What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336899 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5336899?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336899?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13069155-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336899 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5336899?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336899?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13069155-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336899 — Smoke alarms

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 16 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing both the tenants’ application and the landlord’s cross-application.
On 22 December 2025 the Tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there were material errors in the decision, and that grounds of the application were not addressed.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The tenant says that there were errors in the decision in that the healthy homes assessor’s report was accepted without question as the assessor did not test all 36 downlights for draughts. He also challenged the methodology of the Healthy Homes assessor generally and says that I should have preferred has photos which clearly showed gaps. This issue was specifically addressed in the decision where I found that the light fittings vent into the ceiling cavity rather than externally and that this was not a breach. This is not a ground for a rehearing.
The tenant says that I did not address his concerns about the gaps for the range hood for which photos were supplied. As with the light fittings, he says that the healthy homes assessor’s methodology which did not find any draughts was incorrect. I do note that there were photos of gaps where the sleeve which covers the arrangements ducting has slipped. However, as with the light fittings this vents into the ceiling cavity rather than externally. Given that the tenant’s list of issues, and photos of these issues ran to over 500 pages of documents I noted in the hearing that “the tenants’ alleged defects are too numerous to list. However, the majority lack merit.” This issue falls into that category. This is not a ground for a rehearing to be granted
The tenant says that there was an error in the evidence provided by the landlord relating to the calculation of the heating capacity, which was variously described as 7 and 15 kilowatts. The landlord explained that this was done as there was some uncertainty as to the rating of the particular heating unit. In any event the heating provided at the tenancy was in excess of the calculated capacity. It is unclear to me what section of the Act this is an alleged breach of. In any event it is not a ground for a rehearing to be granted.
The tenant says that the change in the number of tenants allowed at the property from 2 to 4 means that the healthy homes heating calculation was incorrect as a higher heating level was required. The healthy homes heating calculations are made under schedule 2 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. There is no mention in schedule 2 of the number of tenants. Rather the calculation involves a cubic capacity of the main living area, the level of insulation, and the geographical area in which the home is located. This is not a ground for a rehearing to be granted.
The landlord says that the decision did not address an issue he raised relating to the identity of the landlord. The landlord is a registered company, and it eventuates that the legal owner of the property is a different registered company, albeit both companies have the same director who is also the sole shareholder. During the hearing the tenant alleged that this was a fraud and that the tenancy was therefore unlawful. I dismissed this during the hearing on the basis that there is no requirement in the Act that the landlord owns the property. Rather the landlord needs to be in a position to be the legal grantor of a tenancy. This simply requires that the landlord has licence to do so from the owner whether implied or actual. If there is any issue between the owner and the entity which is the landlord that is an issue between those two parties for which the tenant has no standing. As this was dealt with during the hearing and the tenant appeared to accept the position I had put forward, this issue was not discussed in my decision, as it was simply not relevant to the issues before me. The tenant’s submissions on this fail to persuade me that this is an issue for which a rehearing should be granted.
In the decision I refer to the draughts which came from a gap in the lounge ranch slider as a “technical breach” as the landlord took steps to address it as soon the issue was discovered, albeit difficulties with parts suppliers and tradesmen have caused delays in this regard. On this basis I declined to award exemplary damages. The tenant says that this was not a technical breach rather it was a substantive breach for which damages should be awarded. If the tenant’s argument is right, then exemplary damages should be awarded every time window is broken in a rental property. This is because the broken pane will allow a draught and for the time between the breakage and the pain being replaced repairs landlord has failed to provide a healthy homes compliance tenancy. This could not have been the intention of Parliament when the act was passed. This is not an issue for which of the hearing should be granted.
The tenant says that there is a material error in the decision and that I refer to the lease allowing a single pet, a bird. He says that in fact the section where there is a reference to the people out and that pets are allowed are separated by several pages, and therefore this is incorrect. Reviewing the decision I note that the section where the number of pets is referred to as a section where I summarised the landlord’s arguments for termination. This was neither an era nor is it an issue for which rehearing should be granted.
The tenant says that my failure to award exemplary damages for the fact that the smoke alarm is found to be non-functioning were a material error. It was discovered that the smoke alarm in place was reliant on a wired power system which had been disconnected at some point. Upon discovery the landlord had another smoke alarm installed which I found was within 3 m of the bedrooms. On this basis I declined to make an award of damages. I have not heard anything from the tenant today which alters my findings. This is not a ground for which rehearing should be granted.
The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 16 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing both the tenants’ application and the landlord’s cross-application.

On 22 December 2025 the Tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there were material errors in the decision, and that grounds of the application were not addressed.

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.

Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.

The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The tenant says that there were errors in the decision in that the healthy homes assessor’s report was accepted without question as the assessor did not test all 36 downlights for draughts. He also challenged the methodology of the Healthy Homes assessor generally and says that I should have preferred has photos which clearly showed gaps. This issue was specifically addressed in the decision where I found that the light fittings vent into the ceiling cavity rather than externally and that this was not a breach. This is not a ground for a rehearing.

The tenant says that I did not address his concerns about the gaps for the range hood for which photos were supplied. As with the light fittings, he says that the healthy homes assessor’s methodology which did not find any draughts was incorrect. I do note that there were photos of gaps where the sleeve which covers the arrangements ducting has slipped. However, as with the light fittings this vents into the ceiling cavity rather than externally. Given that the tenant’s list of issues, and photos of these issues ran to over 500 pages of documents I noted in the hearing that “the tenants’ alleged defects are too numerous to list. However, the majority lack merit.” This issue falls into that category. This is not a ground for a rehearing to be granted

The tenant says that there was an error in the evidence provided by the landlord relating to the calculation of the heating capacity, which was variously described as 7 and 15 kilowatts. The landlord explained that this was done as there was some uncertainty as to the rating of the particular heating unit. In any event the heating provided at the tenancy was in excess of the calculated capacity. It is unclear to me what section of the Act this is an alleged breach of. In any event it is not a ground for a rehearing to be granted.

The tenant says that the change in the number of tenants allowed at the property from 2 to 4 means that the healthy homes heating calculation was incorrect as a higher heating level was required. The healthy homes heating calculations are made under schedule 2 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. There is no mention in schedule 2 of the number of tenants. Rather the calculation involves a cubic capacity of the main living area, the level of insulation, and the geographical area in which the home is located. This is not a ground for a rehearing to be granted.

The landlord says that the decision did not address an issue he raised relating to the identity of the landlord. The landlord is a registered company, and it eventuates that the legal owner of the property is a different registered company, albeit both companies have the same director who is also the sole shareholder. During the hearing the tenant alleged that this was a fraud and that the tenancy was therefore unlawful. I dismissed this during the hearing on the basis that there is no requirement in the Act that the landlord owns the property. Rather the landlord needs to be in a position to be the legal grantor of a tenancy. This simply requires that the landlord has licence to do so from the owner whether implied or actual. If there is any issue between the owner and the entity which is the landlord that is an issue between those two parties for which the tenant has no standing. As this was dealt with during the hearing and the tenant appeared to accept the position I had put forward, this issue was not discussed in my decision, as it was simply not relevant to the issues before me. The tenant’s submissions on this fail to persuade me that this is an issue for which a rehearing should be granted.

In the decision I refer to the draughts which came from a gap in the lounge ranch slider as a “technical breach” as the landlord took steps to address it as soon the issue was discovered, albeit difficulties with parts suppliers and tradesmen have caused delays in this regard. On this basis I declined to award exemplary damages. The tenant says that this was not a technical breach rather it was a substantive breach for which damages should be awarded. If the tenant’s argument is right, then exemplary damages should be awarded every time window is broken in a rental property. This is because the broken pane will allow a draught and for the time between the breakage and the pain being replaced repairs landlord has failed to provide a healthy homes compliance tenancy. This could not have been the intention of Parliament when the act was passed. This is not an issue for which of the hearing should be granted.

The tenant says that there is a material error in the decision and that I refer to the lease allowing a single pet, a bird. He says that in fact the section where there is a reference to the people out and that pets are allowed are separated by several pages, and therefore this is incorrect. Reviewing the decision I note that the section where the number of pets is referred to as a section where I summarised the landlord’s arguments for termination. This was neither an era nor is it an issue for which rehearing should be granted.

The tenant says that my failure to award exemplary damages for the fact that the smoke alarm is found to be non-functioning were a material error. It was discovered that the smoke alarm in place was reliant on a wired power system which had been disconnected at some point. Upon discovery the landlord had another smoke alarm installed which I found was within 3 m of the bedrooms. On this basis I declined to make an award of damages. I have not heard anything from the tenant today which alters my findings. This is not a ground for which rehearing should be granted.

The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336899 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336899 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions