Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5512252 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 82 Warwick Street, Wilton, Wellington 6012
Decided 10 June 2026 · Published 10 June 2026 · Application 5512252
Dismissed
- 14-day notice
- State of repair
- Healthy homes
- Exemplary damages
- Mould
- Leaks
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Dismissed
From published order
Location
Wellington
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Woodhouse
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The tenants’ applications are dismissed.
Reasons
- The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants against the landlord. The claims relate to what the tenants say are health and safety defects with the tenancy, and a breach of the landlord’s obligations around maintenance. The tenants seek to have compensation and exemplary damages awarded.
- Both parties appeared at the hearing today, convened in the Wellington District Courthouse.
BACKGROUND
- The premises are located in Wilton, Wellington. I understand there are four units on separate levels, and these premises are a lower-middle unit.
- The tenancy agreement records the landlord as Trudy Whitlow, and two co- tenants as Gavin Mellett and Debbie Mellett. The tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy commencing on 26 January 2025, ending on 26 January 2026.
- The tenants state there were issues with the tenancy, including injuries sustained from a fall on the exterior stairs. I will discuss these in more detail below.
- The landlord undertook a property inspection on 26 February 2026. Photographs from that inspection have been provided.
- On 6 March 2026, the landlords issued a 90-day termination notice, requiring that the last day of the tenancy be 4 June 2026. 1 The tenants responded asking why the tenancy was being terminated, but indicating that they would be interested in buying the unit if the landlords were putting it on the market.
- On or about 8 April 2026, the tenants filed a complaint with the Wellington City Council regarding the premises, but I have not seen the outcome of the complaint from the Council.
- Also on 8 April 2026, the tenants notified the landlords of a problem with the water heater. The evidence is that the landlord attended very promptly, and the issue was resolved within about 40 minutes of the landlord being made aware of the problem.
- On 22 May 2026 the tenants issued a 14-day notice, requiring the landlord to undertake the following work. a. Stairs – addressing the absence of handrails on the external stairs and addressing fall hazards. b. Lighting – seeking the installation of lighting on the external stairs. c. Gutters – addressing overflowing gutters. d. Washing line – addressing fall risk associated with the washing line, and a metal spike in the ground in the area of the fall.
- Also on 22 May 2026, the tenants filed this application with the Tribunal.
- On 28 May 2026, the landlord emailed the tenant seeking access to the roof for an inspection and routine maintenance on 1 June 2026. The tenants responded the following day, providing permission only for an external roof inspection. 2 1 At the hearing the tenants raised concerns that the landlord did not explain why their tenancy had come to an end. The law is clear, that a landlord does not need to give the tenants a reason why the Tenancy is being terminated, if 90 days notice is provided. 2 Strictly, a landlord does not need to provide notice or obtain the tenants permission to go onto the exterior of the premises, notice is only needed to enter the dwelling.
- The landlord’s position is that the gutters were checked and cleaned on 1 June 2026.
TENANTS CLAIMS
- In the application to the Tribunal, the tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages totalling $32,730. That relates to a reimbursement of 50% of rent to the sum of $18,330, and exemplary damages of $14,400 in relation to breaches of building, health and safety obligations, and the Healthy Home Standards.
- At the hearing, the tenants confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Compensation for a dangerous condition of the premises, and failure to have full enjoyment of the property. b. Exemplary damages for failure to maintain.
RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
- The relevant law that applies 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 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 (the tenants) 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.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 - Compensation for a dangerous condition of the premises, and failure to have full enjoyment of the property.
- The tenant state: a. The washing line is on a steep embankment with a metal spike at the bottom of the drop-off. I asked if the tenants raised concerns with the landlord on this. The tenants said they did not know about their rights under the Healthy Home Standards etc. This was first raised with the 14-day notice at the end of the tenancy. b. The washing line hangs over an embankment and is overgrown so the line cannot be turned, meaning you need to reach over the embankment to fully use the line. The tenants indicated at the hearing that this was not raised with the landlord, but should fall within the general maintenance requirement. c. The steps to the premises are concrete and they are not safe without a handrail. The tenants note there were six flights of steps, and should have had a handrail. d. The lighting on the stairs was inadequate; there is a sensor light but you need to be up the stairs before it comes on. The tenants confirmed that this was not raised with the landlord directly, but they did speak with the downstairs unit. e. The steps are covered in moss and slippery, causing one of the tenants to fall, injuring her knee, resulting in a permanent injury. Again the tenants confirmed that they did not raise this with the landlord. f. The gutters needed to be cleaned, it was only when the 14-day notice was provided that the gutters were cleaned. The tenants say that the landlord raised at the time of entering into the tenancy that the gutters needed to be cleaned (it was raining at the time), but it was only at the end of the tenancy that this was addressed. g. There are vents in the house with no non-return vents. This needed to be taped up. The tenants confirmed they were referring to the extractor fans, which would normally be installed with non-return vents. h. The vents have been tested for mould, but the results are not yet available. i. The premises were damp, so needed to have doors and windows open.
- In response, the landlord’s position is that the premises are HHS compliant.
- The landlord states the gutters were cleaned at the start of the tenancy, and it was only raised again following the 14-day notice being received, after which the gutters were cleaned on 3 June 2026.
- The landlord states that they were not notified of any slips or falls during the tenancy.
- No issues were raised around ventilation except under the 14-day notice.
- The landlord notes that the tenants had installed an unducted dryer that may have contributed to dampness, but the premises were dry at the end of the tenancy.
- An inspection was undertaken on 26 February 2026. The tenant was present, and no issues were raised around mould or dampness, and no mould was visible.
- Following that inspection, arrangements were made for the heat pumps to be serviced, and all heat pumps passed that inspection.
- No issues were raised with the stairs until the 14-day notice was received.
- The premises were constructed in 1965, and complied with the building requirements of the time.
- In terms of lighting, no issues were raised, but each tenancy had a sensor light.
- The landlord states that the tenants had created the fall hazard with the washing line, when they installed a shed on the backyard and dug down. Otherwise, the slope of the backyard has not changed. The landlord was not aware of any metal spike during the tenancy. After the tenancy ended they looked to find the spike, and it was difficult to find, as it was located in a bush. The landlord pulled it out, and if it had been raised earlier, they would have sorted this out during the tenancy.
- The extractor fans were installed by a licensed electrician.
- In conclusion, the tenants submitted that: a. The landlord’s HHS certificate was from 2021, so it is out of date. 3 b. The dryer that was installed is a condenser dryer, so did not need to be ducted. 3 There is no expiry date that applies to HHS assessments, they would normally be accepted as accurate at the time the assessment was undertaken, but that is not to say that over the course of time circumstances may change that compliance, but this is not a situation where there is a set timeframe when an assessment expires. c. It is disputed that the gutters were addressed at the start of the tenancy because they continued to have overflow issues. d. The servicing of the heat pump was poorly performed. e. It is disputed that there was any structural changes with the shed that the tenant installed, and it was removed fully and the grass reseeded at the end of the tenancy. f. The landlord did not give any reason to terminate the tenancy. Analysis
- Section 45 of the RTA sets out the landlord’s responsibilities, and that includes, at section 45(1)(c), that the landlord shall: comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises; and
- Strictly speaking, the only obligation on the landlord as far as buildings, health and safety are concerned, is to comply with specific legal obligations that arise. As I indicated at the hearing this morning, I would need to identify a breach of any particular obligation to find in favour of the tenants in this case.
- I will proceed to consider the defects the tenants have raised as follows: a. Washing line i. The tenants have raised concerns the washing line is on a step bank. I do not dispute that assessment, but the tenants have not pointed to any law that the landlord has breached with this, so I cannot take that claim any further. ii. In terms of the metal spike in the ground below the washing line, this was only raised for the first time with the 14-day notice. Again the tenants have not pointed me to any legal obligation that would have been breached, but ultimately, the landlord removed the spike by pulling it from the ground when they were notified of it. iii. While the tenants say that the clothes line was impeded by the bush, again this has not been raised earlier with the landlord. I note this is not mentioned in the 14-day notice. Even then, this may fall within the tenant’s obligation to keep the premises tidy, which includes work in the gardens, and could extend to light pruning if the bush was becoming overgrown. b. Exterior steps i. The tenants have not pointed me to any legal obligation that has been breached with the exterior steps. The landlord states that the premises were built in 1965, so the Building Code obligations are those that existed in 1965. The obligations were not as stringent then as they are now. But in any event, it is the tenants that must point me to a breach of some legal obligations and they have not done so as far as the steps or absence of a handrail is concerned. ii. The tenants say there was moss on the steps. That could fall to the landlord as a maintenance issue, but again, there was an obligation on the tenant to have raised that with the landlord. c. Exterior lighting i. While there was an exterior sensor light, the tenants felt that this was not adequate. I am not aware of any legal obligation to provide exterior lighting, even for stairs, and the tenants have not pointed me to any such obligation. d. Gutters i. I accept that the gutters needed clearing early in the tenancy, but I also accept that the landlord did do that. If further work was needed during the tenancy, then the tenants needed to raise that with the landlord. It seems this was only raised in the 14-day notice on 22 May 2026, and was addressed by the landlord on 3 June 2026 within that 14 day period. e. Vents i. As I explained at the hearing, the landlord needed to provide externally vented extraction fans in the kitchen and bathroom. The tenants confirm that there were such fans installed, but the issue is that the vents did not have a one-way, non-return function, so a breeze would come through the vents. The Residential Tenancy (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 sets out various requirements for the extraction fans, in particular in relation to the size of the fan, and the volume of air per second that the fan needs to extract. The regulations do not require one-way valves, so strictly, the landlord did not need to have such a device installed. I am not persuaded that the tenants have shown that the vents fails to comply with the HHS, or any other legal requirement around extraction fans. f. Premises being damp i. The tenant’s position is that the premises were damp, and that they needed to ventilate the property by opening windows indoors. There is nothing particularly unusual in a residential dwelling needing to be properly ventilated; in fact it is a requirement in the HHS that the property have Windows and doors that can open, and be of a minimum size, in order to comply with the ventilation standard. To put that another way, the regulations anticipate that in order to properly ventilate and keep the property dry and healthy, that the dwelling must have windows and doors that can be opened for that purpose. Otherwise, the tenants have not pointed to any particular defect with this property which may have made it excessively damp, such as for example, leaks, or an absence of extraction fans. I observe that the tenants’ evidence was that they taped over the extractor fans to stop any breeze from the outside of the house. If that is the case, then that would have stopped the extractor fans working, which could have contributed to the premises being damper than they should be.
- For the reasons as sent out above, I have been unable to identify any legal obligation that the landlord had, which they have breached, from which any claim for compensation could be considered. For that reason, the tenants’ compensation claims must be dismissed. Claim 2 – Exemplary damages for failure to maintain.
- Exemplary damages are an order that the Tribunal can make to punish a wrongdoer. To make an order of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the respondent (the landlord in this case) has intentionally breached an obligation to the applicant (the tenants).
- The tenant’s position is that the landlords have breached their obligations in relation to maintenance, and correctly referred me to section 45 of the RTA. Section 45(1)(b) requires that the “landlord shall”: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and
- There is however an associated obligation on the tenants to advise when maintenance or repairs are required. Section 40(1)(d) requires that the tenant: notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs; and
- As the District Court noted in the decision of Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 4 : [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.
- The problem the tenants face with this claim is that while they have described maintenance being needed, they have acknowledged that they had not raised these issues with the landlord during the tenancy, although some issues were identified in the 14-day notice.
- In terms of the gutters, I have no reason not to accept that the landlord had addressed the gutters early in the tenancy. While they may have blocked again during the tenancy, I am satisfied that when the tenants raised the issue in the 14 day notice, the landlord did attend to the issue then, so the work was completed within the 14 days required.
- Otherwise, for the reasons discussed above, it has not been established that there was any obligation on the landlord to install exterior handrails or lights.
- In short, the tenants have not identified a breach of any obligation the landlord had to maintain the premises, that an exemplary damages order could be made. Therefore this exemplary damages claim is dismissed.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s14, s16, s2019, s34, s40(1), s45, s45(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: termination 14day
- Dispute theme: state of repair
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5512252?
The tribunal order states: The tenants’ applications are dismissed.
How much money was awarded in case 5512252?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5512252?
The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould, Leaks.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5512252?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13728132-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.