What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5448748 about?

The tribunal order states: Blackham & Co Real Estate Limited as agent for Jared Pyke must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $868.00 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5448748?

Compensation: $840.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5448748?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5448748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13904465-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5448748 about?

The tribunal order states: Blackham & Co Real Estate Limited as agent for Jared Pyke must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $868.00 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5448748?

Compensation: $840.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5448748?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5448748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13904465-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Norwood Street, Waimataitai, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5448748 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5448748 — net $868.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for lack of heating	$840.00	Compensation for lack of heating
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$868.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$868.00

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 29 June 2026.

The tenants applied to be released from their fixed term tenancy, for work orders, and for compensation due to the premises being cold and mouldy (an allegation that the landlord failed to maintain the premises) and for being without heating for 3 months.

I heard the parties’ evidence and submissions at the hearing. There was a conflict about a clause in the tenancy agreement that related to the use of the log burner, so I adjourned the hearing for the landlord to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement and for the tenants to respond.

The landlord’s response confirms that there was no difference in tenancy agreements. The confusion arose over the interpretation of clause 61 of the tenancy agreement which addressed the use of the log burner. I will return to that issue later.

The tenants amended their application for compensation. Initially, they sought compensation of $880.00 for what they alleged was the landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the premises. They sought a higher amount because they had experienced health impacts and medical costs for a month more than the period they initially referred to. The Tribunal’s first order

In the order dated 29 June 2026, the Tribunal made a consent order changing the tenancy to a periodic tenancy. The tenants withdrew their application for a work order. That left only the issue of compensation for an alleged landlord breach at issue 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 Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Clause 61 of the tenancy agreement

Clause 61 of the tenancy agreement provides: Wood Burner Excluded: The Landlord acknowledges that the wood burner has been blocked off because the Building Consent for its use has expired. The tenant acknowledges that the wood burner is completely excluded from the property being rented at the address and must not be used under any circumstances. Discussion

The tenants allege that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises. That repairs and maintenance are required does not establish a landlord breach of its responsibilities. Rather, it is the landlord’s response that is the focus.

From the evidence the landlord provided I am satisfied that it responded to the repair and maintenance requests the tenants raised, even if there were some delays.

The focus here is on the use of the log burner. The HHS had staged implementation dates, but by 1 July 2025 all rental premises had to be HHS compliant.

Ms Norton acknowledged clause 61 in the tenancy agreement but said she spoke to the tenants and told them that the log burner was alright to use ‘until the end of the year’. She thought there might have been an issue with the language barrier; the tenants are foreign nationals, and English is not their first language.

The tenancy started on 5 December 2025, so ‘until the end of the year’ even if understood correctly would mean about 3 weeks.

The tenants said they understood clause 61 of the tenancy agreement to mean what it said: the log burner could not be used under any circumstances.

I find that the tenants’ interpretation was the correct and only one. If that clause were not to apply, it should have been removed or amended to make clear until when the log burner could be used.

As a result, the tenants did not use the log burner for 3 months. After that time a heat pump was installed in the living area (a second heat pump was always in place in the hall).

This is not a case where the landlord failed to comply with the HHS (and the tenants have not produced any evidence that the premises were HHS non- compliant). Rather, there was a misunderstanding about the use of the log burner, which remained compliant, and which satisfied the heating standard of the HHS.

As a result, the premises were cold and, the tenants say, mouldy due to the reduced amount of heating. That affected their enjoyment of the tenancy.

The Tribunal does not usually refund rent as a form of compensation. Rather it assesses what it considers is appropriate compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the tenant resulting from what occurred.

While technically the landlord was not in breach of its statutory responsibilities (the log burner was useable, and the HHS were met) the inclusion of clause 61 stating in such directive terms that the log burner was not to be used under any circumstances is akin to a breach by the landlord to ensure the heating standard of the HHS was met.

I find that the tenants are entitled to compensation for this ‘breach’ by the landlord which resulted in their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy. As I have noted, I do not find that the landlord breached its repair and maintenance responsibilities in relation to other issues the tenants raised.

For the tenants’ loss of enjoyment, I award them compensation of $70.00 per week for the roughly 12-week period during which they were without heating in the living area (before the second heat pump was installed). That amounts to $840.00. Result

The landlord will pay the tenant compensation of $840.00. I also reimburse the tenants the filing fee they paid as their application is successful in part.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5448748 — net $868.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for lack of heating	$840.00	Compensation for lack of heating
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$868.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$868.00