What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407892 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Yang Family

How much money was awarded in case 5407892?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407892?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13733386-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407892 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Yang Family

How much money was awarded in case 5407892?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407892?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13733386-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 7, 22 Cleveland Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407892 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407892 — net $115.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Cleaning	$115.00	By consent: Cleaning
Net award	$115.00
Bond	$2,140.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$115.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407892 — net $115.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Cleaning	$115.00	By consent: Cleaning
Net award	$115.00
Bond	$2,140.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$115.00

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Yang Family Trust $115.00 immediately from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,140.00 (3205540-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Yang Family Trust: $115.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,025.00
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 May 2026. Serena Mormon appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant’s application includes a claim for a refund of the bond. At the hearing, the landlord advised that they had recently filed a cross-application against the bond. Rather than adjourning the hearing to allow more time for the landlord’s cross-application to be processed, the parties reached a settlement regarding disbursement of the bond. They agreed that $115.00 should go to the landlord, with the balance being refunded to the tenant. The landlord is to withdraw their application as a result of this settlement.
The tenancy began on 9 September 2022 and ended on 20 November 2025.
The landlord sent the tenant a 90-day termination notice on 20 August 2025, which the tenant claims is unlawful. The tenant also claims premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards. These are the issues I must determine. Standard of proof
As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Was the 90-day termination notice unlawful?

The law

Section 60AA RTA states: A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenancy or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
Section 51(1) RTA states that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the 90-day termination notice is unlawful because no reason for termination is provided. The tenant claims that when they enquired with Ms Mormon about the reason for termination, they were advised that the owner intended to sell the premises. The tenant claims no steps were taken to market the premises for sale after the tenancy ended. The tenant suspects the premises have not been sold and have been re-tenanted. The tenant claims that the reason given to them for ending the tenancy was a lie.
The landlord claims they are entitled to end the tenancy by giving 90-days’ notice and do not need to provide a reason. Ms Mormon gave evidence that because of the length of the tenancy (3 – 4 years), she gave the tenant a courtesy call to advise of the reason. Ms Mormon claims she was acting on instructions from the owner who had advised that the premises were to be sold. Analysis
Section 51 of the RTA was amended on 30 January 2025 to permit landlord’s to end periodic tenancies by giving 90-days’ notice for any or no reason at all. 1 Prior to this amendment, landlord’s could only end a periodic tenancy by giving 90-days’ notice if a particular reason applied. For example, that the premises were to be placed on the market for sale within 90 days from the termination date. The result of the amendment is that landlords can now end periodic tenancies by giving 90-days’ notice for any or no reason at all.
The 90-day termination notice was sent by the landlord on 20 August 2025 after the amendment to section 51 RTA came into force. Therefore, the landlord did not need to specify a reason in the notice as to why the tenancy was ending. 1 Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024, section 26 and 2(2). The fact that the landlord verbally told the tenant that the premises were to be sold and this does not appear to have eventuated does not render the termination notice unlawful. The tenancy was a periodic tenancy and the landlord was entitled to end it by giving 90-days’ notice for any or no reason at all.
The termination notice complies with the requirements in section 51(3) RTA. There are at least 90 days between 20 August 2025 and 20 November 2025. The notice was sent to the tenant’s email address recorded as an address for service in the tenancy agreement. For all of these reasons, the 90-day termination notice was validly issued.
This is not a case where the termination notice appears to have been retaliatory. I say this because the tenant accepts that at the time the termination notice was sent, the relationship between them and the landlord was good. There was no ongoing dispute, and the tenant had not made any complaints about the premises shortly before the notice was sent.
For all of these reasons, I find the landlord was entitled to end the tenancy by giving 90-days’ notice without needing to specify a reason. The termination of the tenancy was lawful, and this claim is dismissed.

Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards (HHS).
The HHS can be found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The regulations provide a minimum set of requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage in respect of residential tenancies.
Regulation 26 states that the premises must be free from gaps between, and holes in, building elements that: a. Are not intentional parts of the construction of the premises (such as drainage and ventilation openings); and b. Allow draughts into or out of the premises; and c. Are unreasonable.
Regulation 23 requires a bathroom to have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation. If an extractor fan is installed, regulation 23(3) requires all exhaust ducting to have a diameter of at least 120mm or an exhaust capacity of at least 25 l/s.
Regulation 24 states when a bathroom is exempt from needing to have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation. It reads: 24Exemption from mechanical ventilation standard if extractor fan not reasonably practicable to install (1)A kitchen or bathroom ned not comply with regulation 23 if all of the following apply: (a)at the commencement of the tenancy, - (i)the room does not have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation: (ii)it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements of regulation 23(2) and (3): (b)when the room was built or converted into a kitchen or bathroom, not having an extractor fan was lawful: (c)if not having an extractor fan was lawful only because the room met alternative ventilation requirements, at the commencement of the tenancy the room still meets those requirements. (2)This exemption ceases to apply if, during the term of the tenancy, it becomes reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements in regulation 23(2) and (3).
Regulation 8 relates to heating and states: 8Main living room must have qualifying heaters (1)the main living room of the premises must be heated – (a)by 1 or more qualifying heaters with a total heating capacity of at least the required heating capacity for the main living room; or (b)by 1 or more qualifying heaters as assessed under regulation 10A; or (c)by geothermal heating as provided in regulation 10B.
Regulation 9 defines what constitutes a qualifying heater. It states: 9Qualifying heaters (1)A heater is a qualifying heater if – (a)it is installed as a fixture to the premises; and (b)either – (i)the heater (or if it is a fixed heat pump, the indoor unit) is in the living room; or (ii)the heater supplies heat directly into the living room (for example, through a duct or vent located in the living room); and (c)it has a heating capacity of at least 1.5KW; and (d)if it is an electric heater or a fixed heat pump, it has a thermostat; and (e)it is not an unacceptable heater.
An unacceptable heater is defined as follows: 2 a. An open fire: b. An unflued combustion heater: c. If the required heating capacity for the living room is greater than 2.4KW, an electric heater.
Regulation 12 states when a premises does not need to comply with the heating requirements. It reads: 12Exemption from heating standard if not reasonably practicable to install (1)the main living room need not comply with regulation 8 if, at the commencement of the tenancy, - (a)the living room does not comply with that regulation; and (b)it is not reasonably practicable to install qualifying heaters so as to comply with that regulation. (2)this exemption ceases to apply if, during the term of the tenancy, it becomes reasonably practicable to install qualifying heater so as to comply with regulation 8. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises did not comply with the HHS, because the bathroom did not have an extractor fan, the living room did not have a heater until one year into the tenancy, and windows and doors had unreasonable gaps.
The tenant claims the bathroom was difficult to ventilate and attracted mould. The tenant also claims the premises were cold, because of the lack of adequate heating and draughts. The tenant submitted photographs, including a photograph of the ceiling in the bathroom with a small amount of mould on it and a jacket with lots of mould on it. 2 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, regulation 9(3).
The tenant claims it was reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan in the bathroom because, since the tenancy has ended, an extractor fan has been installed in the bathroom. The tenant submitted a photograph taken from the outside of the premises, which shows an extractor fan has been installed in the window of the bathroom. Further, the tenant claims the kitchen had an extractor fan installed in the window.
The landlord claims the premises are exempt from needing to comply with the ventilation and heating standards. They rely on the findings in a healthy homes assessment report completed by Cosy Spaces NZ Ltd dated 3 July 2020.
The landlord claims they completed draught stopping on windows in 2020 to address any unreasonable gaps. Analysis
The tenancy began on 9 September 2022. The premises needed to comply with the HHS by 7 January 2023, which is 120 days later.
The healthy homes assessment report completed by Cosy Spaces NZ Ltd is dated 3 July 2020. It concludes that the premises are exempt from needing to comply with the heating and ventilation requirements. The reason given is that it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation in the bathroom, or qualifying heater in the main living room. The tenant disagrees with these findings, but did not submit their own healthy homes assessment report to counter the findings. This lack of expert evidence is a real deficiency in the tenant’s case.
An extractor fan appears to have been installed in the bathroom window since the tenancy ended however, I do not know whether the exhaust ducting has a diameter of at least 120mm or an exhaust capacity of at least 25 l/s. Extractor fans must comply with one of these requirements in order to comply with the HHS. Because I do not know whether the extractor fan complies with these requirements, I cannot determine whether the finding in the Cosy Spaces NZ report is reliable. If the extractor fan does not comply with these requirements, then the findings in the report are most likely correct. If the extractor fan does comply with these requirements, then the findings in the report are most likely incorrect. In the absence of any evidence about the nature and type of extractor fan installed in the bathroom however, it is not possible for me to determine this issue. For these reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the findings in the Cosy Spaces NZ Ltd report about the extractor fan are incorrect.
The same can be said regarding the heating. The fact that the landlord installed an electric wall heater in the main living room one year into the tenancy does not mean that the premises complied with the heating requirements at this point. I do not have any information on the size of the main living room and the required heating capacity. This means I do not know whether the 2KW electric heater is sufficient to comply with the heating requirements of the HHS. If the size of the main living room is such that a 2KW electric heater is sufficient to ensure compliance, then the findings in the report completed by Cosy Spaces NZ Ltd are most likely incorrect. If the main living room requires a higher heating capacity however, then the findings in the report are most likely correct. The absence of any evidence regarding the size of the main living room and required heating capacity means I cannot determine this issue. For these reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the findings in the Cosy Spaces NZ report about heating are incorrect.
The Cosy Spaces NZ report states that the premises do not comply with the draught stopping requirements, because some windows have unreasonable gaps and cannot stay open. The landlord submitted an invoice from a handyman dated 5 November 2020, which indicates these issues were remedied on or around this date. The tenant claims that unreasonable gaps in windows and doors were present during the tenancy however, no expert evidence of this was submitted. In the absence of any expert evidence from a healthy homes assessor or builder, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the remedial work completed by the landlord was insufficient to address the problem. For these reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the premises did not comply with the draught stopping requirements in the HHS.
For all of these reasons, the tenant has not proven that the premises did not comply with the HHS.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim. For this reason, I do not order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407892 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 7, 22 Cleveland Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407892 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 7, 22 Cleveland Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the 90-day termination notice unlawful?

Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the 90-day termination notice unlawful?

Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions