What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298770 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $450.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5298770?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298770?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Leaks, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12599509-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298770 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $450.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5298770?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298770?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Leaks, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12599509-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

62A Cheyenne Street, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298770 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant, Ms Im, applied for an order terminating the tenancy, She also applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and the Tribunal application fee. The application first came before me on 9 September 2025 and, in an order dated 9 September, I dismissed Ms Im’s application for termination and adjourned her other claims.

Ms Im’s claim for compensation is with respect to: a. The shower ceiling collapse; b. Breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (late installation of the heat pump); and c. Breach of her right to quiet enjoyment (frequent visits by the landlord).

Were the landlords in breach of any obligation regarding the shower ceiling repair?

Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Once the landlord becomes aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to in a timely manner. What time frame is reasonable 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. A failure to comply with section 45(1)(b) may entitle the tenant to compensation.

On 13 June 2025, a part of the ceiling above the shower collapsed due to a leaking pipe in the ceiling space. Ms Im immediately advised the landlords, Mr Lee and Ms Kim, of the problem, and Mr Lee visited the premises the next day and engaged a plumber. The plumber fixed the leaking pipe (it is not sure when this occurred, but it was soon after the incident).

However, the ceiling could not be repaired for approximately three weeks to allow the wooden framing to dry. Ms Im was unhappy with ceiling collapse and the delays in having the ceiling repaired so she vacated the premises on 7 July 2025 (this was the basis of her application to terminate the tenancy). The ceiling was repaired soon after she vacated.

I do not consider that the landlords are in breach of the obligation in section 45(1)(b) of the Act to complete repairs within a timely manner. I am satisfied that the landlords have acted in a timely and proactive manner after being advised of the need to repair the shower ceiling collapse and leaking pipe. I find that the a delay of approximately three weeks to have the ceiling repaired (to allow the area to dry) was entirely reasonable.

The claim for compensation is therefore dismissed. Did the landlords fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards with respect to heating?

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act requires a landlord to comply with the Heathy Homes Standards which are set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2026 (the Regulations), and a failure to do so may entitle the tenant to compensation.

The date for compliance with the Standards are set out in clauses 2 and 3(1) of the Regulations. Where, as here, the tenancy commenced after on or after 1 July 2021 but before 28 August 2022, the landlord must comply with the Standards within 90 days after the tenancy commenced.

There was no dispute that the heat pump was not installed until sometime in May 2023, some nine months after the tenancy commenced (the tenancy commenced on 1 August 2022). This means that the landlord is in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards by not installing the heat pump within 90 days of 1 August 2022.

Ms Im said that the effect on her of not having the heat pump installed until May was that she had frequent colds, and her power bill was high, although she did not provide any evidence to support that both of these was as a result of the late installation of the heat pump. I also accept that there was an HRV system in the premises and Mr Lee and Ms Kim provided evidence to support that there was also a panel type heater in the living room before the heat pump was installed (although Ms Im denies that she was supplied with any heating in the living room before the heat pump was installed). However, it is unlikely that the panel heater (if provided) would have put out sufficient heat to comply with the heating standards set out in the Regulations.

Taking into account all of the circumstances, including that for the most part the lack of sufficient heating was over the summer months, I consider the sum of $450.00 reasonable to compensate Ms Im for the failure by the landlord to install the heat pump within the 90 day period after the tenancy commenced. Did the landlords breach Ms Im’s right to quiet enjoyment?

Ms Im claims that Mr Lee would visit frequently (approximately monthly) to maintain the gardens at the premises, and he would sometimes enter the house to use the bathroom and the like. She said that this made her feel uncomfortable and she claims it was a breach of her right to quiet enjoyment. That right is found in section 38 of the Act. Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agents. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2).

I do not consider that Mr Lee has breached Ms Im’s right to quiet enjoyment here because she has consented, either expressly or by implication, to the entry by Mr Lee.

I am satisfied that there was an agreement between Ms Im and Mr Lee that he would keep the gardens tidy for her. Ms Im allowed the work to be done over the three-year period of the tenancy and did not at any time ask him to leave or to not continue to complete the garden work. She accepts that Ms Kim would message her (through a Korean social media page) that Mr Lee would be coming the next day to complete the garden work. Ms Im said that she would sometimes reply agreeing to the visit, but she would often not reply at all. However, again she did not tell Mr Lee or Ms Kim that she did not want him to come. I am also satisfied that Ms Im allowed Mr Lee to come inside the house to use the bathroom and the like. While he may not have always asked her at the time if he could come in, Ms Im said that she would usually leave the door open for him to enable him to enter to use the bathroom.

The claim for compensation for breach of her right to quiet enjoyment is therefore also dismissed. Payment of the bond

The landlords oppose payment of the bond. They say that they have a claim against Ms Im for rent and other compensation. However they did not file a cross application against the tenants as required by section 22B(2) of the Act, despite by direction (in my 9 September 2025 order that they must do so at least 14 days before today’s hearing if they want it to be heard at the same time as Ms Im’s claim.

Ms Im is therefore entitled to payment of the bond in full. As explained to the landlords at the hearing this does not prevent them from filing their application in the future if they wish to do so. Tribunal application fee

Ms Im has been mostly unsuccessful in her claims, and I therefore do not consider this an appropriate case to award her payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

Ms Im applied, in her application, for a suppression order.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

However, Ms Im has been mostly unsuccessful in her claims. The application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Were the landlords in breach of any obligation regarding the shower ceiling repair?

The claim for compensation is therefore dismissed. Did the landlords fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards with respect to heating?

I do not consider that Mr Lee has breached Ms Im’s right to quiet enjoyment here because she has consented, either expressly or by implication, to the entry by Mr Lee.

The claim for compensation for breach of her right to quiet enjoyment is therefore also dismissed. Payment of the bond

Ms Im has been mostly unsuccessful in her claims, and I therefore do not consider this an appropriate case to award her payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

Ms Im applied, in her application, for a suppression order.

However, Ms Im has been mostly unsuccessful in her claims. The application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298770 — 14-day notice at 62A Cheyenne Street, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298770 — 14-day notice at 62A Cheyenne Street, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the landlords in breach of any obligation regarding the shower ceiling repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the landlords in breach of any obligation regarding the shower ceiling repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions