What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300407 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5300407?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300407?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300407?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12978537-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300407 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5300407?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300407?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300407?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12978537-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

61 Sandwich Road, Saint Andrews, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300407 — Smoke alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord must check the electrical connection to the oven to make sure it is compliant.
Online Rentals Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Su Yingxuan & Huang Liyan, Yingxuan Su and Liyan Huang must pay [The tenant/s] $2,028.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Online Rentals Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Su Yingxuan & Huang Liyan, Yingxuan Su, Liyan Huang attended the hearing for the landlord. [The tenant’s representatives] attended for the tenants. The landlord was assisted by an interpreter of the Cantonese language.
I made directions about the filing of evidence on 28 October 2025 after a case conference and added the landlords as separate parties. The landlord chose not to file evidence prior to the hearing. 1
The tenants originally made this application on 4 July 2025 and identified a long list of maintenance issues they wanted fixed. By the time of the case conference on 8 October 2025, most issues had been remedied.
There was some outstanding work required, and I made orders about this by consent on 28 October 2025. All work had been completed by the date of the hearing on 11 December 2025. What are the tenants’ claims?
The tenants claim the landlord has not kept the premises reasonably well maintained and has not fully complied with the Healthy Homes Standards. 2 They are also concerned that some of the maintenance work done at the property may not have been completed by qualified tradespeople.
The tenants claim compensation for loss or detriment of up to $100,000.00 which they say represents the rent they have paid over about three years, loss of income after an injury that happened at the property resulted in surgery and being unable to work, and health issues.
The specific issues raised by the tenants are:- a. That smoke alarms did not work properly, the landlord did not replace these in a timely manner and the replacements were not fully compliant; b. A leak through an upstairs bedroom ceiling and a window; c. A pit in the garage was left open and risked safety; d. A problem with water running behind the wall in the downstairs bathroom; 1 I allowed some relevant new evidence to be emailed during the hearing and allowed the landlord to email a consolidated bundle of the invoices for work done during the tenancy after the hearing. The agent included a written statement from the landlord (about the garage door remote) in the body of this email sent on 15/12/2025. I place little weight on this because it was not given in the hearing. In any event, it does not change my decision. 2 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 – “(RT(HHS) Regs” e. That the original Healthy Homes report was not complete as it omitted the en-suite bathroom, and that the ventilation fan did not vent to the outside; f. There were gaps around some doors allowing draughts; g. Problems with the dishwasher; h. Kitchen cupboards coming off their hinges; i. Various electrical issues including one oven light not working, the downstairs bathroom fan not working properly or strongly, a heater in this bathroom making a burning smell, four garage lights needing replacement; j. The automated garage door system not working; k. No safe step to the outside from a downstairs ranchslider; l. Garden work (trellis, garden border).
This is the tenants’ claim so they must provide evidence to prove their claims. I do not have to be certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is more probable than not.
In the case of mandatory compliance requirements such as to have smoke alarms and comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), if a tenant files enough evidence to indicate there is probably a compliance breach, then the landlord should give evidence to answer that allegation.
Compensation may be awarded in the case of a proven breach where there is a real loss or detriment to the innocent party such as a cost incurred, an item damaged or perhaps a loss of enjoyment or facility expected. Loss or detriment must also be reasonably foreseeable or closely related to the breach.
Some breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) are specified as “unlawful acts”, and a different type of financial remedy called “exemplary damages” may be awarded. These are more like fines. They are listed in Schedule 1A RTA. Background
The tenancy started on 12 February 2022 and was managed by the landlords’ previous agent ([The previous agent]). Ray White (“RW”) took over as agent for the landlords from 6 May 2025.
The landlord says he bought the house in about 2014 and lived in it himself until not long before these tenants move in. He says this is the only property he rents out.
The tenants say they raised several maintenance issues with [The previous agent], but progress was often slow, or they ended up attending to things themselves. They sent a full list of issues to RW once it took over and progress was made. The tenants have sent two formal notices to remedy 3 certain issues. The law on landlord obligations
A landlord has certain legal obligations in a tenancy.
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires a landlord to:- a. provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; b. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair taking its age and condition into account; c. comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms 4 ; d. comply with the Healthy Homes Standards; e. comply with any relevant laws in relation to buildings, health and safety; f. 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 (if applied for) up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
A landlord will usually only be found to have breached their maintenance responsibilities if they did not attend to maintenance within a reasonable time of being notified of a problem.

What are the specific legal requirements relevant to these claims?

I list the compliance requirements relevant to these proceedings below. a. Smoke alarms have been required in tenancy premises since 1 July 2016. These must be photoelectric, have not expired, and be at least one installed on every level and within 3 metres of the entrance to every sleeping space. Alarms installed or replaced after the above date must come with certification from the manufacturer that the battery has a life span of at least 8-years. 5 3 Using templates available through Tenancy Services based on section 56 RTA which specify alleged breaches and request these be remedied by a set date. 4 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 5 All smoke alarms must contain compliant batteries; regulation 7(2). See the definition of “compliant” in relation to a battery for a smoke alarm in regulation 3 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. b. All tenancy premises must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The compliance due date varies depending on the tenancy. 6 For private rentals: i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. This tenancy started on 12 February 2022, so the HHS compliance due date was 13 May 2022 (“HHS due date”). c. The HHS are detailed compliance requirements for heating in the main living area, ceiling and underfloor insulation, ventilation from windows and bathroom and kitchen extractor fans, draught stopping, an efficient drainage system and a moisture prevention barrier under the house. d. The HHS ventilation requirements are that bathrooms and kitchens must have externally ducted extractor fans 7 or a continuous ventilation system. Kitchen extractor fan ducting must be a minimum of 150mm or an exhaust capacity of 50 litres per second and bathroom fan ducting must be a minimum of 120mm or 25 litres per second 8 (unless the fan was installed prior to 1 July 2019 and is still working well). 9 Decisions on the specific issues
The tenants supplied copies of communications they sent [The previous agent] and RW and copies of the two notices to remedy. Some of the key evidence is:- a. An email from the tenants to [The previous agent] on 4 June 2024 raising maintenance issues including saying smoke alarms are “.. not the new standard alarm that should be installed. The fire alarms that should be in the house are 10year lasting ones.” 6 Clause 2 of Schedule 1, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 7 Regulation 3 RT(HHS) Regs defines “extractor fan” as meaning an extractor fan that vents extracted air to the outdoors. 8 Regulations 21-24 (RT(HHS) Regs). There are exemptions if it is not reasonably practicable to install ventilation and that was legal at the time of construction. 9 There is a transitional exemption to the extractor fan requirements for existing fans installed before 1 July 2019; clause 8 of Schedule 1 RT(HHS) Regs. b. A notice to remedy dated 13 February 2025 alleging that smoke alarms did not have the required 8-year batteries and asking this be remedied by 5 March 2025; c. A notice to remedy dated 13 June 2025 alleging the upstairs bathroom ventilation did not duct to the outside, that maintenance was needed in the downstairs bathroom and to the ceiling in a bedroom, that a deep pit in the garage should be filled and requesting that only qualified tradespeople do the work and that an updated Healthy Homes check be done after work had been completed. A remedy date of 3 July 2025 was specified; d. An email from the tenants to RW on 17 June 2025 recording discussion that took place that morning in a meeting at the property. This listed several maintenance issues. An email response from RW the next day is also helpful.
The landlords disagree that they breached their maintenance or HHS obligations.
The landlord supplied a Healthy Homes Inspection Summary report initially dated 14 December 2021 and updated on 17 February 2022 (“HHS report”). The update records the house complies with all HHS.
The landlord and tenant both supplied copies of invoices for some of the maintenance work done during the tenancy and an updated HHS report from a different provider dated 16 July 2025.

Did the landlords breach smoke alarms requirements?

The tenants say there have been problems with downstairs smoke alarms malfunctioning and setting off at random times from the start of the tenancy. They also say the alarms did not comply with the legal requirements because they did not contain long-life batteries. They supplied a history of communication between them and both agents.
My factual findings are:- a. There were at least two smoke alarms at the start of the tenancy as recorded in the tenancy agreement and agreed by the tenants: at least one downstairs in the hallway, possibly one in the downstairs second lounge, and one upstairs on the landing outside the bedrooms. The expiry date of these alarms is not known or recorded. b. That [The previous agent] replaced one or more of the alarms in 2022 after the tenants reported the downstairs alarm/s were malfunctioning. c. In June 2024, the tenants email [The previous agent] a notice to remedy and say the smoke alarms are “.. not the new standard alarm that should be installed. The fire alarms that should be in the house are 10year lasting ones.” d. The landlord replaces all three smoke alarms on 25 June 2024. Photos provided during the hearing show these alarms do not have long-life batteries but replaceable 9-volt batteries. The landlord told me in the hearing that [The previous agent] told him to install “ten year ones”, that he sent a photo to [The previous agent] and they told him the alarms he installed were correct. e. On 26 November 2024, the tenants email [The previous agent] again asking if the alarms are “the legal requirement ones” as the one in the hallway keeps going off. It is unclear what (if anything) is done by the landlord/[The previous agent] at this point. f. On 13 February 2025 the tenants send a notice to remedy which specifies that the installed alarms do not have a long-life battery. Their email says the alarms have been “going off” for two nights. g. The tenant and [the property manager] confirm that the correct long-life battery smoke alarms are installed in June 2025.
The evidence proves that the three new alarms installed by the landlord in June 2024 did not comply with the smoke alarm regulations as they did not have batteries with a life span of at least 8-years. This was rectified a year later.
There is insufficient evidence to prove the smoke alarms were faulty or non- compliant before this date.
The lack of compliant long-life batteries from June 2024 until June 2025 is a failure to comply with the smoke alarm regulations and is specified in the Act as an unlawful act; see s45(1A) RTA.
If the breach is intentional, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 if it would be just to do so; Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants have applied for compensation rather than exemplary damages. The latter is a penalty for intentional breaches. It is sometimes difficult for people to know what the difference between these two remedies is.
In this case, I award compensation. The tenants were frustrated at ongoing issues with alarms setting off for apparently no reason and that requests they made for fully compliant alarms (with long-life batteries) were not addressed. They raised this at least three times over the year from June 2024 to June 2025.
On the other hand, the landlord did take action (alarms were replaced in 2022, 2024, and 2025) and he understandably relied on [The previous agent]’s incorrect advice when they told him in 2024 that the new alarms he was installing were of the correct type. Unfortunately, the landlord is responsible for the mistake made by his agent at the time.
I award compensation of $1,000.00 because correct compliance with the smoke alarm regulations is one of the most important landlord obligations as they help protect tenants from injury and death and safeguard property.
Landlords should check smoke alarms at every inspection as the obligation is ongoing, not just at the start of a tenancy.
Tenants must not remove batteries from smoke alarms even if they think they are malfunctioning. To do so is also an unlawful act and they may be fined up to $4,000.00 by the Tribunal; s40(3A)(b) RTA.
If a tenant thinks a smoke alarm is faulty, they should urgently alert the landlord and if it is not investigated and fixed promptly, could justifiably buy a new compliant alarm themselves and seek reimbursement from the landlord; s45(1)(d) RTA.

Was there a leak in the upstairs bedroom and is this a maintenance failure?

The tenants alerted [The previous agent] to water entering their son’s bedroom on 5 April 2025. RW was then appointed and arranged a plumber to inspect for leaks on 18 June 2025 who determined water could enter through the window when rain and wind came from a certain direction. The landlord resealed around the windows, and this resolved the issue.
The tenants say the ceiling in the room was wet and when they touched it the ceiling panel crumbled and caused a hole. There is no more evidence about this. I suggested the landlord check there is not a leak into the roof cavity from the guttering or eaves.
I am satisfied water could only enter when rain came from a certain direction and the landlord did attend to it. I agree it took longer than optimal possibly because the landlord changed agents during this time but there is no evidence of significant ongoing detriment to the tenants. I do not find a breach. Pit in garage
The tenants say there is a very deep, narrow pit in the garage (deeper than an adult height) which was covered at the start of the tenancy by a loose metal sheet. They placed a couch over it initially (the garage was used as a ‘man- cave’) but asked for it to be permanently covered or filled when they no longer had the couch.
I find the landlord did attend to this request promptly. It was raised on 13 June 2025 and securely covered by a plywood cover before 11 July 2025.
However, I agree the pit should have been secured before the tenancy began as it was a potential safety issue particularly for young children. I consider this to be a breach of the requirement to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I award modest compensation of $100.00 to highlight that it is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure premises are safe to occupy but this is modest as there is no evidence of detriment or loss to the tenants. Was there a maintenance breach relating to the shower in the downstairs bathroom
The tenants say they alerted [The previous agent] to an issue with the shower mixer that would leak water, and that the landlord attended and tightened the screw. The tenants say they then continued to do this when it became loose. They noticed the wall behind the shower liner was soft and told RW on 13 June 2025. This was inspected and the shower mixer and liners replaced before 11 July 2025.
This was attended to promptly once raised. I find there to be no maintenance breach.

Did the landlord breach the HHS regarding the upstairs bathroom extractor fan?

It was established and agreed at the hearing that the initial HHS report (in 2022) omitted reporting on the ventilation fan in the upstairs bathroom. The tenancy agreement also overlooked this.
The tenant told me a tradesperson who inspected the bathroom in 2025 alerted them to the fact that the upstairs bathroom fan was not ducted externally. She raised this with the agent on 13 June 2025 and a new externally ducted fan was installed (invoice dated 1 July 2025).
The HHS require kitchen and bathroom extractor fans to be externally ducted. It is proven the upstairs bathroom fan was not and therefore did not comply with the HHS. This is an unlawful act; s45(1A) RTA.
I do not award exemplary damages because they were not applied for. In my view compensation is also more appropriate than a fine in circumstances where the HHS inspection company in 2022 made the error in not including the fan in its report. The first agent also made an error by not including the upstairs bathroom fan in the HHS statement in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord acted reasonably by relying on the HHS report in 2022. The tenants did not describe any detriment from this issue and admit they did not even know about it until the contractor pointed it out. However, they are correct that they wrongly assumed the house was fully compliant with all HHS because this issue was not reported on anywhere. For this reason, I award compensation of $250.00.

Were there unreasonable draughts around external doors or windows?

The tenants say the tenancy agreement identified unreasonable draughts, but they were told these had been remedied. The landlord told me he installed weather strips after the initial HHS report identified gaps and the updated report confirms the premises pass as at 17 February 2022.
The tenants asked the landlord to remedy a draught around the front door on 17 June 2025. This work was done together with other draught-stopping (invoice date 23 Jul 2025).
The evidence does not show any other draughts were identified or complained about.
There is no proven breach as identified issues were dealt with promptly.

Did the landlord fail to reasonably attend to the dishwasher sprayer arm?

I accept that the landlord probably forgot to attach the dishwasher sprayer arm when he installed the dishwasher. The tenant then accidentally installed it upside down. This was clarified at the case conference and fixed soon after.
I award $50.00 for inconvenience as the landlord initially refused to accept there was an issue and the evidence shows the tenants saying several times that the dishwasher was not operating properly.

Did the landlord fail to reasonably attend to kitchen cupboards coming off hinges?

The tenant raised this with the agent on 17 June 2025 and these were repaired in mid-July 2025. This was attended to promptly so there is no landlord breach.

Did the landlord fail to reasonably attend to various electrical issues?

The tenants raised specific electrical issues with the agent on 17 June 2025 and they were discussed and work orders made by consent at the case conference.
The issues were that one oven light had never been repaired, that the downstairs bathroom fan was weak, that the downstairs bathroom heater was not operational but still smelled hot as if it was connected, and that four fluorescent garage lights needing replacement.
Work was done to repair or address the issues and to replace the bathroom fan (which was going but intermittently switched off) and invoiced in November 2025.
These issues were relatively minor, but I agree should have been attended to more quickly. I award $100.00 for loss of use and frustration. Automated garage door not working
The tenants said the premises were advertised with an automatic garage door but that this never worked properly: the door only went up and down partially. They were supplied with a remote for the door at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord told me he had made it clear to [The previous agent] that it didn’t work, and the tenants say when they asked the agent, they were told it would not be repaired.
The tenants accept they just put up with the lack of an automatic door and opened it manually by pulling it up. However, in October 2024, one of the tenants dislocated his shoulder doing so. This turned out to be a significant injury needing surgery and over 6 months off work receiving reduced wages on ACC.
The first evidence of the tenants specifically asking that the door be repaired is on 17 June 2025 after RW was appointed. This work was done and invoiced on 11 July 2025.
I find the failure of the landlord to repair the automatic garage door for about three years to be a breach of contract. The tenants were given a remote to operate the door so could expect that it would work and be repaired if it did not. If the landlord had intended the door to be manual only, this should have been clearly written into the tenancy agreement and they should not have been given a remote.
I do consider some compensation is appropriate. The tenants did not receive what they were promised under the contract. On the other hand, the tenants did not use the space as a garage and did not persist in requesting the door be repaired. This suggests the loss of an automatic door was not highly significant to them for at least some of the time.
The tenants say the injury caused by manually opening the door, which had become stiff, has cost them in lost wages and that the injury would not have happened if the automatic door had been working as it should. There is something to this. By not fixing the door the landlord was assuming the tenants would lift the door manually. He told me in the hearing that it worked well this way. Arguably, an injury is a foreseeable risk given the door was not intended to be used manually.
I have decided to award compensation of $500.00 to recognise the injury and loss of use of a feature promised under the contract. The award is not higher because if the door was stiff perhaps the tenants should have raised the issue again, and because I was not given specific information to quantify any specific loss (such as proof of wages).

Was the lack of a safe step from a downstairs ranchslider a breach?

The landlord accepts that a ranchslider door from a downstairs bedroom did not have a step down to the outside. A photo in the ingoing inspection report showed an adjacent ranchslider had a small deck and three steps up to it.
The tenants explained their toddler slept in the room with no step, so the door was locked for the first few years but once he became old enough to go outside, they asked that a step be provided.
The request was made on 17 June 2025 and a step built (invoiced 19 July 2025).
I find this to have been attended to within a reasonable time. There was no step from the beginning but there is no evidence it was every promised or requested not that it was a safety issue (there was no evidence of the height of the drop).
No breach is proven. Garden work
This issue was not discussed or referred to in the evidence, so I dismiss any claim. Other Issues
The tenants included evidence about cloudy hot water, curtains, and the gas hob, but did not refer to this in their application, in the case conference, or at the hearing. I dismiss any claims.

Did the landlord breach obligations by doing work he was not qualified to do?

The tenants say the landlord does work at the premises that they are concerned he is not qualified to do. They gave as examples installing the dishwasher, replacing the plug on the stove, checking for leaks in the roof, tightening the shower mixer, and repairing the gas hob element.
This was discussed in the hearing. I explained that landlords can do some work at tenancy premises but not all work. Most electrical, gas, and plumbing work is restricted by law for safety reasons. A homeowners exemption for some low-risk electrical work does not apply because this only applies if the owner lives in the house they are doing work in; s72 Electricity Act 1992.
I include a brief summary of some of the important buildings, health and safety laws that might apply below. a. The Building Act 2004 applies to all buildings whether temporary, permanent, or relocatable; section 8 Building Act 2004. All building work (construction, alteration, demolition, or removal) must comply with the Building Code 10 (the rules for building work to ensure buildings are safe, healthy and durable) and a building consent is often needed. b. Building work that is considered low-risk is exempt from needing a building consent in certain circumstances. 11 It is an offence to carry out building work that is not exempt and does not have a consent and, on conviction, a person may be liable for a fine of up to $200,000.00; s40 Building Act 2004. c. All prescribed electrical work must be done by a licensed electrician; section 74 of the Electricity Act 1992. d. Fixing and unfixing plumbing pipes and fixtures must be done by registered plumbers or, if not registered, supervised by a certifying plumber. 12 e. Installing, altering or repairing underground drainage pipes which carry wastewater or stormwater to an onsite or mains sewer or stormwater must be done by a certifying or licensed drainlayer. 13 f. The installation, alteration and repair of gas appliances must be undertaken by registered gasfitters or, if not registered, supervised by a certifying gasfitter. 14
If a landlord fails to comply with any of the relevant laws, this is also a breach of section 45(1)(c) RTA. Exemplary damages of a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded.
I have made an order that the landlord must check the electrical connection to the oven in the house to make sure this is compliant.
The tenants rightly raised their concerns about this issue, and it is important. They did not provide evidence to prove any specific work had been done that was unlawful, so I make no findings in this regard. Final matters
The tenants say they find it upsetting when they are told a contractor, or the agent is coming to investigate a maintenance issue and the landlord turns up instead. This is partly because of their concerns about qualifications to do work and also because of the language barrier in understanding what is happening in their home. 10 Building Regulations 1992. 11 The exemptions are in Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004. 12 See guidance on Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board website at www.pgdb.co.nz/advice_for_consumers. Governed by Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers 2006 and Regulations. 13 As above. 14 As above.
A landlord has a right to inspect premises and do certain repairs if the proper notice is given or a tenant consents, but tenants should be told who is coming and for what purpose. Section 48 RTA.
A decision like this can seem to focus too much on individual issues rather than the overall picture. I understand from the tenants and their application that it has seemed to them that they have paid rent only to have to repeatedly raise niggly maintenance issues. This has caused frustration when they consider they play their part in what is a two-way relationship.
Sometimes an older house or fixtures does need repeat maintenance. Usually, the rent should reflect this. Sometimes there is a mismatch between tenant and landlord expectations. It seems to me that RW has improved the situation by successfully having issues attended to in a professional and timely way.
The tenants did prove several of their claims, so I award the filing fee. I also supress their names for the same reason and because I consider their motives were genuine.
I do not suppress the landlords’ names as some important breaches and concerns were proven.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300407 — Smoke alarms at 61 Sandwich Road, Saint Andrews, Hamilton 3200

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300407 — Smoke alarms at 61 Sandwich Road, Saint Andrews, Hamilton 3200

Order

Reasons

What are the specific legal requirements relevant to these claims?

Did the landlords breach smoke alarms requirements?

Was there a leak in the upstairs bedroom and is this a maintenance failure?

Did the landlord breach the HHS regarding the upstairs bathroom extractor fan?

Were there unreasonable draughts around external doors or windows?

Did the landlord fail to reasonably attend to the dishwasher sprayer arm?

Did the landlord fail to reasonably attend to kitchen cupboards coming off hinges?

Did the landlord fail to reasonably attend to various electrical issues?

Was the lack of a safe step from a downstairs ranchslider a breach?

Did the landlord breach obligations by doing work he was not qualified to do?

Order

Reasons

What are the specific legal requirements relevant to these claims?

Did the landlords breach smoke alarms requirements?

Was there a leak in the upstairs bedroom and is this a maintenance failure?

Did the landlord breach the HHS regarding the upstairs bathroom extractor fan?

Were there unreasonable draughts around external doors or windows?

Did the landlord fail to reasonably attend to the dishwasher sprayer arm?

Did the landlord fail to reasonably attend to kitchen cupboards coming off hinges?

Did the landlord fail to reasonably attend to various electrical issues?

Was the lack of a safe step from a downstairs ranchslider a breach?

Did the landlord breach obligations by doing work he was not qualified to do?