What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5461102 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5461102?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461102?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13830040-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5461102 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5461102?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461102?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13830040-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 McLellan Place, Ilam, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5461102 — State of repair

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 30 June 2026. Ms Coupland and Ms Noone represented the tenants. Ms Luckman represented the landlord.
The tenants initially applied for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy but amended the application and have applied for compensation for alleged breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. Background
The tenancy started on 21 November 2025. It was a one-year fixed term tenancy.
The tenants first viewed the premises in August 2025. When they were due to take possession of the premises they were concerned about some maintenance issues, the fact that the owner’s goods occupied part of the garage, and that there was foliage growing over and in the garage. They asked the landlord to release them from the tenancy. The landlord declined to do so.
The tenants did not take possession of the premises. They found a new flat and moved into those premises on 26 January 2026. In the interim they lived with their parents over the summer.
The landlord agreed to commence a ‘break lease’ procedure. The landlord clearly set out the terms of that arrangement which the tenants accepted. They remained liable for rent until a new tenancy began. The new tenancy started on 2 April 2026.
The tenants considered that it took too long for the landlord to find replacement tenants. They also advertised the tenancy. They consider that the landlord did not give them reasons why some prospective tenants were not accepted.
The tenants obtained a Health Homes Standards (HHS) assessment which showed that the premises did not comply with the draught and ventilation standards of the HHS. The landlord had had the premises assessed for HHS compliance in 2020 and they were compliant then.
The landlord requested a copy of the full assessment the tenants obtained but did not receive it until the end of February 2026. The premises are now compliant. The main issue was a draught through the front door, since remedied.
The tenants believed that the premises were unsafe and that they therefore had grounds to end the tenancy.
Because a new tenancy has now started, the tenants no longer seek a reduction of the term of their tenancy. They seek compensation in the form of (almost) a full refund of rent for the period between 11 December 2026 and 1 April 2026. Included in that is compensation for what the tenants say was the landlord withholding the keys. The bond
The parties have reached an agreement about the bond. The tenants received $2,460.55 from the bond of $3,120.00 and the landlord received the balance for ‘break lease’ costs and gardening. The Tribunal will not interfere with that agreement. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Have the tenants proved breaches by the landlord failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair? •Did the landlord withhold the keys? •Should the tenants receive compensation? 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. Compensation
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. Discussion
Although the tenants have not pursued the application for a reduction of the term of their tenancy (a new tenancy having started) I will address some of the relevant issues that apply to such an application. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
The threshold to release a party from a fixed term tenancy is a high one. The party applying must prove that due to an unforeseen change in their circumstances the severe hardship that party would suffer if the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the (ordinary) hardship the other party would suffer if the term were reduced.
These tenants would not have succeeded in an application to reduce the term of the tenancy. The Tribunal does not lightly interfere with contracts. Deciding not to take up a tenancy because some maintenance or repairs are needed does not clear the first hurdle – an unforeseen change in circumstances. Have the tenants proved breaches by the landlord failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
The maintenance and repair issues the tenants raised were objectively minor. They could easily have been remedied and the landlord was always willing to do that. The landlord asked for the tenants to list all the things they considered needed to be done. The landlord says that the tenants failed to respond.
The premises generally were provided in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age of the premises; that is the statutory test. That a repair was required to bring the premises back to HHS compliance is nothing more that usual and expected maintenance.
The garage did have foliage growing on and through it and some of the owner’s possessions were stored there. Ms Luckman said those issues would have been remedied had the tenants asked. The overgrown foliage had since been removed.

Did the landlord withhold the keys?

The tenants allege that the landlord took the keys and withheld them. I do not accept that. Ms Luckman gave evidence that the tenants left the keys under small garden pots outside the house. She took the keys because she considered that to be a security issue.
Ms Luckman said she had no reason to believe that the tenants wanted the keys. They had already told her they were not taking possession, and they had agreed to the break lease procedure. When new tenants were found she arranged for a lock box for the keys so the tenants could gain access to do cleaning.
Leaving the keys outside under a pot was ill advised. Ms Luckman cannot be faulted for removing the keys to safe keeping. She did not ‘withhold’ the keys, nor did the landlord take possession. The tenants could have asked for the keys at any time, but they did not.
The landlord committed no breach by securing the keys.

Should the tenants receive compensation?

The tenants were clear when I asked them that they did not seek exemplary damages due to the premises not being compliant with the HHS. That leaves the issue of compensation to be considered.
Compensation follows a breach and aims to return the party claiming it to the position they would have been in but for the breach. The tenants have not proved breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. But even if proved, the tenants did not provide any opportunity for the issues to be addressed. The matters raised were ones that could have been promptly addressed had the tenants taken possession and continued with the tenancy.
It is puzzling to the Tribunal as to why the tenants thought they could just be released from the tenancy agreement. Possibly they just changed their minds. Whatever the reason, there was no objective reason why the tenancy should not have continued. Had the repair issues been delayed, the tenants might have been able to claim compensation. But they suffered no loss. They were not affected by the repair issues because they did not take possession.
The landlord’s evidence establishes that the premises were generally in a reasonable condition 2 . The statutory test is whether the landlord provides and maintains the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
None of the matters the tenants raised with the landlord was of such significance to render the premises in any way uninhabitable. All the matters raised could have been attended to quickly; they were relatively straightforward repair issues. But the tenants acted precipitously. They decided they would not take possession of the premises. They seemed to believe that they could just cancel the contract.
This is not a case where aspects of the law of contract come into play such as repudiation justifying cancellation of the contract, illegality, or frustration of contract. Nor were the premises unlawful residential premises. Rather, the tenants acted unwisely. They walked away from a tenancy they could have taken up and have then tried to justify that decision by seeking a refund of almost all the rent. There is no proper legal basis on which they could succeed.
While the premises did not comply with the HHS for some of the standards that did not make them ‘unsafe’ as the tenants alleged. Again, those matters were easily remedied (and have been remedied since). This is not a case where the 2 See the entry inspection report dated 16 November 2025. landlord simply did not heed the HHS. The premises were assessed and passed the HHS in 2020. The RTA is silent about how often premises need be assessed.
These premises were an older type of premises. The tenants knew that; they viewed them when the former tenants resided there.
The tenants refer to their inexperience. At 18 years of age this was their first experience of renting. The Tribunal cannot grant relief for that reason. They are considered adults, able to enter contracts. The Tribunal does not have a general discretionary power to set aside contracts based on perceived unfairness.
Finally, the tenants were critical of how long it took to find replacement tenants. They wanted to know the reasons why some tenants were not accepted.
A landlord does not have to accept a tenant just because the departing tenant thinks the landlord should. Professional property managers go through a due diligence process with prospective tenants, and they are limited in what they can disclose for privacy reasons.
The decision not to proceed with a fixed term tenancy comes with risk. Ms Luckman described in evidence all the efforts the landlord made to find new tenants. For example, new tenants were found in mid-December 2025 and accepted by the landlord, but they withdrew their application. And the landlord also discussed other options such as reducing the rent to attract another tenant which would have meant these tenants were liable for the difference in rents until the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord made all reasonable efforts to find replacement tenants, and that was successful. That the tenants think the delay was too long does not mean that it was in fact. Other matters
The tenants said that they felt bullied and pressured, and that the landlord did not do enough. The Tribunal cannot address those matters. It is not a forum of general complaint. The written communications from Ms Luckman to the tenants produced in evidence were professional in tone.
On reflection, the tenants might conclude that they were hasty in their decision not to continue with this tenancy. They were contractually bound to do so. But for the landlord’s efforts locating a new tenant, they would still be bound by the terms of the tenancy agreement. The lesson for the tenants is this: before signing a tenancy agreement (a contract) be sure of what you are agreeing to. Later regret is not a reason for not continuing with the agreement. Result
For the reasons given, the application is dismissed. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461102 — State of repair at 15 McLellan Place, Ilam, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461102 — State of repair at 15 McLellan Place, Ilam, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord withhold the keys?

Should the tenants receive compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord withhold the keys?

Should the tenants receive compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions