How much money was awarded in case 5218652?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $16.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $332.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218652?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12510450-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5218652?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $16.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $332.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218652?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12510450-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5218652 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5218652 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5218652 — net $398.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/02/2025	$332.44	4. The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears, water rates arrears, failure to maintain cleanliness and creating a nuisance, unauthorised pets with…
Pest control: Flea bombs	$16.00	Pest control: Flea bombs
Carpet Cleaning	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$398.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$398.44

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] $398.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $398.44 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,701.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 25 August 2025. The female landlord attended for both landlords and was assisted by a Korean interpreter. 5218652, 52203942

The tenancy was from 30 June 2023 until 28 February 2025. The landlord and the tenant lived in two separate houses sharing a single driveway. The landlord lived in the house at the front and the tenant lived in the house at the back.

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied for a refund of the bond and compensation for the landlord’s harassment and time spent on responding to the landlord. The tenant also claimed for damaged pots and pans, but that claim was withdrawn at the hearing.

The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears, water rates arrears, failure to maintain cleanliness and creating a nuisance, unauthorised pets without prior approval, pest infestation, failure to report carpet stain and floor damage, interference with the landlord’s right for final inspection, tenant’s disruptive and unreasonable behaviour, harassment and intimidation, and time spent in responding to the tenant’s claims.

I deal with the tenant’s claims first. Tenant’s claims

The tenant claimed that the landlord had refused the refund of the bond and disputed the damages and bond reductions as sought by the landlord. The tenant said that the landlord had presented harassing and disruptive behaviour on a number of occasions that had their family feel uncomfortable with her as their landlord.

In late 2024, the landlord was having a dispute with the previous property management company. The dispute had nothing to do with the tenant, yet the tenant said that they were constantly harassed and dragged into the dispute. The tenant was consistently pressured into providing statements from their personal accounts for the rental payments made to the property management company despite the property management company confirming that the tenant has made all payments required of them at the time of the handover.

The tenant says that they were accused of being $5,000.00 behind in rent payments.

Further to this, the tenant says that they were approached multiple times in the shared driveway.

The same behaviour was exhibited when the landlord noticed an issue with water rates.

The tenant ended up having to file a police report as her behaviour has been escalating.

The tenant claimed that the landlord had also contacted their current landlord in an attempt to slander them and ruin their new tenancy. 5218652, 52203943

On 20 February 2025, the tenant invoiced the landlord $776.25 for the time they spent on answering the landlord’s requests. The invoice included time they spent on emails, discussions and collecting required banking information from personal accounts.

The landlord denied the tenant’s claims and explained that she had never accused the tenant of underpaying but that she asked the tenant to check their payment as they may have overpaid instead.

A property management company originally managed this tenancy from the beginning, but that service ceased on 17 July 2024. From 18 July 2024 until the end of the tenancy, the landlord managed the tenancy personally.

The final rent ledger provided by the property management company only captured payments until 30 June 2024.

As the landlord started to manage the premises from 18 July 2024, the rent cycle was adjusted to be from 18 th of each month.

There was a shortfall of $5,000.00 in the handover rent summary as the property management company did not capture the payments made by the tenant from a different account. That was the reason for the query by the landlord to the tenant as the landlord did not believe that the property management company had correctly recorded all the rent received.

To make matters more complicated, the tenant was making rent payments on monthly basis and the calculations agreed with the previous property management company had a slight miscalculation in it which caused a small shortfall at the end of the tenancy.

In relation to the landlord contacting the tenant’s current landlord, the landlord explained that it was to ascertain the tenant’s cat situation. The tenant could not establish what was said by the landlord to their current landlord and the tenant did not want to call their current landlord to prove this point any further.

Under section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 5218652, 52203944

Having heard the background and having read the emails sent by the parties, I do not find that the landlord’s actions amounted to harassment. The landlord was entitled to reconcile rent payments from the tenant.

The tenant’s claim for harassment is dismissed.

The invoice dated 20 February 2025 issued by the tenant to the landlord is of no effect. The landlord’s cross-application

I now consider the landlord’s cross-application. Rent and water rates arrears

The landlord had provided an in-depth summary of all the rent payments. Having gone through the figures, I find that the landlord has proven that the tenant had rent arrears of $332.44 at the end of the tenancy.

I order the tenant to pay this amount to the landlord from the bond.

The landlord had also claimed $20.27 for water rates arrears. However, the reading for that invoice was done on 4 March 2025 which was after the new tenants have moved in.

As it is not possible to determine how much of that invoice is due to this tenant, the final amount for water rates cannot be claimed against the tenant. Failure to maintain cleanliness and creating a nuisance

The landlord claimed that the tenant failed to maintain cleanliness and created a nuisance.

This was in relation to the tenant’s cleaners having washed crystal cat litter by the garden causing the crystals to spill over to the next door’s boundaries.

The parties initially thought it was broken glass pieces but once it was found to be cat litter, the tenant went out to clean it up. However, the landlord was already there cleaning it up. The tenant offered to help but the landlord said that it was okay and that she had done it as she could not wait for it to be done.

Although this incident was from 31 July 2024, the landlord decided to charge the tenant $300.00 as part of this application.

The landlord cannot clean it and charge the tenant without giving the tenant a fair opportunity to clean it during the tenancy especially when the tenant was offering to clean it. 5218652, 52203945

Regardless of that, it is clear that this was a response to the tenant’s invoice for the tenant’s time taken to reconcile rent records.

I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the tenant’s failure to maintain cleanliness and creating a nuisance. Unauthorised pets without prior approval

The landlord claimed that the tenants had 2 cats as pets without any discussions or approval. The landlord claimed that this caused pest infestation and additional maintenance concerns.

The tenants told the Tribunal that the male landlord had given them permission.

The female landlord accepted that the male landlord may have given permission but still denied that that was adequate approval as only one of the two named landlords gave permission.

As long as one of the two landlords give permission, it is fine for the tenant to rely on that permission.

This claim is dismissed. Pest infestation

The landlord claimed that there was a pest infestation due to the tenant failing to properly maintain the premises.

The subsequent tenants reported flea infestation and when professional pest control was called after flea bombs were ineffective, it was found that the premises had bed bugs.

Although I accept that having cats can lead to fleas, I do not accept that the bed bugs were present as a result of the cats having stayed there.

I order the tenant to pay the landlord $16.00 being the cost of a 2-pack flea bomb. I decline the landlord’s claim for $339.25 for professional pest control fees. Carpet stain and floor damage

The landlord claimed that the tenant had neglected property care causing carpet stain and damage to the laminate floorboards.

Having seen photos, I disagree with the landlord’s description of the tenant having neglected property care.

However, I agree that there was a small stain on the carpet. 5218652, 52203946

Having seen the photo of the stain, I grant the landlord $50.00 for its removal. I find that the quote of $250.00 was unreasonable.

In relation to the laminate floorboards, the tenant disputed that it was even damaged, saying that it was a pattern on the floorboards themselves.

I do not find that the “damage” is more than fair wear and tear if “damage” at all. I do not grant the landlord’s claim for $1,000.00 for insurance excess for the floor damage. Other claims by the landlord

The landlord’s other claims of interfering with the landlord’s right for final inspection and claims for the tenant’s behaviour are all baseless.

The landlord says that she could not properly conduct her final inspection as the tenant had insisted that the final inspection should be recorded. The landlord claimed that this somehow limited her ability to conduct the inspection properly.

The landlord claimed that the tenant’s actions of recording without consent, making threats of making a report against her and making false accusations against the landlord amounted to bullying and harassment.

Like what the tenant did, the landlord also claimed for her time spent on responding to the tenant’s claims.

As I had dismissed the tenant’s invoice against the landlord, the landlord’s claim against the tenant for her time spent is also dismissed.

All other claims are more of an emotional response to what the tenant has claimed to the landlord. They are baseless and are dismissed. Name suppression

At the request of both parties, all identifying details are suppressed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5218652 — net $398.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/02/2025	$332.44	4. The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears, water rates arrears, failure to maintain cleanliness and creating a nuisance, unauthorised pets with…
Pest control: Flea bombs	$16.00	Pest control: Flea bombs
Carpet Cleaning	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$398.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$398.44