What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496470 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5496470?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496470?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13796114-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496470 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5496470?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496470?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13796114-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Cheltenham Street, Hanmer Springs, Hanmer Springs Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496470 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 15 July 2026: a. Arrange for an inspection of the power point in the kitchen, and if required, a repair.
The application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Colello represented the tenants, Ms Phillips the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a work order and for compensation following an unauthorised entry by the landlord’s contractor to check a fire extinguisher. 5496470 2 Background
The tenancy started on 15 November 2022 and remains current. The tenant resides in what was formerly the manager’s accommodation for a motel complex comprising several former motel units.
The power point in the wash house did not work so the landlord had it assessed by the electrician. The power point appeared to be overloaded.
The tenant believes that the electrician said the premises need to be completely rewired. She has therefore applied for a work order to have that work done.
On Friday 13 March 2026 the tenant arrived home to find a person in the wash house checking the fire extinguisher. He left when asked to but then returned, he said to retrieve his tools.
An altercation took place between the contractor and the tenant’s husband. The contractor alleges that he was assaulted and hit several times. He filed a police complaint.
The tenant now seeks $25,000.00 for what she considers was an unlawful entry and an invasion of her privacy. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: • Should the Tribunal make a work order? • Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation for the contractor’s unlawful entry? Law
Section 78(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) enables the Tribunal to make a work order. Section 78(2) RTA and following set out the conditions that apply when the Tribunal makes a work order. 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. 5496470 3
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust1 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 Tribunal make a work order?

There is no basis on which the Tribunal could make a work order requiring the landlord to re-wire the premises.
The landlord produced a report from its electrical contractor Alpine Electrical which states that while sensible for the internal wiring to be replaced, the existing wiring is not unsafe for use. The issue with the wash house socket was due to overloading which made the socket fail.
The tenant said in evidence that the socket in the kitchen did not work. The landlord agreed to have that socket assessed.
I have made a work order for the kitchen socket to be assessed, and if necessary, repaired.
Because the work order is made by consent, I have not made a consequential money order for non-compliance.
It would make sense for the electrician to inspect any other sockets the tenant considers are not working correctly (if there are any) at the same time. However, the work order is limited to the kitchen electrical socket.
The landlord produced invoices for electrical work at the premises. I am satisfied that the landlord has met its responsibility to maintain and repair the premises so far as electrical work is concerned. Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation for the contractor’s unlawful entry?
For the Tribunal to award compensation the person applying must first establish that the other party has breached a statutory duty and as a result there has been some kind of loss.
The landlord did not breach the tenant’s right to privacy, nor did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 5496470 4
What occurred was a misunderstanding by the contractor who was checking fire extinguishers at the property generally. He thought the premises were still being operated as motels.
When asked to leave by the tenant he did but returned to retrieve his tool bag (though the tenant denies there were any tools left behind). At that stage the tenant’s husband allegedly assaulted him.
The contractor lodged a police complaint, but the police have not laid charges. Had they done so, the landlord correctly pointed out to the tenant that the landlord could have applied to terminate the tenancy. As it happened there was no such application.
The impression I gained is that the tenant and her husband, for health reasons, and possibly other reasons as well, find themselves in a difficult position. But what happened was a simple error. There is no basis for the Tribunal to award compensation (let alone $25,000.00) for what was an error. There was no breach by the landlord of any of its statutory responsibilities.
The application for compensation is dismissed. Result
The landlord must have the electrical socket in the kitchen assessed and if necessary repaired by 15 July 2026.
The tenant’s application for compensation for an alleged unlawful entry/breach of privacy is dismissed.
I make no order reimbursing the filing fee. The application is mostly unsuccessful. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought name suppression.

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 15 July 2026: a. Arrange for an inspection of the power point in the kitchen, and if required, a repair.
The application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Colello represented the tenants, Ms Phillips the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a work order and for compensation following an unauthorised entry by the landlord’s contractor to check a fire extinguisher. 5496470 2 Background
The tenancy started on 15 November 2022 and remains current. The tenant resides in what was formerly the manager’s accommodation for a motel complex comprising several former motel units.
The power point in the wash house did not work so the landlord had it assessed by the electrician. The power point appeared to be overloaded.
The tenant believes that the electrician said the premises need to be completely rewired. She has therefore applied for a work order to have that work done.
On Friday 13 March 2026 the tenant arrived home to find a person in the wash house checking the fire extinguisher. He left when asked to but then returned, he said to retrieve his tools.
An altercation took place between the contractor and the tenant’s husband. The contractor alleges that he was assaulted and hit several times. He filed a police complaint.
The tenant now seeks $25,000.00 for what she considers was an unlawful entry and an invasion of her privacy. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: • Should the Tribunal make a work order? • Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation for the contractor’s unlawful entry? Law
Section 78(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) enables the Tribunal to make a work order. Section 78(2) RTA and following set out the conditions that apply when the Tribunal makes a work order. 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. 5496470 3
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust1 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 Tribunal make a work order?

There is no basis on which the Tribunal could make a work order requiring the landlord to re-wire the premises.
The landlord produced a report from its electrical contractor Alpine Electrical which states that while sensible for the internal wiring to be replaced, the existing wiring is not unsafe for use. The issue with the wash house socket was due to overloading which made the socket fail.
The tenant said in evidence that the socket in the kitchen did not work. The landlord agreed to have that socket assessed.
I have made a work order for the kitchen socket to be assessed, and if necessary, repaired.
Because the work order is made by consent, I have not made a consequential money order for non-compliance.
It would make sense for the electrician to inspect any other sockets the tenant considers are not working correctly (if there are any) at the same time. However, the work order is limited to the kitchen electrical socket.
The landlord produced invoices for electrical work at the premises. I am satisfied that the landlord has met its responsibility to maintain and repair the premises so far as electrical work is concerned. Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation for the contractor’s unlawful entry?
For the Tribunal to award compensation the person applying must first establish that the other party has breached a statutory duty and as a result there has been some kind of loss.
The landlord did not breach the tenant’s right to privacy, nor did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 5496470 4
What occurred was a misunderstanding by the contractor who was checking fire extinguishers at the property generally. He thought the premises were still being operated as motels.
When asked to leave by the tenant he did but returned to retrieve his tool bag (though the tenant denies there were any tools left behind). At that stage the tenant’s husband allegedly assaulted him.
The contractor lodged a police complaint, but the police have not laid charges. Had they done so, the landlord correctly pointed out to the tenant that the landlord could have applied to terminate the tenancy. As it happened there was no such application.
The impression I gained is that the tenant and her husband, for health reasons, and possibly other reasons as well, find themselves in a difficult position. But what happened was a simple error. There is no basis for the Tribunal to award compensation (let alone $25,000.00) for what was an error. There was no breach by the landlord of any of its statutory responsibilities.
The application for compensation is dismissed. Result
The landlord must have the electrical socket in the kitchen assessed and if necessary repaired by 15 July 2026.
The tenant’s application for compensation for an alleged unlawful entry/breach of privacy is dismissed.
I make no order reimbursing the filing fee. The application is mostly unsuccessful. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496470 — Tenancy dispute at 7 Cheltenham Street, Hanmer Springs, Hanmer Springs

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496470 — Tenancy dispute at 7 Cheltenham Street, Hanmer Springs, Hanmer Springs

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions