What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5377985 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 5377985?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5377985?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5377985?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13124374-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5377985 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 5377985?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5377985?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5377985?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13124374-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

240 Pine Avenue, South New Brighton, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5377985 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5377985 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for landlord’s section 45 breaches	$2,500.00	Compensation for landlord’s section 45 breaches
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Dion Peters must pay [The tenant/s] $2,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 4 February 2026. Each had a support person.
The tenant has applied for compensation for breaches by the landlord of his statutory responsibilities and for exemplary damages for breaches that are defined unlawful acts.
I have considered all the material placed before the Tribunal by both parties even if I do not specifically refer to it. That includes the photographic, video, and written documentation and the oral evidence and submissions I heard. Background
The tenancy was a long one. The tenant had resided at the premises for about ten years before her previous landlord sold the property to the landlord named in this application.
It appears that the tenancy was assigned from the previous landlord to Mr Peters when he purchased the premises, on or about 20 November 2020.
On 25 June 2021 the landlord signed a new tenancy agreement with the tenant. That superseded the assignment of the previous tenancy agreement with the tenant’s former landlord.
Despite the premises having some of the same issues in respect of which the tenant now seeks relief, it seems that she made no application against her previous landlord.
In her application, the tenant has stated that the tenancy ended on 1 November 2024. At the hearing the landlord said it ended on 28 October 2024 when the tenant vacated the premises. The tenant said she though it ended on 31 October 2024. Her application was lodged on 31 October 2025. I will return to that later.
The landlord completed some repairs during the tenancy. The tenant considers that the repairs were not adequate, nor was there compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The tenant sought advice from the Tenancy Services Tenancy Compliance and Investigation Team (TCIT). She also had the premises assessed by a Christchurch City Council Environmental Health Officer.
Although the landlord was prepared to consider a mediated settlement, it seems that the tenant did not attend the arranged mediation.
The application therefore proceeded to hearing. Issues
The issues raised in the application are these: •Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? If so, can the Tribunal award exemplary damages? •Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises)? •Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? •Did the landlord fail to include required information in the tenancy agreement – insurance, insulation, and HHS statements? Relevant Law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the HHS.
Section 13A RTA sets out what must be contained in a tenancy agreement. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party, with intent, has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
A claim for exemplary damages may not be made later than 12 months after the date of commission of any unlawful act (other than for bonds or bond records). Discussion
This tenant resided at these premises for about 10 years when another landlord owned the property. This landlord purchased the premises in November 2020 and became the landlord then.
There is a conflict in the evidence as to when the tenant first met the landlord. The landlord said he contacted the tenant quickly and ‘had a walk through’. The tenant said she only met the landlord in mid-2021. The first text message was on 30 May 2021, and they met for the first time on 26 June 2021 to sign the tenancy agreement.
Perhaps the landlord’s recall is unclear. I find the tenant’s evidence, supported by the date of the tenancy agreement, more persuasive. If the landlord had visited the premises soon after he bought the property, why would he not have had the tenancy agreement signed then?
That said, the Tribunal treats applications such as this with some caution. While the tenant raised repair issues with the landlord, she made no applications to the Tribunal during the almost 4-year term of the tenancy with this landlord. Even then, the application was not made until 1 year after the tenancy ended.
Given the severity of the maintenance issues as described by the tenant in her evidence, the Tribunal would have expected an application during the tenancy, or very soon after it ended. Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
The HHS had staged implementation dates. The tenancy agreement records that the premises were not HHS compliant. Due to the start date of the tenancy, the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to reach full compliance.
Ceiling and underfloor insulation has been compulsory in all rental properties since 1 July 2019. This preceded the start of this tenancy. That requirement applied to the initial assigned tenancy and then the new tenancy agreement on 26 June 2021. Had the agreement been entered on or after 1 July 2021 the landlord would have had between 90 and 120 days to comply with the HHS, depending on the date of the agreement. But in this case, the compliance date for some of the HHS was 1 July 2025, by which time the tenancy had ended.
The landlord said in evidence that he was aware of the HHS. He said he could not check the ceiling insulation because of the placement of the tenant’s furniture, and he therefore assumed everything was in order.
In the Christchurch City Council Environmental Health Officer’s report, it states Insulation: Only above spare room (not confirmed).
The tenant states that there was no underfloor insulation either. The landlord said he was unable to look under the floor.
While the evidence is scant, I find on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not meet the insulation standard of the HHS. He should have had the premises assessed for its insulation compliance. To say that the tenant’s furniture prevented him from checking the ceiling insulation is no excuse; furniture can be moved.
The same report states that there were no smoke alarms, required since 2016. Smoke alarms go to the heart of tenant safety. The landlord installed smoke alarms shortly before the tenancy ended.
So, due to the commencement of this tenancy the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to fully meet the HHS. By then the tenancy had ended.
He failed to meet some of the HHS compliance required of him. I find that failure was a breach of his section 45 RTA responsibilities and constitutes a defined unlawful act.
However, the tenant’s evidence (text messages) shows that the tenancy likely ended on or about 27 October 2024, not 1 November 2024 as recorded in her application. Her application for exemplary damages was made on 31 October 2025. That was more than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful acts even accepting that some of the breaches were on-going.
Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises)?
The landlord completed some repairs at the premises, evidenced by the invoices he produced. However, the tenant’s photographic and video evidence proves that the landlord failed to complete other repairs. The CCC report notes: Water leaking under the kitchen floor has caused the floor to slump towards the south. The fridge is wedged to keep it level and the cupboard doors are catching. The floor feels spongy when walked on. Cracks in the lino are taped however worms often enter the house through the gaps, especially when it has rained. Ceiling shows signs of water ingress... Downpipes are broken in places and not connected to any drains. The water flows onto the ground... Dampness from the leak beneath the dwelling, water ingress through the ceiling and the lack of drains to remove stormwater are causing the dwelling to deteriorate and have the potential to affect the health of occupiers of the property. The premises should be vacated as soon as practicable and not be re-occupied until the water issues have been resolved.
Although the landlord acted on some repair issues, I find that he generally failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That too is a breach of a landlord’s section 45 RTA responsibilities and is a defined unlawful act. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
This claim refers to the landlord entering the premises towards the end of the tenancy and taking photos. The tenant said the landlord was there only to install smoke alarms but conducted an unauthorised inspection and took photos. The landlord said the visit was to inspect work recently done, was brief (10 minutes), and the photos taken were of the work carried out, the fireplace, and the weatherboards.
I do not find that this visit by the landlord so close to the end of the tenancy was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, or if it was, is not a breach that requires a Tribunal sanction. Did the landlord fail to include required information in the tenancy agreement? – insurance, insulation, and HHS statements?
The tenancy agreement did not contain the required statements relating to insurance and insulation nor was there a properly completed HHS compliance statement. The agreement simply stated...Does not meet healthy homes standards.
While the failure to include the statements required by section 13A RTA is a defined unlawful act, the tenant’s application for exemplary damages is time- barred. Those events occurred when they did, well outside the 12-month period allowed for an application for exemplary damages. Unlike on-going breaches such as HHS compliance they are breaches at a defined time. Result
Although the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages cannot succeed because it is time-barred, she has successfully established on the balance of probabilities that the landlord committed breaches of his section 45 RTA responsibilities for which she should receive compensation. Due to those breaches, she experienced a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy over time. A claim for compensation is not time-restricted in the way a claim for exemplary damages is 2 .
The landlord will pay the tenant compensation of $2,500.00 for his failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair as well as reimbursement of the filing fee of $28.00.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as her application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as he has not fully successfully defended the application 3 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5377985 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for landlord’s section 45 breaches	$2,500.00	Compensation for landlord’s section 45 breaches
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Dion Peters must pay [The tenant/s] $2,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 4 February 2026. Each had a support person.
The tenant has applied for compensation for breaches by the landlord of his statutory responsibilities and for exemplary damages for breaches that are defined unlawful acts.
I have considered all the material placed before the Tribunal by both parties even if I do not specifically refer to it. That includes the photographic, video, and written documentation and the oral evidence and submissions I heard. Background
The tenancy was a long one. The tenant had resided at the premises for about ten years before her previous landlord sold the property to the landlord named in this application.
It appears that the tenancy was assigned from the previous landlord to Mr Peters when he purchased the premises, on or about 20 November 2020.
On 25 June 2021 the landlord signed a new tenancy agreement with the tenant. That superseded the assignment of the previous tenancy agreement with the tenant’s former landlord.
Despite the premises having some of the same issues in respect of which the tenant now seeks relief, it seems that she made no application against her previous landlord.
In her application, the tenant has stated that the tenancy ended on 1 November 2024. At the hearing the landlord said it ended on 28 October 2024 when the tenant vacated the premises. The tenant said she though it ended on 31 October 2024. Her application was lodged on 31 October 2025. I will return to that later.
The landlord completed some repairs during the tenancy. The tenant considers that the repairs were not adequate, nor was there compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The tenant sought advice from the Tenancy Services Tenancy Compliance and Investigation Team (TCIT). She also had the premises assessed by a Christchurch City Council Environmental Health Officer.
Although the landlord was prepared to consider a mediated settlement, it seems that the tenant did not attend the arranged mediation.
The application therefore proceeded to hearing. Issues
The issues raised in the application are these: •Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? If so, can the Tribunal award exemplary damages? •Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises)? •Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? •Did the landlord fail to include required information in the tenancy agreement – insurance, insulation, and HHS statements? Relevant Law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the HHS.
Section 13A RTA sets out what must be contained in a tenancy agreement. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party, with intent, has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
A claim for exemplary damages may not be made later than 12 months after the date of commission of any unlawful act (other than for bonds or bond records). Discussion
This tenant resided at these premises for about 10 years when another landlord owned the property. This landlord purchased the premises in November 2020 and became the landlord then.
There is a conflict in the evidence as to when the tenant first met the landlord. The landlord said he contacted the tenant quickly and ‘had a walk through’. The tenant said she only met the landlord in mid-2021. The first text message was on 30 May 2021, and they met for the first time on 26 June 2021 to sign the tenancy agreement.
Perhaps the landlord’s recall is unclear. I find the tenant’s evidence, supported by the date of the tenancy agreement, more persuasive. If the landlord had visited the premises soon after he bought the property, why would he not have had the tenancy agreement signed then?
That said, the Tribunal treats applications such as this with some caution. While the tenant raised repair issues with the landlord, she made no applications to the Tribunal during the almost 4-year term of the tenancy with this landlord. Even then, the application was not made until 1 year after the tenancy ended.
Given the severity of the maintenance issues as described by the tenant in her evidence, the Tribunal would have expected an application during the tenancy, or very soon after it ended. Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
The HHS had staged implementation dates. The tenancy agreement records that the premises were not HHS compliant. Due to the start date of the tenancy, the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to reach full compliance.
Ceiling and underfloor insulation has been compulsory in all rental properties since 1 July 2019. This preceded the start of this tenancy. That requirement applied to the initial assigned tenancy and then the new tenancy agreement on 26 June 2021. Had the agreement been entered on or after 1 July 2021 the landlord would have had between 90 and 120 days to comply with the HHS, depending on the date of the agreement. But in this case, the compliance date for some of the HHS was 1 July 2025, by which time the tenancy had ended.
The landlord said in evidence that he was aware of the HHS. He said he could not check the ceiling insulation because of the placement of the tenant’s furniture, and he therefore assumed everything was in order.
In the Christchurch City Council Environmental Health Officer’s report, it states Insulation: Only above spare room (not confirmed).
The tenant states that there was no underfloor insulation either. The landlord said he was unable to look under the floor.
While the evidence is scant, I find on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not meet the insulation standard of the HHS. He should have had the premises assessed for its insulation compliance. To say that the tenant’s furniture prevented him from checking the ceiling insulation is no excuse; furniture can be moved.
The same report states that there were no smoke alarms, required since 2016. Smoke alarms go to the heart of tenant safety. The landlord installed smoke alarms shortly before the tenancy ended.
So, due to the commencement of this tenancy the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to fully meet the HHS. By then the tenancy had ended.
He failed to meet some of the HHS compliance required of him. I find that failure was a breach of his section 45 RTA responsibilities and constitutes a defined unlawful act.
However, the tenant’s evidence (text messages) shows that the tenancy likely ended on or about 27 October 2024, not 1 November 2024 as recorded in her application. Her application for exemplary damages was made on 31 October 2025. That was more than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful acts even accepting that some of the breaches were on-going.
Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises)?
The landlord completed some repairs at the premises, evidenced by the invoices he produced. However, the tenant’s photographic and video evidence proves that the landlord failed to complete other repairs. The CCC report notes: Water leaking under the kitchen floor has caused the floor to slump towards the south. The fridge is wedged to keep it level and the cupboard doors are catching. The floor feels spongy when walked on. Cracks in the lino are taped however worms often enter the house through the gaps, especially when it has rained. Ceiling shows signs of water ingress... Downpipes are broken in places and not connected to any drains. The water flows onto the ground... Dampness from the leak beneath the dwelling, water ingress through the ceiling and the lack of drains to remove stormwater are causing the dwelling to deteriorate and have the potential to affect the health of occupiers of the property. The premises should be vacated as soon as practicable and not be re-occupied until the water issues have been resolved.
Although the landlord acted on some repair issues, I find that he generally failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That too is a breach of a landlord’s section 45 RTA responsibilities and is a defined unlawful act. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
This claim refers to the landlord entering the premises towards the end of the tenancy and taking photos. The tenant said the landlord was there only to install smoke alarms but conducted an unauthorised inspection and took photos. The landlord said the visit was to inspect work recently done, was brief (10 minutes), and the photos taken were of the work carried out, the fireplace, and the weatherboards.
I do not find that this visit by the landlord so close to the end of the tenancy was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, or if it was, is not a breach that requires a Tribunal sanction. Did the landlord fail to include required information in the tenancy agreement? – insurance, insulation, and HHS statements?
The tenancy agreement did not contain the required statements relating to insurance and insulation nor was there a properly completed HHS compliance statement. The agreement simply stated...Does not meet healthy homes standards.
While the failure to include the statements required by section 13A RTA is a defined unlawful act, the tenant’s application for exemplary damages is time- barred. Those events occurred when they did, well outside the 12-month period allowed for an application for exemplary damages. Unlike on-going breaches such as HHS compliance they are breaches at a defined time. Result
Although the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages cannot succeed because it is time-barred, she has successfully established on the balance of probabilities that the landlord committed breaches of his section 45 RTA responsibilities for which she should receive compensation. Due to those breaches, she experienced a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy over time. A claim for compensation is not time-restricted in the way a claim for exemplary damages is 2 .
The landlord will pay the tenant compensation of $2,500.00 for his failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair as well as reimbursement of the filing fee of $28.00.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as her application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as he has not fully successfully defended the application 3 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5377985 — Tenancy dispute at 240 Pine Avenue, South New Brighton, Christchurch 8062

Tenancy Tribunal case 5377985 — Tenancy dispute at 240 Pine Avenue, South New Brighton, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions