What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438291 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s]’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5438291?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438291?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13868491-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438291 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s]’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5438291?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438291?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13868491-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 122 Clayton Avenue, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438291 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

This proceeding concerns an application brought by the tenant, Ms Samuelu, and a cross application brought by the landlord, Main Realty Limited. The tenancy commenced on 1 November 2024 and ended on 2 March 2026. The weekly rent was $520.00 and the bond was $2,080.00.

The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages arising from a number of alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), including allegations that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the commencement of the tenancy, unlawful entry, interference with quiet enjoyment, unlawful or retaliatory termination, liability for damage to the premises, and various claims for exemplary damages.

The landlord denies the tenant’s claims and has filed a cross-application seeking compensation for loss allegedly suffered because the tenant declined requests for access to conduct viewings during the notice period.

Both parties attended the hearing and gave evidence. The Tribunal has carefully considered the oral evidence, documentary material, inspection reports, emails, photographs and submissions provided by each party. The onus of proof

The party making a claim bears the burden of proving that claim. The applicable standard is the civil standard of proof, namely whether the Tribunal is satisfied that a fact is established on the balance of probabilities. Mere suspicion, speculation or coincidence is insufficient. The Tribunal must be satisfied, on the evidence as a whole, that it is more likely than not that the alleged breach occurred, and that any compensation claimed flows from that breach.

This decision addresses each of the claims in turn. Where conflicting evidence is presented, the Tribunal must assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence before determining whether the requisite standard has been met. Condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy

Section 45(1)(a) of the Act requires a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the commencement of the tenancy.

The statutory obligation is not one of perfection. The question is whether, viewed objectively, the premises were reasonably clean and tidy when the tenancy commenced.

The tenant confirmed during the hearing that this claim relates solely to the external areas of the property and not to Healthy Homes compliance or maintenance of the dwelling itself.

The tenant produced photographs and described rubbish, broken bottles, broken glass and debris allegedly buried beneath the garden area. She says she removed substantial quantities of waste and improved both the front and rear yards.

The landlord relied upon the ingoing inspection report completed immediately before the tenancy commenced. That report records that the dwelling itself had been freshly painted, cleaned and refurbished. It also specifically notes concerns regarding the appearance and practicality of the gardens, recommending removal of debris and conversion of parts of the garden into lawn because the existing arrangement would be difficult for a tenant to maintain.

Importantly, the inspection report itself demonstrates that the gardens were not presented in an ideal condition. The property manager accepted during the hearing that the gardens “didn’t look great” and acknowledged she had recommended improvements to the owners which were not undertaken.

However, the issue before the Tribunal is not whether the gardens were unattractive or poorly designed. The statutory obligation concerns whether the premises were provided in a reasonably clean state.

Although the tenant alleges buried rubbish, broken glass and bottles beneath the surface, there is little objective evidence establishing the extent of those matters. The Tribunal accepts the tenant genuinely improved the gardens during the tenancy. Equally, there is no persuasive evidence that the landlord knowingly left substantial rubbish requiring removal before occupation.

It is also relevant that the tenant did not raise this concern with the landlord shortly after moving into the property, nor issue a notice requiring the matter to be remedied during the tenancy. Instead, the issue was first formally raised at the conclusion of the tenancy.

Having considered all of the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the external condition of the property fell below the standard required by section 45(1)(a).

This claim is therefore dismissed. Healthy Homes and maintenance

The tenant expressly advised during the hearing that she was not pursuing any claim concerning Healthy Homes compliance or maintenance obligations.

No determination is therefore required. Alleged unlawful entry

Section 48 of the Act regulates a landlord’s right of entry.

For routine inspections, the landlord must provide written notice of not less than 48 hours and not more than 14 days before entry. Once valid notice has been given, tenant consent is not additionally required.

Landlords may also arrange entry by contractors to carry out repairs or maintenance after giving the notice required by the Act or obtaining the tenant’s agreement.

The tenant accepts the property manager entered for an inspection but says she never consented to that inspection because she overlooked or did not respond to the email.

The landlord produced evidence that written notice was emailed on 24 November 2024 advising that an inspection would occur on 2 December 2024. That email was sent to the email address the tenant had recently nominated for service.

The Tribunal is satisfied the notice complied with section 48.

The tenant argued the landlord ought to have telephoned her to confirm the inspection. The Act imposes no such requirement. Once proper written notice is served to the address for service provided by the tenant, the statutory obligation is met.

During the inspection, the property manager observed water on the bathroom floor and arranged for a plumber to investigate. The contemporaneous email advised the tenant that the plumber would contact her to arrange a suitable time.

The tenant ultimately permitted the plumber to enter when he attended. Entry occurred with the tenant’s consent.

The Tribunal accepts there was no plumbing fault requiring repair. However, that does not convert the attendance into an unlawful entry.

The evidence establishes that: •valid inspection notice was provided; •the inspection was lawfully undertaken; and •the contractor entered with the tenant’s permission.

Accordingly, no breach of section 48 has been established.

This claim is dismissed. Quiet enjoyment, discrimination and alleged unlawful or retaliatory termination

Section 38 provides that a tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming under the landlord. Section 38(3) provides that interference with quiet enjoyment is an unlawful act, and section 38(3A) confirms that such conduct may give rise to exemplary damages where the statutory threshold is met.

Section 12 prohibits discrimination in relation to tenancies. A landlord must not treat a tenant less favourably on prohibited grounds, which include disability. To establish a breach, a tenant must demonstrate that the less favourable treatment was causally connected to a prohibited ground.

Section 54 deals with retaliatory notice. A tenant may apply to have a notice declared retaliatory if it was given because the tenant exercised, or intended to exercise, rights under the Act. The onus is on the tenant to establish a causal link between the exercise of a right and the issuing of the notice.

Section 60AA concerns termination without grounds.

The tenant submits a 90-day notice was issued by the landlord because she disclosed that she was suffering anxiety attacks and mental health difficulties following a traumatic incident involving vandalism to the property.

The landlord strongly denies this and says the notice resulted from an ongoing and escalating conflict between the tenant and neighbouring occupants, both of whom were tenants managed by the same agency.

The property manager described repeated complaints, police involvement, allegations of confrontations, trespass notices and ongoing conflict over several months. She acknowledged the tenant generally paid rent on time and maintained the property well but said the relationship between the neighbouring tenants had become untenable.

The Tribunal accepts that the timing of the notice coincided with the tenant’s disclosure of anxiety. However, temporal proximity alone does not establish retaliation.

The landlord provided a coherent explanation supported by evidence that difficulties between neighbouring occupiers had existed for several months before the notice was issued.

The tenant argued that if the concerns were genuine, the landlord should instead have pursued antisocial behaviour proceedings or served a 14-day notice.

While that submission may have some logical force, it does not establish that the actual reason for issuing the notice was retaliation or discrimination.

The Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant has established that the notice was motivated by her mental health disclosure or because she exercised rights under the Act. The tenant has therefore not established that the 90 day notice was retaliatory under section 54, or that the landlord otherwise committed an unlawful act under section 60AA.

Nor is there sufficient evidence establishing discrimination or interference with quiet enjoyment by the landlord.

Accordingly, these claims are dismissed. Liability for the broken windows

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

A tenant is not liable for damage caused by third parties over whom the tenant has no control unless the damage results from an intentional act or carelessness by the tenant or someone lawfully on the premises.

The tenant says other persons deliberately smashed the windows and relies on a Police report recording a complaint of wilful damage.

The landlord says the tenant initially accepted responsibility and that discussions subsequently occurred with Work and Income, which ultimately funded the repair costs.

The Police report confirms only that the tenant reported alleged wilful damage by other persons. It is not a finding that another person was responsible.

Conversely, the landlord relies largely upon conversations said to have occurred between the tenant, the property manager and the tenant’s case manager.

Neither party has produced sufficiently persuasive evidence establishing precisely how the damage occurred.

Accordingly, the Tribunal is left with two competing versions which cannot confidently be preferred over the other.

The Tribunal is therefore unable to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, either that: •the tenant intentionally or carelessly caused the damage; or •the landlord improperly required the tenant to meet the repair costs.

The tenant has therefore not established an entitlement to reimbursement of the window repair costs.

This claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages

Section 109 provide for exemplary damages where a landlord or tenant commits an unlawful act. Exemplary damages are punitive in nature and require proof that the conduct was intentional or reckless. The amounts that may be awarded are guided by Schedule 1A of the Act.

Exemplary damages are punitive rather than compensatory and may only be awarded where a landlord has committed an unlawful act specified in the Act.

The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages depends upon establishing the alleged unlawful acts already considered above, including unlawful entry and unlawful or retaliatory termination.

As those substantive claims have not been established, there is no basis upon which exemplary damages may be awarded.

This claim is dismissed. Landlord’s cross-application – Denial of access for viewings

Following termination of a tenancy, section 48 permits landlords to enter the premises to show prospective tenants through the property only with the tenant’s consent. That consent must not be unreasonably withheld.

If consent is unreasonably withheld and loss results, compensation may be awarded where the loss is proved.

The landlord submits that because the tenant declined requests for viewings, a replacement tenant could not be secured earlier, resulting in a loss of three weeks’ rent.

The tenant accepts she refused access but explains she was simultaneously attempting to relocate within a short timeframe while experiencing anxiety, PTSD and significant stress. She says she simply could not cope with conducting viewings while preparing to move.

The Tribunal accepts the tenant refused consent for viewings.

However, the landlord must also establish that the refusal was unreasonable and that it directly caused the financial loss claimed.

The evidence falls short of doing so.

The landlord did not produce persuasive evidence demonstrating that prospective tenants were ready to inspect but could not, that alternative arrangements were explored, or that a tenancy would probably have commenced earlier had access been granted.

Equally, the tenant’s personal circumstances during the final weeks of the tenancy provide some explanation for declining access.

Even if the refusal was unreasonable, the Tribunal is not satisfied the claimed loss of three weeks’ rent has been proved on the balance of probabilities.

The landlord’s claim is therefore dismissed. The bond

The bond of $2,080 is to be refunded to the tenant, if that has not already occurred. Filing fee and suppression

Neither party has been successful in these proceedings. Accordingly, no order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee or for suppression.

Reasons