Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5377441 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 21 Neville Street, Point Chevalier, Auckland

Published 4 March 2026 · Application 5377441

Dismissed

14-day notice
State of repair
Smoke alarms
Cleanliness
Healthy homes
Property damage
Exemplary damages
Mould
Leaks

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Dismissed

From published order

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Manhire

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5377441. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Order

Both applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of tenant obligations.
The tenant cross applied seeking a work order, exemplary damages and reimbursement of a builder’s inspection report fee. Background
The premises consist of a 3-bedroom, 1-bathroom stand-alone house down the end of a shared driveway on a half section.
The tenancy started on or about 5 March 2021 and as at the hearing date is still a live tenancy.
The tenant resides there with her 17-year-old son.
The house was built in 1989 or thereabouts. The landlord has owned it for approximately 22 years.
There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these: • Has the tenant caused substantial damage to the premises which would justify the Tribunal granting a termination order?
On the tenant’s application the issues to be determined are these: • Should the Tribunal issue a work order in respect of the bath and shower? • Has the landlord breached her obligations by failing to maintain the premises? • Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages? • Has the tenant proved a claim for reimbursement? Statutory provisions
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and to not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them is the requirement that a landlord comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
Section 55(1)(b) sets out the grounds relating to termination of a tenancy where a tenant has caused, or threaten to cause, substantial damage to the premises.
Section 56(1)( c ) sets out the grounds relating to termination where the breach is capable of remedy and notice has been served on the other party detailing the breach complained of and providing 14 days to remedy the breach.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Legal considerations
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 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 (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.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. 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 1 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 different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Landlord’s application for termination

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord claims that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement. She says that the breach is incapable of remedy.
The landlord did not serve a 14-day notice to remedy on the tenant.
The landlord says that the tenant has caused damage to the bath which will require professional repairs.
The landlord, in her written submissions, says that on or about 28 August 2025 she received an email from the tenant stating that there was a mould problem in the bathroom.
The landlord arranged a site visit on 6 September 2025. She says that the tenant climbed into the bath and started jumping up and down. The landlord asked what she was doing and told her to stop. The tenant stated that she wanted to show that the bath was creaking. The tenant also pointed out that the vent had fallen out of the roof and that she had an issue with the outside downpipes leaking at the joint.
The landlord took a series of photographs. She also noted that there was a red bathmat hanging over the edge of the bath during her inspection.
On 26 September 2025 the landlord text the tenant to advise that she would drop off a bottle of exit mould. The tenant was not home at the time so the landlord left the exit mould on the front porch. She also attended to fixing the downpipe which had dropped a few millimetres.
The landlord says that she received a text message from the tenant later that day acknowledging her earlier text.
On 27 September 2025 the tenant text the landlord stating that she had sprayed the exit mould which had no effect. The tenant also stated that it would not be unreasonable to ask for the bathroom to be renovated.
On 28 September the landlord emailed the tenant questioning the term renovate. The landlord intended on fixing the mould, painting the bath board and fixing the vent. Later that day the landlord messaged the tenant to advise that contractors would be contacting her to sort out the source of the mould and paint the bath board.
The landlord says the tenant told her not to send anyone as she was going to get advice.
On 29 September the tenant sent the landlord a photo of damage to the bath/shower wall lining saying it was degrading and needed fixing. The landlord says she was shocked as she had not seen this during her inspection visit. The landlord arranged for her builder to visit the property on Friday 3 October 2025.
On 3 October the landlord and builder attended and discovered the hole in the lip of the bath which had been covered by the bathmat.
The landlord says that the damage which is not capable of remedy is the damage to the bath and the shower wall. On this basis alone the landlord seeks termination. She says that she needs termination because of the wilful damage and because the entire bathroom will need replacing.
The landlord also says that there was an earlier occasion when the tenant asked for a dishwasher. She installed a new kitchen and a new dishwasher in May 2021. The landlord says while they were there doing the kitchen the tenant brought to her attention that the floor in the hallway and laundry were soft. The landlord then discovered that water was dripping from the tenant’s washing machine. The plumbing invoice states that it was the washing machine hose which was leaking. This resulted in the wooden flooring having to be pulled up and replaced.
The landlord did not serve a 14-day notice to remedy on the tenant based on legal advice she received in respect of this.
The landlord also obtained expert advice on the shower wall damage. The advice received was that the shower wall had been scratched.
The landlord seeks termination and possession as soon as possible.
The tenant responded by saying that she acknowledges the damage to the bath which she says was caused by a shampoo bottle falling. She says that the shower wall is wear and tear and has been evident for years. She emailed the landlord in 2022 stating that the bathroom wall was becoming porous. The email was dated 7 April 2022.
In August 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord stating that the bathroom was getting worse and that she was concerned about the stability of the bath.
The tenant says the wall lining is difficult to see the crazing from outside the bath. It is only when someone is in the bath that one can see the damage to the shower wall. The tenant says that they had a verbal discussion regarding the bath and the shower. The tenant says that the discussion from the landlord was that the bathroom was getting old and would need renovating. The option was also put to the tenant whether she wanted to stay there during the renovations or move out.
The tenant confirmed during the hearing that the damage was not intentional (crazing) and that the bath damage was an accident.
The tenant maintains that she does not want to move and is happy living there. She maintained that she has always paid her rent on time. Analysis
I have carefully reviewed the landlord’s claim for termination. According to her original application the landlord seeks termination pursuant to section 55(1)(b) RTA in that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises.
Furthermore, referring to the landlord’s original application she, in the alternative, seeks termination pursuant to section 56(1)(c) RTA in that the tenant has committed a breach capable of remedy and has served the tenant with a notice detailing the breach and allowing the tenant not less than 14 days to remedy the breach.
Substantial damage is not specifically defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, but it is generally understood in Tribunal practice to mean damage that is more than minor or superficial. Substantial damage refers to harm or deterioration to the premises that is significant in nature, affecting the structure, function, or value of the property, and requiring more than simple or inexpensive repairs.
In tenancy cases, substantial damage is often contrasted with fair wear and tear or minor accidental damage. It is damage that materially affects the property and is not easily remedied by routine maintenance or cleaning. The assessment of whether damage is substantial will depend on the facts of each case, including the extent, cost, and impact of the damage on the premises.
The landlord provided a report from The Xperts Group Limited dated 19 October 2025. The report writer states that “the wall lining appears to have been scratched using a sharp object, school compass, screwdriver, etc not only damaging the waterproof surface, but going deeper into the substrate of the lining”.
The tenant also provided a report from Grey Wolf Consulting in respect of the shower wall. The report writer states that “in the author’s opinion this image is strongly suggestive that the waterproof coating on the wall lining is showing signs of age (crazing) rather than intentional damage”
In this case, the landlord can only rely on a request for termination under section 55(1)(b). Applying section 56(1)(c) would have required the landlord to serve a 14-day notice to remedy on the tenant. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that she did not do this.
The landlord applies for termination on the basis that the tenant caused substantial damage to the premises (shower and bath) pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1086.
The onus rests with the landlord to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage is both attributable to the tenant and of a substantial nature.
The evidence before the Tribunal is conflicting, and I am not satisfied that the landlord has discharged that burden.
In particular, the alleged damage to the shower wall is not supported by sufficiently clear or consistent evidence as to cause, extent, or cost of remediation (other than a quote to replace the entire bathroom). The bath and surrounding areas are clearly aged and requires attention.
On the material available, it is equally open that the issue reflects deterioration or a need for maintenance rather than tenant-caused substantial damage. I also find that the cause of the damage to the bath edge is also conflicting.
In those circumstances, the statutory threshold for termination is not met and accordingly, the landlord’s claim for termination is dismissed. Tenant application Failure to maintain premises (bathroom) and a breach of the HHS - section 45 RTA.
Anthea Ogilvie claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 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 provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply
Breaching any of these 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.
The tenant says that she first emailed the landlord in April 2022 requesting that she has a look at the mould and the bathroom wall laminate. The tenant says that the landlord visited a couple of weeks later to look at the bath. She says that the landlord stated that there was not much which could be done about it given that if they paint over the mould then it will just come back again.
The tenant then raised it again verbally later. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that in 2022 there was no concern from her that the tenant had damaged the bathroom. The landlord says her view was that the bathroom was simply getting old.
The tenant then emailed the landlord again on 25 August 2025 stating that the bathroom was getting worse. Analysis
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to maintain the bath and shower in accordance with their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the landlord has responded to all maintenance requests made by the tenant regarding these issues.
There is no credible evidence to suggest that the landlord has failed to act on any reported maintenance concerns, or that there has been any unreasonable delay in addressing the matters raised.
In the absence of evidence demonstrating a failure by the landlord to respond to maintenance issues, I am not satisfied that there has been a breach of the landlord’s obligations.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
I also dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages.
The requirements for exemplary damages under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are set out in section 109(3) of the Act. Exemplary damages can only be ordered for conduct that is expressly deemed an "unlawful act" under the Act. Not all breaches of the Act qualify—only those specifically identified as unlawful acts.
When considering an application for exemplary damages, the Tribunal must apply the statutory test, which requires consideration of the following factors: • The intent of the person committing the unlawful act: The Tribunal must be satisfied that the unlawful act was committed intentionally. Negligence is not sufficient; there must be evidence that the person deliberately set about to commit the act (see Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust NZDC 17667). • The effect of the unlawful act: The Tribunal will consider the impact of the conduct on the party affected. • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed: The Tribunal will weigh the interests of the affected landlord or tenant. • The public interest: The Tribunal will consider whether there is a public interest in making an award to deter similar conduct. • Whether it is just to make the award: The Tribunal must be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just to order exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and deter intentional wrongdoing, rather than to compensate for loss. The amount awarded is subject to the maximum levels set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, and orders near the maximum are reserved for the most serious cases. If there are multiple breaches of the same obligation, only one order of exemplary damages can be made for that breach.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord did not act unlawfully in this regard and the claim for exemplary damages has not been established. Tenant claim for reimbursement of builder report fee
The tenant claims reimbursement of $725.00 for a builder’s report.
A tenant is generally not able to claim reimbursement for a specialist report if the landlord did not request it.
For the Tribunal to order reimbursement of such a cost, the expense must be both reasonable and necessary, and usually must have been incurred at the request or with the agreement of the landlord, or because it was required to establish a breach of the landlord’s obligations.
If a tenant obtains a specialist report on their own initiative, without the landlord’s request or agreement, and with no Tribunal order requiring such a report then a request for reimbursement should be refused.
Each case will depend on its facts, but as a general rule, costs voluntarily incurred by a tenant without landlord involvement or Tribunal direction are not recoverable.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim for reimbursement is refused. Work order
The tenant seeks a work order for the repairs to the bath and shower walls. The tenant also says that the wooden surround above the bath needs to be removed and replaced, and any structural damage repaired.
The landlord says that work on the bathroom was going to be completed until the tenant said not to send anyone around. The landlord was also advised not to do anything while the matter was before the Tribunal.
For the Tribunal to issue a work order under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, certain requirements must be met: • Breach of Obligation: There must be a proven breach of the landlord’s or tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement or the RTA. Most commonly, this relates to the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (section 45). • Remedy is Appropriate: The Tribunal must be satisfied that a work order is the appropriate remedy to address the breach. This usually means that the breach can be remedied by carrying out specific work, such as repairs or maintenance. • Clarity of Work Required: The work order must clearly specify the work to be done, so that both parties understand what is required and by when. • Timeframe: The order will set a reasonable timeframe for the work to be completed. • Evidence: There must be sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to establish both the need for the work and the nature of the work required.
If these requirements are met, the Tribunal may issue a work order requiring the responsible party to carry out the specified work within a set period. If the work is not completed as ordered, the Tribunal may make further orders, including authorising the other party to arrange the work and recover the costs.
I am not satisfied that a work order is required in respect of the bath and shower area. It is abundantly clear from the evidence provided, along with the oral evidence received during the hearing that the landlord fully intends undertaking the work required in respect of the bathroom.
The issue for the parties to consider will be how best to proceed with the bathroom renovation while the tenant is residing at the premises. That issue is ultimately one which the parties will need to resolve.
Termination of a tenancy for extensive renovations is addressed under section 51(2)(f) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. A landlord may give notice to terminate a periodic tenancy if they intend to carry out extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken.
The tenant’s claim for a work order has not been established.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act
The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful.
Because both applications have been unsuccessful the parties should meet their own costs in respect of the application fee.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

14-day notice State of repair Smoke alarms Cleanliness Healthy homes Property damage Exemplary damages Mould Leaks Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s10, s109, s109(3), s12, s13A(1F), s18, s2016, s40, s45, s45(1), s45(1A), s51, s51(2), s55(1), s56(1), s70, s74, s85, s95A

Key findings

Dispute theme: termination 14day
Dispute theme: state of repair
Dispute theme: smoke alarms

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5377441?

The tribunal order states: Both applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5377441?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5377441?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5377441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13205497-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of tenant obligations.

The tenant cross applied seeking a work order, exemplary damages and reimbursement of a builder’s inspection report fee. Background

The premises consist of a 3-bedroom, 1-bathroom stand-alone house down the end of a shared driveway on a half section.

The tenancy started on or about 5 March 2021 and as at the hearing date is still a live tenancy.

The tenant resides there with her 17-year-old son.

The house was built in 1989 or thereabouts. The landlord has owned it for approximately 22 years.

There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.

I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues

On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these: • Has the tenant caused substantial damage to the premises which would justify the Tribunal granting a termination order?

On the tenant’s application the issues to be determined are these: • Should the Tribunal issue a work order in respect of the bath and shower? • Has the landlord breached her obligations by failing to maintain the premises? • Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages? • Has the tenant proved a claim for reimbursement? Statutory provisions

Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and to not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.

Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them is the requirement that a landlord comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.

Section 55(1)(b) sets out the grounds relating to termination of a tenancy where a tenant has caused, or threaten to cause, substantial damage to the premises.

Section 56(1)( c ) sets out the grounds relating to termination where the breach is capable of remedy and notice has been served on the other party detailing the breach complained of and providing 14 days to remedy the breach.

Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Legal considerations

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 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 (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.

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. 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 1 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 different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Landlord’s application for termination

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The landlord claims that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement. She says that the breach is incapable of remedy.

The landlord did not serve a 14-day notice to remedy on the tenant.

The landlord says that the tenant has caused damage to the bath which will require professional repairs.

The landlord, in her written submissions, says that on or about 28 August 2025 she received an email from the tenant stating that there was a mould problem in the bathroom.

The landlord arranged a site visit on 6 September 2025. She says that the tenant climbed into the bath and started jumping up and down. The landlord asked what she was doing and told her to stop. The tenant stated that she wanted to show that the bath was creaking. The tenant also pointed out that the vent had fallen out of the roof and that she had an issue with the outside downpipes leaking at the joint.

The landlord took a series of photographs. She also noted that there was a red bathmat hanging over the edge of the bath during her inspection.

On 26 September 2025 the landlord text the tenant to advise that she would drop off a bottle of exit mould. The tenant was not home at the time so the landlord left the exit mould on the front porch. She also attended to fixing the downpipe which had dropped a few millimetres.

The landlord says that she received a text message from the tenant later that day acknowledging her earlier text.

On 27 September 2025 the tenant text the landlord stating that she had sprayed the exit mould which had no effect. The tenant also stated that it would not be unreasonable to ask for the bathroom to be renovated.

On 28 September the landlord emailed the tenant questioning the term renovate. The landlord intended on fixing the mould, painting the bath board and fixing the vent. Later that day the landlord messaged the tenant to advise that contractors would be contacting her to sort out the source of the mould and paint the bath board.

The landlord says the tenant told her not to send anyone as she was going to get advice.

On 29 September the tenant sent the landlord a photo of damage to the bath/shower wall lining saying it was degrading and needed fixing. The landlord says she was shocked as she had not seen this during her inspection visit. The landlord arranged for her builder to visit the property on Friday 3 October 2025.

On 3 October the landlord and builder attended and discovered the hole in the lip of the bath which had been covered by the bathmat.

The landlord says that the damage which is not capable of remedy is the damage to the bath and the shower wall. On this basis alone the landlord seeks termination. She says that she needs termination because of the wilful damage and because the entire bathroom will need replacing.

The landlord also says that there was an earlier occasion when the tenant asked for a dishwasher. She installed a new kitchen and a new dishwasher in May 2021. The landlord says while they were there doing the kitchen the tenant brought to her attention that the floor in the hallway and laundry were soft. The landlord then discovered that water was dripping from the tenant’s washing machine. The plumbing invoice states that it was the washing machine hose which was leaking. This resulted in the wooden flooring having to be pulled up and replaced.

The landlord did not serve a 14-day notice to remedy on the tenant based on legal advice she received in respect of this.

The landlord also obtained expert advice on the shower wall damage. The advice received was that the shower wall had been scratched.

The landlord seeks termination and possession as soon as possible.

The tenant responded by saying that she acknowledges the damage to the bath which she says was caused by a shampoo bottle falling. She says that the shower wall is wear and tear and has been evident for years. She emailed the landlord in 2022 stating that the bathroom wall was becoming porous. The email was dated 7 April 2022.

In August 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord stating that the bathroom was getting worse and that she was concerned about the stability of the bath.

The tenant says the wall lining is difficult to see the crazing from outside the bath. It is only when someone is in the bath that one can see the damage to the shower wall. The tenant says that they had a verbal discussion regarding the bath and the shower. The tenant says that the discussion from the landlord was that the bathroom was getting old and would need renovating. The option was also put to the tenant whether she wanted to stay there during the renovations or move out.

The tenant confirmed during the hearing that the damage was not intentional (crazing) and that the bath damage was an accident.

The tenant maintains that she does not want to move and is happy living there. She maintained that she has always paid her rent on time. Analysis

I have carefully reviewed the landlord’s claim for termination. According to her original application the landlord seeks termination pursuant to section 55(1)(b) RTA in that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises.

Furthermore, referring to the landlord’s original application she, in the alternative, seeks termination pursuant to section 56(1)(c) RTA in that the tenant has committed a breach capable of remedy and has served the tenant with a notice detailing the breach and allowing the tenant not less than 14 days to remedy the breach.

Substantial damage is not specifically defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, but it is generally understood in Tribunal practice to mean damage that is more than minor or superficial. Substantial damage refers to harm or deterioration to the premises that is significant in nature, affecting the structure, function, or value of the property, and requiring more than simple or inexpensive repairs.

In tenancy cases, substantial damage is often contrasted with fair wear and tear or minor accidental damage. It is damage that materially affects the property and is not easily remedied by routine maintenance or cleaning. The assessment of whether damage is substantial will depend on the facts of each case, including the extent, cost, and impact of the damage on the premises.

The landlord provided a report from The Xperts Group Limited dated 19 October 2025. The report writer states that “the wall lining appears to have been scratched using a sharp object, school compass, screwdriver, etc not only damaging the waterproof surface, but going deeper into the substrate of the lining”.

The tenant also provided a report from Grey Wolf Consulting in respect of the shower wall. The report writer states that “in the author’s opinion this image is strongly suggestive that the waterproof coating on the wall lining is showing signs of age (crazing) rather than intentional damage”

In this case, the landlord can only rely on a request for termination under section 55(1)(b). Applying section 56(1)(c) would have required the landlord to serve a 14-day notice to remedy on the tenant. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that she did not do this.

The landlord applies for termination on the basis that the tenant caused substantial damage to the premises (shower and bath) pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1086.

The onus rests with the landlord to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage is both attributable to the tenant and of a substantial nature.

The evidence before the Tribunal is conflicting, and I am not satisfied that the landlord has discharged that burden.

In particular, the alleged damage to the shower wall is not supported by sufficiently clear or consistent evidence as to cause, extent, or cost of remediation (other than a quote to replace the entire bathroom). The bath and surrounding areas are clearly aged and requires attention.

On the material available, it is equally open that the issue reflects deterioration or a need for maintenance rather than tenant-caused substantial damage. I also find that the cause of the damage to the bath edge is also conflicting.

In those circumstances, the statutory threshold for termination is not met and accordingly, the landlord’s claim for termination is dismissed. Tenant application Failure to maintain premises (bathroom) and a breach of the HHS - section 45 RTA.

Anthea Ogilvie claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 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 provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply

Breaching any of these 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.

The tenant says that she first emailed the landlord in April 2022 requesting that she has a look at the mould and the bathroom wall laminate. The tenant says that the landlord visited a couple of weeks later to look at the bath. She says that the landlord stated that there was not much which could be done about it given that if they paint over the mould then it will just come back again.

The tenant then raised it again verbally later. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that in 2022 there was no concern from her that the tenant had damaged the bathroom. The landlord says her view was that the bathroom was simply getting old.

The tenant then emailed the landlord again on 25 August 2025 stating that the bathroom was getting worse. Analysis

The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to maintain the bath and shower in accordance with their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the landlord has responded to all maintenance requests made by the tenant regarding these issues.

There is no credible evidence to suggest that the landlord has failed to act on any reported maintenance concerns, or that there has been any unreasonable delay in addressing the matters raised.

In the absence of evidence demonstrating a failure by the landlord to respond to maintenance issues, I am not satisfied that there has been a breach of the landlord’s obligations.

Accordingly, the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages

I also dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages.

The requirements for exemplary damages under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are set out in section 109(3) of the Act. Exemplary damages can only be ordered for conduct that is expressly deemed an "unlawful act" under the Act. Not all breaches of the Act qualify—only those specifically identified as unlawful acts.

When considering an application for exemplary damages, the Tribunal must apply the statutory test, which requires consideration of the following factors: • The intent of the person committing the unlawful act: The Tribunal must be satisfied that the unlawful act was committed intentionally. Negligence is not sufficient; there must be evidence that the person deliberately set about to commit the act (see Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust NZDC 17667). • The effect of the unlawful act: The Tribunal will consider the impact of the conduct on the party affected. • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed: The Tribunal will weigh the interests of the affected landlord or tenant. • The public interest: The Tribunal will consider whether there is a public interest in making an award to deter similar conduct. • Whether it is just to make the award: The Tribunal must be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just to order exemplary damages.

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and deter intentional wrongdoing, rather than to compensate for loss. The amount awarded is subject to the maximum levels set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, and orders near the maximum are reserved for the most serious cases. If there are multiple breaches of the same obligation, only one order of exemplary damages can be made for that breach.

Accordingly, I find that the landlord did not act unlawfully in this regard and the claim for exemplary damages has not been established. Tenant claim for reimbursement of builder report fee

The tenant claims reimbursement of $725.00 for a builder’s report.

A tenant is generally not able to claim reimbursement for a specialist report if the landlord did not request it.

For the Tribunal to order reimbursement of such a cost, the expense must be both reasonable and necessary, and usually must have been incurred at the request or with the agreement of the landlord, or because it was required to establish a breach of the landlord’s obligations.

If a tenant obtains a specialist report on their own initiative, without the landlord’s request or agreement, and with no Tribunal order requiring such a report then a request for reimbursement should be refused.

Each case will depend on its facts, but as a general rule, costs voluntarily incurred by a tenant without landlord involvement or Tribunal direction are not recoverable.

Accordingly, the tenant’s claim for reimbursement is refused. Work order

The tenant seeks a work order for the repairs to the bath and shower walls. The tenant also says that the wooden surround above the bath needs to be removed and replaced, and any structural damage repaired.

The landlord says that work on the bathroom was going to be completed until the tenant said not to send anyone around. The landlord was also advised not to do anything while the matter was before the Tribunal.

For the Tribunal to issue a work order under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, certain requirements must be met: • Breach of Obligation: There must be a proven breach of the landlord’s or tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement or the RTA. Most commonly, this relates to the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (section 45). • Remedy is Appropriate: The Tribunal must be satisfied that a work order is the appropriate remedy to address the breach. This usually means that the breach can be remedied by carrying out specific work, such as repairs or maintenance. • Clarity of Work Required: The work order must clearly specify the work to be done, so that both parties understand what is required and by when. • Timeframe: The order will set a reasonable timeframe for the work to be completed. • Evidence: There must be sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to establish both the need for the work and the nature of the work required.

If these requirements are met, the Tribunal may issue a work order requiring the responsible party to carry out the specified work within a set period. If the work is not completed as ordered, the Tribunal may make further orders, including authorising the other party to arrange the work and recover the costs.

I am not satisfied that a work order is required in respect of the bath and shower area. It is abundantly clear from the evidence provided, along with the oral evidence received during the hearing that the landlord fully intends undertaking the work required in respect of the bathroom.

The issue for the parties to consider will be how best to proceed with the bathroom renovation while the tenant is residing at the premises. That issue is ultimately one which the parties will need to resolve.

Termination of a tenancy for extensive renovations is addressed under section 51(2)(f) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. A landlord may give notice to terminate a periodic tenancy if they intend to carry out extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken.

The tenant’s claim for a work order has not been established.

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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act

The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful.

Because both applications have been unsuccessful the parties should meet their own costs in respect of the application fee.