What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5135489 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5135489?

Cleaning: $172.56 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5135489?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5135489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11825246-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5135489 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5135489?

Cleaning: $172.56 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5135489?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5135489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11825246-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3A Lyren Place, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5135489 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5135489 — net $827.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$172.56		Carpet Cleaning
Compensation		$1,000.00	Compensation
Total award	$172.56	$1,000.00
Net award		$827.44
Bond		$1,410.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$827.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $827.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,410.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a Cantonese interpreter.
The tenancy started on 14 March 2016 and ended on 12 January 2025.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond and compensation.
The landlord applied for water rates and compensation for carpet damage and stress. Background
On 18 November 2024 an Auckland Council worker attended at 3 Lyren Place, which is also owned by the landlord. On that day the tenant was home sick and had witnessed the worker at the property. The worker was there to investigate unconsented building work carried out by the landlord at 3 Lyren Place.
Later that day the landlord called the tenant and the tenant’s evidence is that the call was abusive, and the landlord made threats of violence against the tenant and the tenant’s family. The landlord denies making any threats but acknowledged that the tenant was crying during the phone call, and she said that was because she had advised the tenant that she would need to leave the tenancy.
Later that day the landlord emailed to the tenant notice for the tenancy to end. She relied on section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which at the time provided that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice if the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
On 2 December 2024 the landlord was issued with a Notice to Fix from Auckland Council in relation to unconsented building work at 3 Lyren Place. At the time the landlord did not know who had reported the building work to Auckland Council. The landlord planned to carry out the necessary work to remedy the unconsented building work at 3 Lyren. She planned to live in the premises while that work was undertaken.
The landlord obtained a quote for the remedial work on 12 December 2024. She said that the quote was higher than she was able to afford and therefore the work has not been carried out.
The landlord did not move into the premises. On 29 January 2025 the landlord listed the premises for rent. On 3 February 2025 the landlord received the application filed by the tenant. On 7 February 2025 the advertisement to rent the premises was withdrawn. Landlord application
The landlord claims water rates from the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord’s evidence is that she mistakenly did not provide the tenant with any invoices for water usage. The landlord also thinks that the tenant was at fault for not saying that she hadn’t received the invoices.
Section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) is the relevant section with respect to outgoings: (1) The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that— (a) are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and are incurred for common facilities.... (3) The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. (4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises:... (c) supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
The tenants have the obligation to pay for their water usage. However, there is a corresponding implied obligation on a landlord to advise the tenant of the costs clearly and within a reasonable time frame. A tenant must be provided with the actual provider invoices and be able to clearly identify what is their usage. This has been detailed in precedent by the District Court which the Tenancy Tribunal is bound to follow, as discussed below.
Firstly, the case of Braganza v Saia (DC) CIV-2010-004-2024. In respect to the issue of a landlord's obligation to render water accounts promptly, the Judge held: "It is plainly incumbent on a landlord to set out with clarity what it is that he claims is due, as and when it falls due, and, when it comes to water, to provide the bills to the tenant as they fall due, so that the tenant may make any challenge to the supplier that he thinks is appropriate and make arrangements for payment in a timely fashion". 1
Further, the Judge noted that: "If the tenant is to be asked to pay after the event with no opportunity to check the calculation, or to make provision for payment at the time, he is at a manifest disadvantage. It is down to the landlord to provide the detail as it falls due". 2
The earlier case of Judge McElrea in Woollams v Simpson, CIV-2005-004- 1583, DC Auckland, 16 March 2006, is also relevant. In this case, the tenant had been presented at the end of her tenancy, with a claim for water rates for the three years of her tenancy. Judge McElrea stated: “As a result, in my view, there is a requirement on the landlord seeking to rely on any such arrangement in the lease, that accounts be supplied quarterly or at least within a 1 Paragraph 15 2 Paragraph 16 reasonable period such as within a few weeks after the account is due, unless some other arrangement is agreed between the parties. Failure to do that has predictable consequences for any tenant and apparently did have for this tenant. In my view, the implied term which I read into the Act and into this agreement is necessary in order to make the clause a workable one from a commercial point of view, and in order to decide this matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case.”
In the more recent case of Nordon 3202 Ltd v Shailaja Nair [2018] NZDC 17499, the facts are similar as the landlord failed to charge water rates during the term of the tenancy but presented the tenant with an account at the end. At paragraph 19 Judge Sinclair says: “It is the obligation of the landlord to supply the water rates accounts to the tenant. Furthermore, this obligation cannot be deflected by saying that the tenant was aware of their responsibility to pay such outgoings and/or did not raise the issue.”
The tenant first saw the water rates invoices when they were filed with the landlord’s application to the Tribunal in February 2025. Following the view of Judge McElrea, that accounts be supplied quarterly, in this situation the tenant would be responsible for water rates invoices for the last quarter of 2024, being October, November, and December. However, in this case the landlord confirmed that she had contractors at the premises during those months and those contractors used water that the tenant would have been invoiced for.
As it is not possible to determine how much of the water used was consumed by the tenant during those months, my view is that the claim for water rates cannot succeed. The landlord’s claim for water rates is dismissed.
The landlord claimed the insurance excess of $1,000.00 for replacement of the carpet in one room.
At the time of the exit inspection there were no issues, other than the water rates raised by the landlord. The landlord said that the day after the exit inspection she noticed the carpet smell in one room. She employed ChemDry to clean the carpet. The invoice from ChemDry states, “stain came out with extraction but smell remained in the rest of the carpet so I cleaned the whole room which removed the smell. No stains products required.”
The landlord stated that the carpet still smelt a week later, and she produced a quote for replacement of the carpet and a letter from her insurance company advising of a $1,000.00 excess.
What is not provided is any evidence that the carpet needed to be replaced after it was cleaned. I also note that this was a nine-year tenancy, so the carpet is at least nine years old.
On the evidence the tenant should not be liable for replacement of the carpet. Instead, I have awarded the landlord the cost of cleaning the carpet, which the invoice states was stained and smelt.
The landlord claimed for compensation due to stress. She refers to allegations made by the tenant against her and in particular alleged threats that she made during the phone call.
There is conflicting evidence. I am unable to determine whether the threats were made by the landlord. As it is possible that the threats could have been made, I consider that the landlord is not entitled to compensation for stress. In addition, the situation that the landlord found herself in was of her own doing in that she carried out the unconsented building work which Auckland Council found out about. It was because of that building work that she thought she needed to give the tenant notice to vacate.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for stress is dismissed. Tenant application
The tenant claimed for refund of the bond and compensation.
The bond is released to the tenant after taking account of the award for carpet cleaning.
The tenant claimed compensation for stress. I have awarded compensation to the tenant because the landlord created a situation where the tenant and her elderly mother had to vacate the premises even though the landlord failed to occupy the premises as her principal place of residence as was required by the Act. In awarding the compensation I take account of the landlord’s change of circumstance after she received the quote but also the timing of when she gave the notice.
While there is conflicting evidence about the alleged threats from the landlord, I consider it likely that the phone call from the landlord had a significant impact on the tenant because even the landlord acknowledged that the tenant was crying quite a lot.
The amount of compensation claimed by the tenant is excessive and out of proportion to the actions of the landlord. Instead, I award compensation that is equivalent to two weeks rent.
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of both parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5135489 — net $827.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$172.56		Carpet Cleaning
Compensation		$1,000.00	Compensation
Total award	$172.56	$1,000.00
Net award		$827.44
Bond		$1,410.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$827.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $827.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,410.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a Cantonese interpreter.
The tenancy started on 14 March 2016 and ended on 12 January 2025.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond and compensation.
The landlord applied for water rates and compensation for carpet damage and stress. Background
On 18 November 2024 an Auckland Council worker attended at 3 Lyren Place, which is also owned by the landlord. On that day the tenant was home sick and had witnessed the worker at the property. The worker was there to investigate unconsented building work carried out by the landlord at 3 Lyren Place.
Later that day the landlord called the tenant and the tenant’s evidence is that the call was abusive, and the landlord made threats of violence against the tenant and the tenant’s family. The landlord denies making any threats but acknowledged that the tenant was crying during the phone call, and she said that was because she had advised the tenant that she would need to leave the tenancy.
Later that day the landlord emailed to the tenant notice for the tenancy to end. She relied on section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which at the time provided that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice if the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
On 2 December 2024 the landlord was issued with a Notice to Fix from Auckland Council in relation to unconsented building work at 3 Lyren Place. At the time the landlord did not know who had reported the building work to Auckland Council. The landlord planned to carry out the necessary work to remedy the unconsented building work at 3 Lyren. She planned to live in the premises while that work was undertaken.
The landlord obtained a quote for the remedial work on 12 December 2024. She said that the quote was higher than she was able to afford and therefore the work has not been carried out.
The landlord did not move into the premises. On 29 January 2025 the landlord listed the premises for rent. On 3 February 2025 the landlord received the application filed by the tenant. On 7 February 2025 the advertisement to rent the premises was withdrawn. Landlord application
The landlord claims water rates from the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord’s evidence is that she mistakenly did not provide the tenant with any invoices for water usage. The landlord also thinks that the tenant was at fault for not saying that she hadn’t received the invoices.
Section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) is the relevant section with respect to outgoings: (1) The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that— (a) are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and are incurred for common facilities.... (3) The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. (4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises:... (c) supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
The tenants have the obligation to pay for their water usage. However, there is a corresponding implied obligation on a landlord to advise the tenant of the costs clearly and within a reasonable time frame. A tenant must be provided with the actual provider invoices and be able to clearly identify what is their usage. This has been detailed in precedent by the District Court which the Tenancy Tribunal is bound to follow, as discussed below.
Firstly, the case of Braganza v Saia (DC) CIV-2010-004-2024. In respect to the issue of a landlord's obligation to render water accounts promptly, the Judge held: "It is plainly incumbent on a landlord to set out with clarity what it is that he claims is due, as and when it falls due, and, when it comes to water, to provide the bills to the tenant as they fall due, so that the tenant may make any challenge to the supplier that he thinks is appropriate and make arrangements for payment in a timely fashion". 1
Further, the Judge noted that: "If the tenant is to be asked to pay after the event with no opportunity to check the calculation, or to make provision for payment at the time, he is at a manifest disadvantage. It is down to the landlord to provide the detail as it falls due". 2
The earlier case of Judge McElrea in Woollams v Simpson, CIV-2005-004- 1583, DC Auckland, 16 March 2006, is also relevant. In this case, the tenant had been presented at the end of her tenancy, with a claim for water rates for the three years of her tenancy. Judge McElrea stated: “As a result, in my view, there is a requirement on the landlord seeking to rely on any such arrangement in the lease, that accounts be supplied quarterly or at least within a 1 Paragraph 15 2 Paragraph 16 reasonable period such as within a few weeks after the account is due, unless some other arrangement is agreed between the parties. Failure to do that has predictable consequences for any tenant and apparently did have for this tenant. In my view, the implied term which I read into the Act and into this agreement is necessary in order to make the clause a workable one from a commercial point of view, and in order to decide this matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case.”
In the more recent case of Nordon 3202 Ltd v Shailaja Nair [2018] NZDC 17499, the facts are similar as the landlord failed to charge water rates during the term of the tenancy but presented the tenant with an account at the end. At paragraph 19 Judge Sinclair says: “It is the obligation of the landlord to supply the water rates accounts to the tenant. Furthermore, this obligation cannot be deflected by saying that the tenant was aware of their responsibility to pay such outgoings and/or did not raise the issue.”
The tenant first saw the water rates invoices when they were filed with the landlord’s application to the Tribunal in February 2025. Following the view of Judge McElrea, that accounts be supplied quarterly, in this situation the tenant would be responsible for water rates invoices for the last quarter of 2024, being October, November, and December. However, in this case the landlord confirmed that she had contractors at the premises during those months and those contractors used water that the tenant would have been invoiced for.
As it is not possible to determine how much of the water used was consumed by the tenant during those months, my view is that the claim for water rates cannot succeed. The landlord’s claim for water rates is dismissed.
The landlord claimed the insurance excess of $1,000.00 for replacement of the carpet in one room.
At the time of the exit inspection there were no issues, other than the water rates raised by the landlord. The landlord said that the day after the exit inspection she noticed the carpet smell in one room. She employed ChemDry to clean the carpet. The invoice from ChemDry states, “stain came out with extraction but smell remained in the rest of the carpet so I cleaned the whole room which removed the smell. No stains products required.”
The landlord stated that the carpet still smelt a week later, and she produced a quote for replacement of the carpet and a letter from her insurance company advising of a $1,000.00 excess.
What is not provided is any evidence that the carpet needed to be replaced after it was cleaned. I also note that this was a nine-year tenancy, so the carpet is at least nine years old.
On the evidence the tenant should not be liable for replacement of the carpet. Instead, I have awarded the landlord the cost of cleaning the carpet, which the invoice states was stained and smelt.
The landlord claimed for compensation due to stress. She refers to allegations made by the tenant against her and in particular alleged threats that she made during the phone call.
There is conflicting evidence. I am unable to determine whether the threats were made by the landlord. As it is possible that the threats could have been made, I consider that the landlord is not entitled to compensation for stress. In addition, the situation that the landlord found herself in was of her own doing in that she carried out the unconsented building work which Auckland Council found out about. It was because of that building work that she thought she needed to give the tenant notice to vacate.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for stress is dismissed. Tenant application
The tenant claimed for refund of the bond and compensation.
The bond is released to the tenant after taking account of the award for carpet cleaning.
The tenant claimed compensation for stress. I have awarded compensation to the tenant because the landlord created a situation where the tenant and her elderly mother had to vacate the premises even though the landlord failed to occupy the premises as her principal place of residence as was required by the Act. In awarding the compensation I take account of the landlord’s change of circumstance after she received the quote but also the timing of when she gave the notice.
While there is conflicting evidence about the alleged threats from the landlord, I consider it likely that the phone call from the landlord had a significant impact on the tenant because even the landlord acknowledged that the tenant was crying quite a lot.
The amount of compensation claimed by the tenant is excessive and out of proportion to the actions of the landlord. Instead, I award compensation that is equivalent to two weeks rent.
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5135489 — Cleanliness at 3A Lyren Place, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5135489 — Cleanliness at 3A Lyren Place, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions