What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421689?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant for a work order and exemplary damages is

How much money was awarded in case 5421689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421689?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13346777-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421689?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant for a work order and exemplary damages is

How much money was awarded in case 5421689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421689?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13346777-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 109, 33 Thomas Burns Street, Dunedin Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421689 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings.

On 6/1/2026 the tenant filed an application for a work order, and exemplary damages for breach of his quiet enjoyment and healthy homes standards.

At the rescheduled hearing the tenant wished to amend his application to include compensation by way of a rent reduction and exemplary damages for unlawful entry.

As the landlord had not had notice of these additional claims and objected to them being heard I declined to include the claims in this hearing.

The tenant indicated he would be making a further claim.

This is a periodic tenancy which began on 6/12/2024 at $100.00 rent per week.

Previously the tenant rented unit 106 in the complex from 11/6/2024, but following a mediated agreement on 15/11/2024 the tenant moved to unit 109. Standard of proof

This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the tenant must establish, with evidence, that their claim is more likely than not.

The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.

Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.

Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.

The onus is on the applicant, in this case the tenant, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?

The tenant submitted that his quiet enjoyment of the premises had been interfered with because of initially the smell of marijuana coming from the neighbouring unit, intermittent noises, including from contractors and latterly smoke.

In support of his claim the tenant provided copies of email complaints to the landlord, two fourteen day notices, photographs and videos taken in March 2026.

On the other hand, the landlord disputed there had been any interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in the use of the premises, despite receiving regular complaints from the tenant.

Due to previous complaints by the tenant the landlord advised that agreement had been reached to move him from a different unit in the complex in December 2024.

The landlord confirmed that the tenancy of the neighbouring tenant had ended on 9/2/2026.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

I am not persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that the landlord has interfered with his reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises and certainly not in circumstances that amounted to harassment.

While some of the videos do contain evidence of noise from the neighbouring unit the noise was not constant and not able to be heard in all the videos.

I accept the evidence of the landlord, which is not disputed by the tenant, that the noise issue resolved with the departure of the neighbour.

Further the noise from the tradespeople was not continuous and was consistent with what would be expected from such work, in this case the installation of heat pumps.

I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

The claim for exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment fails.

Is the tenant entitled to a work order?

The tenant claims that the landlord has not had fixed what he believes is a gap in the ceiling between his unit and the next door unit which lets in smells and smoke.

The tenant wants the problem fixed.

In response, the landlord provided a statement from a tradesperson who investigated the issue on 23/9/2025. He confirmed there was no gap in the ceiling, and he had not undertaken any remediation work.

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I find the claim for a work order fails because I am not persuaded based on the evidence provided by the landlord’s tradesperson, that there is any breach of the obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair as set out in section 45(1)(b).

The tradesperson confirmed he had investigated the issue of a gap in the ceiling, had found no fault with the gib wall system and had not undertaken any repairs.

The tenant provided no objective evidence, other than his complaints to the landlord, to dispute the evidence of the tradesperson.

Has the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant suggested that the premises did not comply with Healthy Homes Standards for draught stopping because of what he perceived as the gap in the ceiling and under the door to the unit which he considered was more than 3mm.

In response, the landlord provided a Healthy Homes Standards Compliance Statement from the property asset team and developer dated 1/7/2023 confirming compliance with all standards, including draught stopping.

Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS).

The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy.

The compliance date for these premises was 1 July 2024.

I am not persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that it is more likely than not that there are any gaps in the ceiling or large enough under the entrance door to allow noticeable draughts.

The tradesperson for the landlord confirmed there were no ceiling gaps.

The video evidence of a larger than 3mm gap under the door was very unclear.

The landlord provided confirmation dated 18/3/2026 that the information contained in the 2023 Healthy Homes Standards Compliance certificate was true and correct.

The claim for exemplary damages for failing to comply with Healthy Homes Standards fails.

No filing fee is awarded because the tenant was unsuccessful with the application.

For the same reason suppression pursuant to section 95A is not granted.

Reasons