What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338649 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 5338649?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338649?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12545631-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338649 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 5338649?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338649?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12545631-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338649 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338649 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338649 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s] name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities Daniel Campbell must pay [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $28.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $28.00

Reasons

The hearing was held on 06 October 2025. It was conducted via video conference.
[The tenant/s] appeared.
Mr Campbell appeared on behalf of the landlord, Kāinga Ora-Holmes and Communities (“Kāinga Ora”). Facts
The tenancy commenced on 11 July 2022 and continues to the present date.
Kāinga Ora changed the rubbish collection provider for the premises without providing prior notice to [The tenant/s], or any notice after the fact. As a result, [The tenant/s] was unaware of the new collection day and did not have the account details necessary to contact the new provider directly regarding missed collection.
[The tenant/s] did not specify precisely how many times rubbish collections were missed. His main concern was the uncertainty and inconsistency caused by the lack of communication from Kāinga Ora, rather than the number of missed collections themselves.
Mr Campbell confirmed that the rubbish was being collected, but that the collection day had changed from Friday to Monday, resulting in a delay of about three days on at least one occasion.
[The tenant/s] did not dispute that this was accurate but emphasised that the core issue was not the delay itself, but Kāinga Ora’s failure to notify him of the change.
[The tenant/s], via a text, issued a 14-day notice to Kāinga Ora on 15 August 2025 under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), requiring the landlord to rectify what he regarded as a breach of their responsibilities by providing the updated rubbish collection information. Kāinga Ora did not provide a substantive response within the 14-day period.
On 20 August 2025, [The tenant/s] followed up his 14-day notice by email, advising Kāinga Ora that failure to comply could result in an application to the Tenancy Tribunal.
[The tenant/s] outlined the inconvenience and stress caused by the lack of communication. Mr Campbell acknowledged that there had been a communication failure and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
Both parties agreed that rubbish collections did continue, although the collection day had changed from Friday to Monday, resulting in a delay of approximately three days. The issues
Whether Kāinga Ora’s failure to communicate with [The tenant/s] regarding the change of rubbish collection service provider amounted to interference with essential services to the premises under section 45(2) of the RTA.
Whether Kāinga Ora complied with its obligations under section 45(1)(c) of the Act to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Whether Kāinga Ora’s failure to respond or failure to communicate constituted a breach under section 56(1)(a) of the Act, or under the terms of the tenancy agreement. [The tenant/s]’s submissions
[The tenant/s] states that he was not advised of the change, including when rubbish and recycling would be collected, or how to contact the new provider in the event of missed collections. As a result, he was left uncertain about collection days and unable to escalate service issues, as the rubbish company would not provide information to him directly because he was not the account holder.
[The tenant/s] submits that this failure in communication caused ongoing confusion and inconvenience to him and to other tenants in the complex. He describes having to contact the rubbish company himself, without success, and feeling dependent on the landlord to act, despite their lack of response.
On 15 August 2025, he issued a 14-day notice to the landlord under section 56(1) of the RTA, requiring the landlord to provide the relevant rubbish collection details. He states that no substantive response was received within the notice period, and that an email was only sent at 4:30 pm on the Friday (03 October 2025) prior to the hearing. That email, he says, contained inaccurate information about the collection day and did not include the account details he had requested.
[The tenant/s] submits that the landlord’s conduct amounts to a breach of their obligations under sections 45(1)(c) and/or (2) of the RTA, specifically the duty not to interfere with the supply of garbage collection services to the premises (s45(2)) and to comply with health and safety requirements under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises (s45(1)(c)). He further submits that this is not an isolated incident, referring to previous occasions where rubbish services were disrupted due to miscommunication by the landlord.
[The tenant/s] contends that this ongoing pattern of poor communication has caused him stress and inconvenience, and that it has damaged his relationship with his landlord. He seeks orders requiring Kāinga Ora to provide him with written details of the current rubbish and recycling collection arrangements, including the account details necessary to escalate missed collections. He also seeks reimbursement of the application fee and a suppression order. Mr Campbell’s submissions
Mr Campbell acknowledged that there had been a change in the rubbish collection provider and accepted that the communication with [The tenant/s] regarding that change was inadequate.
Mr Campbell explained that Kāinga Ora became aware of the issue when [The tenant/s]’s 14-day notice and subsequent application were received. He confirmed that Kāinga Ora had since followed up with the new rubbish provider and had provided [The tenant/s] with the relevant information by email on Friday, 3 October 2025, prior to the hearing.
Mr Campbell submitted that the failure to notify [The tenant/s] of the change in rubbish services was not intentional, but rather the result of miscommunication. He submitted that Kāinga Ora had taken steps to ensure that similar oversights would not occur in the future, including reviewing internal processes for notifying tenants about service changes.
During the hearing, Mr Campbell explained. “Yes, I agree. I think there's definitely been some communication around the changes. There was a bit of a lack of response as well to some of [The tenant’s] requests. So definitely do acknowledge that when we found out about this hearing, we were kind of able to follow up and get the information through [The tenant/s], which I believe was emailed to him on Friday, just last week. But yeah, I completely understand our part. It has made us kind of realise what changes need to be put in place when things like these do occur. We apologise for the inconvenience it's caused. But yes, as far as I'm aware, the issue has been rectified.”
Mr Campbell also noted that the rubbish at the premises had continued to be collected, although on a different day than previously. He said that the usual collection day had changed from Friday to Monday, and that while this may have caused some temporary confusion and inconvenience, the rubbish was not left uncollected.
He further submitted that Kāinga Ora had not interfered with the supply of essential services to the premises within the meaning of section 45(2) of the RTA, and that there was no evidence of lasting harm or material loss to [The tenant/s]. Mr Campbell reiterated Kāinga Ora’s apology for the inconvenience caused and expressed a desire to rebuild a cooperative relationship with [The tenant/s] moving forward. The law
During the hearing, [The tenant/s] confirmed his application relies on section 45(2) of the RTA. Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA is not the main ground for his application. In addition, he did not seek to terminate the tenancy because his landlord did not remedy the breach within 14 days. Section 45(2) states: The landlord shall not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telephone services, or other services to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. Section 45(1)(c) states the landlord must: “comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises;”
Section 56 of the RTA allows either the landlord or the tenant to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate a tenancy when the other party has breached the tenancy agreement or the Act. Before termination can be ordered, the applicant must show that: a. A breach has occurred; b. The breach was capable of being remedied; c. A 14-day notice was properly given, describing the breach and requiring it to be fixed within at least 14 days; and d. The other party failed to remedy the breach within that time.
If these conditions are met, the Tribunal may end the tenancy where the breach is serious enough that it would be unfair not to do so. Analysis Issue one – “Interference with”
Neither party challenges that garbage collection is a type of service that falls under section 45(2) of the RTA.
In Ross v Miller (TT 15/01233, Tauranga, 15 April 2016), Adjudicator Lee provided useful guidance on the meaning of the term “interfere with” as used in section 45(2) of the RTA. At paragraph [56], the adjudicator stated: The Act does not define “interfere with”. In the Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition, its meanings include “get in the way of, impede, hamper” and “intrude, interrupt, barge in, pry, meddle”. Section 45(2) does not use the words “cut off”, “stop”, or “end” the service. The meaning of interfere is clearly wider than that. I conclude that Mr Miller's actions in changing the nature of the plan “got in the way of” or “meddled with” the supply of internet services to Ms Ross, albeit she still had a supply of up to 5G per month. An unlawful act has therefore been committed.
In Ross v Miller, the landlord’s conduct in altering the nature of the tenant’s internet plan amounted to “interference” with the supply of that service under section 45(2), even though the tenant retained access.
Similarly, in Nice Place Property Management Ltd v Ogbourne (TT 4046775, 15 February 2017), the landlord’s mistaken request to New Zealand Post to “hold all” mail resulted in a six-week disruption to the tenant’s postal services. This was held to constitute an interference under section 45(2), though compensation of $100 was considered adequate given the minimal impact.
This case is comparable to Ross v Miller, where the landlord’s actions amounted to interference with a service to the premises by changing the provider without informing the tenant, which resulted in a change to the rubbish collection day.
This case is also similar to Nice Place Property Management Ltd v Ogbourne, as the failure to communicate arose from a miscommunication rather than any deliberate intent, which nevertheless interfered with the tenant’s ability to rely on the known collection day.
Although rubbish disposal services continued, the lack of notice caused a delay of approximately three days during which the rubbish was not collected. This delay, albeit brief, constituted an interference with the provision of that service within the meaning of section 45(2) of the Act.
Accordingly, [The tenant/s] has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that Kāinga Ora interfered with the supply of garbage collection services and is declared an unlawful act. Issue two - “Compliance with buildings, health and safety”
I am not satisfied that Kāinga Ora’s failure to communicate the change in rubbish collection arrangements falls within the scope of section 45(1)(c) of the Act, which relates to compliance with building, health, and safety requirements. While there was a miscommunication, rubbish collection ultimately continued on a new collection day.
Accordingly, I find no breach of section 45(1)(c) of the RTA. Issue three - “Failure to respond / failure to communicate”
There is no dispute that [The tenant/s] issued a 14-day notice to the landlord under section 56(1) of the RTA, requesting that Kāinga Ora provide the relevant rubbish collection service provider’s details. However, section 56 applies only where a party has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or of the RTA.
Upon reviewing the residential tenancy agreement between the parties, I find no express provision requiring Kāinga Ora to respond to tenant correspondence within a specific timeframe. As such, there is no evidence of a breach of the tenancy agreement.
As stated earlier in this decision, [The tenant/s]’s claim under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA does not succeed. However, I am satisfied that Kāinga Ora did “interfere with” the rubbish collection service within the meaning of section 45(2) of the RTA, as the failure to notify [The tenant/s] of the change in collection day resulting from the new service provider caused a three-day delay in collection.
That said, there is no evidence before me to suggest that this interference was ongoing or that it was not rectified. The rubbish collection service continued on the scheduled Monday collection day, and no further disruption has been reported.
Furthermore, there are no general provisions within the RTA imposing obligations on landlords or tenants regarding communication or responsiveness. The RTA instead contemplates that, where a breach is capable of remedy, the aggrieved party must first give the other party not less than 14 days to remedy the breach.
In [The tenant/s]’s case, these concerns (in relation to communication) are more appropriately addressed directly between the parties, as the RTA does not extend to regulating Kāinga Ora’s internal operational processes.
Accordingly, I find that Kāinga Ora has rectified the breach, and there is no continuing breach of the tenancy agreement. Exemplary damage
Breaching section 45 of the RTA obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
For the reasons set out above, I find that Kāinga Ora did interfere with the rubbish collection service within the meaning of section 45(2) of the RTA by failing to inform [The tenant/s] of the change in provider and collection day, resulting in a three-day delay in service.
However, as the interference was temporary, not intentional, and has since been resolved, I consider that the breach does not warrant exemplary damages. Compensation
[The tenant/s]’s application is partially successful, to the extent that I find Kāinga Ora has breached section 45(2) of the RTA.
Given the brief and unintentional nature of the breach, I do not make an order for compensation. My main reason for not ordering compensation is that, in Nice Place Property Management Ltd v Ogbourne, compensation of $100 was awarded for a six-week disruption to postal services which had minimal impact on the tenant.
I acknowledge [The tenant/s]’s submission that Kāinga Ora’s breach caused inconvenience. However, it cannot be said that a three-day delay in rubbish collection caused greater inconvenience than that experienced in Nice Place Property Management Ltd v Ogbourne.
Additionally, Kāinga Ora apologised to [The tenant/s] for the oversight and inconvenience caused during the hearing. I am of the view that monetary compensation, if awarded, would be disproportionate to the level of inconvenience caused in these circumstances. Miscellaneous issue
During the hearing, [The tenant/s] asked the Tribunal to issue an order compelling Kāinga Ora to provide him with the rubbish service provider’s details. However, [The tenant/s] did not identify any legal basis upon which the Tribunal could make such an order. Accordingly, I decline to grant the order sought.
I encourage both parties to communicate more effectively in the future to avoid similar misunderstandings. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the applicant, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded in proceedings, I have granted the name suppression application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338649 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338649 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions