What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5564919 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 24

How much money was awarded in case 5564919?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5564919?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5564919?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14193436-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5564919 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 24

How much money was awarded in case 5564919?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5564919?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5564919?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14193436-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

211B Maungatapu Road, Tauranga, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5564919 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal declares that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 24 August 2026 is retaliatory and that notice is of no effect, and it set aside.
The hearing is adjourned.
A one-day face to face hearing should be allowed for the next hearing of this matter before me in the Tauranga registry.
If the tenant intends to produce any additional evidence at the next hearing, they must email this evidence to the Tribunal and to the other party within 21 days after the date of this order. The landlord will have 21 days thereafter to file any evidence in response, which must be sent to the Tribunal and the tenant. •Tribunal email address:taurangatt@justice.govt.nz
If the landlord also has a claim they want dealt with at the next hearing, they must file their application with Tenancy Services within 28 days of this order and refer to the current application number.
This order is to be published, and no suppression orders apply.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This matter was scheduled for an initial hearing to determine whether the landlord’s termination notice served on the tenant on 24 August 2026 is a retaliatory termination notice and should be set aside.
I have also used the hearing as a case conference to confirm the claims, confirm what further evidence needs to be filed and circulated and work out what else might need to be done for the hearing.
In this order I will set out the relevant legal considerations and set out considerations in respect of compensation and exemplary damages. I will then determine the retaliatory termination notice claim. Finally, I will set out the claims and directions for the next hearing.
The parties have confirmed that they have been correctly identified in the application. However, Mr Conder was assisted with Mrs Conder at the hearing. Neither party sought that I add Mrs Conder as a landlord to the proceedings, despite the correspondence between the parties indicating she was a landlord with Mr Conder.
The background of this tenancy is that the landlord’s son (S) initially lived in this home with his girlfriend and friend Paul (P). S and his girlfriend separated and so S moved out, leaving the girlfriend and P in the home. Some of S’s personal belongings remained stored in the shed. The girlfriend vacated and P remained living in the premises. P allowed the tenant and her family to move in. P then moved out in March 2026 but arranged with the landlord for the tenant to remain living in the premises. No tenancy agreement was signed however the tenant’s paid rent to the landlord. The landlord says they met the tenant in October 2025.
In July 2026 the tenant says she has asked the landlord to undertake repairs to the roof. At about this time the tenant says she also advised the landlord that another person would be living in the premises and the landlord asked for additional rent. In response the tenant says she asked for a tenancy agreement. The tenant says the landlord did not address the tenant’s concern about the roof and on 7 August 2026 she sent the landlord a 14 day notice to remedy various breaches. On 16 August 2026 the landlord advised the tenant that they would be selling the home and on 24 August 2026 the landlord gave the tenant’s a 90-day termination notice. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies in these proceedings is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 1 , 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 deciding any particular 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. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 3 the Court of Appeal said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.” 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 3 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P)
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest and whether it is just to make the award. 4
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each separate breach that may have occurred under the same provision of the RTA. 5
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 6

Did the landlord serve the tenant with a retaliatory termination notice?

The tenant says the landlord served them with a retaliatory termination notice. Relevant Law – retaliatory termination notice
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any relevant Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. 7
The notice given by the landlord terminating the tenancy must also comply with the requirements of s 51 of the RTA which provide for prescribed notice periods and standards for the termination notice. 8
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. 9
The Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, 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. 10 4 RTA, s 109 5 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583. 6 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 7 RTA, s 54(1) –(2). 8 RTA, s 54(1). 9 RTA, s 54 (3). 10 RTA, s 54 (5).
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 11
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint. The Tribunal in Easton v Marks 12 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the landlord was not incited or impelled by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal in that case noted that: “It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that the tenants gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.”
A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 13
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

The notice complies with the technical requirements of s 51 RTA.

Was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served?

On 17 August 2026 the landlord advised the tenant that they would be serving her with a 90-day termination notice.
The application was filed on 19 August 2026.
The formal 90-day termination notice was served on the on 24 August 2025 and I consider her application to set aside the termination notice is, in effect, 11 RTA, s 54(2), (6) and Schedule 1A. 12 Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987 13 Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988 within 28 days of receiving the letter advising her that she would be served with the termination notice, accordingly I consider there is jurisdiction to declare the notice of no effect if it is declared retaliatory. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord?
The tenant says on 6 August 2026 they served the landlord with a 14-day notice to remedy the following breaches (breach notice).: a. No written tenancy agreement b. Failing to maintain the premises c. Failure in respect of cleanliness d. Failure to comply with safety and building codes e. Failure to comply with healthy homes standards f. Unlawful entry g. Breach of quiet enjoyment h. Incorrect water charges i. Lack of adequate locks
The tenant required the landlord remedy the breaches within 14 days by ensuring compliance with the healthy homes standards, removing their belongings and providing access to the shed and providing a tenancy agreement.
The tenant says on 24 August 2026 the landlord has served her with a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy (termination notice). The tenant says this notice is retaliatory and she would like it to be set aside so that she can remain living in the premises. The tenant is due to give birth days before the termination date stated in the termination notice.
Given the very short time between the tenant’s complaint and the termination notice being issued there is an inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant’s complaint. This then puts an evidential onus on the landlord to show that they were not motivated, even in part, by the tenant exercising her right to make a complaint. 14
The landlord says that they are entitled to give a “no cause” 90-day termination notice and they did so because they are selling the home. The landlord says the prospective purchaser has obtained a registered valuation and they were meeting with the prospective purchaser on the night of the 14 McIntyre v Just Junction 2017 NZTT 4067876. hearing to discuss the sale and purchase of the property. On my direct question as to who they were discussing the purchase with the landlord’s said a friend of their sons and did not provide the name.
The termination notice says it has been the intention of the landlord to sell the property and they will do so immediately after the notice period expires or as soon as the tenant vacates.
The landlord did not provide a copy of the registered valuation or any correspondence from the prospective purchaser to corroborate their evidence.
On 16 August 2026, in the correspondence from the landlord to the tenant to notify the tenant that the landlord intended to sell the property the landlord said: oThis is in response to your email dated 13 August (and the series of text messages) regarding the property. oWe have sought advice. We do not accept liability for the amounts you are seeking and will not be making the payments requested. If you wish to pursue these matters, please contact the Tenancy Tribunal and we will respond through that process. oThere is no written tenancy agreement between us - this is because the property is a family home and was never intended to be operated as a rental property. While our son is currently (temporarily) not living at the address, we have allowed friends to use the property to help cover the mortgage. oAs the property was never intended to be a rental property, we have not considered the requirements that apply to rental properties, including the Healthy Homes Standards. oWe also want to make clear that we have always sought to respect your privacy and have not deliberately entered the property without your knowledge or without appropriate notice or agreement. We reject any suggestion that we have harassed you or deliberately interfered with your use of the property. oThe money you are paying to stay at the property is significantly below the current median rent for properties in the Maungatapu area - the current medium rent in Maungatapu is $750 per week. We have nevertheless continued to meet our responsibilities as owners of the property and have not sought to increase the rent to market levels. oWe have now made the decision to sell the property. The situation surrounding the property, and the ongoing correspondence, has become increasingly difficult for our family and is taking a significant toll on us. We no longer wish to continue with this arrangement. (my emphasis added) oWe are therefore proceeding with arrangements to obtain a valuation of the property and prepare it for sale. A valuer will need to attend the property, and we will provide you with reasonable notice of the proposed date and time of that visit. oFollowing the valuation and in accordance with tenancy requirements, we will provide you with formal written notice. Our intention is to provide the required 90 days' notice and have the property vacant so that it can be sold.
The landlords have also raised a concern about the ongoing water rates needing to be paid.
In considering all the evidence I find that the termination notice was a retaliatory termination notice because I consider it likely that in giving the notice (to use the words of section 54 RTA) the landlord was at least partly motivated by the complaints by the tenant in relation to the tenancy. By way of the breach notice the tenants had complained particularly about the lack of the tenancy agreement and compliance with the healthy homes standards. I consider this breach notice and associated communication from the tenant was a motivating factor for the landlord’s decision to terminate the tenancy.
I am confident that the landlord’s decision to issue the termination notice was in part because of the tenants’ complaints set out in the breach notice and I consider that the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to show that they were not motivated, even in part, by the tenants exercising their rights to complain about the tenancy by way of their breach notice. I consider it more likely they were impelled to serve the termination notice after receiving the breach notice. Was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
I do not consider the landlord was justified in giving the termination notice because the tenant’s complaint was frivolous or vexatious.
Accordingly, I declare that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 28 August 2026 is retaliatory and that notice is of no effect, and it set aside.
The issue of compensation and exemplary damages is reserved to be addressed in the final order. The remaining claims
The tenant claims compensation (effectively $11,000 which is referred to as a rent reduction) and exemplary damages.
The claims are: a. Failure to provide a tenancy agreement - RTA, s 13 b. Failure to provide a healthy homes compliance statement - RTA, s 13A c. Failure to maintain the premises – RTA, s 45 d. Breach of the healthy homes standards - heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage - Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) – RTA s 45 and and HHS. e. Failure to provide smoke alarms – RTA,s 45. - Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 f. Unlawful entry - RTA, s 48 g. Breach of quiet enjoyment - s 38 RTA h. Reimbursement of the filing fee – s 102 RTA.
There is no claim in respect of the premises being unclean at the start of the tenancy Additional claims
If either party has additional claims /a cross application, they must file a fresh application and pay the application filing fee. This will allow the claim to be assessed by Tenancy Services and scheduled with the hearing for these matters. Evidence / submissions to be filed
The parties must file the evidence and submissions they rely on prior to the hearing pursuant to the directions set out in the order above.
A timeline or statement in chronological order will assist the adjudicator. Paragraphs should be numbered. Pages should be numbered.
Any photographs should be date stamped and captioned, preferably in PDF files with the pages numbered. Emails and text messages should be reproduced with their original date/time stamp. Any videos /recordings should be date stamped.
The parties must ensure the other party receives a copy of all the evidence that they file. Any evidence that a party is not willing to provide to the other party cannot be considered.
The parties should bring copies of their evidence to the hearing for them to refer to during the hearing. This will help the hearing run smoothly. Witnesses
Witnesses are people who are not a party to the claim but will be giving evidence at the hearing. The witnesses will need to wait outside the courtroom until they’re called to give their evidence. If someone refuses to come, either party can ask the Tribunal for a witness summons.
The tenant’s may call her partner Chaz to give evidence.
The landlord is to advise the Tribunal and the tenant if he intends to call any witnesses. Practice directions
The Tribunal has practice directions available on the Tenancy Tribunal website which may assist the parties if they have queries about evidence, the use of AI or certain aspects of the Tribunal process. These are found in the link below and the parties should review these practice notes. •Practice directions | New Zealand Ministry of Justice Artificial intelligence in the tribunal
Guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) chatbots (such as ChatGPT, Bing Chat or Google Bard) in court/tribunal proceedings have been developed to assist non-lawyers (including self-represented litigants, McKenzie friends and lay advocates) who represent themselves or others. These are found in the link below and the parties should review guidelines. •Guidelines for use of generative artificial intelligence in Courts and Tribunals — Courts of New Zealand Other matters
The amount in dispute in this case exceed $6,000.00 therefore both parties are entitled to representation. 15 If either party instructs Counsel to represent them they are to advise the Tribunal and the other party by email before the hearing.
On my enquiry, neither party applied for name suppression. This order will be published, and no suppression orders apply,
The next hearing will be a 1-day hearing in person in the Tauranga registry,
The parties will be notified in writing by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5564919 — 14-day notice at 211B Maungatapu Road, Tauranga, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5564919 — 14-day notice at 211B Maungatapu Road, Tauranga, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord serve the tenant with a retaliatory termination notice?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

Was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord serve the tenant with a retaliatory termination notice?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

Was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.