What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5449184 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5449184?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5449184?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5449184?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13776669-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5449184 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5449184?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5449184?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5449184?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13776669-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Kapanui Road, Waikanae, Waikanae 5036 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5449184 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The relevant background of this matter is: a. The tenancy began on 25 June 2020. b. The property is an early seventies single story property, which appears to have been renovated in the 1990s or early 2000s with aluminium joinery installed. c. On 28 June 2020, the tenant emailed the property manager with a list of issues including that the oven was not properly cleaned issues with mildew on curtains, and issues with the curtain rods, and items lived in the property by the previous tenant. Records show that contractors visited and cleaned the oven, pantry and cupboards, replaced the oven element, and the tenant was reimbursed for the cost of cleaning materials. d. The Landlord offered to replace the curtains, but on 26 June 2020 the tenant emailed the landlord advising to hold off on replacing the curtains as she intended to install her own net curtains. e. On 7 August 2020, the tenant requested that property inspections were conducted on Wednesdays due to work commitments. I note that there was also an issue under discussion relating to the condition of the gardens at the start of the tenancy. f. On 4 September 2020, the landlord replaced the curtain rails. g. From August 2023 the inspection day changed to a mixture of Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. Around this time there were also occasions when the owners, who live overseas, would attend the inspection visits with notification to the tenant, who raised no concerns. h. On 13 February 2024, in response to an inspection notice, the tenant asked to change the day to a Friday. However, this request was denied as the property manager had already had that day booked. i. In September 2024, the landlord gave notice of an increase in rent. The tenant opposed the increase and brought a rent review application to the Tribunal. The order of Adjudicator Smallbone was that the rent increase was not unreasonable. For completeness I record that maintenance issues were discussed, but apart from an issue with the toilet, were not adjudicated. These events led to a worsening relationship between the parties. j. From January 2025, there were a number of complaints raised about maintenance issues which are discussed below. There was also a pattern of concerns raised about property inspections and conditions on when and how these visits were to occur. k. In February 2025, following the site visit, the tenant made a complaint about the property manager which included concerns that drapes had been left open, an internal door was closed 1 and a sliding external had been left unlocked. Following this, in or around February or March 2025, the tenant blocked the property manager’s email address. l. On 3 March 2025, the landlords served via email a 90 day notice to terminate with the termination date of 2 June 2025. m. On 10 March 2025, the tenant issued a 14 day notice to repair relating to a transition strip between tiles and carpeted floors which she said sat proud and was a hazard, and the tacks from a carpet smooth edge strip which had become exposed when carpet had frayed. On 11 March 2025, the landlord responded accepting the tenant’s offer to accept payment of $25 to conduct temporary repairs to make the smooth edge safe. 1 I infer from the circumstances that this was left open to allow for the tenant's cat to move around within the house. n. The tenant gave notice on 9 May 2025, that she would be vacationing the tenancy on 30 May. Subsequently, she was in a temporary housing situation with a family member before moving a second time in two permanent home. o. On this 18 February 2026, the tenant filed this application in the Tribunal. Application

The tenant’s application is that: a. the termination notice of 3 March 2025 was retaliatory notice; b. the landlord was in breach of the obligation to maintain the property; and c. the landlord breached the tenant’s privacy and interfered with her quiet enjoyment, through the conduct of the property inspections and through the actions of contractors.

S54(1) RTA includes a requirement that the reinstatement of a tenancy cannot occur unless the application to the Tribunal is made within 28 days of the notice. For completeness I note that this application was made on 18 February 2026. This is acknowledged by the tenant to be outside of the 28 day requirement is 54 one so reinstatement cannot be considered. However, it is within the 12 month period set out in S109(2) RTA for bringing an application for exemplary damages. Therefore, I will consider the claims for exemplary damages and compensation. Retaliatory notice

On 3 March 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 2 June 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory. She seeks exemplary damages, compensation for her cost of moving twice and storing her possessions while staying with relatives for the short period in mid-2025. She has also claimed general damages for the distress which relates largely to the death of her beloved elderly cat, whose kidney condition worsened shortly after the move.

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. Section 54(2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986: The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a) that, in giving the notice, 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 tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.

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.

The tenant’s claim is that the issues relating to maintenance and the property inspections were lawful attempts to enforce the rights, and motivated the landlords to terminate the tenancy. She cites the correspondence through late 2024 and early 2025. The pattern of this correspondence shows a worsening relationship between the tenant and the property manager which led to accusations by the property manager that the tenant was bullying her.

The landlord accepted that the relationship had worsened and that was one of the factors in the decision to terminate.

Considering these issues, I note that the tone of the tenant’s emails was personal, and acrimonious. She was clearly frustrated, and felt that the source of the frustrations was the property manager. However, when the previous four years of correspondence is considered the back-and-forth on maintenance issues was not new, and the landlord’s response to these issues was consistent across the life of the tenancy. I note that the complaints about the property inspections were a new element, however, the landlords response to these issues was tempered and professional. I conclude that what motivated the termination notice was not the exercise of rights by the tenant but was the tone and acrimonious nature of her communications, and the worsening relationship.

As such I cannot find that the notice was retaliatory. I must dismiss this claim. Maintenance

[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, and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The maintenance obligation in s45(1)(b) is framed as being to “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.” When considering this I note that the premises are older and were last significantly renovated approximately 25 years ago or more.

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.

Over the life of the tenancy there were a number of maintenance issues which arose, I will not enumerate them all, but note that the principal concerns were: a. cleanliness of the premises at the start of the tenancy; b. issues with the stability of the stove; c. curtain rods/rails; d. the transition strip between the kitchen tiles and carpet areas: e. exposed rusty smoothedge; f. drapes; g. light fittings; and h. washing line

At the start of the tenancy the tenant raised concerns about the level of cleanliness in particular relating to the oven. I note that the landlord has provided evidence that they had paid a contractor to conduct a professional cleaning prior to the tenancy beginning, however, it appears some issues were missed. This was addressed in two ways by the landlord; contractor attended and re-cleaned, and the landlord reimburse the tenant for cleaning products. The landlord’s responses were an appropriate reaction. I note that there was a technical breach in that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy due to the omission by the contractor, however, this was a minor issue which was dealt with promptly and would not justify an award of exemplary damages.

In an email on 28 June 2020 the tenant noted “stove a bit wobbly”. I have been provided with no further correspondence relating to this until on 4 November 2020 when, in response to a concern of the tenant about the functioning of the stove elements, an electrician examined the stove. His email noted no concerns about the stove. The next mention of the issue was in late 2024/early 2025. The tenant is adamant that the stove is un-stable and is unsafe to use. This appears to relate to the back roller of the stove is loose. I have been provided with a photo of the allegedly loose roller. This sets and a slotted steel channel and the bulk through axle may be adjusted within a diagonal slot. I note that the box in the photo is sitting at or near the bottom of the slot, indicating that it is at its maximum in terms of contacts with the floor. The photo shows a gap of approximately 1 to 3 mm. The landlord says that in inspections the stove was checked and it was not found to be unstable. They point to the lack of comment on this from the electrician and 2020. I note that: a. any movement in the stove will be limited by the fact that it sits between cabinetry, and that there is a small gap between the base of stove and a floor of no more than 1 to 3 mm; b. the landlord has responded to the concerns, but has concluded that there is no issue to be responded to; and c. the issue was raised in 2020 but was not raised again until late 2024 newly 2025. As such I cannot conclude that this is an issue which justifies an award of exemplary damages.

I note that in her email of 28 June 2020, the tenant referred to the condition of the curtain rods/rails which were older, worn, and had broken sliders. These also raised issues relating to the curtains which were older and had mildew. The emails which followed this show that curtain rails were replaced, blindness were replaced in some rooms, and the tenant chose to put up her own curtains. This was referred to in the landlord’s email of 17 September 2020. As above the next mention did not occur until late 2024/early 2025. I conclude that the landlord responded in a relatively timely manner to these concerns which were not raised again until the relationship between the parties and soured.

The transition strip was raised as being an issue in early 2025. And was included in the 14 day notice on 10 March 2025. The problem is that the transition strap, the aluminium teaching which finishes off the edge of the tiling where it joins carpet sits proud of the tiles by some 2 mm. This estimate is consistent with the photos showing the issue. After this was raised the landlord inspected the issue and concluded that it was not problematic, and I note some correspondence about the tenant choosing to have it grounds down herself. I conclude that this was a relatively minor issue and that had been a more substantial issue would have been raised earlier in the tenancy. This does not justify an award of exemplary damages.

In early 2025, the tenant discovered that the carpet had frayed in the lounge in the area where it joins the edge of the ranch slider frame. This was not discovered earlier as tenant had her own rug sitting on the area. This was raised with the landlord at the latest on 10 March 2025 in the 14 day notice. Any email accompanying the notice the tenant suggested that she fix the issue herself for a payment of $25 to which the landlord agreed and payment was made on 11 March 2025. The tenant has cited a tribunal case which held that similarly expose smooth edge meant that landlord had not complied with the obligation to provide premises in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. In this case the issue was discovered late on in the tenancy and the steps, albeit temporary, suggested by the tenant were accepted by the landlord. It appears that the issue is something that has arisen gradually over time as the carpet has worn, but it has not been discovered due to the rug. I cannot find that the landlord has breached their obligations.

The tenant has raised an issue that the drapes provided had mildew. As discussed above with the curtain rails, this issue was raised in 2020 and was dealt with when the tenant advised that she would provide her own drapes. This is not a breach by the landlord.

When the tenant was in the process of cleaning the premises to move out she removed light shades to clean them. When doing so she discovered that the Bakelite plastic screw ring fittings which secure light shades to the bulb sockets had suffered agent heat damage and had become brittle. On 21 April 2025, she emailed the landlord advising of the issue advising that she was not comfortable putting the lampshades back up as she did not consider them safe. The landlord agreed. As with the smooth edge this was an issue that was not discovered till late in the tenancy and is not the type of issue that a normal inspection would uncover. Once discovered the landlord promptly agreed with the tenants proposed resolution. I cannot consider that this was a breach of the landlord’s obligations.

On 31 March 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord advising that one of the cords on the washing line had snapped. On 1 April 2025, the landlord wrote back advising that handyman would contact the tenant and fix clothesline. As I understand that this was carried out. This issue was raised and probably dealt with. This was not a breach of the landlord’s obligation to maintain.

For completeness I record that the tenant’s material, submissions, and correspondence also included mention of what she saw as delays in having the driveway pressure washed to deal with a buildup of moss, and issues with external paint. Reviewing these issues I note that while unsightly they were either not maintenance issues which affected the tenancy, or were issues which were dealt with reasonably prompted by the landlord.

The tenant’s claims for breaches of the obligation to maintain are dismissed. Quiet enjoyment

The tenant claims the landlord has interfered with her quiet enjoyment through: a. entering the premises without consent or notice; b. the actions of tradespeople in contacting her outside of work hours; and c. harassing her.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I note the tenant’s concern that she was at home when the property inspections occurred. This was a reasonable request, however, there is no right set out in the RTA that a property inspection can only occur while the tenant is present. I note that, when possible, the landlord did make the attempt to allow for this. However, later on in the tenancy there was less flexibility around this, particularly when the owners wished to attend the inspections. While I note that this was distressing for the tenant, particularly with the health issues suffered by her cat, I consider that the landlord’s visits occurred with the required notice and were reasonable.

I note the incident when a curtain was left open, and the ranch slider left unlocked. It appears that these were mistakes, although I am told that the curtain was left with a small gap, and that the ranch slider was an oversight. These do not justify findings that they were unlawful acts for which exemplary damages should be awarded.

In terms of the visits by tradesmen it appears when there were issues with trades these were raised with the landlord and steps were taken. This is all that can be asked of the landlord. Independent contractors are not agents of the landlord who are bound by the notice requirements. There is also a requirement when a tenant is raising issues relating to maintenance that they allow the landlord the opportunity to address issues. Placing restrictions on tradesmen prevents a landlord from maintaining the property.

Likewise the view that the landlord had harassed the tenant. This appears to come from the correspondence between the parties relating to the period during which the relationship was souring. Some texts and emails were received after work hours, however this was not unreasonable nor does it meet the definition of harassment which is to concern worry or distress.

The tenant’s application is dismissed

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord accepted that the relationship had worsened and that was one of the factors in the decision to terminate.

As such I cannot find that the notice was retaliatory. I must dismiss this claim. Maintenance

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 tenant’s claims for breaches of the obligation to maintain are dismissed. Quiet enjoyment

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant’s application is dismissed

Tenancy Tribunal case 5449184 — 14-day notice at 21 Kapanui Road, Waikanae, Waikanae 5036

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5449184 — 14-day notice at 21 Kapanui Road, Waikanae, Waikanae 5036

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions