Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5404331 — Healthy homes at 7 Hikawera Road, Hinakura, RD 4, Martinborough 5784
Decided 27 February 2026 · Published 27 February 2026 · Application 5404331
Tenant favoured
- Healthy homes
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Martinborough
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Woodhouse
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,678.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $1,678.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemplary damages: Bond lodgement | $400.00 | Bond lodgement | |
| Exemplary damages: HHS statement | $250.00 | HHS statement | |
| Exemplary damages: HHS compliance | $1,000.00 | HHS compliance | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,678.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $1,678.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5404331 — net $1,678.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Exemplary damages: Bond lodgement
- Amount
- $400.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Bond lodgement
Exemplary damages: HHS statement
- Amount
- $250.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- HHS statement
Exemplary damages: HHS compliance
- Amount
- $1,000.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- HHS compliance
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $1,678.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $1,678.00
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- John Edward Hancock and Elizabeth Ann Hancock must pay Abey Yazied Abrahams $1,678.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Bond lodgement$400.00 Exemplary damages: HHS statement$250.00 Exemplary damages: HHS compliance$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,678.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$1,678.00
- The Tribunal’s previous order staying the termination is lifted, the tenancy terminated on 6 February 2026.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. There are a number of claims, as I will address shortly, but those relate to an application to set aside the landlord’s termination notice as retaliatory, and also various claims for exemplary damages and compensation.
BACKGROUND
- The parties entered into a periodic tenancy to commence on 2 April 2024. The landlords are John and Elizabeth Hancock, the tenant is Abey Abrahams.
- The premises are rural, located on a farm. I am not certain of the age of the dwelling, but based on the photographs, I would estimate the property would have been built around the 1940s or 50s. It is also relevant that close to the tenancy are other dwellings owned by the landlord, and used by farm workers. The dwellings share a water supply.
- By all accounts, the Tenancy commenced well, but over time relationships deteriorated between the tenant, his neighbours, and the landlord’s.
- A particular focus of concern from the tenant relates to a neighbour who I will refer to by his initials, AF.
- The tenant states that in May 2025, when he was shaving and looking into the mirror, he became aware of a person shouting, and looked in the direction of the sound and saw AF standing on the other side of the fence, and when they made eye contact AF shouted at him “I’ll fucking kill you”. The tenant states that he reported this matter to the police, who subsequently attended the premises.
- While I am not certain of the date, the tenant issued trespass notices on his neighbours, AF at least.
- The tenant states that the landlords had strongly encouraged the tenant to allow AF to have access to the Tenancy to switch the water pump on and off, and also that the landlord would like AF to undertake tree work at the property which the tenant did not agree with given the trespass notice.
- More recently, the tenant states that on 18 February 2026, at about 10 pm, he stopped his car by the driveway, and when he got out to go to the passenger side door to retrieve his belongings, a quad bike started up further along the road, and that AF accelerated on the quad bike toward the tenant, but when he was about 4 metres away, he made a fast U-turn and drove down the road. The tenant believes that “This incident is tantamount to intent to manslaughter”
- The landlord provided a written statement from one of her other tenants, who I will refer to as BG. BG works on the farm, having lived on the premises since 2014. BG described having challenging interactions with the tenant, including with the tenant standing in front of her work bike telling her it was not necessary to return to work, and going onto non-tenancy land to put signs on gates, that they were to be kept closed. BG also raised concerns that the tenant had installed security cameras, one of which was pointing towards her bedroom, which she contacted the police about. BG states: On two occasions I have had police knock on my door late at night. I find this alarming and very unusual. From my understanding. Abey had called the police on [AF]. Never at any point had I ever heard any domestic disputes between the neighbours. The police were wanting to know if I had witnessed anything of this nature. They also asked for my opinion on both [AF] and Abeys characters. ... During the nearly 2 years of having lived next to Abey I have kept my distance from him and his property out of fear of being wrongly accused of doing something. It has not been a very comfortable place to reside with Abey living next door.
- Emails on file from around September and October 2025 show that the relationship between the landlord and tenant was fractious. For example, an email from the tenant questioning the landlord on who put horses in a neighbouring paddock without notifying him (the paddock was not part of the tenancy property). The landlord responded that it was not the tenant’s concern who gave permission.
- On 11 November 2025 the landlord issued a 90-day termination notice to end the tenancy.
- On 3 December 2025 the Tenant filed this application with the Tribunal.
- On 30 January 2025, the Tribunal issued an interim stay, staying the termination of the tenancy, given that the termination date was prior to the scheduled hearing date. If the tenancy ended, that would make the claims nugatory. I record that in that interim order, I had wrongly indicated that I considered the days notice of the termination was short, I had miscalculated that.
- The hearing was convened in Masterton on 27 February 2026.
RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the tenant in this case), establish his claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
- If the tenant does not establish the claim to the balance of probability, the claim will be dismissed. It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
ANALYSIS
- I will now consider the claims the tenant advanced at the hearing. Claim 1 – Retaliatory termination notice
- The tenant submits that the tenancy termination was retaliatory because he had disagreements AF, which involved the police. The tenant considers that he has not had quiet enjoyment of the premises. The tenant considers that the landlord should have done more about the neighbour.
- In response, the landlord states that AF lives next door and is a tenant. The three properties are in close proximity. The front driveway is shared between the tenant and neighbours. There was an initial good relationship between the tenant and AF, including doing firework together, over time the relationship between them soured.
- At the hearing I explained to the landlord that she did not need to give reasons for terminating the tenancy, because the notice was a 90 day termination notice, but the landlord did explain why the notice was given. The landlord referred to issues around the water supply, and a view that the tenant was not well suited to living rurally particularly with the water supply. Analysis
- On 6 November 2025, the landlord issued the tenant a notice to terminate the tenancy. A termination notice given with 90 days’ notice does not need to be given for any particular reason, and the landlord does not need to explain why the notice was given. The only restriction is that the notice cannot be given for retaliatory reasons.
- Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 holds that the Tribunal may declare a notice to terminate a tenancy of no effect, and retaliatory if In giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power , authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
- The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right.
- A notice of termination given for genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. For example, in Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988, Judge Ongley upheld the Tribunal’s decision that the notice was not retaliatory. Judge Ongley stated he was: ... quite satisfied that Mrs Woodman acted reasonably on the basis of the information known to her. She found that Mr Kerr was not a suitable tenant for those flats because he could not tolerate activities by other tenants which Mrs Woodman believed were unavoidable. She believed that she was faced with the alternatives of either having continuous disputes among tenants, or otherwise bringing Mr Kerr’s tenancy to an end. I am not called upon to decide whether the complaints were justified, only to decide whether Mrs Woodman gave notice in retaliation or for genuine and fair reasons.
- In this case, I find the tenant has not established that the reason the landlord gave notice, was for retaliatory reasons, that is, because of some right, power or authority the tenant was exerting.
- The landlord has explained that she did not consider the tenant was suited to rural living – the landlord can lawfully reach that view, and terminating a tenancy for the reasons she explained is lawful.
- While I accept that the tenant had a conflict with the neighbours, he has not proven how that relates to a reason why the landlord gave notice. As I will discuss further below, I have not been able to substantiate the tenant’s claims around AF. Even if there was some interrelationship between that conflict and the reason to terminate the tenancy, the situation would be like that considered by Judge Ongley above, and not be grounds to find the termination was retaliatory.
- This claim has not been established so is dismissed. Claim 2 – Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond
- The tenant states that at the start of the tenancy he paid the landlord $1,050.00 for the bond which was not lodged in the Bond Centre.
- The landlord agrees that the bond was not lodged, she states that when the Bond was paid, the tenant asked the landlord not to lodge the bond in the Bond Centre, but he did not explain why that was the case. However the landlord states that when the issue was raised, the bond has been lodged.
- Mr Abraham disputes that he asked the bond not be lodged. Analysis
- The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
- Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
- For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
- Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond and following the section 19 requirements is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
- There is no dispute that the bond was not lodged within 23 working days of it being received by the landlord. That is an unlawful act, so exemplary damages could be ordered.
- Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party 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.
- Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
- The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a failure to lodge the bond, is $1,500.00.
- Taking the above factors into consideration, I consider the actions of the landlord were intentional. It is very well known that landlords must lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. The effect of the unlawful act is that the tenants’ bond was not held in trust by the Bond Centre as it should. There are strong interests for tenants, landlords and the public generally that the bond system be effective, which requires bonds to be lodged. I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
- I consider an order of $400.00 would be reasonable and that is ordered. I have taken into account that when this matter was raised with the landlord, the bond was lodged in the Bond Centre in full. Further, I have not been pointed to other cases where the landlord has failed to lodge the bond, so there is no history of repeated breaches which would require a higher order.
- I note for completeness that even if the tenant had asked the bond not be lodged, the landlord would still be acting unlawfully if they complied with that request. The need to lodge the bond is strict. Claim 3 – Failure to provide a Healthy Homes Certificate.
- The tenant states that the landlord did not provide an HHS certificate.
- The landlord confirmed that an HHS certificate was not provided, advising was an oversight, but there was a good description of the house provided, and its features would have been seen at the viewing. Analysis
- Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the requirements for tenancy agreements. Subsection (1CA) holds that: The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— (a) that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
- Section 13A(1F) confirms that an unlawful act arises if a landlord fails to comply with section 13A(1CA).
- The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Regulation 33 sets out the information that must be provided in a tenancy agreement as being the information set out between regulations 34 to 39. I will not detail that here, but it requires very specific information about heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. There is no dispute that this was not provided, which is an unlawful act, meaning that exemplary damages could be ordered.
- Again the criteria to consider are set out in section 109 of the RTA as detailed above.
- In this case, again I consider the landlords actions were intentional. The landlord used the standard form tenancy agreement provided by MBIE (Tenancy Services). If all of the form had been completed, then the landlord would have complied with this obligation. There are strong interests for tenants to live in warm, dry and healthy homes, and the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) are an important means to meet that requirement. This is also a strong interest for the public generally. It would be just to make this order.
- The maximum level of exemplary damages for this breach is $750. I consider an order at one-third of the maximum would be fair and that is ordered. Claim 4 – Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards
- The tenant says that the HHS has not been complied with, in particular the insulation in the ceiling is inadequate and in poor condition. Further, there is no ground moisture barrier, and the premises are draughty.
- The landlord states that this was not raised by the tenant prior. When the house was purchased, it was on the basis that there was underfloor insulation and that the premises were insulated. The house was purchased as part of a farm purchase. When purchased, the landlord has installed an enclosed fire and a heat pump. Analysis
- The tenant’s position is that the premises do not comply with the HHS, in that the insulation is not adequate, there is no ground moisture barrier, and the premises are draughty.
- The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
- Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00. Insulation standard
- The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. Draught Stopping Standard
- 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. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard
- 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.
- I agree with the tenant, that based on the photographs provided, the premises would not comply with the HHS: a. The ceiling insulation is I accept inadequate. While there is some insulation, it is compacted, and I accept would require topping up, which would fail to comply with the HHS. However the premises do have underfloor insulation. b. There is no ground moisture barrier. c. I accept there are some gaps in the window, but on balance they are probably modest departures from the expected standards.
- Finding as I do that the premises do not comply with the HHS, the landlord has breached their HHS obligations, which is an unlawful act. It is not a defence to say the tenant should have known about the HHS situation; there is a strict obligation for compliance on the landlord. There are strong interests for tenants and the public for houses to be HHS compliant. An order would be just.
- I have determined that an order to the sum of $1,000.00 would be reasonable. I consider that the extent of the breach is overall modest, but there is a breach no less. Claim 5 – Compensation / damages
- The tenant seeks compensation for the house being in poor condition with holes in walls, draughts, and the fact the premises were very cold. The tenant seeks compensation for the fireplace being out of use for “months at a time”, and for “most of the two winters”. The tenant said he paid hundreds of dollars for electricity to heat the house.
- The landlord states that the woodburner was new in 2022 and has been fully serviced, as confirmed in the documents filed at the hearing. The landlord disputes that the fireplace is not working. The landlord notes that the tenant had called the service agent without her preapproval.
- The tenant said it is probably correct that the fire was in perfect working order, but it would still back up with smoke. Analysis
- Overall, I am not persuaded the landlord has provided premises which were in an unreasonable state as the tenant reports. I accept that the tenancy did not comply with the HHS, but I have addressed that already.
- In terms of heating, the landlord provided invoices showing that a heat pump was installed in the premises in May 2023 and a wood burner in 2022 – prior to the tenancy commencement.
- The HHS requires that the landlord provide heating, which could either be from a heat pump, or a wood burner. On the basis of the evidence available, it would appear that the premises meet that heating requirement.
- The tenant’s position is that smoke would accumulate from the wood burner. The landlord disputes that there is any problem with the Wood burner. There is a presumption that things are done correctly, unless proven otherwise. I have no reason to believe that when the wood burner was installed, it was not installed in a tradesman-like way, or otherwise meet the required installation processes. I am not persuaded that the tenant has provided sufficient evidence to show that there was a fault with the wood burner, so that it could not be used.
- The landlord has provided a statement from Caleb Howell in relation to the fireplace at the premises. Mr Howell advised that the fire is relatively new, and that he has been servicing it, and has attended the premises on a number of times due to the tenant having trouble with the fire. Mr Howell states that on his inspection of the fire, he assessed that the tenant had not been using the fire properly, and that either he had not been getting the fire up to the correct operating temperature, or using poor fuel. That was based on the appearance of blackening on the glass door and on the sides of the firebox.
- In short, Mr Howell’s report is that there was no problem with the fire, but the problem was how the tenant had been operating it.
- I note the landlord has provided invoices for chimney sweeping from September 2024, and April 2025.
- Again the onus is on the tenant to prove the case, and I find he has not done so. He has not proven a fault with the fire. There is accordingly no basis to order compensation for any claimed deficiency with heating in the property.
- Otherwise, I accept the premises are older, and I also accept that there were issues with draughts; exemplary damages have been ordered for that above. Beyond that, I am not persuaded that further compensation or general damages should be ordered. If the tenant had concerns over the state of the premises during the tenancy, or a need for maintenance, that needed to be raised with the landlord during the tenancy. If the landlord did not respond appropriately, the tenant could have come to the Tribunal for orders.
- This claim has not been proven so is dismissed. Claim 6 – Exemplary damages for breach of quite enjoyment
- The tenant said that the landlord came to the premises and would put notices on the front door. The tenant said that the landlords just walk in at any time. The tenant confirmed that the landlord does not come inside the house, but has gone in the garage.
- The tenant also raised concerns that the landlord would not take action against AF.
- In response, the landlord said that she did go to the premises to give the 90 day notice that was taped on the door. In terms of the garage, the landlord confirmed she was looking for a missing dog. The tenant was away, so in the interests of animal welfare, did check the garage. The landlords state that they have known BG and AF for years, and have not had any problems with them. The landlord spoke to AF after Mr Abrahams had trespassed him, and AF said he has been avoiding Mr Abrahams. The landlord states that they have heard nothing from the Police regarding the complaint.
- However, the primary issue for the tenant is that the landlord did not sort out the issues with AF. Analysis
- Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
- The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
- In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
- From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
- I do not consider there is evidence that the landlord has harassed the tenant as that term would be interpreted above.
- It is entirely lawful for a person to go to the door of a house, and attaching a notice in an envelope is ordinary, and certainly not unlawful in itself. This is not a quiet enjoyment interruption.
- In terms of entry to the garage, I accept the reason explained by the tenant, and that does seem to justify the landlord opening the garage. I do not consider that it was intended to upset the tenant; it was not harassment.
- In terms of AF, I do not consider it correct to say the landlord ignored the situation. My impression is that the landlord did engage with the tenant and AF, but at the end of the day, did not see reasons to prefer one tenant or the other. The landlord advised that the Police did not advise of the outcome of their engagement, which also supports what the landlord says. I note that I have also not seen any evidence from the Police that they found AF had offended against the Tenant.
- Just because the landlord has complained to the Police and issued the neighbour a trespass notice, is not evidence that there is merit to the grievance that the tenant has with the neighbour. The accusations are serious, and to establish them I would expect some supporting evidence, but in this case there is none.
- There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, or has allowed a tenant to breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, nor that the landlord harassed the tenant.
- This claim is dismissed. Claim 7 – Smoke alarms
- The tenant submits that one of the smoke alarm is not within three metres from the bedroom door.
- The landlord states that she contracted a professional company (Firewatch) who did a full installation of smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. The landlord disputes any breach. Analysis
- The landlord’s position is that a commercial provider installed the smoke alarms. An invoice has been provided from Firewatch, dated 28 February 2023. That sets out the work that Firewatch undertook, which included installing smoke detectors,”as per new rental house regulations”
- This is a case where I have no reason to prefer the position of the tenant over that of the landlord. Overall, it must be assumed that a professional fire alarm installer would meet the legal obligations in a tenancy, which argues for no breach.
- But even if there was a breach (the alarm was more than 3 metres from the bedrooms), I would find that it has not been proven the landlord intended this breach for exemplary damages purposes. A landlord who pays a professional to install alarms could presume they were installed correctly.
- This claim is dismissed.
NAME SUPPRESSION
- The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression. However as I cannot conclude the tenant has been substantially successful, I decline name suppression. There is otherwise no grounds I can see to exercise my discretion to order name suppression otherwise.
FILING FEE
- The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s109, s138B(5), s13A, s13A(1CA), s13A(1F), s16, s19, s19(2), s2, s20, s2019, s24, s3, s34, s35, s38, s38(3), s45(1), s49, s54, s55, s57, s66, s69, s94, s96
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5404331?
The tribunal order states: John Edward Hancock and Elizabeth Ann Hancock must pay Abey Yazied
How much money was awarded in case 5404331?
Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404331?
The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404331?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13206007-Tribunal_Order.pdf.