on-going tensions and issues between [The tenant/s] and another tenant. Mrs Whyte was concerned by messages that she received from [The tenant/s] about this, which included a threat to the other tenant and a demand that Mrs Whyte must terminate the other tenant’s tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Whyte said that they discussed the situation when they were on holiday and decided that they must end [The tenant/s]’s tenancy.
Landlords have duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of their tenants causes an unreasonable interference with the peace comfort and privacy of their other tenants. 5 This duty does not require landlords to become involved in day-to-day squabbles between flatmates, but it does require them to take action in response to more serious complaints or concerns.
In this instance, Mr & Mrs Whyte could not ‘take sides’ in the dispute between [The tenant/s] and the other tenant, but it was reasonable for them to respond when the situation escalated, particularly when they received the message from [The tenant/s] where he threated to hit the other flatmate. I acknowledge that [The tenant/s] sent that message out of frustration and in the ‘heat of the moment’, but it is not something that the landlords could ignore.
I am satisfied that the landlords did not terminate the tenancy because [The tenant/s] raised a concern about the deck. The landlords were willing to meet 4 Section 54 RTA 5 Section 45(1)(e) RTA their maintenance obligation on the deck – they had repairs done previously, and they accepted the builder’s recommendation to replace the deck, at considerable cost.
My finding is that the termination notice was not retaliatory and that the termination was lawful. Outcome, name suppression
[The tenant/s]’s application raised legitimate concerns about maintenance and about the termination notice.
My findings above are that the landlords met their legal duties, and therefore the application must be dismissed. However, this should not be construed as a finding that the tenant’s concerns were baseless or vexatious.
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. [The tenant/s] was not “substantially successful” in the proceedings, 6 but I will exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression in this instance on the grounds that this decision includes some personal information about [The tenant/s]. 7

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 10 April 2023 and ended on or around 17 February 2026.
The property is a four-bedroom home. The landlord rents the property on a ‘room-by-room’ basis.
The parties entered into a written “tenant / boarder” agreement.
The landlord gave notice on 19 November 2025 to terminate the tenancy on 17 February 2026.
[The tenant/s]’s application raises maintenance issues and seeks exemplary damages on the grounds that the landlord’s termination notice was a retaliatory notice.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 13 March 2026. Both parties participated in the hearing. Type of tenancy / jurisdiction
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes arising from tenancies that are subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The RTA applies to all residential tenancies, except for certain types that are specifically excluded under section 5 of the RTA.
One of the excluded types of tenancies is where the principal use of the premises during the tenancy is as a home for the landlord. Although the parties entered a house sharing / boarding agreement, Mr & Mrs Whyte clarified that they do not live at this property.
The RTA includes particular ‘rules’ for boarding house tenancies. The room-by- room arrangement (where tenants have exclusive use of a bedroom and shared use of the other facilities) shares some commonalities with boarding houses. However, part of the definition of a boarding house is that it is occupied, or is intended to be occupied, by more than 6 tenants. 1
Mr & Mrs Whyte confirmed that they have no more than four tenants at a time at this property.
Therefore, this a ‘standard’ residential tenancy, the RTA applies, and the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Maintenance issues
Landlords have a duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 2
The landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises is not a warranty that the premises will not suffer any defect during the tenancy. Rather, it is an obligation on the landlord to respond promptly and appropriately to any repair issues that come to their attention. 3
[The tenant/s] raised the following issues at the hearing: a. Deck. b. Blown lightbulbs. c. Carpet 1 Section 66B RTA 2 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 3 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 Deck
[The tenant/s] said that the deck was unsafe and in need of repairs.
He first raised the issue formally with the landlords in a text message on 5 November 2025. The landlords received this message as they were about to travel overseas for a holiday.
The landlords were aware that the deck was deteriorating. They had work done on the deck in February 2025. It was getting to an age where it needed more regular repairs.
After they returned from holiday they arranged for a builder to attend in early December to assess the deck. That builder had to pull out of the job. They found another builder, who viewed the deck and advised Mr & Mrs Whyte that although they could carry out repairs, it was perhaps time to replace the deck. Mr & Mrs Whyte agreed, and this was completed in March 2026.
My finding is that the landlords met their maintenance obligation in respect of the deck. They acted promptly and appropriately in response to [The tenant/s]’s message in early November. There is no evidence to show that they failed to carry out necessary repairs to the deck in a timely manner. Blown bulbs
[The tenant/s] said that bulbs blew regularly at the house, and this indicated an electrical fault issue.
Mr Whyte supplied new lightbulbs to the tenants. His view was that the bulbs did not blow any more frequently than is ‘normal’, and no more frequently than he experiences in his own property.
In response to the tenant’s concern, he had an electrician inspect the light fittings and power points throughout the home and no problems were found.
There is no proven breach of the landlord’s maintenance duty under this heading. Carpet
[The tenant/s] said that the carpet is aged and worn, and in need of replacement.
The carpet is original from when the house was built in the late 1990s.
I was not provided with any photographs showing the condition of the carpet.
[The tenant/s] was aware of the condition of the carpet when he accepted the tenancy.
All chattels have a lifespan, and the time will come when the carpet is deteriorated to the point that the landlord is obliged to replace it. There is no evidence to show me that the carpet is currently at, or past, that point. Retaliatory notice
The Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $6,500 if the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord issued a retaliatory notice of termination.
A retaliatory notice is one where, in issuing the notice, the landlord was motivated by the tenant exercising a legal right or power or making a legitimate complaint to the landlord about a tenancy matter. 4
[The tenant/s] argued that the landlords issued the notice because he raised a complaint about the deck. He sent a text message about the deck on 5 November 2025. The landlords were about to go overseas for a holiday. Immediately upon their return, they called for a meeting with [The tenant/s], and they gave him the termination notice at that meeting.
Mr & Mrs Whyte said that this was not the reason why they gave the notice.
They said that they gave the notice because of on-going tensions and issues between [The tenant/s] and another tenant. Mrs Whyte was concerned by messages that she received from [The tenant/s] about this, which included a threat to the other tenant and a demand that Mrs Whyte must terminate the other tenant’s tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Whyte said that they discussed the situation when they were on holiday and decided that they must end [The tenant/s]’s tenancy.
Landlords have duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of their tenants causes an unreasonable interference with the peace comfort and privacy of their other tenants. 5 This duty does not require landlords to become involved in day-to-day squabbles between flatmates, but it does require them to take action in response to more serious complaints or concerns.
In this instance, Mr & Mrs Whyte could not ‘take sides’ in the dispute between [The tenant/s] and the other tenant, but it was reasonable for them to respond when the situation escalated, particularly when they received the message from [The tenant/s] where he threated to hit the other flatmate. I acknowledge that [The tenant/s] sent that message out of frustration and in the ‘heat of the moment’, but it is not something that the landlords could ignore.
I am satisfied that the landlords did not terminate the tenancy because [The tenant/s] raised a concern about the deck. The landlords were willing to meet 4 Section 54 RTA 5 Section 45(1)(e) RTA their maintenance obligation on the deck – they had repairs done previously, and they accepted the builder’s recommendation to replace the deck, at considerable cost.
My finding is that the termination notice was not retaliatory and that the termination was lawful. Outcome, name suppression
[The tenant/s]’s application raised legitimate concerns about maintenance and about the termination notice.
My findings above are that the landlords met their legal duties, and therefore the application must be dismissed. However, this should not be construed as a finding that the tenant’s concerns were baseless or vexatious.
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. [The tenant/s] was not “substantially successful” in the proceedings, 6 but I will exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression in this instance on the grounds that this decision includes some personal information about [The tenant/s]. 7

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393483 — State of repair at 1 Old Parua Bay Road, Parahaki, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393483 — State of repair at 1 Old Parua Bay Road, Parahaki, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions