What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279080 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5279080?

Compensation: Oven: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279080?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12528835-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279080 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5279080?

Compensation: Oven: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279080?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12528835-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

228 Blue Spur Road, Blue Spur, RD 2, Hokitika 7882 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279080 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5279080 — net $1,200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages – smoke alarms	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages – smoke alarms
Compensation: Oven	$200.00	Oven
Net award	$1,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,200.00

Order

[The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $1,200.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The landlords’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing on 25 August 2025.
The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches of landlord obligations relating to the condition of the premises.
The landlords claim compensation for end of tenancy expenses, wasted expenditure and rent following short notice. Background
The premises consists of a house in a rural location near Hokitika. It was owned by a member of the landlords’ family and the landlords bought it from the estate. This was the first tenancy of the premises.
The house came with some land that was used by the tenants for their horses. There was no separate agreement for the land, but it was understood that the land was separate from the tenancy and a proportion of the rent was allocated to the land.
The landlords are experienced landlords. They live in the Nelson area and so they were not close at hand to manage problems as they arose. They had worked hard to ready the premises for occupation by tenants, but some work had yet to be done.
The tenancy, which was periodic, began on 14 December 2024. Problems arose with the hot water cylinder, the septic tank and the oven and they form part of the tenants’ claims. The tenants also claim that the landlords did not comply with their obligations in respect of smoke alarms and ventilation in the kitchen.
It seems that the problems and the difficulties the tenants experienced became too much for them and at the end of May they gave the landlords two weeks notice to terminate the tenancy. That was one week short of the required notice period, but the landlords accepted it and returned the bond to the tenants.
It was only after the tenants made their application that the landlords raised claims against the tenants. No such claims were raised or mentioned earlier. Relevant Law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires a landlord to 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 Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and to comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
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. This applies to all unlawful acts.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy and when it started or was renewed. In this case they applied from mid-April 2025.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. The Tenants’ Claims Smoke Alarms
It is agreed that there was one smoke alarm in the premises situated in the lounge. The tenants said that it did not work. At the end of May the landlords sent two alarms to the tenants for installation following notification from them about the smoke alarm.
The regulations require a smoke alarm to be installed withing 3 meters of every bedroom in the premises. Plainly, that was not the case here. It is the landlords’ responsibility to ensure the smoke alarms are correctly installed.
There has been a clear breach of the regulations by the landlords. It put the tenants at risk and there is no excuse for it. The landlords should not have allowed the tenants to occupy the premises until compliant smoke alarms were installed. They are experienced landlords and so I am at a loss to understand why the landlords did not comply.
It is a serious breach because it affects the tenants’ safety. There should be an award of exemplary damages and $1,000 is appropriate. Extractor Fan
There was no extractor fan in the kitchen during the tenancy. It was on the landlords’ to-do list, and they had it in the garage ready to be installed.
By the time that it was due to be installed, the landlords were dealing with other maintenance issues that they regarded as a higher priority. I note as well that there was a window near the cooker which the tenants opened for ventilation when they were cooking.
Given that the breach was for a short time near the end of the tenancy and the effect on the tenants was slight, I find that an award of exemplary damages is not required. Hot Water
The tenants had problems getting enough hot water from the cylinder. They say that they were without any hot water for a week. The landlords arranged for plumbers to attend, and they replaced a valve although they had no reason to think that it was faulty. The old valve is not available and so the plumber cannot say for sure whether it was faulty.
The plumber gave evidence that when he attended the premises the tenants confirmed that they had turned down the temperature of the water and in his view that is why the water was not hot. I accept the plumber’s evidence.
The evidence provided by the parties relating to the hot water is difficult to reconcile. But I am clear that it does not satisfy me that the landlords were in breach of their obligations relating to the hot water supply. They responded promptly to the tenants’ concerns and qualified contractors attended to try to resolve the issue. This claim therefore fails. Septic Tank
The tenants had some problems with the septic tank. There were times when the toilet took longer to flush than normal and at times the tank appeared to overflow to some extent.
The landlords spent some time trying to resolve the problem and they also called in their plumber. The problem was eventually resolved.
The effect on the tenants in terms of using the toilet were not serious. The landlords responded to the tenants’ concerns, and the problem was resolved. It took some time but sometimes that is unavoidable.
The tenants say that their power bills were higher than they should have been due to the septic tank issues. That maybe so but the landlords allowed the tenants a rent-free week to compensate for that. That is sufficient, in my view.
I don’t find that there has been a breach requiring further compensation. Oven
I accept the tenants’ evidence that they were without a working oven for a month. They reported the problem to the landlords who attempted to fix it, but the problem was not resolved. It was eventually fixed by an electrician.
This occurred over the Christmas/New Year period and so it was especially inconvenient.
I find that an award of compensation in the sum of $200 is appropriate. An award of exemplary damages is not warranted. The Landlords’ Claims
I have made the point that the landlord did not make any claims when the tenancy ended, and they returned the bond. That does not mean, necessarily, that they don’t have legitimate claims, but it does provide some context. Fencing and Removing Horse Manure
These claims relate to the agreement for grazing the tenants’ horses. That is outside the tenancy agreement and so the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider them. Plumbing Call-Out and Unnecessary Valve Replacement
The evidence does not satisfy me that the costs incurred by the landlords for these things were unnecessary and the fault of the tenants. I accept that the tenants turned down the temperature of the cylinder, but it does not follow from that there was not also a fault with the cylinder. The plumbers decided to replace the valve and the evidence did not prove that the tenants were themselves entirely responsible for the low water temperature.
This claim therefore fails. Rent Claim
The landlords accepted the short notice and so they cannot now claim that they are entitled to rent in lieu of notice. Expenses for Early Exit Handover
The same reason applies to this claim. In any case, another week of notice would not have made any difference to the landlords in terms of end of tenancy expenses. I note as well that where landlords live at a distance from their rental the Tribunal does not usually award travel expenses. Tribunal Hearing Expenses
Costs incurred by parties in connection with the Tribunal hearing can be awarded only in limited circumstances none of which apply in this case. Suppression
Both sides have applied for name suppression. Neither side has had substantial success and so there must be a good reason to grant suppression. The default position is that the Tribunal’s decisions are made public. I see no good reason to depart from that in this case and so the applications for name suppression are refused. Filing Fees
Neither side has had substantial success and so there is no award of filing fees.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5279080 — net $1,200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages – smoke alarms	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages – smoke alarms
Compensation: Oven	$200.00	Oven
Net award	$1,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,200.00

Order

[The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $1,200.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The landlords’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing on 25 August 2025.
The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches of landlord obligations relating to the condition of the premises.
The landlords claim compensation for end of tenancy expenses, wasted expenditure and rent following short notice. Background
The premises consists of a house in a rural location near Hokitika. It was owned by a member of the landlords’ family and the landlords bought it from the estate. This was the first tenancy of the premises.
The house came with some land that was used by the tenants for their horses. There was no separate agreement for the land, but it was understood that the land was separate from the tenancy and a proportion of the rent was allocated to the land.
The landlords are experienced landlords. They live in the Nelson area and so they were not close at hand to manage problems as they arose. They had worked hard to ready the premises for occupation by tenants, but some work had yet to be done.
The tenancy, which was periodic, began on 14 December 2024. Problems arose with the hot water cylinder, the septic tank and the oven and they form part of the tenants’ claims. The tenants also claim that the landlords did not comply with their obligations in respect of smoke alarms and ventilation in the kitchen.
It seems that the problems and the difficulties the tenants experienced became too much for them and at the end of May they gave the landlords two weeks notice to terminate the tenancy. That was one week short of the required notice period, but the landlords accepted it and returned the bond to the tenants.
It was only after the tenants made their application that the landlords raised claims against the tenants. No such claims were raised or mentioned earlier. Relevant Law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires a landlord to 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 Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and to comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
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. This applies to all unlawful acts.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy and when it started or was renewed. In this case they applied from mid-April 2025.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. The Tenants’ Claims Smoke Alarms
It is agreed that there was one smoke alarm in the premises situated in the lounge. The tenants said that it did not work. At the end of May the landlords sent two alarms to the tenants for installation following notification from them about the smoke alarm.
The regulations require a smoke alarm to be installed withing 3 meters of every bedroom in the premises. Plainly, that was not the case here. It is the landlords’ responsibility to ensure the smoke alarms are correctly installed.
There has been a clear breach of the regulations by the landlords. It put the tenants at risk and there is no excuse for it. The landlords should not have allowed the tenants to occupy the premises until compliant smoke alarms were installed. They are experienced landlords and so I am at a loss to understand why the landlords did not comply.
It is a serious breach because it affects the tenants’ safety. There should be an award of exemplary damages and $1,000 is appropriate. Extractor Fan
There was no extractor fan in the kitchen during the tenancy. It was on the landlords’ to-do list, and they had it in the garage ready to be installed.
By the time that it was due to be installed, the landlords were dealing with other maintenance issues that they regarded as a higher priority. I note as well that there was a window near the cooker which the tenants opened for ventilation when they were cooking.
Given that the breach was for a short time near the end of the tenancy and the effect on the tenants was slight, I find that an award of exemplary damages is not required. Hot Water
The tenants had problems getting enough hot water from the cylinder. They say that they were without any hot water for a week. The landlords arranged for plumbers to attend, and they replaced a valve although they had no reason to think that it was faulty. The old valve is not available and so the plumber cannot say for sure whether it was faulty.
The plumber gave evidence that when he attended the premises the tenants confirmed that they had turned down the temperature of the water and in his view that is why the water was not hot. I accept the plumber’s evidence.
The evidence provided by the parties relating to the hot water is difficult to reconcile. But I am clear that it does not satisfy me that the landlords were in breach of their obligations relating to the hot water supply. They responded promptly to the tenants’ concerns and qualified contractors attended to try to resolve the issue. This claim therefore fails. Septic Tank
The tenants had some problems with the septic tank. There were times when the toilet took longer to flush than normal and at times the tank appeared to overflow to some extent.
The landlords spent some time trying to resolve the problem and they also called in their plumber. The problem was eventually resolved.
The effect on the tenants in terms of using the toilet were not serious. The landlords responded to the tenants’ concerns, and the problem was resolved. It took some time but sometimes that is unavoidable.
The tenants say that their power bills were higher than they should have been due to the septic tank issues. That maybe so but the landlords allowed the tenants a rent-free week to compensate for that. That is sufficient, in my view.
I don’t find that there has been a breach requiring further compensation. Oven
I accept the tenants’ evidence that they were without a working oven for a month. They reported the problem to the landlords who attempted to fix it, but the problem was not resolved. It was eventually fixed by an electrician.
This occurred over the Christmas/New Year period and so it was especially inconvenient.
I find that an award of compensation in the sum of $200 is appropriate. An award of exemplary damages is not warranted. The Landlords’ Claims
I have made the point that the landlord did not make any claims when the tenancy ended, and they returned the bond. That does not mean, necessarily, that they don’t have legitimate claims, but it does provide some context. Fencing and Removing Horse Manure
These claims relate to the agreement for grazing the tenants’ horses. That is outside the tenancy agreement and so the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider them. Plumbing Call-Out and Unnecessary Valve Replacement
The evidence does not satisfy me that the costs incurred by the landlords for these things were unnecessary and the fault of the tenants. I accept that the tenants turned down the temperature of the cylinder, but it does not follow from that there was not also a fault with the cylinder. The plumbers decided to replace the valve and the evidence did not prove that the tenants were themselves entirely responsible for the low water temperature.
This claim therefore fails. Rent Claim
The landlords accepted the short notice and so they cannot now claim that they are entitled to rent in lieu of notice. Expenses for Early Exit Handover
The same reason applies to this claim. In any case, another week of notice would not have made any difference to the landlords in terms of end of tenancy expenses. I note as well that where landlords live at a distance from their rental the Tribunal does not usually award travel expenses. Tribunal Hearing Expenses
Costs incurred by parties in connection with the Tribunal hearing can be awarded only in limited circumstances none of which apply in this case. Suppression
Both sides have applied for name suppression. Neither side has had substantial success and so there must be a good reason to grant suppression. The default position is that the Tribunal’s decisions are made public. I see no good reason to depart from that in this case and so the applications for name suppression are refused. Filing Fees
Neither side has had substantial success and so there is no award of filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279080 — Smoke alarms at 228 Blue Spur Road, Blue Spur, RD 2, Hokitika 7882

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279080 — Smoke alarms at 228 Blue Spur Road, Blue Spur, RD 2, Hokitika 7882

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.