What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5456961 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 5456961?

Compensation: $4,175.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,175.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5456961?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5456961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13521898-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5456961 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 5456961?

Compensation: $4,175.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,175.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5456961?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5456961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13521898-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Stonelaw Terrace, Maori Hill, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5456961 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5456961. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20/2/2026	$4,175.00		Rent arrears to 20/2/2026
Compensation		$4,175.00	Compensation
Total award	$4,175.00	$4,175.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5456961. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20/2/2026	$4,175.00		Rent arrears to 20/2/2026
Compensation		$4,175.00	Compensation
Total award	$4,175.00	$4,175.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
By way of declaration the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the claim by the tenant for the tenancy from 19/1/2024 to 13/2/2025.
The Tribunal does have jurisdiction to determine the claims for the tenancy from 14/2/2025.
Neither party is liable to pay the other party compensation as per the table below:
The application by the tenant for further compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 25/1/2026 the tenant applied for a refund of his $1,200.00 bond, compensation of $75,000.00 and exemplary damages for failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition and breach of healthy homes standards for moisture ingress and drainage.
In response, on 2/3/2026 the landlord applied for rent arrears.
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 19/1/2024 to 13/2/2025 and rolled over to a periodic tenancy at the same rent.
The tenant vacated the premises on 25/2/2026.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply if there is no jurisdiction then I cannot proceed to determine the matter.
There is no dispute that the tenant was the purchaser of the property under a conditional agreement for sale and purchase dated 7/2/2024, and until the proposed settlement date of 14/2/2025 rented the premises pursuant to a fixed term tenancy agreement.
On 20/1/2025 the purchaser, tenant’s lawyer advised the vendor, landlord’s lawyer that the purchaser, tenant was unable to confirm finance, and the agreement was at an end.
Section 5(1)(0) provides that the Act shall not apply where the tenant is the purchaser of the premises under an agreement for sale and purchase with the landlord as vendor, not being an agreement that is revocable at will by the vendor.
After perusing the agreement for sale and purchase I am satisfied that it was not revocable at will by the vendor, landlord.
I find I have no jurisdiction to determine the claims by the tenant for the period of the fixed term tenancy from 19/1/2024 to 13/2/2025 because of the agreement for sale and purchase.
However, I consider the exclusion does not apply to the verbal periodic tenancy which began on 14/2/2025 despite the terms being the same, because the tenant was no longer the purchaser under an agreement for sale and purchase. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord and tenant must establish, with evidence, that their claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicants, in this case both the landlord and tenant, to provide the necessary evidence to support their respective claims. If they fail to do so then the applications will be dismissed, whether they have merit or not. Landlord claim

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $4,175.00 to 20/2/2026 and has provided rent records to support the amount owing.
Despite the records suggesting the tenant owed a higher amount, the landlord only claimed $4,175.00 for the period from 21/11/2025 to 20/2/2026.
The tenant did not dispute that he owed arrears of rent but was unable to quantify exactly how much he owed or the date of his last rent payment.
I am satisfied by the evidence of the landlord that the tenant owes $4,175.00 rent arrears.
An award has been made for this amount.
No refund of the bond has been made because the tenant confirmed that he had received the bond several weeks ago.
The landlord advised that they had mistakenly agreed to refund the bond to the tenant. Tenant claim

Has the landlord breach their obligations, including healthy homes standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness or repair and has not complied with healthy homes standards for moisture ingress and drainage.
The claim about failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair fails because these issues relate to the beginning of the tenancy on 19/1/2024, being a time period over which the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.
However, the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to determine the issue of failure to maintain the premises and healthy homes standards from 14/2/2025.
The tenant submitted that the premises were in a “compromised” state, in particular the floor coverings, lack of smoke alarms, dampness beneath the dwelling and moisture ingress from flooding.
In support of the claim the tenant provided photographs taken on 25/2/2026 when he vacated.
On the other hand, the landlord submitted there were smoke alarms in the premises but when the tenant complained about the lack these further alarms were installed.
Further the landlord suggested that whenever the tenant asked for work to be done, such as removal of a wasp nest or a plumbing repair due to a leaking pipe the work was undertaken as soon as possible.
The landlord provided a healthy homes compliance statement with the original fixed term tenancy agreement and an insulation compliance statement dated 29/11/2017, which also recorded the presence of three smoke alarms.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) for among other standards, that of moisture ingress and drainage.
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.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals: i. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. ii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
As the periodic tenancy began on 14/2/2025 the compliance date for this tenancy was 14/6/2025.
I am not persuaded to the necessary standard by the evidence of the tenant that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of repair on 14/2/2025, lacked smoke alarms, were not well maintained and did not comply with healthy homes standards.
The photographs provided by the tenant were all taken at the end of the tenancy and the written communication from the tenant complaining about these issues only began after the relationship between the parties deteriorated in November 2025.
It is possible, in the absence of any written property inspection reports from the landlord and the significant age of the premises, that there were maintenance issues but that is not enough by itself to prove this was probably the situation.
Further I accept the evidence of the landlord that there were smoke alarms in the property in 2017 and consider it probable this was the situation when the tenancy began.
In addition, I am persuaded that the burst pipe was repaired in a timely manner.
I find the landlord has not breached section 45(1)(b)&(bb) and has not committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord advise the tenant the property was for sale?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by not advising him that the property was for sale.
The tenant submitted that it was not until a contractor turned up at the premises, without notice, to undertake soil samples that he became aware the premises had been sold and he began to have concerns about issues with contractors and his privacy.
As a result of the contractor arriving at the premises unannounced on 20/11/2025 the landlord told the tenant the property had been sold and they also agreed to allow the tenant to remain in the premises until 26/7/2026.
The landlord suggested the tenant had not been told about the sale, because they had not wished to cause him any concerns.
Both parties provided extensive email and text conversations which escalated in severity from November 2025 to when the tenant vacated the premises about different issues.
Under section 47, a landlord must give written notice to the tenants immediately if the premises are placed on the market. A landlord must also advise any prospective tenants if the house is on the market.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 See section 47(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no dispute that the landlord failed to tell the tenant the premises had been placed on the market or indeed sold.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy when they were not entitled to do so?

The tenant believed he had been unlawfully “evicted” because the 42 day termination notice he had been issued on 20/1/2026 was for vacant possession when the real reason was rent arrears.
In response, the landlord confirmed the reason for the 42 day notice was rent arrears and that the timeframe was an “act of kindness” towards the tenant to allow him plenty of time to move.
The landlord confirmed a 14 day notice had previously been issued on 28/12/2025 for rent arrears.
Section 51(2) provides the circumstances under which a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days notice.
Under section 51(2)(b) 42 days notice may be given if the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am persuaded by the evidence, and confirmed by the landlord, that the reason for the 42 day notice was rent arrears and not vacant possession.
While the landlord required vacant possession, that was not until August 2026, five months after the 4/3/2026 termination date provided to the tenant.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by giving the 42 day notice for vacant possession.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by failing to advise the tenant the property was for sale and giving notice to terminate knowing they were not entitled to do so I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
There is insufficient evidence to find that the landlord intentionally failed to advise the tenant the premises were for sale or indeed had been sold in the full knowledge they needed to do so.
Indeed, the landlord seemed unaware of their obligation to advise the tenant.
However, I am persuaded that the landlord intentionally gave the tenant 42 days notice, knowing they were not entitled to do so.
The landlord confirmed they gave the notice because of rent arrears, but thought they were being “kind” in allowing the tenant time to move.
If the landlord had significant concerns, as was suggested, about whether the tenant would leave, and the fact the rent payments were irregular, an urgent application could have been made to the Tribunal under sections 55 or 56.
However, having considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect of the unlawful acts on both parties and the public interest I consider it would not be just to award any exemplary damages in this instance.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
Despite not awarding exemplary damages I consider an award of compensation is reasonable because the effect of the early termination on the tenant was significant as he believed he had a fixed term agreement to stay in the premises until 26/7/2026.
In addition, I consider the laissez fair attitude of the landlord in administration of the tenancy contributed significantly to the dispute between the parties.
I have awarded $4,175.00 which is the amount equivalent to the rent arrears owed by the tenant, which means neither party owes anything to each other.
For the avoidance of doubt had the bond not been refunded to the tenant I would have ordered a refund to him.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful, and the filing fees cancel each other out.
Suppression is granted to both parties pursuant to section 95A(4) because in the particular interests of both parties in this instance I consider it is reasonable to do so.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5456961 — Rent arrears at 22 Stonelaw Terrace, Maori Hill, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5456961 — Rent arrears at 22 Stonelaw Terrace, Maori Hill, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Has the landlord breach their obligations, including healthy homes standards?

Did the landlord advise the tenant the property was for sale?

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy when they were not entitled to do so?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Has the landlord breach their obligations, including healthy homes standards?

Did the landlord advise the tenant the property was for sale?

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy when they were not entitled to do so?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions