What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5470982 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 5470982?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5470982?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5470982?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13696099-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5470982 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 5470982?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5470982?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5470982?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13696099-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5470982 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5470982 — net $828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain	$800.00	failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$828.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$828.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5470982 — net $828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain	$800.00	failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$828.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$828.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $828.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenants appeared. [ Suppressed ], Property Managers, appeared for the landlord.
The tenancy commenced 13 February 2025 for a fixed term ending 13 August 2025 after which it became periodic. On 04 November 2025, the landlord gave the tenants 42 days’ notice ending the tenancy on 17 December 2025.
On 17 March 2026, the tenant filed a claim as follows: i. The landlord made modifications to the gas hob, which resulted in it being difficult and dangerous to use. These modifications were also unlawful. ii. The termination notice was retaliatory and was issued by the landlord knowing that they were not entitled to issue the notice.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages. Gas hob
The property has a gas hob which is approximately 16 years old.
The tenant produced a photograph of the hob showing that the grate on which cookware rests above the gas burners has been modified. The photograph shows that bolts have been welded to the grate creating a larger gap between the cookware and the burners below.
The tenant states that this modification made it difficult to use the hob, and that cookware did not rest properly on the grill, posing a health and safety risk. The tenant also stated that the flames from the burners were uneven. This may or may not have been related to the modifications.
The tenant states they raised this with the property manager at the first inspection on 28 March 2025. The tenant produced an email sent to the property manager the same day, confirming the issues raised at the inspection including the gas hob.
The tenant stated that between March and July they recall having a conversation about general maintenance issues with the property manager but cannot recall the date.
On 22 July 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a more detailed message concerning the gas hobs.
The tenant states there was then a conversation with the property manager who advised that the landlord did not consider it an urgent matter, and did not give it priority over other maintenance issues raised.
One of the tenants is a trainee gasfitter.
On 22 October 2025, the tenant sent another email noting that the modifications to the hob may be illegal.
On 04 November 2025, the tenant was given notice terminating the tenancy.
On 06 November 2025, the property manager sent the tenant an email advising that the hob would be replaced. However, this did not occur, and the issue remained unresolved at the end of the tenancy.
The property manager accepted they had raised this with the landlord who did not consider it an issue requiring addressing. The property manager stated that the landlord themselves had resided at the property and installed the bolts to make the hob safer to use. The property manager stated they had also asked a former tenant about the hob who raised no issues. Despite this, the property manager stated they continued to press the matter with the landlord. They accepted that the landlord had advised the tenant that they intended to replace the hob but had not done so. The property manager stated that upon the landlord giving notice to terminate the tenancy their management of the property ceased.
The landlord has provided written submissions. They deny that there was any issue with the hob, and state: “In relation to the bolts on the hob, these were intentionally left in place for safety reasons. Having lived in the property ourselves for ten years, we found that the modification, which was carried out by a professional welder, allowed cookware to sit further from the flames and reduced the risk of overheating”.
The landlord stated that the property had been sold and that the purchaser had commissioned a report which did not raise any concerns about the modifications. Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. This obligation includes maintaining any chattels provided with the tenancy for the use of the tenant.
Section 45(1)(c) of the Act, requires landlords to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety that apply to the premises. This means landlords must ensure the property meets all relevant building codes, health regulations, and safety standards throughout the tenancy.
To establish a breach under section 45(1)(b) or (c), the tenant must establish that more likely than not there is a defect, or failure to comply with the relevant provision.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence.
Breaching 45(1)(b) or (c) of the Act is also an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
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(3) of the Act.
In awarding exemplary damages, the Tribunal must consider: i. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. ii. The effect of the unlawful act. iii. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. iv. The public interest; and v. Whether it is just to make the award Analysis and decision
The onus is on the tenant to establish on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations under section 45(1)(b) or 45(1)(c) of the Act.
The issue is whether the modifications have resulted in the hob not being maintained in a reasonable condition, which in this case would relate to functionality or whether the modifications had been carried out contrary to any regulation or safety standard that may apply.
The latter will involve identifying and considering the relevant legal provision. The functionality of the hob will involve an objective assessment.
Dealing with the regulation or safety standards that may apply, the tenant’s claim that the modification is unlawful is sourced from AI generated commentary. While a party may use AI tools to assist them with the preparation of their application, the onus remains on the party making the claim to identify the legal provision they say applies. In this case the legal provision was not provided in the application.
During the hearing, the tenant identified a number of legislative provisions that might be relevant, including the Gas (Safety and Measurement) Regulations 2010, NZ Standards for gas installation, Gas Act 1992, and Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006. Based on a brief review of these provisions, there appears to be a distinction between gasfitting and installation of gas appliances, which must be carried out by suitably qualified persons, and minor modifications that do not amount to gasfitting, which may not require such qualifications.
In relation to the claim under section 45(1)(c), the modification carried out by the landlord may or may not have been non-compliant. The onus is on the tenant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that it was not. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the tenant has done so to the required standard.
Turning to whether the modification affected the functionality of the hob there is a direct conflict in the evidence. The tenant claims that the modification adversely affected the functionality and safety of the hob, whereas the landlord claims that the modification had been made to improve functionality and safety.
There are no photographs showing cookware being used on the hob. It is likely that the landlord used a particular type of cookware that accommodated the modifications, whereas the tenant used cookware that did not. The tenant stated they used standard flat based cookware. My observation is that the landlord’s modification was not designed to accommodate this type of cookware.
The bolts installed effectively suspended the cookware over the burner at four narrow points of contact. The original grate appears to have been designed to disperse and support the weight of standard cookware across a much larger area. It is apparent that the modification was not intended to support standard design cookware, and in fact, introduced an inherent instability.
While the landlord may have responded appropriately to other maintenance issues raised, their inflexible approach to the matter resulted in a failure to meet their obligations. In my view, the most prudent and straightforward course would have been to remove the bolts. Alternatively, the landlord should have considered providing cookware that could safely be used with the modified hob.
The landlord was first advised of the issue in March 2025, and it remained, despite being raised on several occasions, unresolved at the end of the tenancy. By failing to adequately address the issue, I am satisfied the landlord has failed to meet their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, and in doing so they have committed an unlawful act.
Turning to the issue of exemplary damages. I am satisfied that the landlord has intentionally failed to remedy the issue. The tenant was inconvenienced by the landlord’s failure. The modification posed a potential risk to the health and safety of the tenant and may have also resulted in damage to the property. In this case I am satisfied that an award of $800.00 exemplary damages is justified. Retaliatory / unlawful notice
The tenant has produced an email from their electricity provider, dated 02 February 2026, stating the electricity supply at the property remained disconnected and requesting they provide the contact details for the owner.
The tenant stated they viewed this as unusual, as the termination notice had been issued on the basis that a family member of the owner was going to reside at the property. The tenant stated that, shortly afterwards, they discovered that the property was being offered for sale and was subsequently sold on 12 March 2026.
The tenant submitted that the termination notice, issued shortly after they had raised concerns regarding the legality of the hob modification, strongly suggested that the notice had been retaliatory and been issued on false grounds.
In their written submissions, the landlord stated the property was jointly owned with another family member who resided in the South Island. The landlord stated the family member had intended selling their business and relocating to Hamilton and residing at the property. The landlord further stated that the sale of the business fell through after the notice had been given, and that for financial reasons a decision was then made to sell the property, which occurred in March 2026. Law
Under section 51(2)(a) of the Act, the landlord may give 42 days’ notice if the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove more likely than not 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) of the Act.
If the Tribunal finds the notice was given in retaliation for the tenant exercising their rights under the Act, the Tribunal can award compensation.
In the case of Kerr v Woodman, DC Porirua, MA 244/88, 03 November 1988 Judge Ongley stated that a notice given for genuine reasons would not be considered retaliatory.
In Carver v Kiesanowski [2021] NZDC 3939 the Court stated at [39]: The purpose behind empowering the tribunal to declare a termination notice retaliatory and of no effect is to prevent landlords from discriminating against those who assert their rights as tenants or make complaints by ending their tenancy. The provision is designed to protect tenants but not from the legitimate decision a landlord may make to sell their property or no longer operate it as a rental property
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.
In the case of Borlase v Davies , Nelson TT95/95 , 27 July 1995 the Tribunal held that a landlord’s notice to terminate a periodic tenancy was not necessarily invalidated for a change of reason subsequent to issue. The Tribunal confirmed the issue was whether the reason for giving the notice had been genuinely held at the time the notice was issued.
Breaching either of these obligations under section 56(6) and 60AA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. Analysis and decision
The onus is on the tenant to establish on the balance of probabilities, either that the notice to terminate the tenancy was issued either wholly or in partly in response to their exercising their rights, or on the balance of probabilities the notice was issued by the landlord knowing that they were not entitled to do so.
The email in which the tenant referred to the possibility that the hob modification may be illegal is dated 22 October 2025. The termination notice was issued 04 November 2025. Although the events are relatively close, 14 days apart, on its own I am not satisfied that timing alone establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord was either wholly or partly motivated by the raising the issue.
The landlord’s evidence is plausible, the onus is on the tenant to establish that it is not. I am satisfied that at the time the notice was issued, the landlord believed that the co-owner intended residing at the property. When this could not occur, the property was then sold. As in the case of Borlase v Davies, the notice was therefore not invalidated by a change circumstances after it was issued.
The claim that the notice was retaliatory and issued with knowledge that the landlord was not entitled to give it is dismissed. Costs
As the tenant has been partly successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Assessed globally, I am of the opinion that both parties have been sufficiently successful in these proceedings. Accordingly, both are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5470982 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5470982 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions