Tenant wins compensation for breaches of quiet enjoyment and health and safety
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded compensation to the tenant for breaches of quiet enjoyment and health and safety obligations by the landlord. The landlord demolished garden sheds without notifying the tenant and failed to properly assess and manage asbestos risks during the demolition.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord must not interfere with a tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises and must comply with health and safety obligations.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a tenant has the right to live in their rented home peacefully, without the landlord or anyone connected to them causing interruptions. It also says that a landlord must not interfere with a tenant's reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy, and doing so in a way that amounts to harassment is against the law.
This rule outlines a landlord's responsibilities, including providing the rented property in a clean and reasonably repaired condition. Importantly for this case, it also requires landlords to follow all building, health, and safety laws that apply to the property.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal awarded compensation to the tenant for breaches of quiet enjoyment and health and safety obligations.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded compensation to the tenant for breaches of quiet enjoyment and health and safety obligations by the landlord. The landlord demolished garden sheds without notifying the tenant and failed to properly assess and manage asbestos risks during the demolition.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5103901 1
[2025] NZTT 5103901
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT CHRISTCHURCH | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI ŌTAUTAHI
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted] Support Trust
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Trustees of Christchurch Memorial R.S.A. Museum And Support Trust must pay [NAME] $1,077.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Description Landlord Tenant Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment $300.00 Compensation: Health & Safety $750.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $1,077.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,077.00
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations in that it demolished gardens sheds being used for storage by the tenants and failed to carry out a proper Health & Safety assessment before commencing work which exposed tenants to asbestos.
3. A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5103901 2
They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
4. 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. Premises includes facilities, such as a garden shed.
5. 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.
6. These premises are a unit within a block of other flats. The same landlord owns the whole complex. There were a number of garden sheds at the property. The landlord decided to demolish them as they were close to a boundary and unsightly. The landlord says that there was never any permission given to the tenant to use the sheds, and that they were full of junk. The tenant says it was clear that the sheds were used for storage.
7. A reasonable landlord would have notified tenants that the sheds were being demolished and given them and opportunity to remove any items. This landlord did not do that. Its failure amounts to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
8. The tenant said that he arrived home to find the shed demolished and items missing. There was insufficient evidence of what was in the shed or its replacement value. I award compensation of $300 having regard the parties’ descriptions of what was in the shed and its size.
9. The action was intentional but did not amount to harassment, so I do not award exemplary damages.
10. The tenant claims that asbestos was released during the demolition of the sheds and that the landlord failed to properly assess and manage that risk.
11. Under section 45, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
12. Breaching any of these obligations 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.
13. The landlord engaged a contractor to demolish the sheds. Neither it, nor the contractor carried out a proper risk assessment. The sheds were constructed of a material which contained asbestos. A third party made a complaint to the Christchurch City Council during the demolition. Work immediately stopped and a licenced contractor was engaged to complete the demolition.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5103901 3
14. There is useful guidance for landlord on Tenancy Services website regarding asbestos. See: www.tenancy.govt.nz/maintenance-and-inspections/regular- maintenance/[NAME]
15. I find that the landlord has failed to meet its obligations under s45 and has committed an unlawful act. The landlord’s actions were negligent or careless, rather than intentional. It may wish to review the contractors it engages to carryout work at the premises.
16. There was no evidence of the extent or duration of any asbestos contamination at the premises or the impact on tenants. Nor was there any evidence of the extent to which the original contractor failed to comply with reasonable health and safety standards. The landlord referred to a report regarding the asbestos. This was lab tests results and was not particularly helpful without explanation from the licensed contractor. It does seem to show that there is no residual asbestos at the premises.
17. On the evidence available to me, I find that a nominal award of compensation is appropriate and award $750. However, the landlord is now on notice of its obligations. Any further breach of this nature is likely to attract exemplary damages.
18. As the tenant was successful, I must award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.
[NAME]
17 March 2025
http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/maintenance-and-inspections/regular-maintenance/[NAME] http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/maintenance-and-inspections/regular-maintenance/[NAME]
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5103901 4
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5103901 5
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord demolished garden sheds without notifying the tenant or giving them time to remove items.
- The landlord failed to carry out a proper health and safety assessment before demolishing sheds containing asbestos.
- The tenant provided descriptions of the contents of the shed and its size, leading to a compensation award.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord claimed there was no permission given to the tenant to use the sheds, and that they were full of junk.
- The landlord argued that the demolition was necessary due to the sheds being unsightly and close to a boundary.
- The landlord engaged a contractor to demolish the sheds without conducting a proper risk assessment for asbestos.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded compensation to the tenant for breaches of quiet enjoyment and health and safety obligations by the landlord.
What was the dispute about?
The tenant claimed that the landlord had breached their obligations by demolishing garden sheds without notification and failing to properly assess and manage asbestos risks during the demolition.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the tenant, finding that the landlord had breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 38(2) and 45.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 38(2) and 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord had failed to notify the tenant before demolishing the garden sheds and had not properly assessed and managed the asbestos risks during the demolition.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that their landlord complies with their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, including providing notice before demolishing structures and properly assessing and managing health and safety risks.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered, but it likely included witness statements, photographs, and possibly reports regarding the asbestos risks.