What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5183531 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5183531?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183531?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13140761-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5183531 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5183531?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183531?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13140761-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Ground Floor Room, 17 Portobello Place, Torbay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5183531 — Cleanliness

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the premises was not provided reasonably clean. Background - jurisdiction
The Tribunal has previously determined the issue of jurisdiction and whether the tenancy was subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal found the unit is self-contained. It followed that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, and the RTA applied to the tenancy. 1 1 Tenant v Ta [2025] NZTT 5183531, 21 May 2025. ______51835312
The landlord must henceforth ensure that any residential tenancies at the premises comply with the RTA. Further, since the unit has not been approved as a separate household unit, it is an unlawful premises for the purposes of the RTA, which means that Council approval (perhaps by way of a Safe and Sanitary certification process) is required before the unit can be used for any residential tenancy . 2
I have discretion under s 78A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) “on the evidence before the Tribunal in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction...[declare] that the premises are, or were at any material time, unlawful residential premises.” If I were to so decide I could make an order for return of the rent.
I have, however, decided not to apply s 78A because the tenant did not claim under that section. It would not be fair to the landlord to apply the section when he has not been given notice that the Tribunal would consider it at this hearing.
However, the landlord is on notice he must carefully adhere with the RTA in future. In that regard he can begin by viewing the Tenancy Services website: https://www.tenancy.govt.nz Issue for determination
In his application, the tenant submitted: We moved into the property on 20th December 2024, under a periodic tenancy agreement with the landlord, Dung, for a two-bedroom basement. Upon moving in, we found the property was not clean, with many insects and unpleasant smells. Initially, we didn't think much of it, assuming cleaning would solve the issue, but the insect problem worsened over time, especially affecting our children. In January, we developed health issues, with all of us being diagnosed with Strep A, caused by bacteria in the living environment. Despite informing the landlord, no action was taken as he was away, and his response was dismissive. I am concerned that future tenants may face the same issues, and I request that proper cleaning standards be ensured before the next tenancy.
The issue for determination is whether the landlord provided the premises in a reasonably clean condition.

Did the landlord provide the premises reasonably clean?

The tenancy began on 20 December 2025 and ended on 8 February 2026.
The tenant’s claim was filed on 2 March 2026. 2 See Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 78A. ______51835313 Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness...
A “reasonable state of cleanliness” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness do not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the tenant alleges the premises was not provided clean. Therefore, they bear the onus of proof. Discussion
The tenant submitted photographs and a video of various insects he found in the premises. The numbers and type of insects do not seem excessive by reference to what one might expect in an Auckland home.
The tenant could not provide any photographs showing the condition of the premises prior to he and his wife cleaning them. The landlord provided a few photographs also, but they were poor quality and not of much assistance.
One of the tenant’s photographs showed that behind the stove was grimy and dirty. The tenant could not confirm whether he or his wife cleaned behind the stove. Often the Tribunal would find that tenants are not required to clean behind a stove when they move out. While I consider the landlord should clean behind the stove now that he has been made aware of its unclean condition, I would not find the premises were not provided clean by reason of that one isolated incident of proven uncleanliness.
The tenant claimed the premises were so dirty they gave his family Strep A. However, there was no medical evidence to support this assertion. ______51835314
There is a lack of objective evidence such as good quality photographs that I can use to assess the state of cleanliness the premises at the beginning of the tenancy.
Having considered all the evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Conclusion
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published. 3
While the tenant did not succeed in his claim, he did bring the tenancy to the Tribunal’s attention in circumstances where the landlord was previously unaware that the RTA applied to the premises. If the tenant had brought a claim under s 78A of the RTA it would probably have succeeded. The situation is similar to that contemplated by s 95A(1) of the RTA where non-publication must be ordered if a tenant is substantially successful. Tenants should not be deterred from bringing proceedings by the fear of publication
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I conclude non-publication is in the tenant’s interests and the public interest. Non- publication is allowed.

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the premises was not provided reasonably clean. Background - jurisdiction
The Tribunal has previously determined the issue of jurisdiction and whether the tenancy was subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal found the unit is self-contained. It followed that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, and the RTA applied to the tenancy. 1 1 Tenant v Ta [2025] NZTT 5183531, 21 May 2025. ______51835312
The landlord must henceforth ensure that any residential tenancies at the premises comply with the RTA. Further, since the unit has not been approved as a separate household unit, it is an unlawful premises for the purposes of the RTA, which means that Council approval (perhaps by way of a Safe and Sanitary certification process) is required before the unit can be used for any residential tenancy . 2
I have discretion under s 78A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) “on the evidence before the Tribunal in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction...[declare] that the premises are, or were at any material time, unlawful residential premises.” If I were to so decide I could make an order for return of the rent.
I have, however, decided not to apply s 78A because the tenant did not claim under that section. It would not be fair to the landlord to apply the section when he has not been given notice that the Tribunal would consider it at this hearing.
However, the landlord is on notice he must carefully adhere with the RTA in future. In that regard he can begin by viewing the Tenancy Services website: https://www.tenancy.govt.nz Issue for determination
In his application, the tenant submitted: We moved into the property on 20th December 2024, under a periodic tenancy agreement with the landlord, Dung, for a two-bedroom basement. Upon moving in, we found the property was not clean, with many insects and unpleasant smells. Initially, we didn't think much of it, assuming cleaning would solve the issue, but the insect problem worsened over time, especially affecting our children. In January, we developed health issues, with all of us being diagnosed with Strep A, caused by bacteria in the living environment. Despite informing the landlord, no action was taken as he was away, and his response was dismissive. I am concerned that future tenants may face the same issues, and I request that proper cleaning standards be ensured before the next tenancy.
The issue for determination is whether the landlord provided the premises in a reasonably clean condition.

Did the landlord provide the premises reasonably clean?

The tenancy began on 20 December 2025 and ended on 8 February 2026.
The tenant’s claim was filed on 2 March 2026. 2 See Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 78A. ______51835313 Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness...
A “reasonable state of cleanliness” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness do not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the tenant alleges the premises was not provided clean. Therefore, they bear the onus of proof. Discussion
The tenant submitted photographs and a video of various insects he found in the premises. The numbers and type of insects do not seem excessive by reference to what one might expect in an Auckland home.
The tenant could not provide any photographs showing the condition of the premises prior to he and his wife cleaning them. The landlord provided a few photographs also, but they were poor quality and not of much assistance.
One of the tenant’s photographs showed that behind the stove was grimy and dirty. The tenant could not confirm whether he or his wife cleaned behind the stove. Often the Tribunal would find that tenants are not required to clean behind a stove when they move out. While I consider the landlord should clean behind the stove now that he has been made aware of its unclean condition, I would not find the premises were not provided clean by reason of that one isolated incident of proven uncleanliness.
The tenant claimed the premises were so dirty they gave his family Strep A. However, there was no medical evidence to support this assertion. ______51835314
There is a lack of objective evidence such as good quality photographs that I can use to assess the state of cleanliness the premises at the beginning of the tenancy.
Having considered all the evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Conclusion
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published. 3
While the tenant did not succeed in his claim, he did bring the tenancy to the Tribunal’s attention in circumstances where the landlord was previously unaware that the RTA applied to the premises. If the tenant had brought a claim under s 78A of the RTA it would probably have succeeded. The situation is similar to that contemplated by s 95A(1) of the RTA where non-publication must be ordered if a tenant is substantially successful. Tenants should not be deterred from bringing proceedings by the fear of publication
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I conclude non-publication is in the tenant’s interests and the public interest. Non- publication is allowed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183531 — Cleanliness at Ground Floor Room, 17 Portobello Place, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183531 — Cleanliness at Ground Floor Room, 17 Portobello Place, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide the premises reasonably clean?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide the premises reasonably clean?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions