Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5304021 — Healthy homes at 484 Paparore Road, Paparore, RD 1, Awanui 0486
Decided 21 Jan 2026 · Published 21 Jan 2026 · Application 5304021
- Healthy homes
- Exemplary damages
Order
- [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $3,950.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
Background
- Ms Rangi’s tenancy began on 10 June 2021 and ended on 30 April 2025. The rent was $265 per week.
- Mr Scheib and Mr Rogers purchased the property in (or around) September 2020. Ms Rangi was residing in the property at that time as a flatmate of her former partner. She took on the tenancy in her own name in July 2021.
- Ms Rangi’s application raises issues relating to interference with peace comfort and privacy, maintenance, health homes standards, and other matters as detailed in the Case Conference Directions order dated 5 November 2025.
- The hearing took place in Kaitaia on 19 January 2026. Mr Scheib and Ms Rangi attended the hearing. There was no appearance by Mr Rogers. Interference with peace comfort and privacy
- Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. 1
- A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenancy, is an unlawful act.
- Ms Rangi raised three issues under this heading: a. Mr Scheib’s animals wandered onto her property during the tenancy. b. Mr Scheib recklessly discharged a firearm on his neighbouring property, resulting in an armed offenders callout. c. Mr Scheib shouting and waking her up in the early hours of 2 February 2024. a. Wandering animals
- Mr Scheib had a pig on his property for about two months.
- The pig got through the fence and onto Ms Rangi’s section about three times. Ms Rangi notified Mr Scheib about two instances of this by text message. On the third occasion she visited Mr Scheib. She said that Mr Scheib was angry and confrontational.
- Mr Scheib agreed that his pig went onto Ms Rangi’s side. He said that the time that Ms Rangi came and told him about it was early in the morning. He acknowledged that he was ‘short’ with Ms Rangi in that conversation, but he denied being aggressive. He said that he secured the fence after the third incident, but not long after that the pig escaped into the bush and did not return.
- Ms Rangi also said that Mr Scheib’s chickens go onto her place, but she acknowledged that Mr Scheib gave her some of his chickens. She recalled that 1 Section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) she once sent Mr Scheib a message complaining about the mess that his chickens made, but she was unable to find that message.
- Preventing animals from wandering onto the neighbour’s property is a general legal duty on all people, not particular to tenancy law. In this instance it happened that the landlord and tenant lived next door to each other, so the things that Mr Scheib did or failed to do on his own property potentially impacted on Ms Rangi, even though those things were not specifically to do with his role as landlord.
- Mr Scheib did not intend for his pig to wander onto Ms Rangi’s property, but it was Mr Scheib’s responsibility to keep that from happening. The trespassing pig caused some distress and inconvenience for Ms Rangi.
- This was an interference with Ms Rangi’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. b. Firearms incident
- In or around August / September 2023 there was an incident where Mr Sheib discharged a firearm multiple times on his own property. Mr Scheib did not have a firearms license.
- Ms Rangi recalled hearing four shots and also hearing Mr Scheib shouting. She called the police. The police told her to hide and keep away from the windows. Ms Rangi hid under her bed. An armed offenders team arrived and evacuated Ms Rangi from the property.
- Mr Scheib was arrested and charged. He went through a Restorative Justice process. In that process he apologised to Ms Rangi.
- Mr Scheib does not dispute that this incident happened.
- Again, this is not an instance of Mr Scheib, as a landlord, engaging in behaviour directed towards Ms Rangi that was intended to interfere with her reasonable peace comfort and privacy. However, because Mr Scheib was Ms Rangi’s neighbour, the things that he did on his own property could impact on Ms Rangi’s use and enjoyment of the tenanted premises. Therefore, as with the wandering pig, it is appropriate to consider this incident within the context of the landlord’s obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.
- This incident, for which Mr Scheib is responsible, caused Ms Rangi considerable stress and inconvenience. My finding is that it amounted to a breach of Mr Scheib’s duty as landlord. c. Incident on 2 February 2024
- Ms Rangi said that in the early hours of 2 February 2024 she was awoken by her dogs barking and she heard Mr Scheib shouting. Ms Rangi said that Mr Scheib shouted “my dogs, this is my whenua” and then continued to shout “this is my land” and then shouted her name. Ms Rangi tried to find her phone to call the police, but the shouting stopped.
- Ms Rangi filed a police complaint on 5 February. She provided a copy of the police complaint acknowledgement / report to the Tribunal.
- Mr Scheib said he has absolutely no recollection of this incident. He said that after the shooting incident the previous year, he was very careful and quiet. He said that the police never contacted him about this incident.
- I have no independent evidence about this incident.
- Having read the police report and having heard from Ms Rangi, I am satisfied that this incident occurred, even though Mr Scheib has no recollection of it. Ms Rangi’s description of the incident was clear, specific, and detailed.
- This incident amounted to an interference with Ms Rangi’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. Outcome – interference with peace comfort and privacy
- It is proven that Mr Scheib caused or permitted an unreasonable interference with Ms Rangi’s peace comfort and privacy in respect of the three issues / incidents detailed above.
- Ms Rangi also raised a more general allegation that Mr Scheib was intimidating and threatening towards her.
- In terms of that more general allegation, there is simply no evidence of this.
- The three proven instances of interference with reasonable peace, comfort and privacy do not amount to harassment of the tenant. There is no basis for an award of exemplary damages.
- There is a basis for an award of compensation. The incidents, to varying degrees, caused stress and inconvenience for Ms Rangi.
- Non-pecuniary losses such as stress and inconvenience are recognised in law, although they are difficult to quantify. In this instance, the most serious incident was the firearms incident in 2023.
- I will award compensation of $500.00. Maintenance
- Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
- Ms Rangi raised three issues under this heading: a. Leak underneath the kitchen sink. b. Unsafe power set up in bedroom. c. Gutters overgrown / blocked. a. Leak underneath kitchen sink
- Ms Rangi said that the pipe underneath the sink failed during the tenancy, resulting in a flood in the kitchen. She could not recall when this happened.
- Ms Rangi said that she contacted Mr Scheib about the flood. Mr Scheib arranged for a friend to come to the property and turn off the water.
- Ms Rangi said that she cleaned up after the flood, but the pipe was not repaired and it continued to slowly leak, causing the cupboard under the sink to disintegrate.
- Mr Scheib said that he could not recall any flood incident. He said that Ms Rangi contacted him about a leak underneath the kitchen sink near the end of the tenancy. He arranged for a builder friend to go to the property. That person tightened up the pipe connection underneath the sink (which was loose) and also worked on the front door lock.
- There is no evidence of a flood incident, and no evidence of Ms Rangi raising any issues with leaks under the kitchen sink until the latter part of the tenancy. I was provided with a photograph showing some water damage in the cupboard underneath the sink, but it is not possible to know how long that damage has been present.
- The evidence available to me does not establish that Mr Scheib failed to meet his maintenance duty in respect of this issue. b. Power in bedroom
- As noted above, when Mr Scheib and Mr Rogers purchased this property in (or around) September 2020, Ms Rangi was already living there with her former partner, who was the tenant.
- At that time there was a power lead, plugged into the bedroom of these premises, that ran to a shed, then another lead from the shed across a paddock and a stream to a tiny house.
- Ms Rangi recalled that she began to notice a bad smell in this bedroom, and about a week later her partner noticed smoke coming from the area where the lead was plugged into the wall. They quickly disconnected the lead and contacted Mr Scheib
- Mr Scheib said that he travelled up from Auckland and set up a separate power source for the tiny house. He said that this was on the list of the changes that he wanted to make to the properties, but it was brought forward when this incident happened.
- The set up was illegal and dangerous, and it is very fortunate that there was no fire.
- However, Mr Scheib was not responsible for that set up (he inherited it from the previous owner), and he took prompt steps to address it when the incident occurred.
- Further, this incident did not happen during Ms Rangi’s tenancy. Her tenancy began in July 2021. c. Gutters overgrown / blocked
- Ms Rangi said that Mr Scheib cleared the gutters in the early part of the tenancy but then he stopped, and the gutters became clogged and overgrown with weeds.
- Ms Rangi said that this caused the gutters to overflow in heavy rain.
- Mr Scheib accepted that he stopped maintaining the gutters during the tenancy. Outcome - maintenance
- There is one proven breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises.
- The landlord’s failure to maintain the gutters caused some inconvenience and loss of amenity for Ms Rangi. She said that the gutters would overflow in heavy rain and she experienced some pooling of stormwater around the property. Healthy homes statement
- Landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a statement that, on or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards. 2
- Failure to include this statement in the tenancy agreement is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $750 apply.
- There was a written tenancy agreement for this tenancy, but it is not on the standard Tenancy Services form. Mr Scheib said that he found the agreement on the internet. The agreement does not include a healthy homes statement. 2 Section 13A(1CA) RTA
- It is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages.
- It is a relevant mitigating factor that Mr Scheib was a first-time landlord and was genuinely unaware of some of the legal duties that apply to the landlords, including this one.
- I will award exemplary damages of $250.00. Smoke alarms
- Landlords must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms. 3
- In brief, landlords must ensure that there are complying smoke alarms within 3m of every bedroom door.
- Ms Rangi said that there was a smoke alarm in the hallway at the start of the tenancy. Shortly into her tenancy she tested the alarm and found that it was not working. She sent Mr Scheib a message about this but he did not reply.
- Mr Scheib acknowledged that he did not assess the smoke alarms in this property at the start of the tenancy. He did not know whether there were any smoke alarms in place or whether they were working. He did not recall receiving a message from Ms Rangi about this early in the tenancy, but he acknowledged that it is possible that she did message him.
- Landlords have a positive duty to ensure that there are smoke alarms in place at the start of every tenancy and that the smoke alarms are working.
- Mr Scheib did not meet that duty in this instance. Healthy homes compliance
- Landlords must meet the healthy homes standards. 4
- The healthy homes standards relate to heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage, and insulation.
- Mr Scheib acknowledged that the premises do not meet the standards in respect of heating (no fixed means of heating in the main living area), ventilation (no mechanical extraction in the kitchen) and insulation (no underfloor insulation). Mr Scheib also acknowledged that the premises are draughty.
- The premises failed to meet the healthy homes standards in those respects. 3 Section 45(1)(ba) RTA 4 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA Exemplary damages – failure to meet obligations in respect of maintenance, smoke alarms, and healthy homes compliance
- The Tenancy Tribunal must take a ‘global approach’ and make one award of exemplary damages, even if there are proven breaches of multiple obligations owed by landlords under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 5
- The maximum award of exemplary damages for a breach of the landlord’s duties under section 45 is $7,200.00.
- In this instance, there are proven breaches in respect of the landlord’s obligations to comply with the requirements in respect of smoke alarms (section 45(1)(ba)), to comply with the healthy homes standards (section 45(1)(bb)), and to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (section 45(1)(b) – gutters).
- In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 6 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
- In this instance: a. Mr Scheib did not intentionally ignore his obligations in respect of smoke alarms and healthy homes, but he was ignorant of them. b. The consequence for Ms Rangi was that: i. The lack of a functioning smoke alarm put herself and the property at risk. ii. The property was cold during the winter. iii. The failure to maintain the gutters meant that the gutters would overflow in heavy rain. c. There is a strong and legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords meet their duties in respect of smoke alarms and healthy homes. The focus of these provisions is ensuring that tenants have warm, dry, and safe homes to live in.
- The breach in respect of maintenance is relatively minor, but the breaches in respect of smoke alarms and healthy homes are more serious.
- Having regard to those factors I will award exemplary damages of $3,200.00. 5 MBIE v Hillis Shearing Ltd [2024] NZDC 27583 6 Section 109 RTA Interference with the supply of water
- Landlords must not interfere with the supply of services to the premises, except when it is necessary to do so in an emergency or for the purposes of maintenance. 7 A breach of this duty is an unlawful act.
- The water supply for the property is from a bore, which supplies a holding tank.
- Ms Rangi recalled an occasion when there was no water. She contacted Mr Scheib, who was slow to respond. She recalled that water was reinstated later that day.
- Mr Scheib recalled this incident. He said that he was overseas at the time.
- This is not an instance of a landlord intentionally interfering with the supply of water. The water supply was interrupted due to an equipment failure issue. The landlord took action and reinstated water within a reasonable time.
- There is no basis for an award of damages under this heading. Locks
- Landlords must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. 8
- Ms Rangi said that the front door and back door (ranchslider) locks were both faulty throughout her tenancy. They could be locked from the inside, but she could not secure the premises when she was out.
- Ms Rangi said that she raised this issue with Mr Scheib during the tenancy but he did not take any action until near the end of her tenancy, when he had the front door (but not the back door) repaired.
- Mr Scheib said that Ms Rangi did not raise this issue until near the end of the tenancy, when she told him that the front door was not working. He arranged for a builder friend to come to the property and fix the front door.
- Ms Rangi has the burden of proof.
- There is no supporting evidence, such as text messages, to support Ms Rangi’s argument that she let Mr Scheib know about this problem throughout her tenancy. Ms Rangi’s tenancy began in 2021, and it would be surprising if she did not message Mr Scheib about a problem as fundamental as not being able to secure the property. 7 Section 45(2) RTA 8 Section 46 RTA
- In the absence of any such evidence my finding is that it is not proven that Ms Rangi let Mr Scheib know about the front door until near the end of the tenancy. It is not proven that Ms Rangi let Mr Scheib know about the back door at all during the tenancy.
- There is no proven breach of the landlord’s duty to provide adequate locks. Unlawful entry
- Ms Rangi said that a neighbour told her that she (the neighbour) saw Mr Scheib going onto the property with another person when Ms Rangi was out.
- Landlords must not enter the premises during the tenancy, except where permitted to do so under section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act (with the tenant’s permission, or having given notice for the purpose of inspection or repairs). In section 48, the definition of “premises” excludes land and facilities.
- Mr Scheib said that on one occasion he accompanied a building inspector onto the premises, but he did not go inside and he had notified Ms Rangi about this visit. He said that he did not go inside the house during the tenancy except with Ms Rangi’s consent or having given notice.
- My finding is that it is not proven that Mr Scheib entered the premises unlawfully.
- The only evidence available to me about the incident that Ms Rangi raises under this heading is hearsay evidence. I did not hear from Ms Rangi’s neighbour. I do have a statement from that person, but it does not make any reference to this incident.
- This part of the claim is dismissed. Termination of the tenancy
- Mr Scheib gave a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy.
- Ms Rangi argued that the notice was retaliatory because she had done nothing to warrant termination of her tenancy.
- At the hearing Mr Scheib said that he terminated the tenancy because: a. The report from the Building Inspector showed that substantial repairs were necessary and he could not do this work with a tenant in place; and b. The behaviour of Ms Rangi’s ex-partner was concerning, and he had received complaints from his other tenants.
- Landlords can terminate a periodic tenancy by giving 90-days’ notice to the tenant. Landlords are not obliged to give a reason for the notice.
- The only reasons that are illegitimate and that could be grounds for an award of exemplary damages by the Tribunal are if the notice was discriminatory or retaliatory.
- A retaliatory notice is one where, in issuing the notice, the landlord must motivated by the tenant exercising a legal right or power or raising a legitimate complaint.
- There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case here. Ms Rangi had not raised a maintenance issue or any other type of complaint shortly before Mr Scheib gave notice. I accept that Mr Scheib’s explanation of his reasons, as set out above, is genuine.
- This part of the application is dismissed. Filing fee
- Ms Rangi was partially successful in her application and I will award Ms Rangi the filing fee. 9