What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5477935 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 5477935?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5477935?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5477935?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13882929-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5477935 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 5477935?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5477935?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5477935?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13882929-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5477935 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5477935 — net $2,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Healthy homes standards breaches	$1,200.00	Healthy homes standards breaches
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$1,000.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,228.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5477935 — net $2,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Healthy homes standards breaches	$1,200.00	Healthy homes standards breaches
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$1,000.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenants] $2,228.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 June 2026.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee, following the end of the tenancy on 21 January 2026. Background
The tenants lived in the main house and the male landlord lived part time in a self-contained granny flat underneath the lounge of main house as his primary residence is outside of [City]. The granny flat was on a separate power meter, but not a separate water meter.
The male landlord stayed in the granny flat below two to three days a week, depending on his workload, and he stayed some weekends to do maintenance work. Occasionally his wife came down for a weekend or for work when husband not there.
The landlord used the storage under the veranda, but allowed the tenants kids bikes to also be kept in that area and in the tenancy agreement, the landlord had responsibility for maintaining the yard and the tenants for maintaining the lawns.
The parties shared the yard but had primary use on some specific areas such as, the area outside master bedroom, kitchen and bathroom was used primarily by the tenants, while the driveway area down the side of the house was primarily used by the landlord. The tenants say they tried to keep away from the deck around the granny flat and to not use the general area around the granny flat to give the landlord privacy. They stated they enforced this respect for the landlords privacy with their children.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA, bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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”. 1
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. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/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 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching either of these s45(1) 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.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates/power or gas reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
[The tenants] gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. A. Painting of outside the media room
The tenants claim that on 25 August 2023, the landlord sent them a text message asking them to move their outside furniture so he could paint the rest of the house.
The landlord’s email informed them he was going to do the painting in the next few months. He lives in [Location] and must wait for the conditions to be conducive to painting when he is in [City]. The landlord stated he did not think this would be an issue as in the tenancy agreement it records that the landlord will need access to the yard to tidy and maintain it.
The tenants confirmed they did not have any concerns about request, but restricted painting to hours between 8:30am and 4pm when the kids were at school, so as not to impact on their use of the yard.
The tenants say there was not enough room under the veranda to store everything that needed to be moved for the painting to be done, the tenants had the garage full of personal items and a car, there was no room on the lawn or in the garden area, so the tenants moved the outdoor furniture, and garden 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. implements into the media room to ensure it was out of the way while the painting was completed.
The landlord says he did ask them to move their belongings out of that area altogether. He states this was a misunderstanding. He had only wanted the area tidied up as at that time there was outdoor seating, toys and garden stuff that made it unsafe for ladder use. Further, the landlord said he could have made room for the tenants to relocate their stuff under the veranda, had the tenants asked if him do so.
On 10 April 2024, the landlord had not done any painting, and the tenants were tired of not having use of the media room, so they took all their belongings back outside to the area it had been in prior. The tenants are seeking compensation for the loss of amenity of the media room they suffered while waiting for the painting to be done, when it was never done at all.
The landlord says he does not know when he started painting but says he did start and then stop for unknown reason. He cannot remember whether this painting was done before or after the tenants moved their furniture back outside. I note that the tenants have claimed the landlord breached their privacy while painting near the bathroom, so the landlord had undertaken some painting in that area.
The parties confirm that the tenants never raised this issue with the landlord and the landlord says had they done so he would have made room under the veranda to store garden implements and confirmed he did not require removal of all the furniture to paint that area. He was not aware they had stored the belongings in the house, was shocked to find out that is what they had done, and even more shocked they had not discussed the issue with him as soon as it had become problematic for them.
A landlord cannot remedy a loss of amenity issue he is not aware of. He did not ask the tenants to store their outdoor belongings inside the house and he was under no obligation to carrying out routine paint work in a set amount of time when the house was not in desperate need of a repaint at that time.
The tenants’ claims are dismissed for failure to prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to carry out the painting in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances in breach of his obligations under s45(1)(b) of the RTA. But for the tenants choosing to store their outdoor items inside the house for a prolonged period, when they had not been asked to do so by the landlord and the landlord was not made aware of the inconvenience and loss of amenity the tenants were suffering, the landlord could have taken as long as he needed to carry out this routine house maintenance activity. He was not aware the tenants were relying in his initial estimate for completing this work. B. Restricted use of the back yard
The tenants say that their three children used the backyard for playing in and enjoying the outdoors and they encouraged them to do so. The backyard was part of what attracted the tenants to rent the premises.
The tenants say the male landlord put unreasonable restrictions on their use of the yard and gave two examples of this.
The first is that they had used the back yard to set up a fire pit one Saturday night when they had friends around for a gathering, which they had cleared with the landlord. They say they left it out as they intended to use it again. That Monday they got a message from the landlord asking them to remove the balloons off the mailbox, clear the rubbish and charcoal starter that was on the roof (away from kids), the couch and the fire pit. The tenants say the landlord did not explain why they had to move all these items and were not happy about it, but did not question the landlord or ask to leave the items where they were until the tenants had finished using them. The landlord confirmed that had they left the area a bit tidier and told him they were intending on using the firepit, couches etc again, he would have had no issue with that. He stated it would make it hard to mow the lawns and tidy the yard, so he asked for it to be moved, thinking it had been placed outside for a single event. He also noted the fire pit etc was in the larger area out the back in the large grass area by granny flat.
The second is that a temporary safety fence erected by [the Council] when the Council were doing drainage work for the [project]. The landlord asked the tenants to keep their children away from this fenced area, so they did not damage the integrity of the fence and find themselves at risk of harm due to the drainage work. I was shown photographs of the small fenced off area, which was the lower area of the back of the yard, where there are a few trees, a compost bin and manhole area that was generally not suitable for playing games etc in.
The tenants say the temporary fence was put up around 11 September 2025, without their prior knowledge, and had not been taken down before the tenancy ended on 21 January 2026. The landlord said he came home that day and found the fence had been moved and had not been told about it either. The tenants say the landlord had met with the Council about the proposed works and they were not included in those meetings and should have been.
The tenants confirmed they understood the landlord had issued a caution about the safety fence that reduced the children’s use of yard for safety reasons, and this limited what they did in the yard. For example, the kids were asked to stay away from fencing for ball games etc as the sturdiness of the fencing could not be assured and the bus company were undertaking drainage works behind the fence.
The tenants’ claims are dismissed for failure to prove on the balance of probabilities that these restrictions on the backyard constitute failure by the landlord of his s45(1)(b) of the RTA repair and maintenance obligations. These issues may be considered under the tenants’ breach of quiet enjoyment claims. C. Lawn mowing
The tenants say the landlord complained the lawns were not done at the end of the tenancy, when it had been completed two weeks prior and was due to be done the following day by a contractor. The contractors schedule had been delayed due to bad weather.
The landlord told the tenants that if the lawns were not done regularly, the lawn wouldn’t dry and would affect the retaining wall. He says he put in the tenancy agreement that the lawns were to be mown fortnightly for that reason. I note the tenancy agreement mentions lawns are the tenants’ responsibility but does not mention the frequency of mowing required.
The landlord said the lawns had to be mowed fortnightly and the tenants confirmed the contractors did them fortnightly in the summer months and sometimes every three weeks in the winter when the ground was wet or the weather to wet to mow in.
The landlord says the backyard is raised and has good drainage and can be mown in the rain. The tenants confirmed they called the contractor to hurry them up but were told the contractor has a schedule they had to fit into and they could not just come to the house on demand and mow one lawn.
I am unsure why the tenants raised this as a repair and maintenance claim. It is not a claim made by the landlord against the tenants. This claim is dismissed as it is not a repair and maintenance claim. The landlord did not have the obligation to maintain the lawn in a reasonable state of repair in all the circumstances. This was a contractual obligation placed on the tenants and agreed to by the parties on the signing of the tenancy agreement. I dismiss this claim for lack of evidence to prove the landlord was in breach of its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations in relation to the mowing of lawns. Again, it could be considered under the breach of quiet enjoyment claims by the tenants. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. 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. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 2 November 2017. Therefore, the premise had to be fully compliant with the healthy homes’ standards from 1 July 2025. A. Draught Stopping
The tenants claim the landlord has failed to comply with the draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants say they noticed a cold breeze coming through every now and again. They stated there are two doors between garage and house they had to use a rolled-up towel to stop cold air coming through into the house as there was no other way to stop the draught from garage coming into the house. They also stated some windows occasionally let some air in. the tenants confirmed the landlord never undertook any routine property inspections and so they never raised these draughts with him. They took that it was “just part of that house” and “tried to reduce it as much as they could”.
The landlord stated that he was not aware of any draught stopping issues and had they raised this with him he would have investigated and remediated any identified gaps.
The tenants did not produce any photographic evidence of gaps that would breach the healthy homes standard nor any other evidence to prove this claim. The landlord had never had a third-party healthy homes assessment done and nor had the tenants. Neither party had carried out a healthy homes assessment themselves either. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence provided to the Tribunal to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and the claim is dismissed. B. Heating
The tenants claim the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
There must be one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room.
The main living room is the largest room that is used for general, everyday living – for example a lounge, family room or dining room.
Heater(s) must be fixed (not portable) and must be at least 1.5 kW in heating capacity and meet the minimum heating capacity needed for the main living room. There are several options to calculate the heating capacity required for the main living room.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant says there were panel heaters in the hallway and that the hallway opened to kitchen, lounge and dining area.
The landlord stated he did not think the house required any more heating as the house was well insulated.
the tenants confirmed the lounge was so cold in the winter they had to sit under three blankets to keep warm and that the house did require heating.
The landlord proved that he had offered to have a heat pump installed, prior to compliance date, to ensure the house met the heating standard and the female tenant had declined the opportunity to have a heat pump installed twice. The female landlord confirmed she did decline the installation twice as she thought it might result in a rent increase to cover the cost. The tenants did not raise the heating issue with the landlord after these two refusals.
The landlord accepts he did not have the heating in the house by compliance date. He confirmed there was a heat pumps in the bedroom above the garage when the tenants arrived and panel heaters in the hallway and he thought the tenants were happy with these.
In this case I have determined that while the landlord has committed an unlawful act, by failing to ensure the premise met the heating standard by 1 July 2025, the landlord did not commit the unlawful act intentionally. He has proven he tried to comply, and the tenants had refused to allow him to instal the heat pump, not once, but twice, and he respected their request not to have one installed.
For these reasons, I dismiss the tenants claim for exemplary damages for breach of the heating standard. C. Ventilation
The tenants claim the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The landlord confirmed he understood all kitchens and bathrooms must either have an extractor fan that vents air to the outside or a continuous mechanical ventilation that meets certain criteria. He stated there was an externally venting fan in the kitchen but that the ensuite and other bathroom had heat lamp fans that were not externally ducted and therefore they pushed moisture into other areas of the house.
In this case I have determined the landlord has committed an unlawful act intentionally by failing to ensure the premise met the ventilation standard by 1 July 2025 or by the time the tenants ended the tenancy on 21 January 2026. As a that date the house was still not compliant with the ventilation standard. ‘
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that exemplary damages for this intentional breach of the ventilation standard is warranted.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. D. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
The tenants claim the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard because the house had no ground moisture barrier but does have an enclosed subfloor that requires one by law.
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 if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The landlord accepts the premise should have and did not have a ground moisture barrier installed by 1 July 2025. He stated that as “he was not likely to rent this house out again, he had chosen not to install one yet”. He confirmed he had a contractor to come and price the installation of a ground moisture barrier but at the time the tenants were watering their garden, and water was coming in under the house so it was not a practical time to get one installed even though he was aware at that time that the house was not compliant with this standard .
In this case I have find that there is sufficient evidence to prove the landlord has committed an unlawful act by intentionally failing to ensure the premise met the moisture ingress and drainage standard by 1 July 2025 and that it would be just in al the circumstances to award exemplary damages for this breach because: a. The tenants lived from 1 July 2025 to 21 January 2026 without the protection of a ground moisture barrier when he knew water ran under the house and may cause dampness issues and that the landlord knew this was a clear breach of his healthy homes’ standard obligations; b. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the intentional breach; and c. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their moisture ingress and drainage standard obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed no intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) and two intentional breaches of his s45(1)(bb) of the RTA that resulted in the tenants living conditions that were damp and cold.
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.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the requirement to comply with the healthy homes standards. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $1,200.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being one eighth of the maximum penalty available. Should the tenants receive a water rates rebate, based on landlord breach of s39 of the RTA?
The tenants state there was no separate water meter for the 86 months and 2 weeks tenancy and that the landlord paid a quarter of the water consumption and the fixed charges and the tenants paid three quarters of the water consumption charges.
The landlord says that the parties agreed to this split at the start of the tenancy and the tenants did not raise any issues or concerns with the arrangement until the end of the tenancy. Further, the landlord stated that he thought this arrangement was quite generous given the tenants moved in with six people and had a dishwasher, when he was alone for half a week with no dishwasher. Additionally, he said he did not do any laundry in the granny flat, preferring to wash his clothes at home.
The tenants say their water bill is a lot lower since they moved to a new premise and that their last water bill at the rental premise had been $142.58 for five people when they currently pay around $76.03 per month at their new house for the same five people.
The landlord stated the tenants occasionally had an international student staying for four weeks at a time and sometimes longer. That is where the sixth person comes from in his calculation.
The landlord also says his last consumption portion of his water bills have averaged at $5.00 per month, as he is now the only person living on the property. He says his daily use is exactly the same as what it was when the tenants lived there but he was paying around $50.00 per month of consumption charges.
The tenants say they are paying half what they were, and their practices have not changed, except they have their garden on water timer system now. They say there was a hot water cylinder leak identified at the end of the tenancy and thought that may have contributed to their higher water consumption. The landlord got a plumber to check the hot water cylinder and did not find any issues with it. He did find a small drip from the joinery had caused a small wet patch that dried out quickly. The landlord confirmed the plumber did not find any leaks anywhere and the water bill has dropped from around $190.00 per month to $5.00 per month.
The tenants refers to section 39(3) of the RTA, which says, “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 to the tenant’s use of the facilities” and says that without separate meters there is no proof that they used all the water they were asked to pay for and they want to be reimbursed for the $6,327.27 water they have paid for under an unlawful arrangement.
More latterly, during the hearing, they changed their claim to 50% of the water they have paid for under an unlawful arrangement.
I find that the landlord did enter into an unlawful arrangement with the tenants and that they have been charged for a portion of the water that the landlord cannot prove conclusively that they used. However, it is more likely than not that 5 to 6 people living in a house full time, watering gardens, showering, washing clothes, using a dishwasher and carrying out other day to day activities that involve water usage would use more than 75% of the total water consumption, when the person paying 25% of the total water consumption lives at the premise a half a week at most, does not wash his clothes there, does not regular water gardens, does not have a dishwasher and eats out or brings in food that does not require a lot of cooking or dishwashing.
While I find that the landlord is in breach of s39 of the RTA, I am not satisfied that the tenants have proven they have suffered any loss from the arrangement they agreed to enter into with the landlord. I find that in paying 25% of the households water consumption, the landlord is more likely than not have been paying more than he was consuming. This finding is backed up by the fact his water consumption charges have dropped to $5.00 per month post the tenancy, when: a. He is living in the same part of the house with no tenants; b. He is carrying out the same activities he did during the tenancy; and c. He has not found any leaks or undertaken any water leak-based repairs post the tenancy.
For the reasons set out above, I dismiss the tenants claim for a water rates rebate as they have failed to produce any evidence that they have suffered a loss because of the landlord’s breach. Therefore, it would not be just to award a water rates rebate for a technical breach that caused no loss to the tenants and from which it is highly likely the tenants derived benefit from.
If the landlord is to consider renting the house out again, he could also consider installing a separate water reader for the granny flat and deduct the actual usage from the bill at the applicable consumption rate or include the cost of the water in the rent and consider any water rates increases when reviewing the rental rate each year.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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.
The tenants’ claims are based on three incidents. A. The landlord entering through the ranch slider of the main house to tell off a child
The tenants claim that on 30 July 2025, the landlord came inside the ranch slider off the deck and swore at their 10-year-old daughter.
This child had been picked up from school by the tenants’ sister-in-law. The sister in law’s evidence is that the 10-year-old was in the lounge playing with her one year old and trying to keep the one year old occupied while she was in the kitchen preparing the children some food. She claims the landlord came up the stairs unannounced and opened the ranch slider and proceeded to yell at the 10- year-old shouting words that included “you scared the f***ing shit out of me” and told her to be quiet.
The sister-in-law text her brother immediately about the incident as she was very concerned a strange man had yelled at her brother’s daughter and that his daughter was very upset at being yelled at. The tenants confirmed this child suffers from extreme anxiety and she had a panic attack because of being confronted by the landlord in this manner without an adult present. The tenants say her panic attacks and anxiety levels increased exponentially from that point onwards for a few months.
The male tenant’s sister confirmed she was in kitchen, which feeds into an open plan dining room/lounge, when she heard a man yelling from inside the house. When she came into the lounge to see what was happening, she was told by the 10-year-old that a man from downstairs had been in the room yelling at her and he had just stepped outside to leave and could no longer be seen. The sister-in- law also stated that she was shocked he had not gone to the front door and rung the doorbell to speak to an adult in charge or called out from the deck.
The tenants’ other daughter says she had just returned home from school and was just inside the house when she heard the landlord yelling at her sister.
The landlord accepted he went on to the deck and yelled at the 10-year-old but says he did not enter the house. Further, he says the ranch slider was open already when he reached the deck. He says he opened the deck gate and yelled at the child from the deck. He confirmed that while the deck gate is self-closing it doesn’t lock.
He stated that he had lived at the premise with the family for quite a few years and that he was used to the children living above him. However, he claims this was a loud and sudden noise that was unusual and that he went upstairs straight away as he was concerned someone was hurt. He says he went through a closed deck gate and heard laughing, the ranch slider was open (not just unlocked) and he could see the back of the 10 year. Further, if the door was closed he would have knocked but he stayed 2 to 2.5 metres away and could see the child by the dining table. He says he could see another small child and could not see the sister-in-law as he was not close enough to the door to see into the kitchen.
The landlord says the 10-year old’s face dropped when she saw him and he said “Gezz [Name] you scared the shit out of me” and then left as he “didn’t want to embarrass the child any further”. He claims he was not mad or angry or he would have “had a go at the adult in the house”.
The landlord states the text messages placed in evidence do not mention anything about swearing or him going into the house. He says he did not set foot in the house, or the sister-in-law would have seen him instantly and approached him. He says he wasn’t there as a landlord, but as a concerned person that heard a loud bang above and wanted to check the child was alright. Further, the landlord says he was inside, he would have seen the sister-in-law and she him.
Additionally, he says he did not think to knock or call out to the adult in the room and that he was going back to his granny flat to text the child’s mother but got distracted.
The tenants say their daughter did not take this as a welfare check and neither did the sister-in-law.
I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the evidence proves that it is more likely than not: a. The sister-in-law was highly unlikely to have left the ranch slider open when the children could have opened the non-locked deck gate and faced a safety issue, especially when they were not in her direct line of sight when she was in the kitchen, and given there was a one-year-old with the 10 year old minor; b. The landlord would have had to open the ranch slider or stuck his head through the ranch slider to yell at the 10-year-old; c. That the landlord used inappropriate language to tell off a 10-year-old, who though she was safe in her own home playing with her cousin, and who was traumatised by this incident for months; and d. The landlord could have called out to the adult he knew was present and spoken calmly to the adult and not yelled at the child directly without an adult present and chose not to do so.
Based on the above, I find that it is more likely than not that the landlord did unlawfully and intentionally entered the premise to yell at a 10-year-old child without an adult present and left without having the forethought to discuss the incident with the adult present, and not even bothering to notify her parents of the incident.
Whether or not he entered the lounge by walking into it or putting his head through the door to yell at the child, I find that this is an intentional and unlawful entry for which it would be fair to award exemplary damages.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for this breach will be addressed at the end of the s48 of the RTA breach section of this Order. B. Cracked windowpane
On 15 September 2025, the female tenant got a text message from the landlord saying “Hi [The tenant/s] letting you know the glass has been replaced. The screws in the stay were too long and caused the crack in glass. You can reinstall the stay but the screws need to be shorter. Please give carpet below a vacuum as the glazier had to break the glass”.
The tenants say they had cracked window in their eldest daughter’s window and that they were getting quotes to get it fixed. They had put a security stay on the window, as it just swung open in the wind, and they thought it would be a bit safer because it would restrict the opening of window.
The landlord says he had discussions with the tenants about this issue and it had been a long time since the incident, and it was still not fixed. He says he had a glazier there and that he said he could replace it from the outside, so he gave the glazier permission to do it without letting the tenants know.
The tenants confirmed the stay had been removed, so the window could have opened wide again in the wind and broken as the window could not be closed securely from the outside. The landlord says it should have been fully secure and that had been part of his questions to the glazier. He claims the glazier opened the window to remove the stay, and confirmed he could finish installing the glass without leaving the window open. The landlord says he replaced the glass at his cost, so could not understand why this was an issue.
Reaching hands inside a tenant’s window can still be considered an unlawful entry. The law does not require the whole body to enter. Crossing the threshold with any body part (including hands) without permission or proper notice is generally treated as an intrusion of the property. The landlord must give a tenant at least 24 hours' written notice before entering or conducting repairs. The only time a landlord can enter without 24 hours' written notice is in a genuine emergency (e.g. fire, flooding) or if the tenants explicitly give the landlord or its contractors permission at that moment to enter.
I find that the landlord and his glazier entered the premise without notice or consent on 15 September 2025, and that this was an intentional and unlawful entry for which it would be fair to award exemplary damages.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for this breach will be addressed at the end of the s48 of the RTA breach section of this Order. C. Entering the house before being handed back vacant possession
The tenants say that on 21 January 2026 they had not handed over the keys and had paid rent for that full day.
When they turned up for the exit inspection with the landlord, and to give the landlord vacant possession thereafter, they found he was laying on hallway floor and was looking at hot water cylinder. The tenants were told the landlord had already done the exit inspection without them and had a few issues they discussed that he wanted addressed. For example, they had to wait for the external rubbish bin to be emptied and then needed to go back to clean it. The landlord also had the final water bill, and bond form which the tenants signed and then left.
The landlord says the tenants account of the incident was accurate. The rubbish bin was not empty on the end of tenancy date and they committed to come back and clean it when it was emptied. He also confirmed he did turn up early and entered from the back, looked at hot water cylinder that tenant had said was leaking, and turned it off. He said he was happy overall with the condition of the house and intended to refund the full bond despite there being some damage that he considered fair wear and tear.
He knew the tenants had already moved out and thought he was assisting by being there early and being efficient. He was also worried about the hot water cylinder and wanted to investigate it. He says it took a while to rectify and had damaged the flooring slightly as the tenants had knocked a joiner and it was leaking a bit for a short time.
I find that the landlord entered the premise without consent on 21 January 2026 when the tenants still had lawful and exclusive possession of the premise, and that this was an intentional and unlawful entry for which it would be fair to award exemplary damages.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for this breach will be addressed at the end of the s48 of the RTA breach section of this Order. Exemplary damages for s48 of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed three intentional breaches of s48 of the RTA by entering the premise unlawfully.
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.
I am satisfied it is in the tenants and the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s38 of the RTA access obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the requirement to comply with the statutory access restrictions. I find it just in all the circumstances to award $1,000.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being two thirds of the maximum penalty available. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment/privacy?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The basis for the tenants breach of quiet enjoyment claims are as follows: a. The fire pit incident (details of incident outlined in the failure to maintain section of this Order above); and b. The painting outside of the media room incident (details of incident outlined in the failure to maintain section of this Order above); c. The windowpane incident (details of incident outlined in the unlawful entry section of this Order above); d. The shower incident; e. Repeated complaints about child noise; and f. Weed spraying incident; and g. Snail pellets in letter box and possum trap in yard. The fire pit incident
The tenants say around Guy Fawkes night in 2025, they had friends around one Saturday night and set up the fire pit and a couch and left it out there as they intended to use it again. That Monday they got a message from the landlord asking them to clear the balloons off the letter box, clear the rubbish, the charcoal starter on the roof (which they had put there to keep it away from kids), the couch and the fire pit. They say the landlord did not explain why. They say this had happened before around 12 February 2025. They claim that this constant monitoring of what they were doing in the back yard was a breach of their quiet enjoyment and privacy and they should have been allowed to leave these types of things out if they were going to use them again for further gatherings. They say the landlord did not need to weed around these items at this time and they were responsible for making sure the lawn mowing contractor could mow around any items in the back yard each fortnight. This incident, they say, happened outside of the lawn mowing cycle.
The tenants did not inform the landlord they wanted to use the set up for more than one gathering and did not ask him why he needed the items moved. The landlord and tenants shared the backyard, and it was not unreasonable for the landlord to want to keep the area tidy between gatherings, especially when he was under a reasonable believe this had been a one off gathering and not one of many more to come.
The tenants made no attempt to negotiate a resolution. They complied with the request without raising concerns or issues and then brought this issue to the Tribunal at the end if he tenancy.
I dismiss this claim for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. The painting outside of the media room incident
As set out in the failure to maintain section above, the tenants were not asked by the landlord to move the outdoor furniture and/or garden implement into their media room inside. This issue appears to have been born of a lack of sufficient communication on the part of both parties.
The tenants could have raised their concerns with the landlord, and he states he would have assisted them to store the items in a less inconvenient place and he would have been aware that it was important to them to get the painting completed this earliest convenience. He says he had not been aware that the tenants were suffering any loss of amenity, stress or inconvenience because of his delay at completing this maintenance work.
I dismiss this claim for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. The windowpane incident
I have found the windowpane replacement incident was an unlawful entry. It was also a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment and privacy, but the tenants have been compensated for this breach under the unlawful entry head of claim. It would not be just to award further exemplary damages for the same incident under a different head of claim that is related to the original head of claim. The shower incident
The tenants says that around 8:30am on 17 November 2023, the female tenant was in shower in the ensuite when she saw the landlord painting the outside of the house outside the ensuite window. She had not been given any notice he was intending to undertake this work on this day.
From the ensuite the female tenant raced into the bedroom where she found the window and curtains open. The tenants produced a photograph of where the painting had stopped the night before, and then where it had started again that morning by the ensuite window. The female tenant says the landlord would have been able to hear the shower on as the window was slightly open at that time. She says she panicked as she had no place to go and she was not able to tell if he could see her or not.
The female tenant says the painting stopped after this incident and was never completed. She says further that she did not call out to the landlord and she just messaged her husband straight away, but he was at work, so she did not want to confront the landlord on her own.
The landlord says he doesn’t recall the incident at all, he always worked between 8:30am and 4:00pm when the tenants were away from the house, and he always made sure the windows were closed before he started painting. He confirmed he had the radio and headphones on when he painted so would not have heard the shower start. Further, he claims there are heavy curtains and venetian blinds two metres to the left and the ensuite window was frosted.
The landlord says he notified the tenants in the tenancy agreement that he intended to come to [City] to carry out this type of maintenance as it was required. Further, he had sent them a text message informing them he would do painting maintenance in next few months, but accepts he gave no notice just prior to each painting session as tenants had not given the landlord any restrictions.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached the female tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment when he failed to notify her that he would be painting outside her bedroom and ensuite windows that morning, when she may have been inside and using those rooms, under the reasonable expectation of privacy. I do not accept the text message sent on 25 August 2023 informing the tenants he would be painting the house over the next few months was the giving of sufficient notice that the female tenant could have prevented being caught in the shower at the time the landlord was painting just outside the shower window on 17 November 2023.
I find the tenants have proven the landlord breached their privacy on 17 November 2023 and that an award of exemplary damages would be just in this circumstance. However, s109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage in that this provision states that the tenants cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. Any such breach, if proven, would have occurred from 29 March 2025 and therefore the tenant would be statutorily barred from applying for exemplary damages for this breach from that date because the tenants made their application on 29 March 2026, well past the statutory timeframe to bring this claim. For this reason, I dismiss the tenants claim for exemplary damages for this proven breach. Repeated complaints about child noise
The tenants confirm they lived at the premise for over 8 years and over that time they received numerous messages about the noise the children made. They also confirm [The party] of this noise was never excessive.
The tenants say they tried to be mindful when the landlord was on site and that he was aware he had let the house to a family with 3 children that jump around and play. They say they had to restrict the children from jumping as much as they could and from being in the lounge when the landlord was living below. They also confirmed that despite the insulation, jumping on the ceiling caused the landlord to get a fright.
The tenants say one time they were in Sydney and got a message when their mother-in-law was minding children and they had to address the issue on the spot when they were on holiday.
Further, they say that if they had friends over, they had to ask them to be quiet with talking or laughing and told their guests kids to be quiet. They found this to be embarrassing. If playing board games, they say they had to move out of the lounge as they kept receiving text messages from the landlord.
The landlord says the house has fire walls, fire certification, sound proofing between the layers and insulation. He states that when you live above someone then it is not unreasonable to expect some courtesy when it comes to making noise above where he is living.
The landlord says he has been living there on and off for 30 years and had his own teenage daughter that stomps around. He produced text messages that show he has raised issues 3 times in 8 years. The first two were around 4:30pm after school when the children would run through the house and jump up in the lounge that was 2 steps up.
The second was at 6pm when the landlord had experienced a bit loud music/TV that carried on until well after midnight. He says this filtered into his bedroom and he could not go to sleep as his bedroom was under the lounge. The landlord said that given the proximity of the parties this is not an excessive number of complaints. These messages were in May 2018 and April 2020 and then in 2025 there was a message from the female tenant apologising about another incident the landlord had not raised.
The tenants claim the landlord’s complaints created the sense of apprehension when they were trying to be parents and have fun with their children. Since moving to new property, they now realise how much they were walking on eggshells until they moved. They say they felt they were judged and that big brother was staring down on them all the time.
The tenants have not produced sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. There were no specific incidents raised by the tenants for the landlord to answer to and the evidence the landlord has produced disproves the claim. The claim is dismissed. Weed spraying incident.
The tenants claim the landlord sprayed for weeds and damaged their vegetable garden on an undefined date. There was no photographic evidence to prove this claim, not were there any text messages between the parties after the alleged incident.’
The tenants say in 2019, just before COVID, they had a thriving garden on south side of the house, which they took as their own piece of the yard. The tenants say there were a few weeds on the cobbled path. They say they picked up on the video cameras, the landlord spraying, then their vegetable garden died off and there was no reason for this except from over spraying. They claim this happened multiple times.
The landlord says he had responsibility to maintain the yard and he did use organic spray on edges and pavers but did not spray their garden.
The tenants say they created a green house after this to stop it happening again. The landlord said if they had raised their concerns with him, they could have worked out a solution together, but the first he knew of this issue was after the tenancy had ended and the tenants started this litigation process.
The tenants have not produced sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. There were no specific incidents raised by the tenants for the landlord to answer to and the evidence the landlord has produced disproves the claim. The claim is dismissed Snail pellets in letter box and possum trap in yard
The tenants produced evidence of the landlord placing snail pellets in the letter box and setting a possum trap that he left loaded in yard when he was not on site.
The tenants explained how their youngest daughter went to get mail and tried to eat the snail bait in the letterbox. The tenants say they did not raise this with the landlord but “parented it” by explaining what it was and why it was dangerous to eat. They claim they were lucky she did not ingest more and become seriously ill.
The landlord explained that they had always had issues with snails eating the mail, bringing some recent snail eaten mail to the hearing with him as proof of the issue. He stated that he did not see it as an issue and never considered a child may try to ingest it. He did not understand why the tenants did not discuss this issue with him.
The tenants say they were woken on the night of 2 April 2022 by the terrible screaming, thumping and yelling of an possum that was trapped half in and half out of a trap. The trap had been laid under a tree in the back yard. They had not been aware of this trap until this incident. The landlord was away up north at the time and the male tenant was left having to kill the hysterical animal in the middle of the night. He had never been faced with an issue like this before and found it distressing, as did his family.
He stated that the trap was just lying on the ground and there was a label not to put fingers in it, that the children may not have read, and it could have broken the children’s wrists or fingers. He confirmed he did raise this issue with the landlord but explained what it was and what it did to the children so they would stay away from it.
The landlord confirmed he had not told the tenants there was going to be a trap laid and that there could have been consequences for the children if they touched it or put their hand inside. He stated the possums came out of the estuary and attack cats in the area at night and lived in the ceilings of the neighbouring houses so both neighbours also have possum traps. The landlord also stated that one neighbour had two dogs that the possums regularly harassed and that the neighbour on the right had possums in garden that ate all his produce.
The landlord stated he had also had possums come into the house and eat apple and that he had seen possums on the deck. He stated the trap is a humane one and that he only puts it out at night and not during the day. He also stated he only set it when he was in residence and not when he was away from [City]. He was unsure how the incident the male tenant described had occurred.
The landlord also stated the kids were aware the trap was there as one of the kids was doing ecology and they talked about possums at school and talked about the traps with the landlord.
I find the tenants have proven the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment on 2 April 2022 by leaving the possum trap set and trapping a possum they had to deal with and were not equipped to do so. I also find the snail pellets to be a breach of their quiet enjoyment.
I also find an award of exemplary damages would be just in this circumstance. However, s109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage in that this provision states that the tenants cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. Any such breach, if proven, would have occurred from 29 March 2025 and therefore the tenant would be statutorily barred from applying for exemplary damages for this breach from that date because the tenants made their application on 29 March 2026, well past the statutory timeframe to bring these claims. For this reason, I dismiss the tenants claim for exemplary damages for this proven breach.

The new pet consent law

From 1 December 2025, tenants may make a written request to keep a pet in a rental property. 6 Landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent. 7 Where 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 42C(1)(a) and 42E(1). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42E(4)(a) consent is given, a landlord can set reasonable conditions that apply to that consent. 8 The claim
The tenants wanted to have a small dog at the premises. They have three children and wanted the children to experience having a pet to love and care for and the kids wanted a dog of their own.
The landlord refused consent. The tenants offered to meet additional conditions. The landlord has maintained his refusal. The tenants have therefore moved to another premise where they have been able to have a dog and have applied to the Tribunal for exemplary damages for the landlord’s unreasonable refusal for them to keep a small dog at the premises. Relevant background facts The dog
The Tenants wanted to adopt a small dog, such as a German Spitz, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, or Dachshund. They stated all of these breeds are known for being gentle, low-impact, and well-suited to indoor living. The premises
The tenancy agreement provided for the tenants to keep two cats at the premise.
The premises is two level dwelling with the landlord living in a self-contained granny flat immediately below the tenants’ lounge area. The back yard is used by both parties as a shared facility.
I was not informed whether the property on which the premises sit is partially or fully fenced. The Tenant’s request
The tenancy started on 2 November 2017. On 3 December 2025, the tenants made a written request for consent to keep a small dog at the premises.
The tenants stated that if approved, they would have a full plan in place to ensure the dog was well trained, well supervised, and that the property was always kept clean and in great condition. They outlined what their plan was for training and behaviour management, supervision, toileting and waste, overall care and securing the outside areas, that consisted of installing a sturdy gate nearer to the bottom of the side yard by the outside tap at their cost. The Landlord’s response 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42C(1)(b) and section 42G.
The landlord responded on 4 December 2025 that he needed to talk to others and noted the original tenancy agreement excluded dogs for several reasons. He said he would come back to the tenants “next week sometime”. The Tenant’s followed up
The Tenants followed up with the landlord on 22 December 2025, as they had not heard anything and were wanting to purchase a dog for the children for Christmas.
On 22 December 2025, the Landlord maintained his refusal because: a. The original advertisement in 2017 stated no dogs; b. He and his wife do not believe the house is suitable for a dog as it is a shared property and they do not know who may end up living in the granny flat in the future and therefore a dog would place limits on who they could rent the granny flat too. If it were a standalone house that would be a different consideration; c. Recent experiences show that the rear neighbour’s dog annoys neighbours and that any dog can engage in the type of barking behaviours that cause neighbourhood disruption; d. The landlord and his wife do not want to be barked at when going to the letter box or back lawn; and e. The tenants have more pets at the house (5 cats) than is provided for in the tenancy agreement and more pets cause more wear and tear on a premise. The relevant law
The relevant law (the pet consent rules) is in sections 42E, 42F and 42G of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986: 42E Written consent for tenant to keep pet (1) If the tenant makes a written request to the landlord for consent for the tenant to keep a pet on the premises, the landlord must respond in writing within 21 days of receiving the request. (2) The landlord’s response must include— (a) the landlord’s decision on whether consent is given or refused; and (b) if consent is given, any reasonable conditions attached to the consent; and (c) if consent is refused, the grounds for the refusal. (3) The landlord’s response may set out details of— (a) which pet or pets the consent applies to (for example, a specific pet, pets generally, a specified number of pets, or a specified type or breed of pet); and (b) reasonable requirements relating to the characteristics of the pet or pets (for example, relating to size or breed). (4) The landlord must not— (a) refuse consent without reasonable grounds; or (b) attach an unreasonable condition to the consent. (5) A landlord who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an unlawful act. (6) A landlord who fails to comply with subsection (4)(a) commits an unlawful act. 42F Reasonable grounds for prohibiting tenant from, or refusing tenant consent for, keeping pet For the purposes of sections 42D and 42E, reasonable grounds for prohibiting a tenant from keeping a pet in a tenancy agreement or refusing consent for a tenant to keep a pet include the following (for example): (a) the premises are not suitable for the pet or pets (for example, because of the size or fencing of the premises, or other unique features of the premises): (b) a rule or bylaw applying to the premises under this Act or other legislation prohibits the pet or pets from being kept on the premises: (c) the tenant has not complied with relevant bylaws relating to the pet or type of pet: (d) the pet or pets are not suitable for the premises— (i) due to the number of pets; or (ii) due to their size or type (for example, their species or breed); or (iii) due to their propensity for causing damage to premises or disruption to other persons residing in the neighbourhood; or (iv) because they include a dog that has been classified as dangerous or menacing under the Dog Control Act 1996; or (v) because there is good reason to believe they have previously attacked persons, livestock, or other pets: (e) the tenant has not agreed with a reasonable condition to which the landlord proposes to make the tenancy agreement or the consent subject: (f) the tenant has previously failed to comply with a reasonable condition relating to the tenant keeping a pet. 42G Reasonable conditions relating to tenant keeping pet (1) For the purposes of sections 42C to 42F, a condition relating to a tenant keeping a pet that is set out in a tenancy agreement or attached to a landlord’s consent must be reasonable having regard to the nature of the premises and the type of pet or pets to which it applies. (2) Reasonable conditions may include the following (for example): (a) a condition that the tenant agree to pay an amount of pet bond set by the landlord in accordance with section 18AA (and agree to a variation of the tenancy agreement under section 13B to that effect): (b) a condition requiring a pet or pets to be restrained while a landlord lawfully enters the premises: (c) if a pet is allowed inside the premises, a condition requiring the carpets in the premises to be cleaned to a professional standard at the end of the tenancy. (3) Subsection (2) is subject to subsection (1). The purpose of the pet consent rules
The text of the pet consent rules is clear. The pet consent rules enable tenants to keep pets, while providing landlords with the ability to impose reasonable conditions or refuse consent where there are good grounds to do so.
But the text leaves important questions of statutory interpretation unanswered. Parliament has recognised that interpretation of these rules will be required, and that the Tribunal, as the “arbiter of tenancy law” will be left to interpret how these new rules apply in practice. 9 To do that, the Tribunal must also look to the purpose of the pet consent rules.
That is because the meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose. 10 As the Supreme Court stated in Commerce Commission v Fonterra, text and purpose are the two main drivers of statutory interpretation. 11 The Court also stated that “[e]ven if a meaning of any text may appear plain in isolation of purpose, that meaning should always be cross checked against purpose in order to observe the dual requirements of s 5.” 12 When determining Parliament’s intention, it is also permissible to look to the legislative history of a provision, including parliamentary speeches.
When I look to the text of the pet consent rules and the relevant legislative history, Parliament’s intention becomes clear.
The pet consent rules are an intentional move away from blanket “no pet” policies and are intended to enable tenants to have pets, while enabling a landlord to decline consent – but only where it is reasonable to do so.
The pet consent rules recognise the benefits that humans receive from keeping pets, including by aiding stability and social life for many people and being important for friendship, fellowship, and mental health. The pet consent rules are 9 (10 December 2024) 708 NZPD (Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill – Committee of the House, Chris Bishop) at 8008 10 Interpretation Act 1991, section 5(1). 11 Commerce Commission v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2007] NZSC 36, [2007] 3 NZLR 767 at [22]. 12 At [22] a deliberate “reversion of the status quo”, a reversal of the presumption against tenants having pets. Parliament intended to make it easier for tenants to have pets. 13 14
Parliament has balanced these new permissive rules with other rules enabling a landlord to impose reasonable conditions (including a pet bond), or to withhold consent altogether where there are reasonable grounds to do so. What is clear though is that the starting point for these new rules is that pets are permitted, with the landlord only able to refuse consent, or impose conditions, where reasonable. The two-stage approach to assessing reasonableness
This claim is about reasonable grounds for refusing consent for a pet. When considering whether a landlord has unreasonably refused consent, I consider that a two-stage assessment is required.
The first stage is a factual assessment. Why was the consent withheld, and what were the reasons given for the refusal of consent?
The second stage is an assessment of the reasonableness of that decision - whether the reasons given provide reasonable grounds for withholding consent. This can be approached by asking whether a reasonable landlord, having regard to the text and purpose of the pet consent rules, could withhold consent.
This two-stage approach is consistent with Supreme Court and Court of Appeal case law relating to the other entitlements to withhold consent, subject to a general reasonableness limitation. 15 The relevant principles that apply to the second stage assessment
The second stage of the assessment of the reasonableness of the Landlord’s decision should not be constrained by rigid rules. What is reasonable will differ in each case and should be determined with reference to the facts of the case and the text and purpose of the pet consent rules, and the principles derived from that text and purpose.
In the circumstances of this case, the following principles can be taken from the text and purpose of the pet consent rules to assist in determining whether the Landlord’s refusal of consent was reasonable. This is not an exhaustive list of all principles that may apply to the pet consent assessment. Other relevant principles will need to be addressed as they arise in other cases, and some of these principles may not be relevant in other cases. But these are the principles that apply in this case. 13 (10 December 2024) 708 NZPD (Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill – Committee of the House, Chris Bishop) at 8008 14 (10 December 2024) 708 NZPD (Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill – Third Reading, Chris Bishop) at 8082 15 For example, Greymouth Gas Kamiro Ltd v GXL Royalties Ltd [2010] NZSC 117, [2011] 1 NZLR 289 and Liow v Martelli [2026] NZCA 101 Landlord should consider requests in good faith
A landlord must consider the request, must respond in writing, 16 cannot refuse consent without reasonable grounds 17 or attach an unreasonable condition. 18 This means a landlord should have an open mind and consider each request in good faith - with honesty, fairness, reasonableness, and the absence of ulterior motive or impropriety. Landlord must consider the premises and the particular pet
Where a tenant requests consent for a particular pet, consideration of the request requires an assessment of the premises and that pet. Parliament has intentionally used the definitive article when drafting the pet consent rules. Section 42F specifically refers to “the pet”, and “the premises”.
Dogs provide a useful example for why this case-by-case assessment is required. A property may not necessarily be unsuitable for a dog just because it is unfenced or small. An unfenced and/or small property may still be suitable for a small, well-behaved, house-trained dog but may be unsuitable for another. Just as a large and fenced property might be suitable for one dog, but unsuitable for a different dog.
Likewise, the property will not necessarily be unsuitable due to the proximity of neighbours and/or the potential for barking. Again, what is required is an assessment of the premises, its neighbourhood, and of the dog, its breed, its training and its propensity to bark.
This will always be a case-by-case assessment. Decisions like this, and other decisions of the Tribunal and Courts, can provide guidance as to the principles that apply to any pet consent assessment, but the factors that need to be considered, and the outcome of the assessment in each case, will be fact dependant. Grounds relied upon by a landlord should be more than hypothetical
Given Parliament’s clearly signalled reversion of the status quo to now enable tenants to keep pets and the need to focus on the suitability of the particular pet and premises, reasonable grounds cannot be established by theoretical possibilities or generalised concerns alone. Any grounds relied upon by a landlord should be supported by a rational evidential foundation, properly connected to the particular pet, the premises, and the relevant circumstances. Landlord should consider whether conditions, including conditions proposed by the tenant, could mitigate any identified concerns 16 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42E(1) 17 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42E(4)(a) 18 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42E(4)(b)
Where a landlord has concerns about the pet or the suitability of the premises for that pet, the landlord should [The party]theless consider whether its concerns can be adequately mitigated by the payment of a pet bond and/or the imposition of other reasonable conditions, including conditions proposed by the tenant.
This is consistent with the text and purpose of the pet consent rules. The starting point is that pets are permitted, and a landlord may withhold consent, but only on reasonable grounds. A good faith assessment of the tenant’s request to keep a pet should include consideration of whether reasonable conditions can mitigate the landlord’s concerns.
If reasonable conditions do not address the landlord’s concerns, then there will be reasonable grounds to refuse consent. But if reasonable conditions can address the landlord’s concerns, consent should be given on those conditions. Landlord must consent to any minor change to make the premises suitable for a pet
A landlord cannot withhold consent to the tenant making minor changes to the premises. 19 A minor change is a change that: 20 (a)Presents no more than a low risk of material damage to the property. (b)Does not compromise the building’s structural integrity, weathertightness, or character. (c)Does not pose a health and safety risk. (d)Can be easily reversed (by the tenant) at the end of the tenancy. (e)Does not affect anyone’s enjoyment of the property (such as neighbours). (f)Does not require any regulatory consent. (g)Does not breach any laws or body corporate rules.
A landlord who withholds consent to a minor change commits an unlawful act. 21 It follows that a landlord must consent to any minor changes required to make the premises suitable for a pet. In considering a tenant’s request to keep a pet, the landlord should then consider whether, in light of those minor changes, the premises are suitable for a pet. Even if minor changes can be, or have been, made to make the premises more suitable, a landlord may still decline consent if it otherwise has reasonable grounds to do so. Landlord must provide clear written reasons for refusal 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42B(1) 20 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42B(2) 21 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42B(2)
Tenants are entitled to clear reasons why consent was refused. 22 A failure to provide a clear written response may be an unlawful act, 23 and may demonstrate to the Tribunal that the landlord did not have reasonable grounds at the time the decision was made. My assessment First stage – the reasons given for refusal
The landlord’s initial grounds for refusal, as communicated by Mr Cooper on 22 December 2025 gave the tenants clear reasons for why consent was refused, but did not address whether the plan the tenants set out would or would not mitigate the landlord’s concerns. For example, keeping the dog indoors and always supervised or away from the premise with the tenants or at a doggy day care may have been able to alleviate the landlord’s fears about being barked at in the yard or at the letter box or having the dog upset the neighbours or their dogs by barking relentlessly.
However, the response complies with the requirement to give clear written reason for any refusal, and these are the grounds that I will consider in determining whether the grounds for refusal were reasonable. Stage two – assessment of the reasonableness of the grounds for refusal
I find that three of the Landlord’s grounds for refusal, as communicated to the tenants on 22 December 2025, were understandable. The landlord’s concerns about the suitability of the premises for a dog due to needing to toilet in the back yard and that activity causing the landlord or another future tenant of the granny flat stress and loss of amenity of the yard. The possibility that the dog may never toilet outside or be outside was not considered realistic by the landlord. However, for the reasons I will discuss below, those concerns can be adequately addressed by the reasonable conditions, including conditions proposed by the Tenants.
The landlord’s views on the dog’s propensity to bark or to disturb neighbours were not reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord had no objective basis on which it could reasonably have considered that this dog would unreasonably disturb neighbours by barking. The landlord appears to have a generalised concern that the dog might bark, but I am not satisfied that the evidence shows that these breeds of dogs have a propensity to bark excessively or to the extent that its barking might unreasonably disturb neighbours and their pets if constantly supervised and well trained.
The landlord did not address any concern about noise transmitting through shared walls and ceilings, but I saw no evidence that the soundproofing in these 22 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42E(1) 23 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42E(5) premises was so deficient that the presence of this dog could lead to an unreasonable interference with the landlord’s or his neighbour’s quiet enjoyment.
Despite some of the landlord’s concerns being initially understandable, such as more wear and tear on the premise, I [The party]theless find that the landlord’s ongoing refusal of consent was not reasonable in the circumstances. A good-faith assessment of the tenant’s request to keep the pet should have included consideration of whether the reasonable conditions the tenants offered would mitigate the landlord’s valid concerns. If reasonable conditions did not address the landlord’s concerns, then consent could be reasonably withheld. But if reasonable conditions did address the landlord’s concerns, consent should have been given on those conditions.
I am not satisfied that the landlord reasonably considered whether any conditions could mitigate its concerns. In particular, the landlord did not take adequate account of the conditions proposed by the tenants.
I therefore consider that, acting in good faith and consistent with the text and purpose of the pet consent rules, the landlord ought to have consented to the dog on the conditions proposed by the tenants. I therefore find that the landlord’s refusal was not reasonable. Outcome
The Landlord has refused consent to keep the dog, without reasonable grounds, and has therefore committed an unlawful act. 24 But I decline to award exemplary damages. 25
These are new rules, and I suspect many landlords and tenants are grappling with the proper interpretation of the rules. Until these rules are entrenched and understood, the Tribunal should be slow to award exemplary damages where a party has tried to act in good faith, as the Landlord has here, but then made a judgement call that fell the wrong side of the line. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. 24 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42E(6) 25 The Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $1,500 where a landlord refuses consent without reasonable grounds. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenants’ names and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5477935 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5477935 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

At a glance

Award balance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Did the landlord unreasonably withhold consent for a pet?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Did the landlord unreasonably withhold consent for a pet?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.