What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5448568 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 5448568?

Compensation: Electricity consumed b…: $1,383.46 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to protect the…: $280.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Retaliatory Notice: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Dwelling: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $461.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5448568?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5448568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13500582-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5448568 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 5448568?

Compensation: Electricity consumed b…: $1,383.46 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to protect the…: $280.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Retaliatory Notice: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Dwelling: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $461.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5448568?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5448568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13500582-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5448568 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5448568 — net $1,801.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates (18/07/2025 – 18/03/2026	$461.76		Water rates (18/07/2025 – 18/03/2026
Compensation: Electricity consumed by minor		$1,383.46	Electricity consumed by minor
dwelling		$100.00	nt seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of section 45(1)(e) RTA. I find $100.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a.
Compensation: Failure to protect the tenant's quiet		$280.00	Failure to protect the tenant's quiet
Compensation: Retaliatory notice		$500.00	55. The tenant seeks compensation for the retaliatory notice.
Total award	$461.76	$2,263.46
Net award		$1,801.70
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,801.70

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5448568 — net $1,801.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates (18/07/2025 – 18/03/2026	$461.76		Water rates (18/07/2025 – 18/03/2026
Compensation: Electricity consumed by minor		$1,383.46	Electricity consumed by minor
dwelling		$100.00	nt seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of section 45(1)(e) RTA. I find $100.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a.
Compensation: Failure to protect the tenant's quiet		$280.00	Failure to protect the tenant's quiet
Compensation: Retaliatory notice		$500.00	55. The tenant seeks compensation for the retaliatory notice.
Total award	$461.76	$2,263.46
Net award		$1,801.70
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,801.70

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Tribunal declares the 90-day termination notice dated 1 February 2026 to be retaliatory and of no effect.
Kristeen Robert Jamieson and Neil Jamieson must pay [The tenant/s] $1,801.70 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 April 2026.
The tenancy began on 7 July 2025 and is a periodic tenancy. There are two dwellings at the premises, which the landlord rents to two separate household units. The tenant rents the main dwelling, and a different tenant rents the minor dwelling. There is one main water and electricity meter, which is attached to the main dwelling. The minor dwelling has a check meter for water and electricity.
The landlord claims the tenant owes them money for outstanding water rates invoices and the tenant claims the landlord owes them money for electricity consumed by the minor dwelling. The tenant also claims that the tenant of the minor dwelling creates a nuisance by continuously parking directly behind the tenant. Further, the tenant claims the kettle and stove are not in a good condition and the landlord has sent them a 90-day termination notice that is retaliatory.
The issues I must determine are: a. How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices? b. How much does the landlord owe the tenant for electricity consumed by the minor dwelling? c. Has the landlord met their obligation to protect the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? d. Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? e. Is the termination notice retaliatory?
Before determining these issues, I discuss some general legal principles that apply to this case.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

Each party 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.
A lot of evidence was given at the hearing. Whilst this decision might not refer to all of it, the parties can be assured that I have considered it. Compensation – the law generally
Both parties seek compensation. The purpose of compensation is to restore the injured party, so far as money can, to the same position they would have been in had the contract not been breached.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. This includes water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption, which Watercare does. 2
Where there is one main water meter that services two premises, for example, a main dwelling and a minor dwelling, the minor dwelling usually has a check meter. Each month, Watercare issues an invoice for the total amount of water consumed by the main and minor dwellings. The main dwelling’s liability is determined by calculating the cost of the minor dwelling’s water consumption and subtracting this from the total amount contained in the invoice. 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3) & (4)(c).
The landlord submitted copies of invoices from Watercare for the period 18 July 2025 – 18 March 2026. They also submitted photographs of the check meter readings for the minor dwelling taken each month. I have undertaken a careful analysis of this evidence and determined the tenant’s liability for the water rates invoices to be $516.07. My calculations are based on the below: Invoice date Amount due Prior check meter reading Current check meter reading Total (minor dwelling) Total (main dwelling) 21/8/25$65.17126712736 x $5.43 = $32.58 $32.59 17/9/25 $97.77127312818 x $5.43 = $43.44 $54.33 20/10/25 $114.04128112865 x $5.43 = $27.15 $86.89 18/11/25 $124.94128612937 x $5.43 = $38.01 $86.93 18/12/25 $81.49129313007 x $5.43 = $38.01 $43.48 19/1/26 $114.04130013033 x $5.43 = $16.29 $97.77 19/2/26 $76.03130313085 x $5.43 = $27.15 $48.88 18/3/26 $81.49130813113 x $5.43 = $16.29 $65.20 Total $516.07
The parties accept the tenant has paid the landlord $54.31 towards the total amount owing. Therefore, I find the tenant owes $461.76 in outstanding water rates invoices for the period 21 August 2025 – 18 March 2026.
The tenant claims that the amounts invoiced to them are high compared to what they previously paid for water at a prior tenancy. They claim that their water usage is very low, because they work long hours and are not at home very much. No evidence of a leak at the premises was submitted, nor was any evidence submitted to support the conclusion that the main water meter or check meter is faulty. In these circumstances, I have no reason to believe that the tenant’s liability, as determined in the table above, is inaccurate.
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates invoices is granted for $461.76.
The dispute about the tenant’s liability appears to have developed because the tenant did not appreciate that the main water meter serviced the main and minor dwellings, and because the landlord has been reluctant to share photographs of the check meter with the tenant. Moving forward, it would be helpful if the landlord shared each invoice, together with a photograph of the check meter with the tenant. TENANT’S CLAIMS

How much does the landlord owe the tenant for electricity invoices?

The tenant changed electricity providers at the beginning of the tenancy and had the electricity account put into their own name. They have paid all electricity invoices to date for the period 8 July 2025 – 9 March 2026, totalling $2,774.21. These payments include electricity consumed by the minor dwelling, which the tenant is not responsible for. The invoices submitted are as follows: Invoice datePeriod covered Amount due 11/8/258/7/25 – 6/8/25$400.44 9/9/25 7/8/25 – 7/9/25$427.53 8/10/25 8/9/25 – 6/10/25$370.76 7/11/25 7/10/25 – 5/11/25$330.57 8/12/25 6/11/25 – 6/12/25$327.95 9/1/26 7/12/25 – 7/1/26$303.91 10/2/26 8/1/26 – 8/2/26$340.84 11/3/26 9/2/26 – 9/3/26$272.21 Total $2,774.21
The first invoice dated 11 August 2025 covers the period from 8 July 2025 – 6 August 2025 and is for a total of $400.44. The earliest check meter reading for the minor dwelling was taken on 25 August 2025. This means I am unable to accurately determine the minor dwelling’s use of electricity for the period 8 July 2025 – 6 August 2025. In these circumstances, I consider it fair and reasonable that the invoice be split in half, with the minor dwelling’s liability being $200.22.
The same issue arises in respect of the second invoice dated 9 September 2025 covering the period 7 August 2025 – 7 September 2025. It is for a total of $427.53. The check meter reading of 53627 was only taken on 25 August 2025 and does not reflect electricity consumed by the minor dwelling between 7 August 2025 – 24 August 2025. This means I am also unable to accurately determine the minor dwelling’s use of electricity for the period 7 August 2025 – 7 September 2025. In these circumstances, I consider it fair and reasonable that the invoice be split in half, with the minor dwelling’s liability being $213.76.
The rest of the invoices for the period 8 September 2025 – 9 March 2026 total $1,946.24. I find the minor dwelling’s liability to be $969.48, calculated as follows: a. Usage: $726.34 (29.55 c/unit x 2458 units) b. 50% of the fixed-line charge: $116.69 c. GST: $126.45
The total liability of the minor dwelling for all electricity invoices issued for the period 8 July 2025 – 9 March 2026 is therefore $1,383.46, calculated as follows: Invoice datePeriod covered Amount due 11/8/258/7/25 – 6/8/25$200.22 9/9/25 7/8/25 – 7/9/25$213.76 8/10/25 – 11/3/26 8/9/25 – 9/3/26$969.48 Total $1,383.46
The amount is slightly different to the amount discussed at the hearing. This is because at the hearing, I did not appreciate the fact that the check meter reading post-dated the usage period for the first two electricity invoices.
Moving forward, the tenant may wish to have the electricity account put into the landlord’s name. This way, the landlord can receive the electricity invoices and photographs of the check meter readings to determine the tenant’s liability, without the tenant needing to pay the entire invoice and seek reimbursement from the landlord. If this occurs, it would be helpful if the landlord provided the tenant with copies of the invoices and photographs of the check meter when invoicing the tenant. Has the landlord met their obligation to protect the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? The law
Section 45(1)(e) RTA requires a landlord to “take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.” Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenancy came with three off-street carparks for the tenant, one in front of the house and two parallel to the side of the house. There is a gravelled area beside the house, which marks the parallel parking area for the tenant.
The landlord has allocated the tenant of the minor dwelling two carparks on the smooth, paved area of the driveway at the front of the minor dwelling.
The minor dwelling is located behind the main dwelling, on the right hand side. This means that the smoothed, paved area of the driveway in front of the minor dwelling goes just beyond the gravelled area of the main dwelling. The result is that when the tenant of the minor dwelling parks their car at the end of the smooth, paved area to the left, their car is directly behind one of the two cars belonging to the tenant.
The tenant claims the tenant of the minor dwelling creates a nuisance when they park their car in this way, because it prohibits the tenant from being able open the boot of their car and it makes it difficult to move the back car. The tenant has a cleaning business and has a large van. They claim they are unable to open the boot of the van when the car belonging to the tenant of the minor dwelling is parked directly behind them. They also claim that they have to move the front car first, before being able to move the back car, which is a hassle.
The landlord claims they have asked the back tenant to move their car numerous times and told them not to park there. The landlord claims the tenant of the minor dwelling has told the landlord repeatedly that they do not park directly behind the tenant. The landlord read text messages sent by the tenant of the minor dwelling to the landlord during the hearing, where the back tenant claims they do not park directly behind the tenant’s car. The landlord claims that they have never had an issue with previous tenants complaining about the parking arrangement. Analysis
The tenant submitted numerous text messages between themselves and the landlord about this issue. These include photographs of the tenant’s car parked in its parallel position, with the car belonging to the minor dwelling parked immediately behind the tenant at an angle. The two cars are very close. There is no way the tenant can open their boot without hitting the car behind them. It would also be very difficult for the tenant to move their car without first moving their other car parked in front as well.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant of the minor dwelling, or a person at the minor dwelling with the tenant’s permission, has parked their car directly behind the tenant’s car a number of times. The text messages and photographs sent by the tenant to the landlord convince me of this. I find this has negatively impacted the tenant’s reasonable peace and comfort, because they cannot open the boot of their car or move it without first moving the car in front.
I am not convinced the landlord has taken reasonable steps to try to address the issue. No copies of messages the landlord has sent to the tenant of the minor dwelling asking them to move their car were submitted. No 14-day notices sent to the tenant of the minor dwelling were submitted either. The landlord has offered to erect a chicken wire fence, but this would not solve the problem, because the fence would be exactly where the gravel meets the smooth, paved driveway. In other words, it would still permit the tenant of the minor dwelling to park their car directly behind the tenant. For these reasons, I find the landlord has failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
The photographs submitted by the tenant raise the question about whether the number of off-street carparks the landlord has allocated to each tenant is suitable. The arrangement appears very cramped and perhaps, the best solution might be for the landlord to remove one of the off-street carparks for one of the tenants and slightly reduce the rent accordingly.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach of section 45(1)(e) RTA. I find $100.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. The nature of the breach is moderately serious. It does not constitute an unlawful act under the RTA like some breaches do. Further, the tenant is only inconvenienced when using their car, not at other times when they are living in the premises. b. The duration of the breach. I find the breach has endured for most of the tenancy. c. The effect of the breach on the other party. I accept it is inconvenient to the tenant to not be able to open the boot of their car or be able to move the back car without first moving the front car however, I consider the overall inconvenience to be relatively minor.

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 3
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 4 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 5
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 6 Evidence and submissions from the parties
The tenant claims only three elements on the stovetop of the oven work. The tenant claims the knob for controlling the broken element has tape over it. The tenant claims the oven was in this condition at the beginning of the tenancy and the landlord knew this. The tenant claims they can only use one element at a time and if they use all three, the power trips. The tenant claims the power tripped previously, causing the kettle to break.
The landlord accepts that only three elements on the oven work and that they knew about this at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims an electrician visited the premises shortly before the tenancy began to assess the oven and complete repairs. The electrician disconnected the broken element and replaced a simmerstat (controller) at the back of the oven. The landlord submitted an invoice for $509.57 from Prolectrics Ltd.
The landlord claims the tenant never raised the issue about the power tripping or kettle breaking. They accept the tenant raised the issue about only three 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 4 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 5 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 6 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. elements on the oven working, but claim the tenant told them they were happy to only use three elements. Analysis
The oven is in a state of disrepair, because only three out of four elements work. The landlord knew about this at the beginning of the tenancy on 7 July 2025. They accept this was the case and on 6 July 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a text message stating: “Hi Kris, Good Morning. We collected the key, went in to see and to figure out where to put furnitures around house. Noticed a few things thought to let you know. ... Also a gas stove one of the stove burner was loose, is it ok for us to use, this is first time I will be using electric stove, been using natural gas so this is different. Thought ask you if it’s ok to use like that. Photos are attached here pls have a look....
The landlord replied: One element doesn’t work. We are looking to replace stove soon. The switch has tape over it of the one not working?...
The tenant replied: ... Oh ok will not use that one Thank you
From these text messages, it is clear that the tenant did not advise the landlord that they were happy to use the stove with only three elements working. The landlord told the tenant they were looking to replace the stove soon, to which the tenant replied that they would not use the broken element. Quite clearly, the tenant meant that they would not use the broken element until the stove was replaced.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that when the tenant tries to use more than one element on the stove, the power surges. The landlord denies this is the case and no supporting evidence, such as a video of this occurring or a statement from an electrician, was submitted by the tenant to support this claim. Further, the tenant accepts that they have not advised the landlord about the alleged problem. A landlord’s duty to investigate and repair maintenance problems only arises when the landlord has knowledge of the issue. A landlord cannot investigate and repair a problem they do not know about. For these reasons, I find there has been no breach by the landlord in failing to investigate and remedy the alleged power tripping or broken kettle.
The oven is a different story however, because the landlord knew about its state of disrepair from the beginning of the tenancy. They told the tenant on 6 July 2025 that they were looking to replace the stove soon however, this has not occurred. There is a delay of approximately 40 weeks between 7 July 2025 and 13 April 2026. Whilst not a pressing issue, I find a delay of 40 weeks to repair or replace the stovetop to ensure all elements are working to be unreasonable. For these reasons, I find the landlord has failed to maintain the stovetop in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $7.00 per week to be reasonable considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a serious breach, as evidenced by the fact that in the worst cases, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00. In saying that, I consider the gravity of the breach in this case to be towards the low end of the spectrum. This is because it relates to one element on the stovetop not working. This is not a case involving multiple maintenance issues. b. The duration of the breach. The breach has endured for 40 weeks, which is a long time. c. The effect of the breach. The tenant has not had the full benefit of a working stovetop for approximately 40 weeks. I accept that having one element that does not work detracts from the amenity of the stovetop however, I consider the inconvenience to be small.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $280.00.

Is the 90-day termination notice retaliatory?

The law

A tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that a termination notice is retaliatory. If the tenant makes their application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may also apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. 7
When determining whether a notice to end the tenancy is retaliatory, the Tribunal must consider the following matters: 8 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54(1) & (3). 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54. a. Whether the notice complies with section 51 RTA; b. Whether the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenancy by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy; and c. Whether the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. Analysis
On 1 February 2026, the landlord sent the tenant an email giving 90-days’ notice to end the tenancy. The first issue I must determine is whether the notice complies with section 51 RTA.
The tenancy is a periodic tenancy and therefore, the landlord was permitted to end the tenancy by giving 90 days’ notice. 9 The notice does not comply with the strict requirements in section 51(3) RTA, because it does not identify the premises to which it relates, nor does it specify the date by which the tenant must vacate the premises. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, I find the notice still complies with section 51 RTA for the following reasons: 10 a. The notice is in writing. b. The intention to terminate the tenancy on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly. c. The non-compliance is not such as to mislead or unjustly affect the interests of the tenant.
Having determined that the notice complies with section 51 RTA, I now turn to consider the landlord’s motivation.
In the notice, the landlord states that the reason they want to end the tenancy is because they intend to sell the premises. The landlord maintained this was the reason for sending the termination notice at the hearing. I do not find this explanation credible. This is because the tenant of the minor dwelling has not been sent a termination notice. The landlord claims this is because a prospective purchaser might want to purchase the premises with the minor dwelling tenanted. If this is the case in respect of the minor dwelling, then it must also be the case 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sections 51(1) & 54. 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 51(4). in respect of the main dwelling. A prospective purchaser might want to purchase the premises with both dwellings tenanted.
A close examination of the text messages between the landlord and tenant convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the 90 day termination notice was sent in response to the tenant’s complaints about the parking issue. The following text messages are relevant: Landlord to tenant: I’m sorry but I’m not arguing. I guess if the property is not as suitable as you thought, you might need to find one with enough parking for all your vehicles. Landlord to tenant: I really don’t know what to say. We’ve never ever had tenant issues or parking issues. Perhaps a different property without shared parking would be better for you as each tenant must be respected... Landlord to tenant: ...I’ve never had any issues with our wonderful previous tenants who had no difficulty with Mike’s vehicles or Mike. Would you prefer to have 90 days notice and relocate? You really have no rights to concern yourself about the other tenancy. I’m sorry you feel moving your vehicles is such a big deal. Angle park will save the drama. Please advise how you with to proceed. [emphasis added] Tenant to landlord: Angle parking is not working I tried already Landlord to tenant: OK Well I’m sure you’ll find another more suitable property with exclusive parking in this market.
From these text messages it is clear that the landlord was receiving many complaints from the tenant about the tenant of the minor dwelling parking directly behind them. The landlord was becoming frustrated trying to manage the situation. In the text messages, the landlord encourages the tenant to find a new tenancy. When the tenant does not do this and the situation continues, the landlord appears to issue the tenant with an ultimatum to park on an angle or receive a 90 day notice and relocate. This preceding context strongly suggests that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant’s complaints against them in relation to the tenancy when sending the 90 day termination notice.
For these reasons, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the 90 day termination is retaliatory and declare it so.
The tenant filed their application on 7 February 2026, which is within 28 working days of the date of the termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal declares that the 90 day termination notice is of no effect.
The tenant seeks compensation for the retaliatory notice. I find $500.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. Sending a retaliatory termination notice is a serious breach, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages that may be ordered is $6,500.00. 11 b. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant gave evidence that receiving the notice has caused them distress, which I accept. The tenant gave evidence that it is not easy to find another rental property and the thought of having to move after only being in the tenancy for less than a year is unsettling. The uncertainty around whether the termination notice would be upheld or not has also caused the tenant stress and anxiety. On the other hand, I note this is a case where the Tribunal has set the termination notice aside before its expiry and the tenant has not yet acted on the notice. Filing fee & name suppression
Both parties have been substantially successful with their claims. Therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant requested name suppression in their written application. Because they have been substantially successful with their claim, I must grant their request for name suppression.
The landlord did not request name suppression in their written application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5448568 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5448568 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

How much does the landlord owe the tenant for electricity invoices?

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Is the 90-day termination notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

How much does the landlord owe the tenant for electricity invoices?

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Is the 90-day termination notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions