What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5140348 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 5140348?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $1,048.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5140348?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5140348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12204753-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5140348 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 5140348?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $1,048.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5140348?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5140348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12204753-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1201, 1 Buscomb Avenue, Henderson, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5140348 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5140348 — net $1,021.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates (by consent	$1,048.36		Water rates (by consent
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,048.36	$27.00
Net award	$1,021.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,021.36

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Jane Jo represented the landlord. The tenant was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
This tenancy of this two-bedroom apartment began on 27 April 2024 and was for a fixed term to 27 November 2024.
On 21 January 2025 the tenant filed a claim in the Tribunal seeking the refund of her bond.
This tenant’s claim came before the Tribunal on 28 April 2025. The landlord advised that they intended to file a claim against the tenant. The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord time to file their claim and to file additional evidence.
The landlord filed their claim on 29 April 2025 and has now filed additional evidence.
The landlord claims: a. Unpaid water invoice - $1,048.36 b. Cleaning - $989.00 c. Marketing fee to find a new tenant - $793.50 d. Rental income loss (x4 weeks) - $2720.00 e. Cleaning - $713.00 f. Body corporate fines x2 ($350 each) - $700.00 g. Stress and time spent negotiating with tenant - $3000.00

How much is owed for rent water rates?

The tenancy ended on 30 October 2024. The landlord says that water rates were owing at the end of the tenancy in the amount of $1,048.46. The tenant accepts this amount. The order for payment of water is therefore made by consent. Circumstances surrounding the end of the tenancy
The landlord said that on 23 September 2024 they were approached by the Body Corporate and advised that an escort service (offering sexual services) was being operated out of the tenant’s unit. The Body Corporate sent them an advertisement for the unit and various screenshot of instructions sent for accessing the unit together with stills from CCTV footage of a person in the foyer.
The landlord said that they reviewed the evidence and sent the tenant a 14 day breach notice on Friday 27 September 2024. A copy was provided in evidence. They asked the tenant to meet with them on Tuesday, 1 October 2024.
The tenant said that she was horrified to receive the breach notice. She said she was not at the property regularly as she usually stayed with her boyfriend. She said that the advertisement belonged to her two flatmates and that she was unaware of what was happening in the unit. She agreed to meet with the landlord to discuss.
Both parties said that they met on 1 October 2024 and agreed that the tenant could give notice to end the tenancy, despite the tenancy being for a fixed term until 27 November 2024.
The tenant gave notice that day as follows:
The landlord responded stating:
The tenant did not agree to pay the Body Corporate invoice and filed her claim seeking refund of her bond. The landlord then filed their claim seeking compensation as set out in paragraph 6 above.

Has there been a breach by the tenant?

Clause 14 of the Body Corporate Rules provides that an owner must:
The tenant was bound to the Body Corporate Rules by virtue of section 11 of the Tenancy Agreement which states as follows:
Tenants are bound by the actions of others who are at the premises with their permission. See section 41 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I am satisfied that the tenant was in breach of the tenancy agreement. The evidence provided by the Body Corporate, and attached by the landlord to the 14 day notice sent to the tenant, proves that on the balance of probabilities that the unit was being used for commercial sexual services. I accept that the tenant may not have known about the actions of her flatmates, but as the flatmates were there with her permission she is also in breach.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for the breach?

Rental income loss and marketing costs

The landlord has claimed rental income loss ($2,720) until the end of the fixed term) and one weeks rent plus GST for marketing to find a new tenant.
The landlord said that such costs are frequently charged where a landlord agrees to end a fixed term early. Ms Jo said that the landlord has originally agreed to waive these costs if all other matters were agreed but as the landlord was forced to file a claim in the Tribunal the landlord now claims these costs.
The tenant said that there was never any mention of her being charged additional rent and marketing costs. She said that she did not want to move out but agreed at the insistence of the landlord. She said that she paid rent up until the last day, being 30 October 2025.
At the hearing Ms Jo referred to the landlord having released the tenant from the fixed term early, but I am not convinced that this is what happened here. What in fact happened, is that the landlord asked the tenant to move out and agreed to accept 28 days’ notice. There is nothing in the correspondence to suggest that the tenant would be liable for rent until the end of the fixed term, and in fact that further correspondence sent by the landlord refers to the end of the tenancy being 30 October 2025 and rent being paid up to that date.
I consider that the parties agreed to end the tenancy on 30 October 2025, with rent payable up to that date, and the landlord cannot now claim additional rent from the tenant.
Likewise, I do not consider that the tenant is liable for marketing costs 1 . I note in addition that the fixed term was due less than a month later and so the landlord would have incurred those costs anyway. Legal fees
The landlord said that the Body Corporate filed a claim filed in the Tribunal against the owner of the property on the basis of the breach by the tenant and had claimed their legal costs from the owner.
Only a very small excerpt of the Body Corporate’s claim was provided in evidence. The claim referred to the Body Corporate having been advised on 22 September 2025 that an escort service was operating out of the unit in breach of the Body Corporate rules, that they notified the landlord on 23 September 2024 but had not received confirmation that the breach had been remedied. The Body Corporate sought their costs as part of their application.
I was not provided with the date the Body Corporate’s application was filed, and Ms Jo could not not tell me the outcome or whether the Body Corporate had been awarded costs. She said that the owner had engaged lawyers and had challenged the Body Corporate’s claim but had paid the legal fees in the meantime.
I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for the legal fees for the following reasons: 1 In any event such costs must be itemised and given to the tenant (see section 44A RTA) a. The costs claimed are for a claim by the Body Corporate against the landlord for failing to notify the Body Corporate that the breach has been remedied (something over which the tenant has no control); b. The Body Corporate’s claim appears to have been prepared and filed before the tenant had an opportunity to remedy the breach: The narrations show that the legal work was for the period 22 September 2024 to 4 October 2024 and that the application was drafted on 24 September 2024. The legal work commenced several days before the tenant was served with a 14-day notice to remedy. The breach was capable of remedy but the tenant was given no opportunity to remedy the breach. She had in fact already agreed to move out by 1 October 2024; and c. The landlord appears to be contesting Body Corporate’s claim and so it is not clear that the landlord will be ultimately held liable for the legal fees. Cleaning
At the end of the tenancy tenants must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(3)(iii) RTA.
The landlord said that after they learned what was happening in the unit they decided to have it thoroughly cleaned when the tenant vacated. The landlord claimed the sum of $713.00 for decontamination of the whole unit including walls and windows and steam cleaning (2 bedroom + lounge + 2 Queen Mattresses + 1 x 3 seater sofa).
Tenant said that she left the property reasonably clean and tidy. She said that there was no indication when she moved out that she would be liable for any cleaning.
The landlord did not provide any evidence that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. They simply said that the landlord had felt that they should do a deep clean in the circumstances.
There was nothing in the evidence before me to indicate that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. In fact the landlord’s instructions to the tenant indicated that she would receive her bond back if she left the property reasonably clean and tidy and made no mention of decontamination and/or steam cleaning.
In my view there was no possible basis for the landlord to sanitise the whole unit including walls and windows. I have given more consideration to the cleaning of mattresses given the circumstances, but there was no evidence before me to prove that these were not reasonably clean and tidy. This was a furnished unit and it is common for landlords to steam clean sofas and mattresses in between tenancies.
The landlord has not proved that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. I have therefore not awarded any compensation for cleaning. Body Corporate fines
The landlord withdrew their claim for body corporate fines at the hearing as they did not have evidence available to prove the fines. Stress
The landlord said in their application that they had suffered stress dealing with the situation and in negotiating with the tenant following the end of the tenancy.
As indicated at the hearing, it is only in rare circumstances that the Tribunal will award compensation for stress. The landlord is in business as a property manager and there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary in the circumstances of this tenancy.
The claim for compensation for stress is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim as the only order was made by consent, and so I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00.
The tenant is the substantially successful party. She has sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5140348 — net $1,021.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates (by consent	$1,048.36		Water rates (by consent
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,048.36	$27.00
Net award	$1,021.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,021.36

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Jane Jo represented the landlord. The tenant was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
This tenancy of this two-bedroom apartment began on 27 April 2024 and was for a fixed term to 27 November 2024.
On 21 January 2025 the tenant filed a claim in the Tribunal seeking the refund of her bond.
This tenant’s claim came before the Tribunal on 28 April 2025. The landlord advised that they intended to file a claim against the tenant. The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord time to file their claim and to file additional evidence.
The landlord filed their claim on 29 April 2025 and has now filed additional evidence.
The landlord claims: a. Unpaid water invoice - $1,048.36 b. Cleaning - $989.00 c. Marketing fee to find a new tenant - $793.50 d. Rental income loss (x4 weeks) - $2720.00 e. Cleaning - $713.00 f. Body corporate fines x2 ($350 each) - $700.00 g. Stress and time spent negotiating with tenant - $3000.00

How much is owed for rent water rates?

The tenancy ended on 30 October 2024. The landlord says that water rates were owing at the end of the tenancy in the amount of $1,048.46. The tenant accepts this amount. The order for payment of water is therefore made by consent. Circumstances surrounding the end of the tenancy
The landlord said that on 23 September 2024 they were approached by the Body Corporate and advised that an escort service (offering sexual services) was being operated out of the tenant’s unit. The Body Corporate sent them an advertisement for the unit and various screenshot of instructions sent for accessing the unit together with stills from CCTV footage of a person in the foyer.
The landlord said that they reviewed the evidence and sent the tenant a 14 day breach notice on Friday 27 September 2024. A copy was provided in evidence. They asked the tenant to meet with them on Tuesday, 1 October 2024.
The tenant said that she was horrified to receive the breach notice. She said she was not at the property regularly as she usually stayed with her boyfriend. She said that the advertisement belonged to her two flatmates and that she was unaware of what was happening in the unit. She agreed to meet with the landlord to discuss.
Both parties said that they met on 1 October 2024 and agreed that the tenant could give notice to end the tenancy, despite the tenancy being for a fixed term until 27 November 2024.
The tenant gave notice that day as follows:
The landlord responded stating:
The tenant did not agree to pay the Body Corporate invoice and filed her claim seeking refund of her bond. The landlord then filed their claim seeking compensation as set out in paragraph 6 above.

Has there been a breach by the tenant?

Clause 14 of the Body Corporate Rules provides that an owner must:
The tenant was bound to the Body Corporate Rules by virtue of section 11 of the Tenancy Agreement which states as follows:
Tenants are bound by the actions of others who are at the premises with their permission. See section 41 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I am satisfied that the tenant was in breach of the tenancy agreement. The evidence provided by the Body Corporate, and attached by the landlord to the 14 day notice sent to the tenant, proves that on the balance of probabilities that the unit was being used for commercial sexual services. I accept that the tenant may not have known about the actions of her flatmates, but as the flatmates were there with her permission she is also in breach.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for the breach?

Rental income loss and marketing costs

The landlord has claimed rental income loss ($2,720) until the end of the fixed term) and one weeks rent plus GST for marketing to find a new tenant.
The landlord said that such costs are frequently charged where a landlord agrees to end a fixed term early. Ms Jo said that the landlord has originally agreed to waive these costs if all other matters were agreed but as the landlord was forced to file a claim in the Tribunal the landlord now claims these costs.
The tenant said that there was never any mention of her being charged additional rent and marketing costs. She said that she did not want to move out but agreed at the insistence of the landlord. She said that she paid rent up until the last day, being 30 October 2025.
At the hearing Ms Jo referred to the landlord having released the tenant from the fixed term early, but I am not convinced that this is what happened here. What in fact happened, is that the landlord asked the tenant to move out and agreed to accept 28 days’ notice. There is nothing in the correspondence to suggest that the tenant would be liable for rent until the end of the fixed term, and in fact that further correspondence sent by the landlord refers to the end of the tenancy being 30 October 2025 and rent being paid up to that date.
I consider that the parties agreed to end the tenancy on 30 October 2025, with rent payable up to that date, and the landlord cannot now claim additional rent from the tenant.
Likewise, I do not consider that the tenant is liable for marketing costs 1 . I note in addition that the fixed term was due less than a month later and so the landlord would have incurred those costs anyway. Legal fees
The landlord said that the Body Corporate filed a claim filed in the Tribunal against the owner of the property on the basis of the breach by the tenant and had claimed their legal costs from the owner.
Only a very small excerpt of the Body Corporate’s claim was provided in evidence. The claim referred to the Body Corporate having been advised on 22 September 2025 that an escort service was operating out of the unit in breach of the Body Corporate rules, that they notified the landlord on 23 September 2024 but had not received confirmation that the breach had been remedied. The Body Corporate sought their costs as part of their application.
I was not provided with the date the Body Corporate’s application was filed, and Ms Jo could not not tell me the outcome or whether the Body Corporate had been awarded costs. She said that the owner had engaged lawyers and had challenged the Body Corporate’s claim but had paid the legal fees in the meantime.
I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for the legal fees for the following reasons: 1 In any event such costs must be itemised and given to the tenant (see section 44A RTA) a. The costs claimed are for a claim by the Body Corporate against the landlord for failing to notify the Body Corporate that the breach has been remedied (something over which the tenant has no control); b. The Body Corporate’s claim appears to have been prepared and filed before the tenant had an opportunity to remedy the breach: The narrations show that the legal work was for the period 22 September 2024 to 4 October 2024 and that the application was drafted on 24 September 2024. The legal work commenced several days before the tenant was served with a 14-day notice to remedy. The breach was capable of remedy but the tenant was given no opportunity to remedy the breach. She had in fact already agreed to move out by 1 October 2024; and c. The landlord appears to be contesting Body Corporate’s claim and so it is not clear that the landlord will be ultimately held liable for the legal fees. Cleaning
At the end of the tenancy tenants must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(3)(iii) RTA.
The landlord said that after they learned what was happening in the unit they decided to have it thoroughly cleaned when the tenant vacated. The landlord claimed the sum of $713.00 for decontamination of the whole unit including walls and windows and steam cleaning (2 bedroom + lounge + 2 Queen Mattresses + 1 x 3 seater sofa).
Tenant said that she left the property reasonably clean and tidy. She said that there was no indication when she moved out that she would be liable for any cleaning.
The landlord did not provide any evidence that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. They simply said that the landlord had felt that they should do a deep clean in the circumstances.
There was nothing in the evidence before me to indicate that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. In fact the landlord’s instructions to the tenant indicated that she would receive her bond back if she left the property reasonably clean and tidy and made no mention of decontamination and/or steam cleaning.
In my view there was no possible basis for the landlord to sanitise the whole unit including walls and windows. I have given more consideration to the cleaning of mattresses given the circumstances, but there was no evidence before me to prove that these were not reasonably clean and tidy. This was a furnished unit and it is common for landlords to steam clean sofas and mattresses in between tenancies.
The landlord has not proved that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. I have therefore not awarded any compensation for cleaning. Body Corporate fines
The landlord withdrew their claim for body corporate fines at the hearing as they did not have evidence available to prove the fines. Stress
The landlord said in their application that they had suffered stress dealing with the situation and in negotiating with the tenant following the end of the tenancy.
As indicated at the hearing, it is only in rare circumstances that the Tribunal will award compensation for stress. The landlord is in business as a property manager and there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary in the circumstances of this tenancy.
The claim for compensation for stress is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim as the only order was made by consent, and so I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00.
The tenant is the substantially successful party. She has sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5140348 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 1201, 1 Buscomb Avenue, Henderson,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5140348 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 1201, 1 Buscomb Avenue, Henderson,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent water rates?

Has there been a breach by the tenant?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for the breach?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent water rates?

Has there been a breach by the tenant?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for the breach?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions