What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277220 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 5277220?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277220?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277220?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13025687-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277220 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 5277220?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277220?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277220?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13025687-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 88 Parrs Cross Road, Henderson, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277220 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277220 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

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 () [The tenant/s] immediately.
Goodwin Realty Limited T/A Goodwins As Agent For Sanjay Patel Vicki must pay
The tenant claims for breaches of the healthy home standards, and for issuing a retaliatory notice to terminate the tendency are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant represented herself with support from a friend. Ms Carrington represented the landlord.
The tenant filed claims for the following claims: a. Refund of the bond, b. Refund of overpaid rent, c. Retaliatory notice, d. Breach of healthy home standards, e. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The parties agree that tenancy began on the 10th of August 2022 and ended on the 29th of May 2025 following a 90-day notice issued by the landlord.
Because more than two months has passed since the end of the tenancy without the landlord bringing a claim to the Tribunal, the tenant is entitled to have her bond refunded. See section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”).
Today the landlord did not oppose the bond being refunded to the tenant.
The claim is proved.
The tenant says that during the tenancy she regularly made extra payments towards the rent in order to create a credit in case of extra costs in the future. The tenant is seeking refund of the credit that she built up during the tendency.
The tenant has not brought a record of the credit payments to the tribunal today and she says she is happy to rely on the records of the landlord.
The landlord said the rent summary for this tenancy records that at the end of the tenancy a payment of $504.71 was made to the tenant which refunded the credit she had built up.
The tenant agrees that a payment of approximately $500.00 was made to her at the end of the tenancy. In the absence of more detailed information, I can only determine that this was a full refund of the tenant’s credit.
This claim is not proved.
The tenant said that on the 21st of February 2025, she issued the property manager a 14-day notice to remedy, including amongst other things, “the carpet”.
“The carpet”, referred to an agreement that the tenant and the landlord had made some time ago, when the property was managed by a different representative of the same property management company. This representative had apparently negotiated with the tenant that if the tenant got up to date with her rent arrears, carpet would be installed at the premises.
On the 24th of February 2025, the landlord issued the tenant a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy. A reason was not given for the 90-day notice being issued, but the landlord indicated that renovations were planned and that it wouldn't be practical for the tenant to continue resigning residing at the premises while the renovations were undertaken.
The tenant says this 90-day notice was a retaliatory notice. The tenant points to the closeness in time between her issuing the 14-day notice to remedy to the landlord, and the landlord issuing a 90-day notice to terminate to the tenant, as the reason that she believes the landlord’s notice to terminate was retaliatory.
In response the landlord said that there had been many issues with this tenancy including 22 callouts by noise control, and several notices to the tenants for anti-social behaviour. The most recent complaints were callouts by noise control on the 8th of February 2025 and the 15th of February 2025.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s information on these points and explained that there had been a difficult relationship with a neighbour.
Under section 54 of the RTA the Tribunal may declare a notice of termination to be retaliatory in cases including, where a notice has been issued in response to any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. See the RTA, section 54(2)(a).
The RTA does not require a landlord to provide carpet for premises and I am not concerned the landlord was in breach off the RTA in not providing carpet to the premises. Because of this I am not persuaded that the 14-day notice to remedy issued by the tenant regarding the carpet was a lawful notice. However, I accept that it was a complaint against the landlord by the tenant and if the tenant showed that the notice was issued in retaliation to the notice, I could find that the notice was retaliatory.
Because it is accepted by both parties that there were numerous issues in play leading up to the landlord’s 90-day notice being issued, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the notice was issued in or partly in retaliation to the tenant’s complaint about the landlord not installing carpet.
Furthermore the tenant said that the landlord has not yet re-tenanted the premises. This suggests to me that the landlord’s claim that they wish to undertake renovations to the premises, is quite likely the truth, despite the renovations not having yet begun.
This claim is not proved.
In her application, the tenant raised claims at that breaches of the healthy home standards. In the hearing today the tenant did not pursue these claims.
These claims are dismissed.
Because has wholly succeeded with part of her claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277220 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

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 () [The tenant/s] immediately.
Goodwin Realty Limited T/A Goodwins As Agent For Sanjay Patel Vicki must pay
The tenant claims for breaches of the healthy home standards, and for issuing a retaliatory notice to terminate the tendency are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant represented herself with support from a friend. Ms Carrington represented the landlord.
The tenant filed claims for the following claims: a. Refund of the bond, b. Refund of overpaid rent, c. Retaliatory notice, d. Breach of healthy home standards, e. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The parties agree that tenancy began on the 10th of August 2022 and ended on the 29th of May 2025 following a 90-day notice issued by the landlord.
Because more than two months has passed since the end of the tenancy without the landlord bringing a claim to the Tribunal, the tenant is entitled to have her bond refunded. See section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”).
Today the landlord did not oppose the bond being refunded to the tenant.
The claim is proved.
The tenant says that during the tenancy she regularly made extra payments towards the rent in order to create a credit in case of extra costs in the future. The tenant is seeking refund of the credit that she built up during the tendency.
The tenant has not brought a record of the credit payments to the tribunal today and she says she is happy to rely on the records of the landlord.
The landlord said the rent summary for this tenancy records that at the end of the tenancy a payment of $504.71 was made to the tenant which refunded the credit she had built up.
The tenant agrees that a payment of approximately $500.00 was made to her at the end of the tenancy. In the absence of more detailed information, I can only determine that this was a full refund of the tenant’s credit.
This claim is not proved.
The tenant said that on the 21st of February 2025, she issued the property manager a 14-day notice to remedy, including amongst other things, “the carpet”.
“The carpet”, referred to an agreement that the tenant and the landlord had made some time ago, when the property was managed by a different representative of the same property management company. This representative had apparently negotiated with the tenant that if the tenant got up to date with her rent arrears, carpet would be installed at the premises.
On the 24th of February 2025, the landlord issued the tenant a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy. A reason was not given for the 90-day notice being issued, but the landlord indicated that renovations were planned and that it wouldn't be practical for the tenant to continue resigning residing at the premises while the renovations were undertaken.
The tenant says this 90-day notice was a retaliatory notice. The tenant points to the closeness in time between her issuing the 14-day notice to remedy to the landlord, and the landlord issuing a 90-day notice to terminate to the tenant, as the reason that she believes the landlord’s notice to terminate was retaliatory.
In response the landlord said that there had been many issues with this tenancy including 22 callouts by noise control, and several notices to the tenants for anti-social behaviour. The most recent complaints were callouts by noise control on the 8th of February 2025 and the 15th of February 2025.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s information on these points and explained that there had been a difficult relationship with a neighbour.
Under section 54 of the RTA the Tribunal may declare a notice of termination to be retaliatory in cases including, where a notice has been issued in response to any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. See the RTA, section 54(2)(a).
The RTA does not require a landlord to provide carpet for premises and I am not concerned the landlord was in breach off the RTA in not providing carpet to the premises. Because of this I am not persuaded that the 14-day notice to remedy issued by the tenant regarding the carpet was a lawful notice. However, I accept that it was a complaint against the landlord by the tenant and if the tenant showed that the notice was issued in retaliation to the notice, I could find that the notice was retaliatory.
Because it is accepted by both parties that there were numerous issues in play leading up to the landlord’s 90-day notice being issued, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the notice was issued in or partly in retaliation to the tenant’s complaint about the landlord not installing carpet.
Furthermore the tenant said that the landlord has not yet re-tenanted the premises. This suggests to me that the landlord’s claim that they wish to undertake renovations to the premises, is quite likely the truth, despite the renovations not having yet begun.
This claim is not proved.
In her application, the tenant raised claims at that breaches of the healthy home standards. In the hearing today the tenant did not pursue these claims.
These claims are dismissed.
Because has wholly succeeded with part of her claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277220 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 88 Parrs Cross Road, Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277220 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 88 Parrs Cross Road, Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions