Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5472843 — Healthy homes
Decided 21 May 2026 · Published 21 May 2026 · Application 5472843
- Healthy homes
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
G Barnett
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- [ Representatives] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
- The tenancy commenced on 07 June 2022. The tenant stated that they suffered from a brain injury and other physical health conditions. The landlord is a social housing provider offering affordable rental accommodation to vulnerable people. The tenant falls within that category.
- On 23 February 2026, the landlord issued a 90 day no cause termination notice to end the tenancy on 25 Sunday 2026. On 23 March 2026, the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal which was scheduled for hearing today.
- The tenant’s claims are not clearly set out in the application. I have identified the possible claims as being that the termination notice was retaliatory, issued either wholly or partly in response to the tenant raising valid complaints about the tenancy, and that the landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and failed to maintain the property in a reasonable condition.
- The tenant has referred to an interaction between himself and a property manager but cannot recall whether this occurred prior to or after the notice was issued. The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to maintain the property and referred to an unrepaired crack in a wall at the property. However, apart from what the tenant has said there is no other evidence supporting these claims. The only material before me is the application form and the oral evidence of the tenant.
- During the hearing the tenant explained that they have a medical procedure scheduled for 27 May 2026 and have asked the landlord if they could remain at the property for a couple of weeks past 25 May 2026 while they recovered. The landlord stated they were not in a position to extend the termination date and that their relationship with the tenant had come to an end. They added that they had offered to support the tenant during the notice period to find alternative accommodation, but that the tenant had left it to the last minute to seek assistance. Analysis and decision
- There is insufficient evidence to support the tenant’s claims. The Tribunal is unable to intervene. The Tribunal is unable to unilaterally vary the agreement by extending the termination date. The notice has been produced, is valid in form, and has been correctly served. The Tribunal is unable to intervene.
- While the Tribunal is unable to provide the tenant advice, it has suggested that they contact MSD as a matter of urgency to enquire about emergency housing. Name suppression
- Section 95A(4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, to order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
- While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the social housing provider or the tenant. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A(4). The Tribunal therefore orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and the address of the property.