What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5536726 about?

The tribunal order states: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited as agent for Zhiyan & Viyan Basharati

How much money was awarded in case 5536726?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5536726?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5536726?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13942784-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5536726 about?

The tribunal order states: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited as agent for Zhiyan & Viyan Basharati

How much money was awarded in case 5536726?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5536726?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5536726?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13942784-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat unit 4, 499 Manchester Street, St Albans, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5536726 — 14-day notice

Order

Wolfbrook Property Management Limited as agent for Zhiyan & Viyan Basharati must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately, being compensation for failing to provide an alarm PIN code at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. A Mandarin interpreter was provided for the tenant. Natasha Niven and Daniel Courtney attended on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant seeks an order releasing her from the fixed term tenancy due to the landlord’s failure to provide an alarm PIN code, despite previous requests, and as a result the property was not sufficiently secure and a burglary occurred on 26 June 2026. She also seeks reimbursement of break-lease expenses already paid in the amount of $880. Background
This tenancy began on 23 February 2026 and is a for a fixed term of one year. Rent is $800 per week.
On 15 June 2026 the tenant sent an email to the landlord advising that she had unexpectedly received a mandatory request from the Overseas Investment Office requiring her and her family to move into their new build property no later than 2 October 2026. The tenant sought to be released from the fixed term tenancy early.
The landlord sent through a break lease form the next day which the tenant signed and returned on 19 June 2026. The tenant paid the break-lease expenses in the amount of $880 and advised the landlord that the earliest that they could move out would be 7 September 2026.
The tenant says that she raised the alarm PIN code with the landlord on two occasions, as follows: a. The tenant’s agent requested the alarm PIN code at key collection and was told that the property manager did not have it and would ask the owner. b. The tenant sent an email on 2 April requesting the alarm PIN code and that a technician be arranged to check the alarm.
The tenant said that she was not provided with the alarm PIN code, and on 29 June 2026 there was a burglary at the property.
The tenant said that she no longer considers the property to be secure.
The landlord acknowledged that the alarm is listed as a chattel on the tenancy agreement but said that the landlord made no representations that the alarm worked and did not provide the tenant with a code at the outset.
The landlord said that the tenant requested the code on 2 April 2026 in the context of concerns that the alarm was malfunctioning and beeping at odd times. The landlord raised a work order but it became apparent that the beeping was coming from a smoke alarm that stopped beeping once cleared of dust and the work order was cancelled.
The landlord said that the tenant did not ask about the alarm code again until after the burglary. The landlord said that they immediately contacted the owner who arranged a contractor to attend on 30 June 2026 but the timing was not convenient for the tenant so the contractor attended on 6 July 2026. The alarm was re-set and the alarm code was given to the tenant.

Is the tenant entitled to an order for termination?

The tenant seeks an order for termination under section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Section 56 provides as follows:
The tenant says that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA. Section 45(1)(b) provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
I consider that, as alarm was listed as a chattel in the tenancy agreement, the landlord should have supplied the alarm PIN code at the start of the tenancy, or (at the latest) when requested by the tenant.
Tenants should be able to expect that chattels supplied with the tenancy work, and if any sort of key or code is necessary, then they are supplied by the landlord.
I find that the landlord breached their obligations by not providing the tenant with the alarm PIN code.
The landlord’s breach is a breach capable of remedy. The landlord could have remedied the breach at any time by providing the alarm PIN code.
Where a breach is capable of remedy the other party must give the party who is in breach a notice requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days.
The tenant did not give the landlord a 14-day notice. The tenant did not raise the issue again at all after 2 April 2026 once the smoke alarm was identified as the source of the beeping.
The requirements of section 56 are not satisfied. However even if the tenant had given the landlord a 14-day notice I would not have found the breach to be of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. There was no evidence showing that the property was otherwise insecure (as discussed in more detail below) or that the lack of alarm PIN code caused the burglary. The tenant now has the alarm PIN code.
It follows that the tenant is not entitled to an order for termination under section 56 RTA 1 .
I note for completeness that the tenant said that the property had not been properly secured follow the burglary but there was no evidence provided supporting this position. The police report records the tenant as saying that the doors and windows were good, but they could not find a bag and cash and that “one night when we came back to the garage and the door was opened”.
The landlord said that the property was only 2 years old and had new, modern locks. They produced statements from two qualified locksmiths. Once said that if the lock was locked as intended it is highly unlikely to have been bypassed and noted that if it had been forced damage would be expected to the power coated surface of the door. The other said that it was unlikely that the door had been forced. Neither identified any concerns about the security of the property.
As I have found a breach by the landlord however I consider it appropriate to make an award of compensation to the tenant for loss of amenity. The tenant was paying for a property that was said to include an alarm from February 2026 until the end of June 2026 but she could not operate the alarm without the code.
I consider that it is appropriate to make an award of compensation in the amount of $500 for this breach.
As the tenant has not been substantially successful I have not reimbursed the filing fee and have not made an order for name suppression.

Order

Wolfbrook Property Management Limited as agent for Zhiyan & Viyan Basharati must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately, being compensation for failing to provide an alarm PIN code at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. A Mandarin interpreter was provided for the tenant. Natasha Niven and Daniel Courtney attended on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant seeks an order releasing her from the fixed term tenancy due to the landlord’s failure to provide an alarm PIN code, despite previous requests, and as a result the property was not sufficiently secure and a burglary occurred on 26 June 2026. She also seeks reimbursement of break-lease expenses already paid in the amount of $880. Background
This tenancy began on 23 February 2026 and is a for a fixed term of one year. Rent is $800 per week.
On 15 June 2026 the tenant sent an email to the landlord advising that she had unexpectedly received a mandatory request from the Overseas Investment Office requiring her and her family to move into their new build property no later than 2 October 2026. The tenant sought to be released from the fixed term tenancy early.
The landlord sent through a break lease form the next day which the tenant signed and returned on 19 June 2026. The tenant paid the break-lease expenses in the amount of $880 and advised the landlord that the earliest that they could move out would be 7 September 2026.
The tenant says that she raised the alarm PIN code with the landlord on two occasions, as follows: a. The tenant’s agent requested the alarm PIN code at key collection and was told that the property manager did not have it and would ask the owner. b. The tenant sent an email on 2 April requesting the alarm PIN code and that a technician be arranged to check the alarm.
The tenant said that she was not provided with the alarm PIN code, and on 29 June 2026 there was a burglary at the property.
The tenant said that she no longer considers the property to be secure.
The landlord acknowledged that the alarm is listed as a chattel on the tenancy agreement but said that the landlord made no representations that the alarm worked and did not provide the tenant with a code at the outset.
The landlord said that the tenant requested the code on 2 April 2026 in the context of concerns that the alarm was malfunctioning and beeping at odd times. The landlord raised a work order but it became apparent that the beeping was coming from a smoke alarm that stopped beeping once cleared of dust and the work order was cancelled.
The landlord said that the tenant did not ask about the alarm code again until after the burglary. The landlord said that they immediately contacted the owner who arranged a contractor to attend on 30 June 2026 but the timing was not convenient for the tenant so the contractor attended on 6 July 2026. The alarm was re-set and the alarm code was given to the tenant.

Is the tenant entitled to an order for termination?

The tenant seeks an order for termination under section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Section 56 provides as follows:
The tenant says that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA. Section 45(1)(b) provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
I consider that, as alarm was listed as a chattel in the tenancy agreement, the landlord should have supplied the alarm PIN code at the start of the tenancy, or (at the latest) when requested by the tenant.
Tenants should be able to expect that chattels supplied with the tenancy work, and if any sort of key or code is necessary, then they are supplied by the landlord.
I find that the landlord breached their obligations by not providing the tenant with the alarm PIN code.
The landlord’s breach is a breach capable of remedy. The landlord could have remedied the breach at any time by providing the alarm PIN code.
Where a breach is capable of remedy the other party must give the party who is in breach a notice requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days.
The tenant did not give the landlord a 14-day notice. The tenant did not raise the issue again at all after 2 April 2026 once the smoke alarm was identified as the source of the beeping.
The requirements of section 56 are not satisfied. However even if the tenant had given the landlord a 14-day notice I would not have found the breach to be of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. There was no evidence showing that the property was otherwise insecure (as discussed in more detail below) or that the lack of alarm PIN code caused the burglary. The tenant now has the alarm PIN code.
It follows that the tenant is not entitled to an order for termination under section 56 RTA 1 .
I note for completeness that the tenant said that the property had not been properly secured follow the burglary but there was no evidence provided supporting this position. The police report records the tenant as saying that the doors and windows were good, but they could not find a bag and cash and that “one night when we came back to the garage and the door was opened”.
The landlord said that the property was only 2 years old and had new, modern locks. They produced statements from two qualified locksmiths. Once said that if the lock was locked as intended it is highly unlikely to have been bypassed and noted that if it had been forced damage would be expected to the power coated surface of the door. The other said that it was unlikely that the door had been forced. Neither identified any concerns about the security of the property.
As I have found a breach by the landlord however I consider it appropriate to make an award of compensation to the tenant for loss of amenity. The tenant was paying for a property that was said to include an alarm from February 2026 until the end of June 2026 but she could not operate the alarm without the code.
I consider that it is appropriate to make an award of compensation in the amount of $500 for this breach.
As the tenant has not been substantially successful I have not reimbursed the filing fee and have not made an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5536726 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat unit 4, 499 Manchester Street, St Albans,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5536726 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat unit 4, 499 Manchester Street, St Albans,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to an order for termination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to an order for termination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions