Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5391142 — Smoke alarms at 9 Straven Road, Riccarton, Christchurch 8011
Published 16 April 2026 · Application 5391142
Landlord favoured
- Smoke alarms
- Cleanliness
- Healthy homes
- Exemplary damages
- Harassment
- Boarding House
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Armstrong
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
- A1 Property Managers Limited and Subrata Kumar Saha must pay Seyed Mohammad Mousavi Nadoushani $100 immediately being compensation for loss of use of one of two washing machines.
- The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.
- The tenant’s application for name suppression is refused.
Reasons
Background
- This order follows the Tribunal’s order made on 17 February 2026 under this application dismissing the tenant’s claim for an order declaring the landlord’s termination notice retaliatory. This order should be read with that earlier order which sets out the factual background.
- The tenant applied for a rehearing following the 17 February order and that application was dismissed. I set out below two paragraphs from that order.
- The tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing because the core reason for my decision was my finding that the landlord terminated the tenancy because the tenant was causing disharmony in the premises. To put it bluntly, I formed the impression from hearing evidence from other tenants that the tenant’s behaviour towards them was unreasonable, irritating and provocative and it was adversely affecting not just the tenants directly concerned but other tenants as well.
- I was entitled to come to that conclusion from hearing the evidence from the other tenants and no amount of detailed consideration of surrounding evidence or detailed analysis of the evidence was going to change that. The situation in the premises was untenable due to the tenant’s behaviour and so he had to leave. Request for Change of Room
- The order dated 17 Febraury dealt with the tenant’s claim that the landlord’s termination notice was retaliatory. It also expressed my view regarding the related issue of whether the landlord’s refusal to offer the tenant a different, more spacious, room in the boarding house was unlawful. I said that that it was not.
- The landlord was penalised by the Tribunal for requesting money from the tenant for a room change. That was found to be requesting “key money” which is an unlawful act. In my view, that is the end of that issue. It is not unlawful for the landlord then to refuse to allow the tenant to change rooms.
- Allowing a room change is no different, in principle, from granting a new tenancy. It would give the tenant exclusive occupation of a different part of the premises. If a landlord were to request key money for the grant of a new tenancy that would be an unlawful act for which the landlord could be penalised. But, in my view, the Tribunal cannot then compel the landlord to grant the tenant that tenancy or a tenancy of other premises.
- Neither the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) or the general law gives the Tribunal the power to order a party to enter a contractual relationship with another party. If there is an existing agreement, the Tribunal can enforce it. But it cannot create a new agreement which is what allowing a room change would be. Therefore, the tenant’s claim that he is entitled to an additional remedy because the landlord refused to address his room change requests must be dismissed.
- I will now deal with the tenant’s other claims. Harassment and Intimidation
- The tenant claims that the landlord conduct was intended to “pressure, punish or deter the tenant from raising lawful concerns contrary to s66G(4) of the Act”.
- Section 66G is concerned with protecting the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. Section 66G(4) makes it an unlawful act for a landlord to interfere with that right in circumstances that amount to harassment.
- The evidence did not prove that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises let alone that the landlord’s conduct amounted to harassment.
- His claim relates to his complaint that the landlord did not enforce the House Rules of the boarding house evenly as between the tenants and that they did not do enough to enforce the Rules against other tenants and to protect him from their allegedly wrongful behaviour.
- I note that the landlord’s obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure that other tenants do not interfere with the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises does not apply to landlords of boarding houses. But there is an obligation to ensure that the House Rules are observed.
- These obligations need to be applied in the context of a boarding house situation and particularly so in a boarding house containing up to 25 tenants as in this case. There are bound to be disagreements between tenants, personality clashes, and conflict at times. It is not the landlord’s responsibility to micromanage interactions between tenants. That would be impossibly onerous. It is reasonable for a landlord to expect adult tenants to be able resolve most inter-personal issues that arise between themselves.
- One of the tenant’s main complaints is that one of the tenants interfered with his belongings that were in the drawers of a desk that was in the living area. The tenant had left his monitor on the desk and put his written materials in the drawers of the desk. He had put his own chair at the desk and locked it to the desk with a bicycle lock.
- There came a point when the other tenant took exception to the tenant, as he saw it, monopolising the use of the desk. He started to remove the tenant’s materials from the desk and there was a stand off between them. The other tenant wanted the tenant to remove his materials and keep them in this room and he wanted to see the tenant doing that before he would release some of the materials to him. It descended into a somewhat puerile impasse.
- The outcome was that the materials lay in a pile on the floor from where they were moved from time to time, eventually to the hallway outside the door to the tenant’s room. The tenant did not want to touch the materials because he saw them as evidence to be preserved. I have difficulty understanding the tenant’s thinking in that respect.
- The tenant pointed to the fact that other tenants left their belongings in the common areas. But the desk was there to be available for use by the tenants and I can understand why other tenants took exception to the tenant’s apparent commandeering of it. In my view both tenants could have dealt with the situation better and I do not see that the landlord had an obligation to intervene.
- There were other incidents that the tenant complained about. Such as smoking on the premises and alleged drug use by other tenants. There was no evidence of illegal drug use. One tenant used a bong which he said he used for smoking tobacco cigarettes. I have no reason to doubt that. Tenants also smoked cigarettes in an outdoor space which the landlord allowed. I see no problem with that. The landlord did put up “no smoking” signs inside the premises and emailed tenants reminding them of their responsibilities when there was any breach.
- There were other incidents where tenants were demonstrating aggression and abuse towards the tenant. This was around the time that the landlord served the termination notice and it was obvious that some other tenants were encouraging the tenant to leave. The tenant said that he conducted himself “in a quiet, respectful and cooperative manner”. But that was not what other tenants said in evidence and it is not what I have concluded was the case.
- I don’t agree that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the House Rules were observed or that they failed to enforce them in a fair and consistent manner.
- The tenant also complains about the cameras in the premises. There were numerous cameras installed inside and outside the premises, only in the common areas, which recorded the goings on there. The landlord said that they were there in case of disputed incidents so that there was an indisputable record of what occurred. There were sometimes issues between tenants involving the kitchen where tenants stored their own food. The camera footage was overwritten after a time so there was no permanent record unless the footage was needed to help resolve an incident.
- The tenant took the complaint to the Tenancy Services Compliance and Investigations who referred the tenant to the Privacy Commissioner. I agree that in this context the cameras are not an issue that the Tribunal should concern itself with. They were there to assist tenants who had a grievance. The landlord and the landlord’s agents are permitted to be on the premises in the common areas at any time and one could argue that the cameras are a manifestation of that right. There is no evidence that were being used improperly and so I find no reason for the Tribunal to consider this complaint.
- The tenant also complained about the landlord parking their car in the area for tenant parking and obstructing the entrance to the premises. Parking space was limited and so it was on a first come first served basis. Parking and driveways are a common cause of discord. In most cases they are easily resolved by a polite request for a car to be moved. There was no evidence that the situation got beyond that and so there is no basis for the Tribunal to intervene.
- There was an exchange of views between the tenant and the landlord’s agent at the premises on 26 June 2025 which the tenant recorded. Both expressed their views regarding the tenant’s request for a room change robustly. The agent informed the tenant hat he could always leave if he wasn’t happy in the premises. I would describe it as getting a bit heated on both sides, but I see no basis to find that the landlord’s agent said anything that amounted to a breach of the Act.
- It follows that this claim must be dismissed. Breach of the Landlord’s Obligations Relating to the Condition of the Premises
- The tenant claims that the landlord has been in breach of its obligations under s66I of the Act relating to cleanliness, maintenance, smoke alarms, Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and buildings health and safety requirements.
- The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
- The tenant has provided an array of documents in support of his claims including photographs, transcripts and detailed submissions. There are approximately 200 pages in total. What is most striking is the level of detail of the material. I have read all of it, but this Tribunal is designed to be expeditious, and this decision will not consider the claims in the same detail. Toilet
- There was plainly an unreasonable delay in resolving the tenant’s complaint of a dripping toilet cistern It was reported mid-April 2025 and repaired in mid-June of the same year after the tenant served a breach notice. But the complaint was minor, and it did not affect the use of the toilet or cause the tenant any significant inconvenience. It does not require a remedy from the Tribunal. Mini Fridges
- The landlord brought mini fridges into the premises and proposed that the tenants put them in their rooms and the shared fridges in the kitchen area would be removed. There was some push back from sone tenants, led by the tenant. As a result of that the landlord changed tack and allowed tenants to choose whether to take a mini fridge and the fridges would remain.
- I would characterise this as a misstep by the landlords. The reason for it was understandable – it would remove the potential for discord over use of the shared fridges. But it was not well thought through. The tenant’s complaint is that the mini fridges occupied space in the common areas which was an interference with his quiet enjoyment of the premises.
- In my view there a technical breach but it was short lived. Many of the tenants took up the offer of a mini fridge for their rooms. The interference was not substantial, and I find that it was reasonable in all the circumstances. The common areas are large enough that the tenants’ use of them was not significantly reduced. Washing Machine
- The landlord provided two commercial sized washing machines for use by the tenants. One was out of order from October or November 2024, and it remained so until it was replaced in June 2025. The landlord said that there was an attempt to repair it, but it was eventually accepted that parts could not be obtained. As well, the tenant said that one machine was placed on top of the other which made it problematic to use both machines.
- The fact that one machine was on top of the other was plainly sub-optimal, but they were useable, and they were like that when the tenancy began. I don’t find that the landlord was in breach for that. But the 6 or 7 months that one machine was out of use is unacceptable. With 24 tenants having to use one machine, the potential inconvenience is obvious. The landlord should have made the decision to replace the machine far sooner than was done. In my view a month should have been enough to determine whether it was repairable within a reasonable time.
- I find that the tenant is entitle to compensation for the inconvenience. One machine was usable and so any inconvenience would be intermittent. I assess compensation at $100. No award of exemplary damages is warranted. Result
- The landlord must pay the Tenant $100 compensation otherwise the tenant’s claims are dismissed. Filing Fee
- The tenant has had limited success and so I make no award of the filing fee. Suppression
- For the same reason I refuse the tenant’s request for name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s26, s30, s66G, s66G(4), s66I
Key findings
- Dispute theme: smoke alarms
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5391142?
The tribunal order states: A1 Property Managers Limited and Subrata Kumar Saha must pay Seyed
How much money was awarded in case 5391142?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391142?
The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Boarding House.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391142?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13455762-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.