What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5243337?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Titoki Nohotahawai Jacobs at Room 424, 2 Dunbar Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5243337?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243337?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243337?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11923418-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5243337?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Titoki Nohotahawai Jacobs at Room 424, 2 Dunbar Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5243337?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243337?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243337?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11923418-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 424, 2 Dunbar Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5243337 — Healthy homes

Order

The tenancy of Titoki Nohotahawai Jacobs at Room 424, 2 Dunbar Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024, Residence Balmoral is terminated, and possession is granted to 1748 Limited, at 11.59 pm, Saturday, 29 June 2025.
Titoki Nohotahawai Jacobs’ application for compensation for non-compliance with ventilation regulations is dismissed.
1748 Limited’s application for name suppression is declined.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.
Mr Stokes is the representative of the landlord who manages the property. Introduction
This matter involves a tenancy dispute at a boarding house between the landlord and the tenant, Mr. Jacobs. There are two distinct issues: a. The landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy has been served, but the tenant continues to occupy the room despite this lawful termination notice. i. Mr. Stokes issued a termination notice under Section 66U(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), which permits a boarding house landlord to terminate a tenancy with 28 days' notice without providing a reason. b. The tenant’s complaint about inadequate ventilation in the rented room. i. Mr. Jacobs raised concerns about the living conditions, specifically high indoor temperatures and inadequate ventilation, which he claims fall short of New Zealand's building and healthy home standards. The landlord’s application for possession
Mr. Stokes issued a termination notice on 18 March 2025, under Section 66U(1)(d) of the RTA, which allows boarding house landlords to end a tenancy with 28 days' notice without providing a reason.
The tenant, Mr. Jacobs, expressed frustration regarding the lack of justification for the termination and requested more time to vacate due to his recovery from a motorbike accident. After discussing Mr. Jacobs’ circumstances, Mr. Stokes agreed to extend the vacate date to 29 June 2025.
Because Mr Stokes has given the tenant notice terminating the tenancy under section 66U(1)(d) of the RTA, and the tenant has not quit the premises within the period specified in the notice. The landlord is entitled to an order for possession of the premises. See section 66Y of the RTA.
The landlord’s application for possession of the room is granted. The tenant’s complaint about the ventilation The tenant’s submissions
Mr. Jacobs submits that the room he was originally assigned lacked adequate ventilation, resulting in uncomfortably high temperatures due to prolonged exposure to direct sunlight throughout the day. He describes the indoor environment as being significantly hotter than the outdoor temperature, by approximately five degrees, which became particularly distressing during his recovery from a motorbike accident, when he was largely confined to the room.
Mr. Jacobs states that, in his view, the building does not meet the relevant design or ventilation standards as set out under New Zealand regulations. He indicated he has evidence to support this claim and expressed concern that the issue affects multiple tenants, not just himself. While he acknowledged being moved to a more comfortable room, he considers the underlying issue unresolved and systemic, not merely a matter of individual room allocation. Mr Stokes’ submissions
Mr. Stokes responded that the building, constructed in 2018, complies with all legal and regulatory standards, including the Healthy Homes Standards. He explained that mechanical ventilation is installed in all rooms and maintained quarterly by qualified contractors. Mr Stokes says in his evidence that the tenants who raise complaints are routinely offered the option to move to cooler rooms, as happened in the tenant’s case. Mr Stokes emphasised that the property undergoes regular inspections and holds a current Building Warrant of Fitness, confirming compliance with all ventilation and safety requirements.
Mr Stokes also submitted a Healthy Homes Standards report dated 22 May 2023. The inspection took place on 17 May 2023. The assessor and the report writer confirmed that the building’s ventilation complies with Clause 21 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Analysis
Having considered Mr Jacobs’ complaint and Mr Stokes’ response, I am satisfied that the boarding house complies with the ventilation requirements under the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord has provided a current Healthy Homes report confirming compliance, and the property was constructed in 2018 with mechanical ventilation systems in place. These systems are maintained quarterly by qualified professionals as part of the building’s ongoing compliance obligations.
While I acknowledge the tenant’s concerns regarding heat and discomfort in certain rooms, particularly those exposed to prolonged sunlight, the evidence before me does not establish a breach of healthy homes standards. The landlord has demonstrated a willingness to accommodate temperature-related concerns by offering alternative rooms when complaints arise. Accordingly, I find no legal basis to require the landlord to take further action regarding ventilation.
In addition, Mr Jacobs has not submitted any evidence to support his complaint.
Accordingly, Mr. Jacobs’ complaint that the building does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards is dismissed, as he has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the building or the room he occupied was non- compliant. Filing fees
The landlord’s application was consented to. No reimbursement of the filing fee will be ordered. Name suppression
The landlord sought name suppression. However, I consider there is a public interest in publishing the landlord’s name and identifying particulars for the following reasons: a. The landlord operates a boarding house and is therefore providing accommodation to the public on a commercial basis. Transparency in such matters is important to ensure public confidence in the tenancy tribunal process and to promote accountability among landlords, particularly those involved in the provision of shared or temporary housing. Publication serves to inform prospective tenants, encourage compliance with legal obligations, and deter practices that may give rise to disputes. b. Given the nature of the tenancy, the issue Mr Jacobs raised, and the landlord’s role as a provider of residential accommodation to potentially vulnerable individuals, I find that the public interest outweighs any privacy concerns.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application for name suppression is declined.

Order

The tenancy of Titoki Nohotahawai Jacobs at Room 424, 2 Dunbar Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024, Residence Balmoral is terminated, and possession is granted to 1748 Limited, at 11.59 pm, Saturday, 29 June 2025.
Titoki Nohotahawai Jacobs’ application for compensation for non-compliance with ventilation regulations is dismissed.
1748 Limited’s application for name suppression is declined.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.
Mr Stokes is the representative of the landlord who manages the property. Introduction
This matter involves a tenancy dispute at a boarding house between the landlord and the tenant, Mr. Jacobs. There are two distinct issues: a. The landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy has been served, but the tenant continues to occupy the room despite this lawful termination notice. i. Mr. Stokes issued a termination notice under Section 66U(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), which permits a boarding house landlord to terminate a tenancy with 28 days' notice without providing a reason. b. The tenant’s complaint about inadequate ventilation in the rented room. i. Mr. Jacobs raised concerns about the living conditions, specifically high indoor temperatures and inadequate ventilation, which he claims fall short of New Zealand's building and healthy home standards. The landlord’s application for possession
Mr. Stokes issued a termination notice on 18 March 2025, under Section 66U(1)(d) of the RTA, which allows boarding house landlords to end a tenancy with 28 days' notice without providing a reason.
The tenant, Mr. Jacobs, expressed frustration regarding the lack of justification for the termination and requested more time to vacate due to his recovery from a motorbike accident. After discussing Mr. Jacobs’ circumstances, Mr. Stokes agreed to extend the vacate date to 29 June 2025.
Because Mr Stokes has given the tenant notice terminating the tenancy under section 66U(1)(d) of the RTA, and the tenant has not quit the premises within the period specified in the notice. The landlord is entitled to an order for possession of the premises. See section 66Y of the RTA.
The landlord’s application for possession of the room is granted. The tenant’s complaint about the ventilation The tenant’s submissions
Mr. Jacobs submits that the room he was originally assigned lacked adequate ventilation, resulting in uncomfortably high temperatures due to prolonged exposure to direct sunlight throughout the day. He describes the indoor environment as being significantly hotter than the outdoor temperature, by approximately five degrees, which became particularly distressing during his recovery from a motorbike accident, when he was largely confined to the room.
Mr. Jacobs states that, in his view, the building does not meet the relevant design or ventilation standards as set out under New Zealand regulations. He indicated he has evidence to support this claim and expressed concern that the issue affects multiple tenants, not just himself. While he acknowledged being moved to a more comfortable room, he considers the underlying issue unresolved and systemic, not merely a matter of individual room allocation. Mr Stokes’ submissions
Mr. Stokes responded that the building, constructed in 2018, complies with all legal and regulatory standards, including the Healthy Homes Standards. He explained that mechanical ventilation is installed in all rooms and maintained quarterly by qualified contractors. Mr Stokes says in his evidence that the tenants who raise complaints are routinely offered the option to move to cooler rooms, as happened in the tenant’s case. Mr Stokes emphasised that the property undergoes regular inspections and holds a current Building Warrant of Fitness, confirming compliance with all ventilation and safety requirements.
Mr Stokes also submitted a Healthy Homes Standards report dated 22 May 2023. The inspection took place on 17 May 2023. The assessor and the report writer confirmed that the building’s ventilation complies with Clause 21 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Analysis
Having considered Mr Jacobs’ complaint and Mr Stokes’ response, I am satisfied that the boarding house complies with the ventilation requirements under the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord has provided a current Healthy Homes report confirming compliance, and the property was constructed in 2018 with mechanical ventilation systems in place. These systems are maintained quarterly by qualified professionals as part of the building’s ongoing compliance obligations.
While I acknowledge the tenant’s concerns regarding heat and discomfort in certain rooms, particularly those exposed to prolonged sunlight, the evidence before me does not establish a breach of healthy homes standards. The landlord has demonstrated a willingness to accommodate temperature-related concerns by offering alternative rooms when complaints arise. Accordingly, I find no legal basis to require the landlord to take further action regarding ventilation.
In addition, Mr Jacobs has not submitted any evidence to support his complaint.
Accordingly, Mr. Jacobs’ complaint that the building does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards is dismissed, as he has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the building or the room he occupied was non- compliant. Filing fees
The landlord’s application was consented to. No reimbursement of the filing fee will be ordered. Name suppression
The landlord sought name suppression. However, I consider there is a public interest in publishing the landlord’s name and identifying particulars for the following reasons: a. The landlord operates a boarding house and is therefore providing accommodation to the public on a commercial basis. Transparency in such matters is important to ensure public confidence in the tenancy tribunal process and to promote accountability among landlords, particularly those involved in the provision of shared or temporary housing. Publication serves to inform prospective tenants, encourage compliance with legal obligations, and deter practices that may give rise to disputes. b. Given the nature of the tenancy, the issue Mr Jacobs raised, and the landlord’s role as a provider of residential accommodation to potentially vulnerable individuals, I find that the public interest outweighs any privacy concerns.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243337 — Healthy homes at Room 424, 2 Dunbar Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243337 — Healthy homes at Room 424, 2 Dunbar Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions