What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5547744 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 5547744?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5547744?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5547744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14111765-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5547744 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 5547744?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5547744?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5547744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14111765-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5547744 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The hearing is adjourned.
The tenant’s application that a notice to end the tenancy dated 9 July 2026 is retaliatory is dismissed.
A further 180 minutes should be allowed for the next hearing of this matter, scheduled before me remotely on the next available date after 7 October 2026.

Reasons

The parties attended the hearing that took place remotely. The landlord’s property managers attended and both tenants attended the hearing albeit that [The tenant/s] had to leave the hearing early.
It was clarified that, the original landlord having passed away, the property was now owned by a trust. The respondent landlord is therefore amended with the agreement of the parties to reflect the current ownership position.
The tenants requested an adjournment due to difficulties providing documents to the Tribunal. However, I declined to adjourn the matter in relation to retaliatory notice as it was particularly important for both parties to have clarity in relation to this as soon as possible. I proceeded with the hearing dealing with this aspect of the application only and being satisfied that any relevant documents could be identified and addressed during the hearing as necessary.
Accordingly, at today's hearing I dealt only with part of the tenants' application, namely whether the notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory.
During the hearing, the tenants did refer to one such document not yet uploaded, being correspondence from their doctors. This was discussed, and it became apparent that the landlord did not dispute the existence or contents of the documents in any event. The landlord had the documents and read them to the Tribunal, enabling me to consider its contents in full.

CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

As explained in the hearing the applicant of each application is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. 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. It is the applicant that must prove their case.
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.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this order.

RETALIATORY NOTICE

Facts

I heard how the landlord gave the tenants a 90 day notice to end their tenancy on 9 July 2026. The last day of the tenancy is expressed to be 7 October 2026. The tenants say this notice is retaliatory because the landlord was concerned that the tenants were not going to remove the cats and terminated the tenancy instead of considering a request for the tenant, supported by medical evidence, to keep an additional 15 cats 1 .
The tenancy began in 2020 and the tenancy agreement permits the tenant to keep “5 cats, fixed (cleaning of carpet as when required)”. I heard from the tenants how they presently have 19 indoor cats at the premises. The premises are a 2-bedroom home. The cat litter trays are kept in a sunroom.
The tenants say that on 26 June 2026 they met with the property manager, and they were given an informal notice (in a letter dated 25 June) about the condition of the property. The notice refers to the need for cleaning, opening windows and ventilating, minimising unsafe household items (clutter) and ensuring the property has no more than five cats. In part the notice also states:
There was also reference in the letter about the landlord providing cat proof mesh to allow the tenant to open windows with the cats still inside.
On this date, when the issue was being discussed with the property manager, the tenant advised they were keeping additional cats but did not tell the landlord how many and simply told them they “did not want to know” how many they had.
The tenants say that the mould is caused by a dampness problem that has been caused by a historical leak. They say it is a structural issue and until it is fixed the room is not safe. They say the soaked carpets the landlord refers to is from the damp problem as it was a wet day when they visited. They say it is not urine soaked. However, they say the carpet is stained in places but is otherwise dry.
On 29 June 2026 the tenant sent the landlord a lengthy text message. They put forward a proposal to keep all of their cats. It involved a proposal to do renovations to “drastically cut down/eliminate cat smells”. The message referred to replacing carpet with lino, replacing wallpaper with non-porous paint, replacing a curtain with frosted film, changing litter boxes to a different kind 1 As at the time of the hearing it is an additional 14 cats but at the time of the request it was 15 additional cats. (allowing filtering wet litter), treating the subfloor with an enzyme treatment and sealant and getting a filter near the litter boxes. The tenants said they would get no more cats and would get rid of the whole garden if necessary for the cats and would be more proactive in keeping the property clean. It referred to building a shelving in the porch and bedroom to minimise cat towers and approaching the bank for a loan for these renovations.
The property manager first replied saying she would need to go to the landlord and but then asked how many cats there were. The tenant replied there were 20 and that they were not outside cats. The tenant confirmed at the hearing these cats were indoor cats only. She wanted permission to keep them all.
The landlord replied that the answer would be no. It referred back to the letter provided on 26 June referring to the ability to keep 5 cats and the fact that there are too many cats. After a discussion about kittens (there is disagreement about whether kittens can be kept but nothing turns on this) the property manager continues to state the position is no and the agreement is limited to 5 cats and that the property owners had already said this in the letter provided on 26 June. After requests from the tenant the property manager agreed to send the request of the tenant to the landlord. She repeated again that she can send it but there can’t be more than 5 cats.
There is no dispute that on 6 July the tenants submitted to the landlord recently obtained letters from their doctors which confirmed that [The tenant/s’s] mental well-being was suffering as a result of the tenancy and the cats. He considers them to be family members and is suffering from stress. [The tenant/s’s] letter referred to her need to have animals and her 20 cats for her mental health due to past trauma.
As set out above the landlord then sent the tenants a letter terminating their tenancy giving a 90-day notice on 9 July 2026.
The tenant says that the timing of the notice highlights that it is retaliatory given that it was given 3 days after medical evidence was provided.
The landlord says that in a nutshell, until a builder recently reported a significant number of cats the landlord did not know there were so many cats at the premises. Previously, the additional cats would be uplifted prior to notified inspections. The tenant had been deceitful in hiding the cats. The tenant did not dispute this and did not dispute the landlord’s reference to, at the meeting on 26 June, the tenant expressing a relief not to have to hide the cats anymore.
The landlord says that the tenancy was terminated because of the deteriorating condition and damage to the property given that it seemed that the tenants were not going to remove the excess cats.
I heard that the smell is such that it “churns the stomach”. The landlord says that tradespeople have refused to attend due to the condition of the property being clutter, cats and smell. The landlord agreed to assist with cleaning of mould, but says tradespeople would not attend to do this work due to not being able to get access. A messages from tradespeople on quotes supported this. The landlord says there is damage to the walls, doors and carpets from cats.
The landlord refers to problems with ventilation because they say that the windows are kept closed to retain the cats. They say a lack of ventilation is causing mould. The landlord says there has been a history of clutter and provided historic inspection reports to evidence this. Historic reports also refer to ongoing issues with smell and keeping windows closed due to cats.
The property manager says that matters came to a head when they had a meeting with the trust owners of the property. They advised that they would no longer be able to manage the property on their behalf unless the matters in the letter given to the tenants on 26 June were addressed. I heard how the landlord is in close contact with the property manager. The landlord wanted the property decluttered, the property ventilated and the additional 14/15 cats removed. They considered that the cats were excessive and that damage was being done by the cats and was deteriorating the property.
After the termination notice was given, the tenant sent additional proposals to the landlord about managing the cats with works to the property. These works are significant and not immediate. For instance, in part it proposed a “catio” being constructed within 12-18 months. Analysis
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord issued a termination notice under s 50(1) of the RTA. Section 51(1) is a general termination provision which allows a landlord to terminate the tenancy by giving the tenant 90 days’ notice. The landlord does not need to have any particular reason to issue a 90-day termination notice, and they are not required to tell the tenant why the tenancy is to terminate. However, such a termination notice issued under section 51, cannot be a retaliatory termination notice. There is no dispute as to the validity of the notice itself. The dispute is whether it is retaliatory.
Section 54 of the RTA holds that the Tribunal may declare a notice to terminate a tenancy of no effect, and retaliatory: 54Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1) This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U). (2) The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a) that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b) that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. (3) If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. (4) If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in subsection (2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under subsection (3), of no effect. (5) However, the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the case of subsection (2)(a), the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. [my emphasis]
In short, a retaliatory termination notice is one that is issued in response, even partly, to the tenant exercising some right, power, authority, remedy, or complaint in relation to the tenancy.
The law relating to pets is new. The relevant law (the pet consent rules) is in sections 42E, 42F and 42G RTA. In a nutshell where a tenant makes a written request to keep a pet, the landlord must respond in writing within 21 days, advising whether consent is granted or refused. If consent is granted, the landlord may impose reasonable conditions, and if consent is refused, the landlord must provide reasonable grounds for the refusal. Reasonable grounds for refusing a pet may include that the property is unsuitable for the animal and the number of pets.
The landlord refused the tenant their request for an additional 15 cats (on top to the 5 in their tenancy agreement) on 29 June by text message. From the discussion the response was clearly based on the number of cats and the property. The response was also in the context of existing discussions with the tenant about the fact their tenancy agreement already permitted them five cats and now there were significantly more cats at the premises and the issues in the letter given on 26 June.
In the specific circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that the landlord gave notice on 9 July to end the tenancy wholly or partially on the basis of the tenants exercising a right not to remove the additional 14/15 cats or for the landlord to consider a request for additional pets.
First, a tenant does not have an automatic right to keep 20 cats at the premises, even where they assist with mental health. The RTA makes it clear that keeping a pet at the premises (or additional pets for which no consent has been given) without the landlord's consent is a breach. The seriousness of such conduct is reflected in the fact that the RTA provides for an award of exemplary damages in appropriate cases. The availability of exemplary damages signals Parliament's intention to deter tenants from keeping pets without permission. It shows the importance of complying with the terms of the tenancy and the mechanisms within the RTA for making requests for pets. The potential for exemplary damages demonstrates that keeping pets without or beyond the terms of any consent is not a trivial or simply technical breach.
At the time the notice to end the tenancy was given the tenant only had a right to keep 5 cats. Without consent from the landlord for the additional 14/15 cats the tenant was in breach of the tenancy agreement by keeping additional cats. Simply because consent was later sought does not mean the tenant had a right to keep the animals there without consent. There was no right for the tenant to keep the additional cats at the premises at the stage the tenancy was terminated. In the absence of a right to keep the additional cats/not to remove them at the date notice to terminate was given, an application for a retaliatory notice cannot succeed on this basis.
I must still consider the pet request to have the additional cats that was made by the tenants in the context of this retaliatory notice application. I accept that the tenants did have a right to make this request to the landlord that is part of the new law set out above.
However, I am satisfied that the landlord gave notice not because of the tenant exercising their right to make a request about the additional cats but because (a) it had recently become aware that a far greater amount of cats had been living at the property than that permitted by the tenancy agreement in breach of the tenancy agreement; combined with (b) that the landlord was concerned about existing and ongoing damage given the number of cats that were being kept indoors in a two bedroom property and the way in which the property was being kept overall.
I accept that the landlord’s concerns about smell, damage and the overall condition of the property to be genuine given the number of cats at the premises and the photographs and comments in inspection reports.
The tenant also referred to an alleged unlawful entry by the landlord on 7 August as supporting the claim the notice given was retaliatory. However, I find that the evidence given on this issue, does not support a finding that the notice is retaliatory. The notice was given on 9 July. That is before 7 August when this event is said to have taken place. I can find no connection to this allegation to the giving of the notice to end the tenancy. It is best considered as part of the tenant’s application for a breach of quiet enjoyment as set out below.
The tenants’ claim that the notice is retaliatory is therefore dismissed.

THE FUTURE OF THE CASE

For the avoidance of doubt, because this part of the tenants’ application has been dismissed this means that the tenancy will end on the date set out in the 90-day notice being 7 October 2026.
I clarified the tenant’s application and the tenant explained they sought other orders relating to: a. Whether they should be permitted to allow the keeping of the additional 14 cats (making the total 19); b. A work order to investigate dampness they tenant says is at the premises; c. $7,000 for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment relating to: (a) photographs taken from outside the house on 21 August 2026; (b) entry without notice on 7 August and (c) the conduct of the property manager at a meeting on 7 August.
I have adjourned the balance of this hearing. I consider it pragmatic to adjourn it to a date after 7 October after this tenancy has ended. Given the tenancy will have ended by this stage, the focus at the next hearing will be on the claim for breach of quiet enjoyment.
The parties will be notified in writing by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next hearing.

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Both parties seek name suppression. The landlord has been successful in this part of the application and the tenant has not.
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 (s95A RTA).
I am satisfied that the landlord has had success in this part of the application to justify name suppression overall. This part of the application was a considerable and key part of the application that has been bought.
The tenant has not been successful in this part of the application. However, I have a discretion to grant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public.
Taking into account the circumstances of the case I consider it appropriate to grant the tenants name suppression in any event. There is considerable public interest in decisions involving the new law relating to pets. The public interest however is in the outcome of the decision rather than the identity of the tenants. Further, I accept that here the tenants have proven mental health issues. Publication of their names is unlikely to assist with their mental health and may cause undue hardship at a time that will be difficult in any event now their tenancy will be ending. The landlord was also accommodating of their request and did not oppose it. I therefore also award the tenants name suppression.
Filing fee reimbursement will be considered after orders have been made relating to all matters.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5547744 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5547744 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

RETALIATORY NOTICE

THE FUTURE OF THE CASE

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

RETALIATORY NOTICE

THE FUTURE OF THE CASE

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.