What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5143514 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 5143514?

Rent Arrears: $760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143514?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11603850-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5143514 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 5143514?

Rent Arrears: $760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143514?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11603850-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5143514 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143514 — net $760.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27/01/2025	$760.00	Rent arrears to 27/01/2025
Net award	$760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$760.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $760.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 March 2025.
The tenant made an application for refund of the rent paid, compensation for storage and moving costs, accommodation costs, refund of the bond and exemplary damages for breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. 5143514, 51782912
The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears, carpet cleaning, and refund of the bond. Background
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 27 December 2024 until 22 May 2025.
The premises was at an apartment type complex with mixture of owner- occupiers and social housing tenants.
During the initial viewing, the tenant asked the landlord if the neighbours were quiet. The landlord replied that they were. The tenant took the tenancy on that basis.
However, on the first night of the tenancy, the tenant heard loud outbursts from a neighbour around 9:30 pm. The tenant rightfully became concerned about this.
On the following night, the tenant again found the neighbour downstairs yelling and swearing to himself in an unrelenting manner. The tenant said that the noise level and the aggressive contents were highly intrusive and disturbing. Around 2 am, the tenant had to call the Police.
That morning, the tenant ended up leaving the property in need of sleep. The tenant’s allocated carpark was directly outside the yelling neighbour’s courtyard gate. The tenant says that the noisy neighbour directed his tirade at her yelling “and what do you want!” The tenant replied that he was an “absolute nuisance” and left the property in her pyjamas and was so traumatised that she called the Police again at roadside.
The following morning, the tenant complained to the landlord about this and said that the noise situation was far from what the landlord had represented and doubted that the landlord had not noticed it before.
The tenant requested for the landlord to end the tenancy. The landlord accepted this request and ended the tenancy.
There is a dispute as to the conditions to end the tenancy. That is considered below in the landlord’s cross-application. The tenant’s application
The tenant’s application is entirely based on the argument that the landlord had intentionally misled her into taking this tenancy despite knowing there was a noisy neighbour downstairs.
The tenant had another neighbour who gave evidence that the noisy neighbour downstairs was known to have mental health issues. That neighbour confirmed 5143514, 51782913 never having complained about the noisy neighbour to the Body Corporate or the property manager before. She had confirmed that the noisy neighbour acted up sometimes and she attributed that to perhaps when the noisy neighbour had not taken his medications. She said that the noise came in phases, that one week it might be quiet and one week it could be yelling everyday for hours.
The tenant said that the landlord must have known about the noisy neighbour downstairs as the noisy neighbour was an owner-occupier. It turned out that the noisy neighbour was a tenant of Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities.
The Body Corporate was phoned during the hearing to check whether there had been any previous complaints logged against the noisy neighbour downstairs. The Body Corporate confirmed that there had been no complaints other than the one forwarded on by the landlord as result of the complaint by the tenant.
The tenant herself had also confirmed that when she had viewed the premises that the apartment was like a ghost town. She thought that might have been due to the time of the year.
Having considered all the evidence, I do not find that the tenant had proven that the landlord intentionally misrepresented the tenancy to secure this tenant’s tenancy.
It seems that the noisy neighbour happened to act up during the two nights that the tenant had stayed at the premises.
In relation to the breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, the tenant had not given the landlord an opportunity to address this issue but gave him termination notice instead.
In a strict sense, the tenant was bound to stay at the premises for the duration of the fixed-term tenancy. However, as the landlord had agreed to release the tenant earlier, there was no issue with the tenancy ending early.
As the founding premise of the tenant’s claims has not been established, all of her claims except for the refund of half the bond is dismissed. The landlord’s cross-application
The landlord claimed for rent arrears to 19 February 2025 as he had only agreed to release the tenant earlier conditional on the tenant not making claims for moving, storage, and accommodation expenses as she has subsequently done.
The tenant denied that this had been the conditions of an earlier release.
As there was nothing in writing to confirm this, I find that the parties have agreed to end the tenancy with extra two weeks’ rent being deducted from the bond only. 5143514, 51782914
The landlord also claimed for carpet cleaning.
The tenant said that as she is a cleaner by trade, there is no way that she had stained the carpet.
The landlord questioned whether the tenant’s movers could have spilt some drinks during the move-in or move-out but this was vigorously denied by the tenant.
The landlord had pre-tenancy inspection photos but they did not cover the particular area where there were two faint stains.
The landlord said that the carpet had been replaced after the previous tenancy and that it was stain free at the beginning of this tenancy.
Due to the lack of photos covering that area together with the very short stay of the tenant, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven this claim against the tenant.
The landlord’s cross-application is dismissed. Suppression orders
Although neither party had wholly or substantially succeeded with the proceeding, I consider that there is interest of the parties and public interest to suppress all details relating to identifying the parties.
Therefore, I order suppression of details accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143514 — net $760.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27/01/2025	$760.00	Rent arrears to 27/01/2025
Net award	$760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$760.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $760.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 March 2025.
The tenant made an application for refund of the rent paid, compensation for storage and moving costs, accommodation costs, refund of the bond and exemplary damages for breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. 5143514, 51782912
The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears, carpet cleaning, and refund of the bond. Background
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 27 December 2024 until 22 May 2025.
The premises was at an apartment type complex with mixture of owner- occupiers and social housing tenants.
During the initial viewing, the tenant asked the landlord if the neighbours were quiet. The landlord replied that they were. The tenant took the tenancy on that basis.
However, on the first night of the tenancy, the tenant heard loud outbursts from a neighbour around 9:30 pm. The tenant rightfully became concerned about this.
On the following night, the tenant again found the neighbour downstairs yelling and swearing to himself in an unrelenting manner. The tenant said that the noise level and the aggressive contents were highly intrusive and disturbing. Around 2 am, the tenant had to call the Police.
That morning, the tenant ended up leaving the property in need of sleep. The tenant’s allocated carpark was directly outside the yelling neighbour’s courtyard gate. The tenant says that the noisy neighbour directed his tirade at her yelling “and what do you want!” The tenant replied that he was an “absolute nuisance” and left the property in her pyjamas and was so traumatised that she called the Police again at roadside.
The following morning, the tenant complained to the landlord about this and said that the noise situation was far from what the landlord had represented and doubted that the landlord had not noticed it before.
The tenant requested for the landlord to end the tenancy. The landlord accepted this request and ended the tenancy.
There is a dispute as to the conditions to end the tenancy. That is considered below in the landlord’s cross-application. The tenant’s application
The tenant’s application is entirely based on the argument that the landlord had intentionally misled her into taking this tenancy despite knowing there was a noisy neighbour downstairs.
The tenant had another neighbour who gave evidence that the noisy neighbour downstairs was known to have mental health issues. That neighbour confirmed 5143514, 51782913 never having complained about the noisy neighbour to the Body Corporate or the property manager before. She had confirmed that the noisy neighbour acted up sometimes and she attributed that to perhaps when the noisy neighbour had not taken his medications. She said that the noise came in phases, that one week it might be quiet and one week it could be yelling everyday for hours.
The tenant said that the landlord must have known about the noisy neighbour downstairs as the noisy neighbour was an owner-occupier. It turned out that the noisy neighbour was a tenant of Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities.
The Body Corporate was phoned during the hearing to check whether there had been any previous complaints logged against the noisy neighbour downstairs. The Body Corporate confirmed that there had been no complaints other than the one forwarded on by the landlord as result of the complaint by the tenant.
The tenant herself had also confirmed that when she had viewed the premises that the apartment was like a ghost town. She thought that might have been due to the time of the year.
Having considered all the evidence, I do not find that the tenant had proven that the landlord intentionally misrepresented the tenancy to secure this tenant’s tenancy.
It seems that the noisy neighbour happened to act up during the two nights that the tenant had stayed at the premises.
In relation to the breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, the tenant had not given the landlord an opportunity to address this issue but gave him termination notice instead.
In a strict sense, the tenant was bound to stay at the premises for the duration of the fixed-term tenancy. However, as the landlord had agreed to release the tenant earlier, there was no issue with the tenancy ending early.
As the founding premise of the tenant’s claims has not been established, all of her claims except for the refund of half the bond is dismissed. The landlord’s cross-application
The landlord claimed for rent arrears to 19 February 2025 as he had only agreed to release the tenant earlier conditional on the tenant not making claims for moving, storage, and accommodation expenses as she has subsequently done.
The tenant denied that this had been the conditions of an earlier release.
As there was nothing in writing to confirm this, I find that the parties have agreed to end the tenancy with extra two weeks’ rent being deducted from the bond only. 5143514, 51782914
The landlord also claimed for carpet cleaning.
The tenant said that as she is a cleaner by trade, there is no way that she had stained the carpet.
The landlord questioned whether the tenant’s movers could have spilt some drinks during the move-in or move-out but this was vigorously denied by the tenant.
The landlord had pre-tenancy inspection photos but they did not cover the particular area where there were two faint stains.
The landlord said that the carpet had been replaced after the previous tenancy and that it was stain free at the beginning of this tenancy.
Due to the lack of photos covering that area together with the very short stay of the tenant, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven this claim against the tenant.
The landlord’s cross-application is dismissed. Suppression orders
Although neither party had wholly or substantially succeeded with the proceeding, I consider that there is interest of the parties and public interest to suppress all details relating to identifying the parties.
Therefore, I order suppression of details accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5143514 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5143514 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions