What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496127 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5496127?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496127?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496127?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13834714-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496127 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5496127?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496127?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496127?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13834714-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Leaver Terrace, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496127 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Yates and Ms White represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of the term of her fixed term tenancy and for compensation of around $80,000.00 (a full refund of rent) for issues that arose during the tenancy.
I explained to the tenant that her application to reduce the term of her tenancy could not succeed, neither her compensation claim. Now I will address the reasons why.
The landlord applied for rent arrears. The rent has now been paid in full. The landlord withdrew its application. Background
The tenancy started on 18 July 2024 and is a fixed term tenancy until 18 July 2026.
The tenant encountered an issue with the front door electronic lock. The battery ran down. On one occasion (around 9 March 2026) her son came outside to where she was, and the door closed behind him. The tenant could not open the door again. To have the issue resolved promptly, the landlord recommended that she call a locksmith, which she did, and she was then able to regain access. The landlord paid for the callout fee.
The back door lock (not electronic) required a repair at the start of the tenancy which the landlord promptly attended to.
The tenant became concerned for her safety generally, due to events in the neighbourhood, and her worry that the electronic lock might be accessed by someone else. She knew that her personal details had been leaked to the ‘dark web’ by persons unknown.
No unexpected events occurred, but the tenant was dissatisfied with her interactions with the landlord; she felt that her property manager did not provide good service or communicate well.
The tenant also queried why she had not received receipts for the rent she paid. And she wondered why there had been a spike in her power bill on a particular day when she recalled being at work, not working from home.
Both applications were scheduled for hearing today. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Should the tenant be released from her fixed term tenancy? •Did the lock malfunction interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? •Did the landlord fail to give rceipts for rent? •Is the landlord responsible for the tenant’s increased power costs? Law
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and 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.
Section 45 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). 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

Should the tenant be released from her fixed term tenancy?

When I explained why the Tribunal would not reduce the term of the tenancy, the tenant withdrew this part of the application. However, I will address the 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 issue to further assist her to understand why the Tribunal would not make the order she initially applied for.
First, the tenancy ends in less than 3 weeks’ time. The end of the tenancy is so close, that no useful order could be made that would allow the tenant time to find another tenancy. Even if the tenant has other premises she can immediately move to, the Tribunal usually compensates a landlord when it reduces the term of a tenancy. That would not benefit the tenant at all.
Second, the statutory criteria are not met 2 . To be released from a fixed-term tenancy the tenant must first prove that there has been an unforeseen change in her circumstances, and then that the severe hardship she would experience if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater that the (ordinary) hardship the other party would experience is the term of the tenancy were reduced.
An application such as this must meet a high threshold. The Tribunal does not lightly set aside contracts.
Nothing put forward by the tenant would have met the first part of the statutory test. Did the lock malfunction interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The electronic lock on the front door malfunctioned due to the batteries running low. The tenant notified the landlord (it happened over a weekend) and the landlord recommended that she contact a locksmith as that would remedy the issue most quickly. That is what happened. The locksmith attended. The batteries were replaced, and the lock has not malfunctioned since.
That an event like this happens is not a landlord breach; it is the landlord’s response that matters. Here, the landlord acted reasonably and promptly and the issue was resolved. The landlord met the call-out fee. The tenant suffered no financial loss.
That the tenant was briefly inconvenienced does not establish a claim for compensation. Compensation follows a breach; it aims to remedy the breach usually by an award of money (compensation).
Without a proven breach, the Tribunal does not award compensation. What occurred was just ‘one of those things’ that can happen any time: inconvenient yes, compensable no. 2 See section 66(1) RTA
The same applies to the required repair to the back door key operated lock at the start of the tenancy. The landlord arranged for the repair, it was done, and there have been no further issues with that lock.
These matters do not constitute an interference by the landlord with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises. They were simply usual maintenance and repair issues, properly addressed.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation.

Did the landlord fail to give receipts for rent?

When I explained why this part of the application could not succeed, the tenant withdrew the claim. A landlord is not required to give a receipt for rent when the rent is paid from a bank account in the tenant’s name (or by way of deduction from a benefit) into the landlord’s nominated account 3 . Is the landlord responsible for the tenant’s increased power costs?
The tenant was vague about this claim She said her electricity seemed to spike on a particular day when she believed she was not working from home, though she could not be certain.
The tenant’s power usage is not an issue for the landlord. No breach by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities has been proved in relation to the tenant’s electricity usage. I dismiss this part of the application. Other matters
The tenant said she was dissatisfied with the communications she received from the staff at the property management company, her landlord. She felt she had not received good service.
The Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint. Nor does the Tribunal award compensation for hurt feelings or a sense of grievance. Many of the matters the tenant raised were concerns about what might happen, rather than what did happen. I cannot address those matters any further. 3 See section 29(4) RTA Result
For the reasons given, the tenant’s application is dismissed.
As I have noted, the landlord withdrew its application as the rent has been paid in full. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression. I make no order for name suppression as her application is unsuccessful 4 .

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Yates and Ms White represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of the term of her fixed term tenancy and for compensation of around $80,000.00 (a full refund of rent) for issues that arose during the tenancy.
I explained to the tenant that her application to reduce the term of her tenancy could not succeed, neither her compensation claim. Now I will address the reasons why.
The landlord applied for rent arrears. The rent has now been paid in full. The landlord withdrew its application. Background
The tenancy started on 18 July 2024 and is a fixed term tenancy until 18 July 2026.
The tenant encountered an issue with the front door electronic lock. The battery ran down. On one occasion (around 9 March 2026) her son came outside to where she was, and the door closed behind him. The tenant could not open the door again. To have the issue resolved promptly, the landlord recommended that she call a locksmith, which she did, and she was then able to regain access. The landlord paid for the callout fee.
The back door lock (not electronic) required a repair at the start of the tenancy which the landlord promptly attended to.
The tenant became concerned for her safety generally, due to events in the neighbourhood, and her worry that the electronic lock might be accessed by someone else. She knew that her personal details had been leaked to the ‘dark web’ by persons unknown.
No unexpected events occurred, but the tenant was dissatisfied with her interactions with the landlord; she felt that her property manager did not provide good service or communicate well.
The tenant also queried why she had not received receipts for the rent she paid. And she wondered why there had been a spike in her power bill on a particular day when she recalled being at work, not working from home.
Both applications were scheduled for hearing today. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Should the tenant be released from her fixed term tenancy? •Did the lock malfunction interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? •Did the landlord fail to give rceipts for rent? •Is the landlord responsible for the tenant’s increased power costs? Law
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and 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.
Section 45 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). 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

Should the tenant be released from her fixed term tenancy?

When I explained why the Tribunal would not reduce the term of the tenancy, the tenant withdrew this part of the application. However, I will address the 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 issue to further assist her to understand why the Tribunal would not make the order she initially applied for.
First, the tenancy ends in less than 3 weeks’ time. The end of the tenancy is so close, that no useful order could be made that would allow the tenant time to find another tenancy. Even if the tenant has other premises she can immediately move to, the Tribunal usually compensates a landlord when it reduces the term of a tenancy. That would not benefit the tenant at all.
Second, the statutory criteria are not met 2 . To be released from a fixed-term tenancy the tenant must first prove that there has been an unforeseen change in her circumstances, and then that the severe hardship she would experience if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater that the (ordinary) hardship the other party would experience is the term of the tenancy were reduced.
An application such as this must meet a high threshold. The Tribunal does not lightly set aside contracts.
Nothing put forward by the tenant would have met the first part of the statutory test. Did the lock malfunction interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The electronic lock on the front door malfunctioned due to the batteries running low. The tenant notified the landlord (it happened over a weekend) and the landlord recommended that she contact a locksmith as that would remedy the issue most quickly. That is what happened. The locksmith attended. The batteries were replaced, and the lock has not malfunctioned since.
That an event like this happens is not a landlord breach; it is the landlord’s response that matters. Here, the landlord acted reasonably and promptly and the issue was resolved. The landlord met the call-out fee. The tenant suffered no financial loss.
That the tenant was briefly inconvenienced does not establish a claim for compensation. Compensation follows a breach; it aims to remedy the breach usually by an award of money (compensation).
Without a proven breach, the Tribunal does not award compensation. What occurred was just ‘one of those things’ that can happen any time: inconvenient yes, compensable no. 2 See section 66(1) RTA
The same applies to the required repair to the back door key operated lock at the start of the tenancy. The landlord arranged for the repair, it was done, and there have been no further issues with that lock.
These matters do not constitute an interference by the landlord with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises. They were simply usual maintenance and repair issues, properly addressed.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation.

Did the landlord fail to give receipts for rent?

When I explained why this part of the application could not succeed, the tenant withdrew the claim. A landlord is not required to give a receipt for rent when the rent is paid from a bank account in the tenant’s name (or by way of deduction from a benefit) into the landlord’s nominated account 3 . Is the landlord responsible for the tenant’s increased power costs?
The tenant was vague about this claim She said her electricity seemed to spike on a particular day when she believed she was not working from home, though she could not be certain.
The tenant’s power usage is not an issue for the landlord. No breach by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities has been proved in relation to the tenant’s electricity usage. I dismiss this part of the application. Other matters
The tenant said she was dissatisfied with the communications she received from the staff at the property management company, her landlord. She felt she had not received good service.
The Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint. Nor does the Tribunal award compensation for hurt feelings or a sense of grievance. Many of the matters the tenant raised were concerns about what might happen, rather than what did happen. I cannot address those matters any further. 3 See section 29(4) RTA Result
For the reasons given, the tenant’s application is dismissed.
As I have noted, the landlord withdrew its application as the rent has been paid in full. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression. I make no order for name suppression as her application is unsuccessful 4 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496127 — Rent arrears at 8 Leaver Terrace, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496127 — Rent arrears at 8 Leaver Terrace, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant be released from her fixed term tenancy?

Did the landlord fail to give receipts for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant be released from her fixed term tenancy?

Did the landlord fail to give receipts for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions