Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 4987268 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 16 Sept 2025 · Published 16 Sept 2025 · Application 4987268
- Cleanliness
- Exemplary damages
- Harassment
- Healthy homes
- State of repair
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
New Zealand
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Setefano
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $500.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $500.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensation for non-compliance with work orders | $500.00 | Compensation for non-compliance with work orders | |
| Net award | $500.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $500.00 |
Claims and awards for application 4987268 — net $500.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Compensation for non-compliance with work orders
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited. Re. Cc22564. Reg Date C.H.P. 21.6.2018 must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- [The tenant/s] remaining claims are dismissed.
Reasons
Introduction
- This matter involves an application by [the tenant/s], the tenant, against Kāhui Tū Kaha Ltd, the landlord, relating to an ongoing dispute involving multiple alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenancy began on 21 April 2019 and ended on the date of the hearing, 16 April 2025.
- The tenant alleges the landlord failed to comply with previous Tribunal orders, failed to maintain the property, breached electrical safety obligations, exposed him to health and safety hazards, failed to control the conduct of other tenants, interfered with his quiet enjoyment of the premises and failed to provide a safe and healthy home. He seeks compensation of $10,000.00 and exemplary damages for loss of enjoyment, asbestos exposure, safety risks, and unpaid maintenance work. He originally sought further work orders and ancillary orders but these are no longer relevant due to the tenant now being relocated. Background
- On 12 February 2024, the Tribunal issued an order (application 4327784) requiring the landlord to: • Investigate and clear the drains and guttering, • Ensure the front doorstep was safe and properly rebuilt, • Follow up installation of extractor fans.
- The Tribunal ordered the work be completed by 5 April 2024. If not, rent would be reduced by $100/week from 13 April 2024. Compensation of $1,980.44 was also awarded to the tenant.
- The tenant now brings further claims arising from alleged non-compliance with those orders and additional breaches of the landlord’s statutory obligations under the RTA. Legal framework
- The following sections of the RTA are relevant: •Section 45(1)(b): Duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. •Section 45(1)(c): Compliance with health and safety requirements. •Section 45(1)(bb): Compliance with Healthy Homes Standards. •Section 45(1)(e): Duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure other tenants do not interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. •Section 48: Restriction on entry without consent or proper notice. •Section 38: Protection of tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. •Section 108(2A): Non-compliance with a work order is an unlawful act. •Section 109: Provides for exemplary damages if unlawful acts are committed intentionally. •Section 95A: Suppression of names and identifying details.
- The doctrine of res judicata prevents the Tribunal from relitigating matters already decided unless new material facts exist or the order was not complied with.
- In a civil claim such as this, the applicant bears the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. This means the tenant, as the applicant, must establish through evidence that his claim is more likely than not to be correct. In determining whether the burden of proof has been met, I must consider and evaluate the evidence and information presented. While I have carefully reviewed all the material and submissions provided to the Tribunal, I have addressed only those matters necessary to explain the reasons for my decision. Procedural history
- A case conference was held on 18 December 2024. The landlord did not attend despite being properly notified. The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed to a full hearing.
- The hearing took place on 16 April 2025 by teleconference. The tenant attended. The landlord did not appear, and the Tribunal was satisfied that proper notice had been given. The tenant confirmed that he had relocated and no longer lived at the premises. He also withdrew his retaliatory eviction claim. He requested that the matter be considered on the papers. Tenant’s submissions
- The tenant alleged ongoing failure to comply with the February 2024 Tribunal orders.
- He submitted that: •The drains and guttering were still not cleared, •The front doorstep had not been properly rebuilt, •The extractor fans had not been installed by the Healthy Homes compliance date, •The stove and lights posed serious electrical hazards and had been disconnected by him for safety, •He was electrocuted by the stove and cooked outside for several months, •Cladding suspected to be asbestos fell and was shredded by a lawnmower, releasing dust near his and the neighbour’s units, •Other tenants were involved in drug activity and antisocial conduct, severely impacting his and his daughter’s wellbeing, •Individuals entered or attempted to enter the premises unlawfully, including during inspections or photo shoots, •The landlord failed to respond to ongoing complaints and left him exposed to risks.
- The tenant expressed a strong frustration with years of inaction and he no longer lived at the premises as of September 2024 due to safety concerns. Issues to determine
- The key issues are: •Whether the landlord failed to comply with previous Tribunal orders; •Whether the landlord breached its maintenance, safety, and Healthy Homes obligations under sections 45(1)(b)–(c) and (bb); •Whether the landlord failed to protect the tenant’s quiet enjoyment under sections 45(1)(e) and 38; •Whether the tenant has proven unlawful entries in breach of sections 48 and 38; •Whether any claims are barred by res judicata; •Whether compensation or exemplary damages are justified. Analysis Non-compliance with Tribunal orders
- The tenant’s evidence establishes that the Tribunal’s orders of 12 February 2024 were not complied with. The landlord failed to investigate and clear the drains, confirm the safety of the front step, or complete installation of extractor fans by 5 April 2024. The tenant’s evidence is undefended.
- This is a breach of section 108(2A) and warrants further compensation. I award $500.00 for this ongoing non-compliance. Electrical Safety – Section 45(1)(b)
- The tenant reported serious electrical faults, including electrocution from the stove and sparking lights. He disconnected the circuits himself and used battery torches and an outdoor gas cooker.
- While the tenant claims to have electrical qualifications, he did not provide independent evidence from a registered electrician or WorkSafe outcome. Without this, I cannot establish the full extent or danger of the hazard.
- However, the landlord’s failure to act on repeated, detailed reports of electrical hazards is a breach of section 45(1)(b), which requires landlords to act within a reasonable timeframe, especially where safety is involved.
- The delay in attending to potentially life-threatening hazards is serious. Given the lack of independent proof of damage or cost, no further compensation is awarded, but the breach is formally recorded. Asbestos allegations – Section 45(1)(b)
- The tenant provided detailed submissions and photos alleging broken cladding released asbestos debris, which was spread by a lawnmower. He claims exposure affected his health and that of neighbouring children.
- While the Tribunal accepts the tenant’s belief in the presence of asbestos, no testing, council order, or expert report was produced.
- Again, the landlord’s failure to respond to repeated, specific reports regarding potentially hazardous materials constitutes a breach of section 45(1)(b).
- Given the lack of confirmed risk or actual harm, no compensation is awarded, but the breach is noted and recorded. Healthy homes – Section 45(1)(bb)
- The tenancy is covered by the 1 July 2024 compliance date for community housing providers.
- The tenant claims extractor fans were not installed by this deadline. However, appropriate compensation has already been awarded above in recognition of the delay – no further compensation is awarded. Interference by other tenants - Section 45(1)(e)
- The tenant raised multiple incidents involving other tenants and guests, including antisocial behaviour, drug activity, and impacts on the health and safety of his household.
- Under section 45(1)(e), landlords must take reasonable steps to prevent interference by other tenants. The tenant presented compelling written descriptions but did not provide independent corroboration (e.g. police reports, witness statements).
- While I accept the tenant’s concerns were genuine, the Tribunal cannot find a breach on the evidence provided. However, the landlord is strongly encouraged to take tenant complaints seriously and to actively manage tenant behaviour. Unlawful entry – Sections 48 & 38
- The tenant alleged multiple incidents of unauthorised access, several intrusions, including a photographer accessing the home and a “stalker” claiming to be the new landlord and harassment.
- While concerning, the evidence presented (emails and tenant statements) does not satisfy this threshold. This part of the claim is dismissed. Res judicata
- The tenant repeated many prior claims including drainage issues, damage to window joinery, and the collapsed front step. These matters were already determined by the Tribunal previously. Under res judicata, these cannot be re- litigated unless new evidence exists or a failure to comply is shown. Only the failure to comply has been accepted as addressed above. Compensation for work performed
- The tenant performed maintenance work voluntarily over many years, including lawn mowing, exterior cleaning, and minor repairs. He now seeks reimbursement.
- However, there was no agreement that the landlord would pay for this work. This claim is not upheld. Exemplary damages
- The only breach proven is non-compliance with the Tribunal’s previous order. While serious, I do not find sufficient evidence of intentional or reckless conduct to meet the test for exemplary damages under section 109 of the RTA.
- Exemplary damages are declined. Filing fee and name suppression
- As the tenant has not been wholly of substantially successful with his claims, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
- Under section 95A(1) RTA, the Tribunal may, on the application of a party, order that the name or identifying particulars of that party not be published.
- While name suppression is typically granted to the successful party, in this case, the tenant has been only partially successful in his application. However, the Tribunal also has discretion to grant name suppression where there are compelling reasons that justify it.
- The tenant has raised multiple concerns relating to safety, privacy, and vulnerability, including: •Allegations of criminal activity and antisocial conduct by neighbouring tenants; •Intrusions onto the premises by unauthorised persons; •Exposure to hazardous materials, including electrical and possible asbestos risks; •His ongoing fear for personal safety, resulting in relocation from the premises.
- I accept that the tenant has genuine concerns for his safety and personal security, and that publication of his name may exacerbate those risks or further compromise his privacy, particularly given the public accessibility of Tenancy Tribunal decisions.
- In these circumstances, and exercising discretion under section 95A(4), I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details be suppressed. The landlord is not entitled to suppression, as no compelling grounds have been presented and the landlord did not appear at the hearing.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s10, s108(2A), s109, s14, s35, s38, s45(1), s48, s95A, s95A(1), s95A(4)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: state of repair
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4987268 about?
The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
How much money was awarded in case 4987268?
Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 4987268?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4987268?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12011630-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.