Reserved decision — appeal from Tribunal — termination of tenancy — failing to comply with Healthy Home Standards — documentation confirming compliance with Healthy Homes Standards — right to quiet enjoyment — maintaining premises in reasonable state of repair — Residential Tenancies Act 1986, ss 13, 13A, 38, 45, 85, 117, 118, 123A, 136 & 138B — District Court Rules 2014, r 18.19 — Residential Tenancies (Healthy Home Standards) Regulations 2019, rr 34-39 & 40 — Focus Contracting Ltd v Property Management (Marlborough) Ltd DC Blenheim CIV 2009-006-103, 17 December 2009 — Shotover Gorge Jet Boats Ltd v Jamieson [1987] 1 NZLR 437 — He v Bai DC Waitakere CIV-2013-090-455, 23 October 2013 — Housing New Zealand Corp v Salt [2008] DCR 697 — Raharuhi v Westerman Property Solutions Ltd [2010] DCR 149. The appellant appealed a ruling of the Tenancy Tribunal. Specifically, it appealed the Tribunal's findings that the landlords represented by the appellant had failed to maintain a septic tank; that they had failed to provide their tenants (the respondents) with documentation relating to Healthy Homes standards; and that they had breached the respondents' right to quiet enjoyment. On the first ground of appeal, the Tribunal had found that the landlords had ignored the respondents' concerns about the septic tank until being officially notified by the local council. The Court found that this finding had been open to the Tribunal on the evidence, and further found that the respondents had been within their rights in talking to the landlords directly about the septic tank, rather than going through the appellant agency. On the issue of the landlords' failure to provide evidence of compliance with Healthy Homes Standards, the Tribunal had held that it was not enough for the landlords to simply refer the respondents to a statement in the tenancy agreement on compliance with the Standards. The landlords had to provide the Healthy Homes Report itself, and their failure to do so was unlawful. The Court agreed with the Tribunal. Finally, the Court found no reason to disturb the Tribunal's finding that the landlords had breached the respondents' right to quiet enjoyment. The appeal was dismissed, meaning that the landlords were liable to pay the respondents $5992.99 along with the costs of representation. Judgment Date: 13 November 2023