What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5338449?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy is terminated, and John Goulding and Ling Wang are granted

How much money was awarded in case 5338449?

Property Damage: $4,100.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338449?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13290937-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5338449?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy is terminated, and John Goulding and Ling Wang are granted

How much money was awarded in case 5338449?

Property Damage: $4,100.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338449?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13290937-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

65 Peraki Street, Kaiapoi 7630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338449 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338449 — net $1,450.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 March 2026	$7,200.00		Rent arrears to 16 March 2026
Exemplary damages		$4,100.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$7,200.00	$4,100.00
Net award	$1,450.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,450.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338449 — net $1,450.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 March 2026	$7,200.00		Rent arrears to 16 March 2026
Exemplary damages		$4,100.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$7,200.00	$4,100.00
Net award	$1,450.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,450.00

Order

The tenancy is terminated, and John Goulding and Ling Wang are granted possession of the premises at 65 Peraki Street, Kaiapoi 7630 immediately. This does not affect enforcement of the Tribunal’s order made under this application on 24 November 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 (BN-00090721) to John Goulding and Ling Wang immediately.
Rochelle Muir must pay John Goulding and Ling Wang $1,450.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. The landlords attended in person and the tenant attended by telephone.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the landlords’ obligations relating mainly to the condition of the premises. She also claims that the landlords’ termination notice was retaliatory.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. Background
This tenancy began on 28 May 2025. There is no signed tenancy agreement. The landlord says that he sent the tenant a written tenancy agreement and Healthy Homes Standards information. The tenant denies receiving it.
There is also a dispute about whether the parties agreed a fixed term or periodic tenancy. The tenant says it was for a one-year fixed term and the landlords say that all the tenancies they grant are periodic.
The landlords went overseas shortly after the tenancy started and they appointed Harcourts as their agents from 13 June.
On 15 August, the tenant raised complaints to Harcourts about the condition of the premises. After taking instructions from the landlords, Harcourts commissioned a Healthy Homes Report.
That report states that the premises did not meet required standards in respect of smoke alarms, ceiling insulation, extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and gaps causing draughts.
The landlords said that they had tried to remedy some of these things, but the tenant would not permit their contractors access to the premises. The tenant denies that.
Harcourts served a 90-day termination notice on the tenant on 1 September 2025.
Harcourts ceased to be involved after 11 September and on 24 November they were removed as a party by order of the Tribunal.
At that time, the Tribunal also ordered the tenant to pay the rent as fell due or the tenancy would be terminated.
Since then, the landlords have completed some remedial work to the premises. Tenancy Agreement
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00.
The same applies to the other information that must be provided with the tenancy agreement including Healthy Homes information.
The landlords did not comply with their obligations in relation to the tenancy agreement and the information that was required to be provided with it.
The Act requires landlords to provide a written tenancy agreement and information, such as information about Health Homes Standards (HHS) compliance before the tenancy is signed by the tenant.
The landlords sent a tenancy agreement to the tenant by email on 29 May 2025, after the tenancy had begun. It contained a HHS statement, but it was incomplete. It did not, for example, provide information on the R value of the ceiling insulation or its thickness or state that there was no mechanical ventilation in the kitchen.
The landlords said that they struggled to complete the agreement and HHS statement because it was online and long.
The requirements with respect to tenancy agreements and related information are important and they must be complied with before the tenancy begins. Tenants must be able to see what they are agreeing to and the HHS information so that they can make an informed decision about entering the agreement.
It seems that the landlords, who have been landlords for many years and have had other rental properties, have not kept up to date with the changing requirements. There is no excuse for that. The changes have been well publicised and as landlords they should have made sure that were fully informed of them or handed management of their rentals to professional property managers.
Given the importance of the requirements to the tenant and for tenants generally, there should be an award of exemplary damages. The maximum is $750 for each separate breach. Taking them together, I find that an award of $600 is appropriate.
The tenant claimed that it was agreed that the tenancy would be for a fixed term. The landlords denied that.
The landlords said that they are open to a fixed term, but their preference is to offer a periodic tenancy so that the tenant has the flexibility to end the tenancy by giving notice.
The tenancy agreement that the landlords sent to the tenant shortly after the tenancy began was expressly a periodic tenancy which suggests that was the landlords’ intention at the time. I therefore prefer the landlords’ evidence on this issue and find that it was a periodic tenancy. The Condition of the Premises
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety including and comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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.
There is just the one HHS compliance report which was commissioned by the landlords. It found that the premises did not comply with the requirements for ceiling insulation, draughts, extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and smoke alarms. The landlords disputed that, but they did not produce any other independent evidence.
There was insulation in the ceiling, but it was 90mm thick not the required 120mm. The assessor was not able to determine the R value. Since the last hearing on 24 November, the landlords have topped up the insulation.
There are draughts around windows where the seals have deteriorated, and the windows have moved. There is also an unacceptable gap under the front door. The landlords have not taken any steps to remedy these deficiencies. They say that a contractor inspected the windows, and the landlords offered to remediate them, but the tenant said that her father had dealt with it. It seems that the tenant’s father had adjusted the windows, but the tenant said that they went out of alignment when they were opened.
The landlords questioned what they could do about the gap under the front door. They had not considered installing a draft excluder.
The tenant said that she had installed her own thermal lined curtains to mitigate the effects of the draughts.
The landlords have installed extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom since the last hearing. The landlords said that the cost was less than $1,000 which suggests that there was no special difficulty doing so.
The landlords said that they had been told previously that it was not possible to install them because of the pitch of the roof over the soffits which did not allow enough space. There was no evidence to corroborate that.
The landlords said that lifting the Decramastic roof tiles to access the roof space would be problematic but the reason for that was not explained.
In any case, I find that installing extractor fans was practicable and the landlords should have turned their minds to it before granting the tenancy.
There are opening windows in both the kitchen and the bathroom to provide ventilation. But that is not an attractive option when the weather is cold or wet.
The HH report stated that the smoke alarm for one-bedroom was compliant but the one for the other bedroom was not because it was not photoelectric, and it did not have a long-life battery. But the report did not consider whether the alarm was an existing alarm within date and working in which case it would have been compliant. Because there is no evidence that it was not compliant in those respects, I cannot find that there was a breach of the regulations. I note as well that the bedroom doors are adjacent, and one alarm could probably serve both.
The tenant said that there were no keys for the sliding doors between the lounge and the conservatory and that the doors didn’t close properly. The door from the conservatory to the outside was permanently locked.
The window in the toilet was permanently closed because the latch on it is broken and if it is opened, it can’t be closed.
The tenant also said that the kitchen and laundry doors do not close properly she thinks due to unrepaired earthquake damage. The landlords said that earthquake damage was repaired but there may have been some settlement of the premises since then. Remedy
At least some of these deficiencies should have been considered and addressed by the landlords before they granted the tenancy. They should have checked the ceiling insulation, for gaps around windows and doors and obtained another opinion on the practicality of installing fans.
To complete a HH compliance statement without checking these things was highly risky and some would say reckless. They all should have been attended to before granting the tenancy or at least by 1 July 2025 being the date by which all rentals had to comply with HHSs.
I accept that the premises were colder, damper and more difficult to heat because of the draughts and sub-par insulation. I do note that the insulation in the ceiling was in good condition, covered the entire ceiling and would have provided significant benefit.
The tenant said at the last hearing that her power bills were extremely high during the colder months reaching $1,000. I stated in my previous order that I would expect to see evidence of that, but none has been provided. The tenant downgraded that to $800 in today’s hearing. There is no reason why that evidence could not have been provided and so I can make no express finding about the tenant’s power bills.
There is no excuse for the landlords’ failure to consider and address HHS before granting the tenancy and I find that there should be an award of exemplary damages.
Taking all things together, an award in the sum of $3,500 is appropriate. In assessing this I have considered the effect of the breaches on the tenant and so no separate award of compensation is required. 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 Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.
If a notice is declared retaliatory, it will be invalid and of no effect.
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.
The landlords were in China when Harcourts received the HH Report, and they were not contactable by email. They spoke with Harcourts about their recommendation of serving a 90-day termination notice and agreed. They said that their reasons were the rent arrears and the difficulty in getting the tenant’s cooperation regarding contractors attending the premises.
The evidence for the latter is lacking but there were substantial rent arrears by that time. The landlords could not explain why Harcourts did not file an application for termination based on rent arrears which exceeded three weeks rent.
It is natural to make a connection between the HH Report dated 27 August and the notice served four days later. The landlords said that had not seen the report but no doubt they were made aware of it.
Given that the landlords responded to the tenant’s complaint on 15 August by commissioning the report and then when rent was nearly four weeks in arrears and they did not apply for termination, I am inclined to accept that it was the rent arrears that prompted the notice.
The landlords initially contested the report, but they have gone in and seen to at least some of the deficiencies identified by the report. They have offered explanations for not attending to others.
I find, therefore, that the notice was not retaliatory.
It follows that the tenancy was terminated on 30 November 2025 and the landlords would usually be entitled to immediate possession. But s64 of the Act provides that no possession order can be made more than 90 days after the date of termination.
Given my decision on the tenant’s application, there remain substantial rent arrears and so the landlord is entitled to termination and possession on that ground.
In any case, the tenant has been in breach of the conditional termination order that I made on 24 November 2025. The last breach was on 6 March. The landlords are therefore entitled to enforce that order. I have made an order for termination and possession in case there is any argument about it but the landlords have the choice of enforcing either order. Filing Fees
The parties have had mixed success and so I make no award of filing fees. Suppression
I see no reason to grant anyone name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338449 — Rent arrears at 65 Peraki Street, Kaiapoi 7630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338449 — Rent arrears at 65 Peraki Street, Kaiapoi 7630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions