What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5260040 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 5260040?

Rent: $304.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $681.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5260040?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5260040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12862766-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5260040 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 5260040?

Rent: $304.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $681.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5260040?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5260040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12862766-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5260040 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5260040 — net $985.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 17 March 2025	$304.00	Rent to 17 March 2025
Rubbish removal	$681.17	Rubbish removal
Net award	$985.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$985.17

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5260040 — net $985.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 17 March 2025	$304.00	Rent to 17 March 2025
Rubbish removal	$681.17	Rubbish removal
Net award	$985.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$985.17

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 tenant’s application is dismissed for the

Reasons

given.

[The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $985.17 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent to 17 March 2025$304.00 Rubbish removal$681.17 Total award$985.17 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$985.17 Reasons:
Both parties attended the hearings on 27 August and 27 November 2025. The tenant attended both hearings by telephone. The landlord attended the first hearing in person and the second by telephone.
Following the second hearing the tenant was given further time to file a response to the landlord’s submission. Written submissions were received on 11 December 2025 and have been considered.
On 12 May 2025 the landlord applied for rent arrears and compensation. The claims for changing the locks and key replacement were withdrawn at the second hearing.
On 10 June 2025 the tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages. The tenant’s case is that the landlord dismissed her complaints about a home invasion during the tenancy. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a periodic tenancy starting on 30 April 2024. Clause 14 of the agreement stated that the tenant must live at the premises at all times.
On or about 10 December 2024 there was an incident at the premises. Two neighbours forcefully entered the premises without the tenant’s consent and demanded money. This was reported to the Police on 11 December 2024.
On 12 December 2024 the tenant requested a meeting with the landlord to discuss a transfer due to the incident on 10 December 2024. This was supported by a letter from a social worker. There was a meeting or conversation on 13 December 2024, following which the tenant advised she was relocating out of Auckland.
On or about 15 December 2024 the tenant left the premises and moved to Christchurch. On 18 December 2024 the landlord emailed the tenant, stating that the information provided did not establish an imminent risk to the tenant’s safety warranting an immediate safety transfer. On 23 January 2023 the tenant referred to a conversation about “my transfer and relocations” and said the required end date for her tenancy was 3 February 2025.
On or about 2 February 2025 the tenant returned to the premises to pack up her belongings. According to the tenant, the neighbours attempted to invade her home again. Police arrived, and as they were leaving the tenant was locked out. There was a four-hour wait for a contractor, so instead the Police forced entry (the tenant’s young son had been locked inside).
The landlord says they have continued to investigate the home invasion by the neighbours. They are now taking the matter to the Tribunal. It seems the landlord did not keep the tenant updated as to the progress of the investigation. The tenant says she was advised by Oranga Tamariki that it was not in her best interests or those of her children to return to the premises.
On 17 February 2025 the landlord received a notice to end the tenancy from the tenant, who personally delivered the notice to their Christchurch office. The tenancy end date given in the notice was 14 February 2025 with the keys to be returned on 11 February 2025. In correspondence on 17 February 2025, the tenant was informed that she had until 10 March 2025 to vacate.
On 13 March 2025 the tenant gave permission for her furniture to be donated. The remaining items left at the property had been removed by the Salvation Army by 24 March 2025. Rent Arrears
The landlord claimed rent to 25 March 2025 in the sum of $477.71.
On 16 January 2025, the tenant signed a notice to terminate the tenancy on 14 February 2025, but the notice was only received by the landlord on 17 February 2025. In my view the tenancy ended on 17 March 2025, 28 days from receipt of the notice. The landlord had possession of the property by then as the keys had been returned. The tenant had vacated but left belongings behind in breach of the tenancy agreement.
I award rent to 17 March 2025. The rent was paid to 3 March 2025. It follows that two weeks’ rent is payable ($304.00). Rubbish Removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The inspection report dated 19 February 2025 shows large amounts of personal belongings. The further inspection report dated 25 March 2025 does show some items still left behind, mainly in boxes, and furniture. The tenant signed a form on 16 January 2025 authorising the landlord to dispose of her goods. I award the amount claimed for removal of rubbish and belongings ($681.17).
The tenant mentioned in her application that the landlord had conducted an inspection without proper notice. I am not persuaded that the landlord performed the inspection on 19 February 2025 in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). By that time, the landlord had received a notice from the tenant which purported to end the tenancy from 14 February 2025, and the tenant was no longer living in the premises. Even if there was a breach, in the circumstances I do not consider there was any loss. Damage
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' market rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose.
As discussed above, the front door was damaged due to forced entry by the Police. The tenant did not carelessly or intentionally damage the door herself. The question is therefore whether she is responsible for the actions of the Police. Section 41(1) of the Act provides: The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
In my view the words in parenthesis are relevant in this case. The landlord was informed of the situation, but there was going to be a four-hour delay before a contractor could attend on their behalf, meanwhile a small child was trapped inside. I find that the door was damaged by Police while urgently gaining entry and that this was done with the landlord’s authority (see the “Police report regarding call out on 02/02/25” recorded by the landlord on 3 February 2025).
It follows that the tenant is not liable for the cost of reinstating the door ($3,843.63). Landlord’s Responsibilities
Section 45(1)(e) of the Act requires landlords to “take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.” The neighbours were also tenants of the landlord.
The tenant said that the landlord did not act on her complaints and did not do anything when matters escalated in December 2024. The tenant said she was in hospital for two days after the home invasion and her children were temporarily taken into care.
There is a letter from the landlord on 17 September 2024, requesting a meeting to discuss disturbance from a neighbour. This had been raised by the tenant on 6 September 2024.
The file also shows the landlord beginning an investigation after the forced entry in December 2024. On 12 December 2024 the landlord requested further information including who was involved and when it happened. On 16 December 2024 the landlord received information from a social worker who witnessed the incident. I was told that the matter is now going before the Tribunal.
The landlord did take steps to investigate what had happened and is now engaging a formal legal process. The landlord’s obligation was to take all reasonable steps to prevent the tenant’s neighbours from interfering with her quiet enjoyment. The context in which that obligation arose is important. The tenant left soon after the incident on 10 December 2024. Inevitably the focus was then on managing that situation and confirming the tenancy was ending.
The tenant was not provided with any updates about the investigation. Whether she should have been kept informed, and whether it would have made a difference to her situation, is unclear. Certainly, the tenant was under the impression that she could not return to the premises with her children, and she took the decision to end the tenancy.
In the circumstances and given the tenant’s decision to leave the premises before meaningful action could be taken against the neighbours (for example, an application to terminate their tenancy) I find that the landlord was not in breach of section 45(1)(e) of the Act.
The tenant referred to the provisions of various statutes where Parliament has provided for consideration of Māori interests, for example, section 4 of the Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities Act 2019. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that tikanga as law is part of the common law of New Zealand (Ellis v R [2022] NZSC 114).
I understood that the tenant considered these interests were relevant to how she had been treated by the landlord. At the hearing, the tenant was unable to explain how Māori cultural values, tikanga, or whenua-based rights applied in the circumstances of this case. In written submissions, the tenant said the landlord’s breaches were Wairau in nature, affecting their Mauri and sense of safety.
These concepts are relevant to the impact on the tenant of the landlord’s conduct, but do not alter the substantive law. Further, the tenant said she was left homeless because the landlord would not confirm the end of her tenancy with MSD, so that she was ineligible for emergency housing. The Tribunal is not in a position, and likely does not have jurisdiction, to examine whether the landlord had reasonable grounds to refuse a safety transfer.
Reviewing the file, some of the text messages from one of the landlord’s housing managers lacked professional calm and detachment, but I consider they do not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. Suppression
The tenant requested, and is granted, name suppression. The proceedings involved issues about the well-being of the tenant and her children. Their privacy interest supports suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5260040 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5260040 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions