What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303650 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 5303650?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303650?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12937235-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303650 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 5303650?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303650?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12937235-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Suppressed] Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303650 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Olivia Margaret Annear and Liam Patrick Kennedy must pay [the landlord] $9,737.52 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre must pay bond in the sum of $2,720 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations, relating mainly to the condition of the premises.
The landlord claims rent arrears. Background
This tenancy began on 8 March 2025. It ended on 4 November under an order of this Tribunal made on 31 October. The landlord obtained possession of the premises on 27 November.
The premises consist of a three-bedroom 1960s house. There is a self- contained unit, on the same title, behind the house. Ms Annear’s mother took a tenancy of that unit also in March 2025. She remains the tenant of the unit.
The landlord bought the property in December 2024. The tenants and Ms Annear’s mother were its first tenants. Previously, the premises had been occupied by the owners since 1987.
Rent fell into arrears from the end of June. The arrears have accumulated since then. No rent was paid after the end of July.
On 10 June the tenants raised issues with the landlord concerning a key for the sliding door at the front of the premises, the installation of a gate and the openings from the lounge and the kitchen to the hallway. The tenants suggested installing cavity sliders to the openings. The tenants wrote, “These are only suggestions, and should they be untenable we understand”. The landlord rejected them.
On 19 August, the tenant served a breach notice on the landlord citing breaches in relation to a non-compliant and defective heat pump, non-compliant insulation and failure to comply with the requirements for smoke alarms. At that time rent arrears were $3,400.
The tenants filed their application on 13 July although it took time to be assessed and processed. It contained a broader range of claims than the breach notice. The landlord filed its application on 21 July by which time rent was three weeks in arrears.
On 31 October the case came before the Tribunal for case management. The Tribunal made an order for the tenants to pay the rent falling due on 1 November, and weekly thereafter and if rent was not paid within 48 hours of its due date, the tenancy would terminate, and possession of the premises would pass to the landlord. The tenants did not pay any rent and so the tenancy terminated.
Representatives of the landlord attended at the premises on 3 November. The tenants were still in occupation and so they withdrew.
The tenants made an application for a rehearing which was dismissed on the papers.
The order made on 31 October also required the parties to file any additional evidence by 14 November and in the Reasons section, it set out the parties claims and dismissed certain of the tenants’ claims.
Rent arrears to 27 November were $12,822.86. The tenants did not dispute the landlord’s rent statement. Evidence Generally
The tenants asked the landlord to investigate some of the issues they raised with the landlord concerning the condition of the premises. The landlord rejected those requests on the ground that it was unnecessary. The tenants submitted that the landlord should be required to undertake those investigations or that the Tribunal should arrange them.
There are cases where the Tribunal will expect the landlord to undertake investigations. They will usually be where there is an obvious problem that requires investigation before the cause and the remedy can be established. For reasons that are given below, I find that the landlord was not required to undertake any of the investigations sought by the tenants.
The Tribunal also has the power to commission its own reports. That power is rarely exercised. It is normally for the party making an allegation to provide the evidence to prove it. There is nothing in this case that would prompt me to commission a report. In any case, it is something that should be requested well in advance of the hearing. Expecting it to be granted at the hearing would necessitate a lengthy adjournment which is contrary to the requirement for Tribunal proceedings to be expeditious.
I note as well that the parties referred to evidence of events and claims that are not discussed in this decision. They are not relevant to the issues that I am required to consider. The landlord intends to file another application in which other claims may be considered. Tenants’ Claims Law – Maintenance and Healthy Homes Obligations
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must 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 and 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landlords have obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
The ventilation standard sets out minimum standards 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, and which work properly.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. Heat Pump
The tenants complain that the heat pump had not been serviced since 2017 as shown by a sticker on the internal appliance. They also say that it was not working satisfactorily. They do not claim that there was insufficient heating capacity for the living area as required by the HHS.
The landlord denied that the heat pump was not serviced but there was no evidence of recent servicing. I note that the law does not require regular servicing and that it does not necessarily follow that the absence of regular servicing will result in the heat pump not working satisfactorily.
The landlord denied that the heat pump was not working satisfactorily. The tenants produced a report from Tamaiti Services dated 20 August that states that the heat pump doesn’t work properly although it gives no other details. It is not clear whether the author of the report tested the heat pump.
The landlord produced a HH report that found the premises to be fully compliant with HHS.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the heat pump was not working satisfactorily. There was no complaint about in June when the tenants said they were having difficulty heating the premises and their power bills were high. The August complaint was concerned about servicing the heat pump and its capacity. Broken Window
The tenants say that the landlord failed to repair the broken latch on a window in the master bedroom. The landlords say that the tenants broke the latch and so it was their responsibility to repair it. The tenants said that the latch was broken when they moved in.
The landlords have produced the full ingoing report including photographs. There is a clear photograph of the window with the latch intact. I find, therefore, that the latch was broken during the tenancy. The tenants have not disproved responsibility for the damage and so it was for them to repair it, not the landlord. I note that the tenants’ denial of responsibility for the broken latch does not reflect well on them in terms of the credibility of their evidence. Bathroom Ventilation
The tenants say that the extractor fan in the bathroom did not work satisfactorily. They rely of the Tamaiti report which says that. They say that the suction from the fan was not able to hold a piece of paper. The landlords relied on their HH report which states that the fan was in good working order.
The tenants’ complaints on 10 June and their breach notice on 19 August did not mention any problem with the fan. The landlord said that there was no complaint about the fan from the tenants during the tenancy.
The tenants also said that the window in the bathroom did not have any stays on it and while it opened, it tended to open fully and so it was not practicable to open it for ventilation. There was no complain about this during the tenancy.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the bathroom fan did not work satisfactorily. I accept that if the window was a problem and it had been reported to the landlord, that it would have been rectified. These claims are therefore dismissed. Gaps and Draughts
The tenants say that there were unreasonable gaps resulting in draughts in the premises during the tenancy. The Tamatai report states that occasionally the fan does not work. It appears that this has come from the tenants.
The report refers to draughts through the front door, the ranch slider and windows, especially the window with the broken window latch. The tenant produced photographs showing the door and showing a gold coin inserted in gaps around the door.
The ability to put a coin in a gap does not prove the existence of a draught. For a significant draught to arise there must be a gap that allow air to move from outside the house to the inside. The photographs do not show that. The tenants’ evidence does prove that there were unreasonable gaps causing draughts. Rotten Bathroom Floor
There was very little discussion about this at the hearing. The evidence did not prove that there was any significant problem with the bathroom floor. Broken Doors
This relates to the ranch slider. The tenants said that there was a fault with the lock but there was no hard evidence to prove that. There was no key for the lock and so the tenants could not lock and unlock it from the outside. They could lock it from the inside.
The tenants had the use of two doors that could be locked from the inside and outside and that is enough. The landlord was not required to make the ranch slider lockable from the outside.
I do not find any landlord breach relating to the door. Electrical System
The tenants allege that the electrical system at the premises was faulty. They said that they had problems with lights flickering. There was no objective evidence to support their claim, and I find that it has not been proved.
The tenants also claimed that they were paying for the electricity supplied to the rear unit. The landlord produced a power invoice from the rear tenant showing that she had her own account and that she was paying for her own electricity. Moisture and Drainage
The tenants say that water pooled at the rear of the premises and that it contributed to dampness in the house. They produced photographs showing some water pooled on the ground near the garage at the rear of the premises.
Water has a tendency to pool on flat ground after a period of heavy rain. It is not necessarily an indication of a problem of inadequate drainage or at least of a problem that the landlord is required to remedy. We know that flooding can be a problem in Christchurch but that does not make it a landlord’s responsibility.
There was no evidence that the water pooling on the ground outside was persistent or that it affected living conditions inside the house. I find that there was no breach of the landlord’s responsibility to provide effective drainage or to ensure that the premises were free of damp. There was very limited evidence of damp or mould in the house. Insulation
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises were required to be insulated to a minimum standard including in the roof space and under the floors where practicable.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
The tenants claim that the insulation in the ceiling was not compliant.
The landlord’s HH assessment refers to some of the insulation in the ceiling being displaced. The landlord’s evidence was that they attended to that before the tenancy started and they produced an invoice to prove that.
There was compliant underfloor insulation.
Wall insulation is not required, and the landlord did not state that there was wall insulation.
The tenants have not proved any con-compliance concerning insulation. Asbestos
The tenants were concerned about the presence of asbestos in the premises and so they took samples from the house and had them analysed.
Samples taken from wallpaper and a stippled ceiling tested negative for asbestos. A sample of lino tested positive.
The floor covering in the kitchen/dining area is floating laminate flooring. It completely covers the original lino flooring which remains in place. The tenants have lifted a section of the laminate to expose an area of the lino which is shown in the tenants’ photographs to be damaged.
The tenants said that the laminate flooring was damaged, and they lifted it intending to replace the damaged area. They then found the damaged lino. They argued that the laminate flooring was not effective in encapsulating the damaged lino and that put them and their infant daughter as risk from exposure to airborne asbestos fibres.
I am sceptical of the tenants’ evidence concerning the damaged laminate flooring. My overall impression of the tenants’ claims is that there is an element of desperation about them. They have got into arrears with their rent and that has coincided with their increasingly expansive claims against the landlord. My sense is that the two things are related.
I note that the tenants were aggrieved with the Tribunal’s conditional termination order on 31 October that required them to pay their rent. It did not order them to pay arrears, just rent as it fell due. That is a perfectly conventional order for the Tribunal to make. When they failed to pay their rent, the tenancy was terminated.
They applied for a rehearing on grounds that the Tribunal rejected on the papers. It is fair to say that their rehearing application was hopeless.
Even at the hearing they were critical of the Tribunal’s decisions and expressed the view that they had been treated unfairly. I note that they did not vacate the premises as they were required to do but stayed until they were evicted by the Court bailiff.
Section 40(1)(b) of the Act requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or the need for any repairs. If the floor was damaged, the tenants should have informed the landlord. They did not do so. Nor have they explained how the flooring was damaged. Instead, they lifted a section of flooring to expose the lino below which they say was damaged.
The other possibility is that the tenants decided to lift a section of the flooring to expose the lino in the hope of using it to their advantage. Mr Kennedy has been a floorer and so he would know that the laminate flooring might cover lino and the that the lino might contain asbestos. It is also possible that the tenants damaged the lino themselves, again to gain some advantage.
I note as well that the laminate flooring was laid as part of the earthquake repairs carried out in 2012. Those repairs were carried out under the control of Fletcher Building funded by EQC. It seems unlikely that they would have allowed damaged lino that potentially contained asbestos to be left in place.
The fact is that we don’t know what happened because the tenants failed, as they should have done, to notify the landlords as soon as there was any damage to the laminate flooring. In all the circumstances of this case, I strongly suspect that the tenants’ explanation of events is untrue.
I reject the tenants’ submission that the laminate flooring covering the lino did not adequately encapsulate the lino and therefore expose the tenants to the risk of exposure to asbestos. There was no expert evidence offered to support the tenant’s contention. I take notice of the fact that it is common practice to overlay flooring, including lino flooring, with laminate timber. I see no reason why that would not adequately encapsulate the lino.
The other plank of the tenants’ submission is that the lino flooring was damaged. There is no suggestion that lino flooring that is intact is at risk of releasing asbestos. I am not satisfied that the lino was damaged before the tenants removed the laminate flooring.
Even if the lino had existing damage, and the damage to it and flooring was not the tenant’s responsibility, the landlord had no prior knowledge of the damage and the landlord’s responsibility, on being made aware of the damage, would have been to repair it. Had that been done adequately and promptly, I do not see how the landlord could have any culpability or liability. The tenants by that time were not allowing the landlord’s agents access to the premises.
The tenants argued that the earthquake repair work was not completed with a proper asbestos safety plan in place and that the landlord would or should have known that from seeing the EQC documentation when he bought the property. The tenants have not proved the former and the latter is drawing a very long bow. There is nothing in the documentation that I have seen that would have put the landlord on notice that there might be a danger from asbestos from the premises.
For these reasons I reject the tenants’ claim in respect of asbestos contamination. Smoke Alarms
Landlords must install compliant smoke alarms within three metres of every bedroom in the premises.
The tenants say that there were two smoke alarms in the premises at the start of the tenancy, one at each end of the hallway. They say, and so does the Tamaiti report, that only one of the three bedrooms in the premises is within three metres of a smoke alarm.
The landlord says that there were compliant smoke alarms in the premises and that the tenants have interfered with them to create the situation found when Tamaiti inspected the premises. The landlords served a breach note on the tenants on 4 September for rubbish and interference with smoke alarms which the notice said were removed. I note as well that there was evidence that the tenant smoked in the premises which could explain why alarms were removed.
The tenancy agreement records that there are two smoke alarms in the premises and an invoice dated 14 February includes two new alarms fitted in the hallway.
I am satisfied from the photographs in the landlord’s ingoing inspection report that there were smoke alarms within three meters of every bedroom in the premises. There were new alarms at each end of the main hallway and an older alarm by the back door. The two new alarms covered the four bedrooms. This claim is therefore dismissed. Keys
The tenants complain that the landlord left the keys to the premises under the mat for them at the start of the tenancy. They say that the landlord therefore failed to provide a secure premises.
The arrangement to leave the keys under the mat for the tenants was accepted by the tenants. They did not object to it at the time and there is no suggestion that any harm came of it. The risk of harm was very low. The tenants claimed later that someone had entered the premises using a key. The landlord then changed the locks to meet the tenants’ concerns.
I can see no breach here and certainly no breach that would warrant a remedy. Healthy Homes Information
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00.
On 18 August 2025 the tenants wrote to the landlord’s agent asking them to provide certain documents. The agent rejected the request in its entirety. They were justified in doing do so save for one thing. The tenants asked for a copy of any healthy homes assessment, which the agents had. That is a document that the tenants were entitled toa ask for and to receive. The assessment has since been provided to the tenants and to the Tribunal.
The refusal to provide the document was an unlawful act for which the Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $750.
There should be an award of exemplary damages for what was a blatant disregard of the Act. The effect on the tenants has been minimal. They had already made their application, and the document has since been provided. An award in the sum of $250 is appropriate to register the Tribunal’s disapproval and as a deterrent. Gas
The landlord accepted that the tenants should be reimbursed the cost of hiring gas bottles for the premises. Gas bottles that the tenants needed for cooking are infrastructure and their cost is for the landlord to pay. The tenants must pay for the gas they use. There is an invoice in the sum of $143.34 and I have awarded that to the tenants. Filing Fees
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded them the filing fee. Suppression
For the same reason I have granted the landlord’s request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303650 — Rent arrears at [Suppressed]

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303650 — Rent arrears at [Suppressed]

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions