What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429589 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 5429589?

Compensation: Part Rent Refund: $2,496.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429589?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13502319-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429589 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 5429589?

Compensation: Part Rent Refund: $2,496.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429589?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13502319-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

248 Paremoremo Road, Lucas Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5429589 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429589 — net $4,924.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failing to provide and maintain: section 45 RTA	$2,400.00	Failing to provide and maintain: section 45 RTA
Compensation: Part rent refund	$2,496.00	Part rent refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,924.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,924.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429589 — net $4,924.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failing to provide and maintain: section 45 RTA	$2,400.00	Failing to provide and maintain: section 45 RTA
Compensation: Part rent refund	$2,496.00	Part rent refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,924.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,924.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant names and identifying details.
Forrest Hill Realty Limited As Agent For Kelly Kam Yi_Chan must pay [The tenant/s] $4,924.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy started on 15 November 2024. The tenants have now vacated the premises as at 8 March 2026.
The premises consist of a one level, 3-bedroom house. The tenancy was fixed for a period of 1 year.
The tenant seeks vacated compensation following the end of the tenancy.
There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
The tenants provided a helpful written summary of the issues with their tenancy, along with a timeline of events which I have carefully considered.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decides are these: a. Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? b. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? Relevant law
Section 38(2) RTA sets out a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them is the requirement that a landlord comply with the HHS.
A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
Section 54(1) provides for when the Tribunal can declare a notice retaliatory.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Legal considerations
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 un-likely, 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.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 (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. Other legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
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 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply
Breaching any of these obligations 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants provided a written summary as follows.
Upon moving into the property, it became apparent that it was not left in a clean or habitable condition. Rubbish remained on site, the pool was in a neglected state, drains were blocked, and most significantly, the property was not collecting water.
The property has a swimming pool, which added an additional level of urgency and risk when water supply is unreliable. The tenants state that the water issue was raised repeatedly from the very beginning of the tenancy and remained unresolved for over 12 months.
During this time, the tenants say they experienced multiple periods with no water at all, meaning they could not shower, flush toilets, or carry out basic hygiene. They were forced to personally pay for numerous water truck deliveries simply to remain functional. The ongoing uncertainty of not knowing whether they would run out of water again caused significant and ongoing stress. They claim that they were constantly monitoring water levels, restricting usage, and living with the anxiety of waking up to no water.
Despite ongoing communication, many emails went unanswered, urgent situations were not addressed, and responsibility was frequently ignored. At times, even when the tenants had no water and could not use toilets or showers, they received no response. Although a small number of water deliveries were eventually paid for by the owners, several were not reimbursed despite repeated follow ups.
In addition to the water supply issues, the septic tank system has been non- functional for the bulk of the tenancy.
An alarm linked to the septic system was present in the garage, however the tenants were never advised by the owners or property managers that this indicated a fault or failure. Contractors later advised the tenants that the condition of the septic tank posed a health risk and appeared not to have been maintained for many years.
The tenants say that at the start of the tenancy the trees were growing into the pool. The tenants say that the pool had not been maintained at the start. There was rubbish at the start of the tenancy. The garden was overgrown.
The previous tenants had left the property in an unsatisfactory state. There were also car parts left at the property.
The tenants also that the drainage and roof collection system was defective, preventing the property from collecting and storing rainwater to supply the water tanks.
The tenants say that their water supply continued to run out. Towards the end of the tenancy the tank was not able to hold the water which resulted in the tenant’s having a tank load of water delivered which meant the water tank could not hold the water.
The tenants also say that the septic tank system was defective. There was also the septic tank alarm which was always ringing.
The landlord says that the last tenant was a property manager who ended up breaking the lease. The landlord says that the previous tenant came back to remove various items left behind. The landlord says that he attended the property on 14 November 2024 to inspect everything. He could see that the lawns had been done and items removed. The next visit from the property manager was not until 3 months later for a routine property inspection.
The landlord says that there was a pipe in front of the garage which was blocked. The landlord arranged for Drain Ninjas to come and inspect the pipe within a few days of the tenants moving in.
The tenants say that this did not sort the issue as the water could not make its way to the tank. The tenants then contacted the landlord again and the landlord sent the gutter cleaning people out.
The gutter cleaners turned up and replaced the mesh and cleaned the gutters. They stated that the gutters were undersized. The gutters were cut and then cleaned out. The property manager’s contractor eventually replaced a valve tap at the bottom of the house tank.
A copy of a Healthy Homes assessment report dated 28 June 2021 was provided to the Tribunal. The report confirmed that in June 2021 the property complied with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenants say that the water tank for the house was not repaired until October 2025.
The tenants also provided a helpful timeline of issues with the property: 12 November 2024 We emailed Chen notifying that the property was not left in a clean or habitable condition, raising concerns regarding rubbish removal, blocked drains, water supply, and pool condition. 14 November 2024 We emailed following up with Chen that the property remained the same, with no changes made since the previous email on the 12th, at this stage tomorrow is move in day. Chen advised remaining outdoor items and pool cleaning were the responsibility of the outgoing tenant and would be addressed, however the pool was not cleaned, the daybed was not removed, garden rubbish remained, and the house was confirmed as acceptable despite being below standard. 15 November 2024 We emailed Chen and advised that drains were blocked and flooding, a plumber was required, and water tanks were not collecting water creating a risk of water shortage, with photographs and videos provided and a request for this to be addressed straight away Property manager advised by email that a contractor, Drain Ninjas, could be arranged to attend and complete the required drain work. 18 November 2024 Chen emailed confirming that a work order had been issued and the contractor would contact us directly. Drain ninjas attended and advised they would need to return tomorrow with correct fittings. I have emailed Chen to let her know that Drain Ninjas had attended and would return to replace a plumbing fitting, and that the downpipe had previously been cut resulting in insufficient water pressure to feed the tanks, with again expressing my concern with the property not catching water for the tanks. 19 November 2024 Chen emailed us requesting confirmation and photographs regarding whether the previous tenants had returned, the previous tenants never returned. 27 November 2024 We emailed Chen advising the property had no water at all, due to the issues we addressed from the first day. We let her know that a water delivery truck had been ordered due to this and requested that they cover the cost and arrange a second delivery. Chen responded by questioning how I checked the water levels and stated that the previous tenants had advised they always had enough water. At this stage of our interactions, our tenancy agreement has only been active for less than 2 weeks, and during this short period we have raised and addressed the water issue several times, specifically that the tanks are not collecting water. We replied to Chen, reiterating that as previously advised as well as to the owner, there was only a very small amount of water in 1 of the 3 tanks when we moved in. There has been no rain since, and the property has not been collecting water, which she is already aware of. We have raised this issue several times since the tenancy began 12 days ago. After approximately 8 hours, following multiple emails that did not address the issue, I received an email from Chen advising that the owners will cover the cost of the water trucks and that we are able to arrange a second water delivery. Chen emailed an inspection report for our records. The photos included in this report clearly confirm the significant rubbish and mess present at the property, particularly around the outside areas. 29 November 2024 We emailed the invoice for the 2 x water trucks, this was paid by the owners. 26 February 2025 House inspection 28 February 2025 We emailed Chin asking whether it was possible to provide a contact number for the owners, as the spotlights they had supplied were solar lights and were not suitable. In the email, we advised that [the tenant] was happy to give the owners a call to explain this directly. Chen replied stating any questions talk to her, please don’t forget they are the property management of this property. 11 March 2025 Chen emailed to advise that she was aware the owner had left some lights and asked that, if they had been installed, and to update her. She also confirmed that a work order would be issued for the gutter and downpipe clean and that the contractor would contact us directly We replied to Chen advising that the lights need to be installed by an electrician and that we will organize this. I also confirmed that [the tenant] will [install] the new washing line supplied by the owners. In the same email, I noted that the owners had attended the property to trim trees and advised us they had informed the property managers, however we were not given notice. I requested that we be notified in advance of any attendance or work at the property, particularly as we have a dog. Chen replied stating that the owners never informed her they were coming over to trim the trees and that “Maybe the owner's partner was just in Auckland, so they did it together” 12 March 2025 We emailed and thanked them for organizing the gutter clean. However, the gutter cleaning was carried out using water from the tanks, which we had purchased via water trucks. As the property is still not collecting water, we did not have sufficient water available for this maintenance job, and the water used was taken from tank water that we are paying for per litre. Chen replied requesting that we do not order any water, as the owners may be arranging a tank clean and will then organise and pay for the next water delivery themselves. 18 March 2025 We emailed Chen advising that we are completely out of water and asking whether an urgent water delivery can be ordered, as the water truck that was expected yesterday did not arrive. Chen replied to my email advising that they will now wait for the tank to be cleaned and that they are hoping this can be done sometime this week. We replied to Chen again explaining that we cannot wait until later in the week, as we currently have absolutely no water and are unable to shower or use the toilets. I also reminded her that I had emailed last week advising the gutter cleaners had used the remaining tank water and that we were told water trucks would be filling the tanks yesterday, which did not occur. As the property is still not collecting water and we have already personally paid for a significant amount of water, I requested assistance to have the tanks urgently filled, particularly as the water we purchased was used for property maintenance. 19 March 2025 We emailed Chen again advising that we have had no water for two days, we cannot use the toilet or showers and that I have not had a reply to my email. 20 March 2025 Chen emailed advising that she had argued with the gutter cleaning company about the amount of water they used and confirmed the owners have booked a tank clean for the 10th of April, with the owners to refill the tanks after the clean. This email was sent on the 20th of March. She also stated this has never happened at the property before and asked that we check for any leakages. We replied to Cen advising that we have personally paid for more water truck deliveries than the owners have, which would not have been necessary if the tanks were collecting water. I also confirmed that the washing line has been installed (by [the tenant] free of charge). 26 June 2025 House inspection. I emailed Chen advising that the ranch slider was left completely wide open today and asked that they please be mindful to ensure the house is properly locked and secured after inspections. Chen replied without addressing the fact that the door had been left open, but confirmed that the septic tank work order is scheduled to be completed in early July. 4 June 2025 Chen emailed advising that the house was clean and tidy and requested that we put the smoke alarm back up in the lounge that had been taken down. She also stated that she checked her photos and said the door was already open when she arrived. She advised that the septic tank issue is in progress and ‘maybe will be done later. 29 August 2025 Chen emailed to advise that the drain company will attend to check the septic tank early next week. I replied advising that we are almost out of water again, which is concerning, particularly as it is the middle of winter. I noted that even with the pool turned off, the property is still not collecting rainwater, and the water tank issue has not been resolved. I followed up asking whether this could be sorted urgently. No reply 19 September 2025 I followed up with another email asking for an update on the water tanks and clarification on what was happening, as we had not received any response to the previous email. No reply 22 September 2025 Chen replied stating she is waiting for the owners to confirm and that the matter is currently in process. 14 October 2025 We emailed to advise that the water situation has escalated and is now worse. We have again run out of water, however this time we had already paid to fill the tank and there is now a leak from the water tank, causing the purchased water to pool around the outside of the tank. I noted that [the tenant] has attempted to call and has sent a message but has not received any response. Throughout the email, I stressed the urgency of the situation. [The tenant] also formally requested an urgent on-site meeting with both the owners and property management to review all water and septic issues and agree on a clear plan and resolution. I raised concern that we are approaching another summer with no water supply, despite having a swimming pool and a house that does not collect water. I reiterated that this is a serious health and safety issue and again referenced the ongoing septic tank problems. Chen replied advising that they will arrange for water to be put into the tank and will carry out CCTV inspection of the downpipes. She advised that they will text [the tenant] directly. We replied stating that we are sure she understands the severity of the situation, that we currently have no water, and that we have attempted to address these issues before they escalated to this point. We asked her to confirm who will reimburse the cost of last Friday’s water truck and advised that we can forward the details. Chen replied, stating that she will inform the owner. 13 November 2025 I replied to Chens email requesting an inspection, advising that the septic tank is still not functioning, the alarm in the garage is indicating an issue that requires urgent attention, and both showers are draining very slowly. I also queried reimbursement for the most recent water truck that was purchased due to the ongoing tank issues. No reply 20 November 2025 Chen replied asking how much the water truck cost and advised that she will speak to the owner. We replied again providing the cost of the water truck and confirming that it appears the plumber has (finally) resolved the water tank issue and that the property is now finally collecting water. I also queried when the septic tank issue would be addressed, noting that there are now odours. Steve called [the tenant] and had an unusual conversation regarding the property, advising that he believed the owners were looking to sell. [The tenant] reiterated that we had been told this was a long-term tenancy and that we specifically needed a long-term property, and we expressed that we were shocked and disappointed by this information. During the call, Steve stated that he would work with us directly and keep us more informed than the owners about who would be coming through the property, which felt like an inappropriate and concerning comment. In the same conversation, Steve also told [the tenant] that the previous tenants had taken them to the Tenancy Tribunal. Steve later followed up with an email dated 21 November confirming the substance of the phone conversation and stating that the intention was to market the property for sale. Since 20 November 2025 We have received no further communication from Chen or Steve. There has been no offer to reimburse the additional water truck costs despite multiple follow ups, and the septic tank system at the property remains nonfunctional. The owners have attended the property unannounced on at least 3 occasions. When [the tenant] approached the vehicle to ask why they were there, the owners quickly reversed up the driveway to avoid conversation, which was unusual given all prior interactions had been positive. We have not been given notice for these visits, and there have been repeated instances of carloads of Asian people arriving and looking around the top of the driveway and into the paddocks. Due to safety and privacy concerns, we installed a camera at the top of the driveway, after which the vehicles returned only once and have not been back since. We have now been issued a 90 days’ notice to vacate the property. We believe this notice is retaliatory in nature, issued because of us exercising our rights as tenants to live in a healthy, compliant home.
The landlord provided 3 documents in support of their response that the water tank had been repaired: • Dominant Construction Limited dated 6 November 2025 confirming water tank valve and pump replacement • Healthy Water Tanks dated 10 April 2025 servicing the water tank • Onshore Property Wash Limited dated 12 March 2025 confirming the replacement of rubber couplings on water tank. Analysis
Based on the evidence provided it is my view that the landlord has failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair prior to the tenants moving in.
I am satisfied that the failure to provide the premises in a satisfactory condition at the start of the tenancy was intentional. The evidence confirming that the property was not ready to rent is abundantly clear. Most of these issues should have been addressed prior to the tenants moving into the property. And because of this the landlord was constantly on the back foot reacting to requests for repairs and maintenance rather than being proactive prior to the start of the tenancy.
Where problems are known but there is a failure to remedy, the unlawful act is intentional. The effect of the failure to maintain significantly affected the tenants’ enjoyment and possibly the health of the tenants. It is in the public interest that landlords comply with the law relating to tenancies so that living conditions for tenants are healthy and safe.
The Tribunal finds that, on the balance of probabilities, that at the commencement of the tenancy the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of repair. Rubbish remained on site, the swimming pool was neglected, and drains were blocked.
The Tribunal finds that the premises were not collecting water adequately from the beginning of the tenancy. The water supply concerns were raised repeatedly. Despite this, the issues remained unresolved for a significant period of time.
During the tendency the tenants experienced multiple periods with no water at all, preventing the use of toilets, showers and basic hygiene facilities. These periods rendered the premises uninhabitable for ordinary residential purposes.
As a direct consequence of the inadequate water supply the tenants were required to arrange and pay for multiple water truck deliveries in order to maintain basic living conditions. While some costs were later reimbursed others were not reimbursed despite follow-ups.
The tribunal finds that the septic system was non-functional for the entirety of the tendency. An alarm indicating system failure was present in the garage. The tenants were not advised of its significance at the outset of the tenancy. Independent contractors later advised the tenant that the septic system posed a health risk and appeared not to have been maintained for many years. This advice is accepted.
The tribunal finds that communications from the tenant to the landlord and managing agents regarding urgent water and septic issues we are frequently unanswered, and that remedial action was not undertaken within a reasonable time frame.
The tribunal further finds that the combined effect of the water supply failures and defective septic system caused ongoing stress and materially interfered with the tenant’s ability to use the premises as a home.
A property that regularly leaves occupants without access to water for basic hygiene and sanitation cannot be regarded as being in a reasonable state of repair.
In circumstances where the premises rely on collected water section 45(1)(ca) imposes a clear obligation on the landlord to ensure that the system for collecting and storing water is adequate. A system that repeatedly fails resulting in complete water loss does not meet the standard.
The failure to repair or replace a long-standing defective septic system constitutes a breach of section 45(1)(b) and section 45(1)(c) given the associated health and safety risks.
The tribunal is satisfied that these breaches were not minor or isolated. They were ongoing serious and persisted despite repeated notification.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
For their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the landlord’s failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, I award the tenant exemplary damages of $2,400.00, being one third of the maximum award.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breach of quiet enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Throughout the tenancy, the tenants say that they experienced several unannounced visits by the owners. On at least 3 occasions, they arrived without notice and left abruptly when approached. There were also instances of unknown vehicles arriving and inspecting the driveway and paddocks.
Due to safety and privacy concerns, the tenants installed a camera at the entrance to the property, after which these visits ceased.
The tenants say that the owner turned up unannounced in March 2025.
The tenants say that they arrived home to discover the owners on the property pruning trees. The tenant approached them stating that they were unaware that they were coming. The owners stated that they notified the property manager of the visit. The tenants then emailed the property manager asking that they be given notice next time they wish to visit.
The next visit was on 21 August where the owners requested permission to turn up to look at the septic tank. The tenants say that 3 carloads of people turned up. The tenants were still there. They asked the owners who the other people were. The owners advised that they were family from overseas who wanted to see their farm.
On the 3rd occasion the owners turned up again in December 2025. The owners parked at the end of the driveway. The tenant says that the owners were pointing to various parts of the property. The tenant then went to approach them at the end of the driveway at which point the owners drove off.
The landlord accepts that the owners have turned up unannounced. Analysis
The tribunal accepts that the March 2025 visit was without prior notice to the tenants and that this was understandably unwelcome. However, an isolated failure of notice in itself does not automatically amount to a breach of section 38. The evidence indicates that after the tenants raised the issue the matter was addressed through the property manager and there is no suggestion that the owners continued to attend without explanation or justification.
The August 2025 visit occurred with permission for the owners to attend in relation to the septic tank. While the presence of additional family members may have been unexpected and may have caused discomfort to the tenants the visit was a single occasion connected to a legitimate property related purpose.
The tenants remained in occupation of the property and there is no evidence of interference with the tenants’ use of the dwelling itself.
The December 2025 incident involved the owners remaining at the end of the driveway only briefly and leaving immediately when the tenant approached. The tribunal is satisfied that this conduct was minimal and did not involve entry onto the residential premises or engagement with the tenants.
Taken together the owners’ conduct comprised 3 isolated events over a period of approximately 9 months. The attendances were comparatively brief and limited in scope. They were not persistent aggressive or intimidating. There is no evidence that the tenants were prevented from using the premises, that their privacy within the dwelling was intruded upon, or that their occupation became untenable as a result.
Quiet enjoyment protects tenants from substantial and unreasonable interference, not from every inconvenience or unwanted interaction. While some of the owners’ actions may have been poorly managed or could have been better communicated the tribunal is not satisfied that the conduct reaches the threshold for a breach of section 38.
The claim for breach of quiet enjoyment fails and is declined. Retaliatory notice
On 21 January 2026, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory under section 54 RTA the following matters must be satisfied a. The application must be made in time (within 28 working days of service of the notice); b. The 90-day notice must be a valid notice that complies with section 51 RTA; c. The onus is then on the tenant to prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.
In considering a retaliatory notice claim under s54, the Tribunal may find that the 90-day notice is not a valid notice because it has not been given for a genuine reason or does not comply with the notice period.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal would simply declare the notice invalid and cannot consider whether the notice would be retaliatory. However, on application by the tenant, the Tribunal can consider whether the landlord has breached their obligations under s60AA.
The tenants say that the 90-day termination notice as served on the tenants on 21 January 2026 is a response to the on-going complaints by the tenants of issues with the property. Shortly after continued follow ups regarding unresolved health and safety issues, the tenants were issued with a 90 day notice to vacate dated 21 January 2026.
The tenants claim this notice is retaliatory and directly connected to them exercising their rights as tenants to live in a healthy, compliant home.
Given the timing, the history of unresolved issues, and the lack of engagement from the property managers, the tenants say this has caused significant stress, financial loss, and disruption.
They also say it is in response to them putting cameras up at the property. The landlord says he phoned the tenant at 2.38pm on 20 November 2025 stating that the owners were intending on selling the property.
The landlord says that his goal was to try and find an investor buyer who would be happy to have the tenants stay on. During the hearing the landlord advised that the property was not yet on the market.
The landlord stated that the property was being painted. The tenants say they received the 90-day notice by email at 4.45pm on 21 January 2026.
The tenancy tribunal application was also lodged on 21 January 2026 but the parties were not notified of the lodgement of the application until 8.43pm on the same date.
The landlord strongly denies that the termination notice was sent in retaliation to the tenant’s application.
The tenants feel that the owners are sick and tired of the complaints and the ongoing cost of maintaining the property. Analysis
The tribunal accepts that timing is often a critical factor in retaliatory notice cases. However, timing must be assessed carefully and objectively.
In this case the termination notice was served before the landlord had any notice that the tribunal application existed. The uncontested evidence is that notification of the application was not issued to the parties until 8:43 PM several hours after the termination notice was emailed.
On this basis alone the tribunal is not satisfied that the notice could have been motivated by the tribunal application.
The tenants point to ongoing complaints and the installation of cameras as the alleged trigger for retaliation. However, the act does not prevent a landlord from issuing A lawful termination notice simply because a tendency has become difficult, provided the notice is not motivated by retaliation.
The tenants provided no direct evidence that their complaints for the cameras were the operative or motivating cause of the notice.
There is no evidence of any threat, statement or conduct by the landlord linking termination to those complaints. A belief held by tenants, however genuinely felt, is not evidence of retaliatory motive.
The tribunal places weight on the landlord’s evidence that the intention to sell the property was communicated in November 2025, well before the termination notice was issued and preparatory works to the property were already underway.
While the property had not been listed for sale, the tribunal accepts that sale preparation and sale timing often appear in stages and do not undermine the genuineness of the stated intention.
In this case there is no persuasive link and no documentary or cooperative evidence of retaliatory intent and accordingly the tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by retaliation.
After carefully considering the evidence and the submissions from both parties, I am satisfied that the landlord has given the 90-day notice for the reasons stated.
For the reasons detailed above, I find that the notice to terminate was not retaliatory.
The tenant’s claim is therefore dismissed. Rent refund
The tenants seek a rent refund for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
The tenants seek a part rent refund on the basis that there has been issue with the property right up until the time they left.
The tenants say that the septic tank remained unresolved for an unreasonable period of time. They say that it smelt and drained slowly. They also say the shower and main sink would not drain fast enough.
The tenants say that received a letter from the Auckland Council to all property owners stating that they wanted to inspect all septic tanks.
The landlord states that they asked the company Hydrovac to inspect the tank. The landlord says Hydrovac attended on 18 June 2025 and inspected the septic tank. The landlord also provided a copy of a report from Dominant Construction dated 30 October 2025 confirming that there were no issues with the septic tank.
The tenants say that no action was undertaken inspect of the septic tank until the Council letter. The Council letter was dated 4 June 2025 and was addressed to the owner. The letter simply stated that all owners must have a maintenance contractor inspect the septic tank, and the report must be filed with the Council within 6 weeks.
The tenants say that the septic tank continued to drain slowly even after being serviced.
The tenants say they expected a home that meets Healthy Homes standards, had a reliable water supply, and was safe and functional. They say they endured many periods without water, an unresolved septic system, and ongoing stress that significantly impacted their quality of life.
The tenants claim a part rent refund for the first 12 months of the tenancy from 15 November 2024 to 15 November 2025.
The landlord responds by stating that the septic tank was fixed in June 2025 and that there were no issues after that. Analysis
Rent can only abate when the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged that they become uninhabitable. That was not the case here.
The tenants claim for a partial rent refund is justified on the basis that throughout the first 12 months of the tendency from 15 November 2024 to 15 November 2025 they experienced ongoing deficiencies affecting the reasonable comfort and amenity of the premises, principally arising from persistent water and drainage issues.
The tenants consistently reported that the septic tank emitted unpleasant odours and drained slowly with consequential impacts on the shower and main sink which failed to drain at an acceptable rate, thereby interfering with normal day- to-day living.
While the landlord maintains that an inspection by Hydrovac took place on 18 June 2025 and later relies on a report from Dominant Construction dated 30 October 2025 stating that no defects were identified, the evidence indicates that no meaningful investigation or remedial action occurred until after the receipt of a Council letter dated 4 June 2025 requiring inspection and reporting of the septic system within six weeks.
The tenants’ position is that these issues remained unresolved in practical terms despite the inspections, as slow drainage continued thereafter, supporting the conclusion that the problems were not effectively remedied during the relevant period.
In these circumstances and having regard to the sustained nature of the interference rather than an isolated or short-term issue, a modest refund of 5% of the rent paid over the 52 week period is reasonable and proportionate.
At a weekly rent of $960 the total rent paid for 12 months was $49,920, and a 5% refund equates to $2496.00, fairly reflecting the diminished value of the tendency while recognising that the premises remained otherwise occupied and usable.
The tenants claim for a part rent refund is established.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenants applied for a name suppression order. The tenants are entitled to name suppression as the application is substantially successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429589 — Exemplary damages at 248 Paremoremo Road, Lucas Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429589 — Exemplary damages at 248 Paremoremo Road, Lucas Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions