What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282853 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] is to pay $1,671.32 to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5282853?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282853?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12559444-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282853 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] is to pay $1,671.32 to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5282853?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282853?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12559444-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 405B, 43 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5282853 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 405B, 43 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5282853 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Order

[The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] is to pay $1,671.32 to [The tenant/s] immediately as set out below:
The Tenant’s application seeking exemplary damages is dismissed.
The Landlord’s cross-application seeking rent arrears, outgoings and damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at Unit/Flat 405B, 43 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023, (the Premises) owned by [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] (the Landlord) for eight months.
The tenancy ended in May 2025. On 3 June 2025 the Landlord made a one- party application to the Bond Centre requesting the bond of $1,710 be released to the Landlord. The Landlord says they sought release of the bond in (partial) payment of rent arrears, unpaid electricity bills and other damage caused by the Tenant.
The Tenant did not consent to the Bond Centre releasing the bond to the Landlord. Despite that, on or about 25 June 2025, the Bond Centre released the bond of $1,710 to the Landlord.
As the Tenant had not consented to the release of the bond, the Bond Centre should have held the bond pending the parties’ agreement, or an order from the Tenancy Tribunal.
On 26 June 2025, the Tenant applied to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking refund of the bond paid to the Landlord, and seeking exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment and retaliatory notice.
On 8 September 2025, the Landlord filed a response, essentially a counter- claim, asserting their right to retain the bond for rent arrears, outstanding electricity bills, an electrician’s callout fee and reimbursement for repairs to walls in the Premises. The Landlord denies the Tenant’s claims for exemplary damages.
At the hearing the Landlord confirmed the Tenant had paid all rent owed, and the Landlord did not assert their right to retain the bond for any rent arrears. All other claims by both parties were pursued.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for: i. Compensation for power consumed by the Tenant; ii. Compensation for an electrician’s fee to investigate power at the Premises; iii. Compensation for damage to internal walls; iv. Compensation for carpet cleaning. b. Did the Landlord breach the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the

Premises?

c. Was the notice of termination issued on 22 February 2025 retaliatory? d. Should the Tenant’s name be suppressed?

The Tribunal’s approach to the issues

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for power consumed by the

Tenant?

A landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied, or are incurred for common facilities. A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. 1
The Landlord says the Tenant should compensate the Landlord $295.87 for electricity consumed in the period February – May 2025.
The Landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The Landlord did not produce evidence to support their claim that the Tenant consumed electricity amounting to $295.87 in charges from the Landlord’s electricity provider.
The Landlord says there was one mains power supply to both the Tenant’s unit and the Landlord’s own unit next-door. In the months September 2024 – February 2025, there was some confusion between the parties over how electricity usage was calculated and paid. During that period, the Tenant had a power account with Pulse Energy. The Landlord had a separate account with 1 Section 39(1) and (3) of the Act. Frank Energy. They say confusion arose because both parties were paying for electricity. However, from February 2025, the parties had settled that confusion and the Tenant closed their account with Pulse.
The outcome was that, from February 2025, there was one power account held by the Landlord for both units.
The parties confirmed there was a separate electricity meter for the Tenant’s unit. Despite there being a separate meter, the Landlord says she calculated the Tenant’s electricity usage based off her own record of days when the Landlord was present at their unit (splitting the usage 50:50 on those days) and when she was not present (allocating all usage to the Tenant). The Landlord did not produce the calendar referred to recording the days the Landlord was present in their unit, nor did the Landlord provide evidence of the total amount (for both units) charged by the electricity provider for that period.
The Landlord did not produce any breakdown to show how she came to the figure of $295.87 in electricity consumed by the Tenant. Without any such evidence I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved it is more likely than not that the Tenant exclusively consumed $295.87 worth of electricity during the tenancy.
The Tenant said they did not know how the figure had been calculated and could not be sure they owed that amount. However, the Tenant accepted they owed $38.68 for electricity. While it was unclear to the Tribunal how the $38.68 was calculated, the Tenant was clear in her acceptance that she owed the Landlord that amount.
Therefore, by consent, the Tenant is to pay the Landlord $38.68 for electricity consumed during the tenancy. The Landlord’s claim for the remaining $257.19 is dismissed. Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for an electrician’s fee to investigate power at the Premises
A landlord is responsible for maintenance of the premises. 2 It is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure a premise has supply of gas and/or electricity, water and other services. 3
The Landlord seeks compensation of $227.41 for the cost of an electrician attending the Premises to investigate the two units’ power supply on 24 January 2025. In support of their claim, the Landlord produced an invoice for that amount. 2 Section 45(1)(b) of the Act. 3 Section 45(1)(b) and (2).
The Landlord says the electrician’s investigation was necessary because the Tenant had caused confusion by setting up a power account using the wrong Installation Control Point (ICP) number. The Landlord says because the Tenant gave her power company the wrong ICP number, the charges the Tenant received in the period September 2024 – February 2025 were for power use at a different address.
The Landlord says it was only following the electrician’s investigation on 24 January 2025 that the Landlord confirmed the two units’ power was supplied from one mains power supply and they could only have one power account for the two units.
While I accept the Tenant’s Pulse Energy power account had a different ICP number, and therefore it is likely she paid charges related to power use at a different address in the period up to February 2025, it does not follow that the Tenant must compensate the Landlord for the investigation by an electrician on 24 January 2025.
As stated above, it is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure a premise has supply of gas, electricity, water and other services. 4 A landlord should be familiar with where and how those services are provided to their property. If a landlord does not know where and how services are provided to their property, and chooses to instruct a tradesperson to investigate the matter, that cost is one that a landlord must bear. There is no statutory basis under which it can be said that such a cost is a tenant’s responsibility.
Furthermore, I do not accept that the Landlord only discovered the two units had one mains power meter following the electrician’s investigation on 24 January 2025. That is information that would have been available to the Landlord at the time they purchased the property.
The Landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for damage to internal walls?

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. 5
The Landlord says they should retain $1,092.50 from the bond for the cost of patching and painting damage to internal walls in the living room (two walls), bedroom (two walls) and the wall next to the fridge. 4 Section 45(1)(b) and (2). 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
In support of the claim, the Landlord produced an invoice dated 27 May 2025 for that amount, with a breakdown of the five walls where work was completed.
The Tenant admitted installing a TV bracket on one wall in the living room, but says, with the permission of the Landlord, they carried out repairs before vacating the Premises. The Tenant produced a photograph taken on 22 May 2025 showing the wall after repairs had been completed (or almost completed). The Tenant denied causing the other four areas of damage.
The Landlord says the repairs by the Tenant to the living room wall where the TV bracket had been mounted were not to a professional standard. The Landlord asserts the other four walls were damaged by the Tenant during the tenancy. However, the Landlord did not produce any photographs or other evidence to show the condition of the walls at the start of the tenancy, or the condition at the end (other than the photograph produced by the Tenant showing their repairs). Without such evidence, the Landlord has not proved the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The Landlord also did not produce any photographs or other evidence to show the repairs carried out by the Tenant were not to a reasonable level of workmanship.
The Landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The Landlord did not produce evidence to prove the damage to the four areas in dispute was caused by the Tenant during the Tenancy, nor evidence to prove the repairs carried out by the Tenant were not to a reasonable level of workmanship
As the Landlord has failed to prove their claim, the claim for compensation for repairs to internal walls is dismissed.

Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for carpet cleaning?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 6 That obligation extends to all chattels and fixtures, including the floor coverings.
A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
The Landlord says the Tenants left the Premises clean in terms of the cleaning of surfaces, however they say the carpet had a strong odour which required professional carpet cleaning. In support of their claim, the Landlord produced a bank transaction for $300 paid to a cleaner on 29 May 2025. The Landlords say 6 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. the carpet was two years old and in good condition at the start of the Tenant’s tenancy. No photographs were produced to show the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy, or at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant says they did not notice any odour in the carpet while living there and deny leaving it in an unclean or smelly condition. The Tenant says when the Landlord conducted an inspection of the Premises on the afternoon of 22 May 2025 there was no discussion about the carpets being unclean or having an odour. The Tenant says she was unaware of this claim until attending the Tribunal hearing. 7
The Landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The Landlord did not produce evidence to prove that at the end of the tenancy the Tenant failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean.
While I accept it is difficult to prove odour (in that photographs or video evidence will not assist), the Landlord’s evidence that they detected an “offensive” odour in the week after the Tenant left was inconsistent with the Tenant’s uncontested evidence that during the inspection on the last day of the tenancy the Landlord did not raise the issue of carpet odour with the Tenant. I consider that if an odour existed, it would be likely to have been present on the final day.
As the Landlord has failed to prove their claim, the claim for compensation for carpet cleaning is dismissed. Did the Landlord breach the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the Premises?
The Tenant claims the Landlord harassed her by knocking on her door at various dates during the tenancy, and in particular, in the last two days of the tenancy when Mr Daji knocked seeking access to inspect repairs to the lounge room wall.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 8 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. 9 7 The only reference to the claim was in the Landlord’s summary of claims (treated as a counter claim) filed 8 September 2025 which referred only to “exit cleaning” and the amount of $300. No reference was made to the claim being for carpet cleaning. 8 Section 38(2) of the Act. 9 Section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
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". 10 10 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. First occurrence: following notice of termination
The Tenant says the first occurrence was in the days after 22 February 2025, when the Landlord emailed the Tenant the notice of termination. The Tenant says one morning the Landlord knocked on her door. The Tenant worked nights and therefore was asleep, but says she opened the door. The Tenant says the Landlord asked her if she had received the notice of termination. The Landlord did not enter the Premises, or ask to enter the Premises. The Tenant submits the Landlord knocking on her door was a breach of her right to quiet enjoyment as he could have emailed or phoned first.
The Landlord acknowledges he did knock on the Tenant’s door in the days after issuing the notice of termination, he says at approximately 11:30am. The Landlord says he knocked to check if the Tenant had received their email, as she had not replied to it. The Landlord says after she confirmed she had received it, he left. I do not accept that this act (alone, or in combination with the acts described below) constituted a pattern of behaviour directed at the Tenant that was intended to distress her.
I am not satisfied the Landlord knocking on the Tenant’s door in the days after emailing a notice of termination amounted to harassment. The Landlord sought confirmation of receipt of the notice of termination, and the conversation then ended. Other occurrences: last days of the tenancy
The Tenant says the real concern was the Landlord’s requests to enter the Premises in the last 2 – 3 days of the tenancy to inspect the repairs completed to the lounge room wall. The Tenant says over the last few days the Landlord knocked on her door 3 or 4 times asking to inspect the wall. The Tenant says she refused, partly because the repairs were not complete, and said the inspection could take place once she had moved out on 22 May 2025.
The Tenant says the most disturbing occurrence was at 5:30am on the final day of the tenancy (22 May 2025) when Mr Daji knocked on her door requesting to inspect the wall. The Tenant says she was not fully dressed and was busy cleaning. The Tenant says she did not open the door to the Landlord and, through the closed door, asked him to wait until she had fully moved out.
The Tenant says later that same morning, Mr Daji saw her in the hallway and told her he had arranged for his insurance broker to come and view the Premises at 5:30pm that day. The Tenant says she told him he would need to reschedule as she was still moving out. The Tenant says during the interaction Mr Daji demanded access to the Premises and the Tenant had to firmly assert he could not enter until she had moved out.
Overall, the Tenant says she felt Mr Daji’s requests to enter before she had moved out were intimidating and made her feel uncomfortable. The Tenant says she agreed to Mr Daji completing a final inspection at 5pm on 22 May 2025, and that occurred. The Tenant says she then exited the Premises shortly before 7pm on 22 May 2025.
The Landlord denied knocking on the Tenant’s door 3 – 4 days over the last days of the tenancy. The Landlord says he was up north until 21 May 2025 when he came to Auckland. The Landlord denies knocking on the Tenant’s door at 5:30am on 22 May 2025. The Landlord says he first knocked on the Tenant’s door at 11am to ask when he could view the Premises. The Landlord said the Tenant simply said not now, and he returned to his own apartment to wait. The Landlord says he had previously verbally told the Tenant that he had arranged for his broker to come and view the Premises at 5:30pm on 22 May 2025, but confirmed he did not give the Tenant notice of that in writing.
The Landlord says he happened to bump into the Tenant in the hallway at approximately midday on 22 May 2025. During the conversation in the hallway, he says the Tenant advised she would not have moved out by 5:30pm and told him he would need to reschedule his broker meeting, which he says he did. The Landlord denies acting in an intimidating manner and says the parties agreed Mr Daji could carry out a final inspection at 5pm that day, which is what occurred.
I am not satisfied the Landlord’s requests to view the repairs to the living room wall amounted to harassment. While I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the Landlord did knock of the Tenant’s door at 5:30am on 22 May 2025, 11 I do not find that incident, or the interactions in the hallway that day, or other occasions when Mr Daji might have knocked on her door in the days prior, amount to harassment. I am satisfied that a landlord knocking on a tenant’s door to communicate about matters such as the end of the tenancy, and any repairs that the landlord has agreed to the tenant carrying out, are not a breach of a tenant’s quiet enjoyment. A landlord is entitled to make such enquires, and knocking on the front door of a premise is a reasonable way to do so.
I am not satisfied the Landlord acted in a particularly intimidating manner, or was aggressive in his demeanour or tone. Certainly, I am not satisfied his communications were designed to trouble, worry or distress the Tenant, nor to wear out, tire, or exhaust her. There was no such pattern of behaviour directed towards the Tenant.
I find the Landlord did not commit an unlawful act and dismiss the Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment. 11 The text message the Tenant sent to Ms Daji at 8:41am on 22 May 2025, as read out by the Tenant during the hearing, refer to the Tenant denying Mr Daji access when he knocked at 5:30am that day.

Was the notice of termination issued on 22 February 2025 retaliatory?

On 22 February 2025, the Landlord emailed the Tenant a 90-day notice ending the tenancy on 22 May 2025. 12 The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, a tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, their landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. 13
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 14
The Tenant submitted the Landlord had issued the notice to terminate because they said they intended to sell the Premises. 15 The Tenant says they believe that was not the real reason, and that the Landlord was instead motivated by the souring of the relationship between the Landlord and the Tenant.
However, at the hearing, the Tenant accepted that, given the amendments to the Act that came into effect on 30 January 2025, the Landlord was entitled to give 90-days’ notice to terminate the tenancy without giving any reason. 16 The fact that the Landlord gave a reason (their intention to sell the Premises) did not bind the Landlord to follow that course, nor to follow that course within a certain time-frame. 17
The Tenant did not present any evidence to prove the Landlord was wholly or partly motivated by the Tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the Landlord. Rather, the Tenant simply suspected the Landlord’s motivation to issue the notice was not that as stated in their email of 22 February 2025.
I find the Landlord did not commit an unlawful act and dismiss the Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for retaliatory notice. Should the Tenant’s name be suppressed?
The Tenant sought suppression of their name, however, the Tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in their claim. 12 The correct calculation of 90 days would have had the tenancy end at the end of 23 May 2025, however, the Tenant did not take issue with the calculation of the tenancy end date. 13 Section 54(1) of the Act. 14 Section 54(2)-(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act. 15 As stated in the email issuing the notice of termination dated 22 February 2025. 16 Section 51(1) of the Act. 17 That is consistent with the amendment removing the previous 51(2)(a) that a landlord may terminate a tenancy by giving 90 days’ notice if the premises are to be put on the market within 90 days of the termination date.
I have considered whether I should grant the Tenant name suppression order having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest. 18
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. In my view, the application for name suppression ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the Tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the Tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the Tenant’s name.

Order

[The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] is to pay $1,671.32 to [The tenant/s] immediately as set out below:
The Tenant’s application seeking exemplary damages is dismissed.
The Landlord’s cross-application seeking rent arrears, outgoings and damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at Unit/Flat 405B, 43 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023, (the Premises) owned by [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] (the Landlord) for eight months.
The tenancy ended in May 2025. On 3 June 2025 the Landlord made a one- party application to the Bond Centre requesting the bond of $1,710 be released to the Landlord. The Landlord says they sought release of the bond in (partial) payment of rent arrears, unpaid electricity bills and other damage caused by the Tenant.
The Tenant did not consent to the Bond Centre releasing the bond to the Landlord. Despite that, on or about 25 June 2025, the Bond Centre released the bond of $1,710 to the Landlord.
As the Tenant had not consented to the release of the bond, the Bond Centre should have held the bond pending the parties’ agreement, or an order from the Tenancy Tribunal.
On 26 June 2025, the Tenant applied to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking refund of the bond paid to the Landlord, and seeking exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment and retaliatory notice.
On 8 September 2025, the Landlord filed a response, essentially a counter- claim, asserting their right to retain the bond for rent arrears, outstanding electricity bills, an electrician’s callout fee and reimbursement for repairs to walls in the Premises. The Landlord denies the Tenant’s claims for exemplary damages.
At the hearing the Landlord confirmed the Tenant had paid all rent owed, and the Landlord did not assert their right to retain the bond for any rent arrears. All other claims by both parties were pursued.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for: i. Compensation for power consumed by the Tenant; ii. Compensation for an electrician’s fee to investigate power at the Premises; iii. Compensation for damage to internal walls; iv. Compensation for carpet cleaning. b. Did the Landlord breach the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the

Premises?

c. Was the notice of termination issued on 22 February 2025 retaliatory? d. Should the Tenant’s name be suppressed?

The Tribunal’s approach to the issues

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for power consumed by the

Tenant?

A landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied, or are incurred for common facilities. A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. 1
The Landlord says the Tenant should compensate the Landlord $295.87 for electricity consumed in the period February – May 2025.
The Landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The Landlord did not produce evidence to support their claim that the Tenant consumed electricity amounting to $295.87 in charges from the Landlord’s electricity provider.
The Landlord says there was one mains power supply to both the Tenant’s unit and the Landlord’s own unit next-door. In the months September 2024 – February 2025, there was some confusion between the parties over how electricity usage was calculated and paid. During that period, the Tenant had a power account with Pulse Energy. The Landlord had a separate account with 1 Section 39(1) and (3) of the Act. Frank Energy. They say confusion arose because both parties were paying for electricity. However, from February 2025, the parties had settled that confusion and the Tenant closed their account with Pulse.
The outcome was that, from February 2025, there was one power account held by the Landlord for both units.
The parties confirmed there was a separate electricity meter for the Tenant’s unit. Despite there being a separate meter, the Landlord says she calculated the Tenant’s electricity usage based off her own record of days when the Landlord was present at their unit (splitting the usage 50:50 on those days) and when she was not present (allocating all usage to the Tenant). The Landlord did not produce the calendar referred to recording the days the Landlord was present in their unit, nor did the Landlord provide evidence of the total amount (for both units) charged by the electricity provider for that period.
The Landlord did not produce any breakdown to show how she came to the figure of $295.87 in electricity consumed by the Tenant. Without any such evidence I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved it is more likely than not that the Tenant exclusively consumed $295.87 worth of electricity during the tenancy.
The Tenant said they did not know how the figure had been calculated and could not be sure they owed that amount. However, the Tenant accepted they owed $38.68 for electricity. While it was unclear to the Tribunal how the $38.68 was calculated, the Tenant was clear in her acceptance that she owed the Landlord that amount.
Therefore, by consent, the Tenant is to pay the Landlord $38.68 for electricity consumed during the tenancy. The Landlord’s claim for the remaining $257.19 is dismissed. Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for an electrician’s fee to investigate power at the Premises
A landlord is responsible for maintenance of the premises. 2 It is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure a premise has supply of gas and/or electricity, water and other services. 3
The Landlord seeks compensation of $227.41 for the cost of an electrician attending the Premises to investigate the two units’ power supply on 24 January 2025. In support of their claim, the Landlord produced an invoice for that amount. 2 Section 45(1)(b) of the Act. 3 Section 45(1)(b) and (2).
The Landlord says the electrician’s investigation was necessary because the Tenant had caused confusion by setting up a power account using the wrong Installation Control Point (ICP) number. The Landlord says because the Tenant gave her power company the wrong ICP number, the charges the Tenant received in the period September 2024 – February 2025 were for power use at a different address.
The Landlord says it was only following the electrician’s investigation on 24 January 2025 that the Landlord confirmed the two units’ power was supplied from one mains power supply and they could only have one power account for the two units.
While I accept the Tenant’s Pulse Energy power account had a different ICP number, and therefore it is likely she paid charges related to power use at a different address in the period up to February 2025, it does not follow that the Tenant must compensate the Landlord for the investigation by an electrician on 24 January 2025.
As stated above, it is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure a premise has supply of gas, electricity, water and other services. 4 A landlord should be familiar with where and how those services are provided to their property. If a landlord does not know where and how services are provided to their property, and chooses to instruct a tradesperson to investigate the matter, that cost is one that a landlord must bear. There is no statutory basis under which it can be said that such a cost is a tenant’s responsibility.
Furthermore, I do not accept that the Landlord only discovered the two units had one mains power meter following the electrician’s investigation on 24 January 2025. That is information that would have been available to the Landlord at the time they purchased the property.
The Landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for damage to internal walls?

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. 5
The Landlord says they should retain $1,092.50 from the bond for the cost of patching and painting damage to internal walls in the living room (two walls), bedroom (two walls) and the wall next to the fridge. 4 Section 45(1)(b) and (2). 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
In support of the claim, the Landlord produced an invoice dated 27 May 2025 for that amount, with a breakdown of the five walls where work was completed.
The Tenant admitted installing a TV bracket on one wall in the living room, but says, with the permission of the Landlord, they carried out repairs before vacating the Premises. The Tenant produced a photograph taken on 22 May 2025 showing the wall after repairs had been completed (or almost completed). The Tenant denied causing the other four areas of damage.
The Landlord says the repairs by the Tenant to the living room wall where the TV bracket had been mounted were not to a professional standard. The Landlord asserts the other four walls were damaged by the Tenant during the tenancy. However, the Landlord did not produce any photographs or other evidence to show the condition of the walls at the start of the tenancy, or the condition at the end (other than the photograph produced by the Tenant showing their repairs). Without such evidence, the Landlord has not proved the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The Landlord also did not produce any photographs or other evidence to show the repairs carried out by the Tenant were not to a reasonable level of workmanship.
The Landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The Landlord did not produce evidence to prove the damage to the four areas in dispute was caused by the Tenant during the Tenancy, nor evidence to prove the repairs carried out by the Tenant were not to a reasonable level of workmanship
As the Landlord has failed to prove their claim, the claim for compensation for repairs to internal walls is dismissed.

Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for carpet cleaning?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 6 That obligation extends to all chattels and fixtures, including the floor coverings.
A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
The Landlord says the Tenants left the Premises clean in terms of the cleaning of surfaces, however they say the carpet had a strong odour which required professional carpet cleaning. In support of their claim, the Landlord produced a bank transaction for $300 paid to a cleaner on 29 May 2025. The Landlords say 6 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. the carpet was two years old and in good condition at the start of the Tenant’s tenancy. No photographs were produced to show the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy, or at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant says they did not notice any odour in the carpet while living there and deny leaving it in an unclean or smelly condition. The Tenant says when the Landlord conducted an inspection of the Premises on the afternoon of 22 May 2025 there was no discussion about the carpets being unclean or having an odour. The Tenant says she was unaware of this claim until attending the Tribunal hearing. 7
The Landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The Landlord did not produce evidence to prove that at the end of the tenancy the Tenant failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean.
While I accept it is difficult to prove odour (in that photographs or video evidence will not assist), the Landlord’s evidence that they detected an “offensive” odour in the week after the Tenant left was inconsistent with the Tenant’s uncontested evidence that during the inspection on the last day of the tenancy the Landlord did not raise the issue of carpet odour with the Tenant. I consider that if an odour existed, it would be likely to have been present on the final day.
As the Landlord has failed to prove their claim, the claim for compensation for carpet cleaning is dismissed. Did the Landlord breach the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the Premises?
The Tenant claims the Landlord harassed her by knocking on her door at various dates during the tenancy, and in particular, in the last two days of the tenancy when Mr Daji knocked seeking access to inspect repairs to the lounge room wall.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 8 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. 9 7 The only reference to the claim was in the Landlord’s summary of claims (treated as a counter claim) filed 8 September 2025 which referred only to “exit cleaning” and the amount of $300. No reference was made to the claim being for carpet cleaning. 8 Section 38(2) of the Act. 9 Section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
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". 10 10 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. First occurrence: following notice of termination
The Tenant says the first occurrence was in the days after 22 February 2025, when the Landlord emailed the Tenant the notice of termination. The Tenant says one morning the Landlord knocked on her door. The Tenant worked nights and therefore was asleep, but says she opened the door. The Tenant says the Landlord asked her if she had received the notice of termination. The Landlord did not enter the Premises, or ask to enter the Premises. The Tenant submits the Landlord knocking on her door was a breach of her right to quiet enjoyment as he could have emailed or phoned first.
The Landlord acknowledges he did knock on the Tenant’s door in the days after issuing the notice of termination, he says at approximately 11:30am. The Landlord says he knocked to check if the Tenant had received their email, as she had not replied to it. The Landlord says after she confirmed she had received it, he left. I do not accept that this act (alone, or in combination with the acts described below) constituted a pattern of behaviour directed at the Tenant that was intended to distress her.
I am not satisfied the Landlord knocking on the Tenant’s door in the days after emailing a notice of termination amounted to harassment. The Landlord sought confirmation of receipt of the notice of termination, and the conversation then ended. Other occurrences: last days of the tenancy
The Tenant says the real concern was the Landlord’s requests to enter the Premises in the last 2 – 3 days of the tenancy to inspect the repairs completed to the lounge room wall. The Tenant says over the last few days the Landlord knocked on her door 3 or 4 times asking to inspect the wall. The Tenant says she refused, partly because the repairs were not complete, and said the inspection could take place once she had moved out on 22 May 2025.
The Tenant says the most disturbing occurrence was at 5:30am on the final day of the tenancy (22 May 2025) when Mr Daji knocked on her door requesting to inspect the wall. The Tenant says she was not fully dressed and was busy cleaning. The Tenant says she did not open the door to the Landlord and, through the closed door, asked him to wait until she had fully moved out.
The Tenant says later that same morning, Mr Daji saw her in the hallway and told her he had arranged for his insurance broker to come and view the Premises at 5:30pm that day. The Tenant says she told him he would need to reschedule as she was still moving out. The Tenant says during the interaction Mr Daji demanded access to the Premises and the Tenant had to firmly assert he could not enter until she had moved out.
Overall, the Tenant says she felt Mr Daji’s requests to enter before she had moved out were intimidating and made her feel uncomfortable. The Tenant says she agreed to Mr Daji completing a final inspection at 5pm on 22 May 2025, and that occurred. The Tenant says she then exited the Premises shortly before 7pm on 22 May 2025.
The Landlord denied knocking on the Tenant’s door 3 – 4 days over the last days of the tenancy. The Landlord says he was up north until 21 May 2025 when he came to Auckland. The Landlord denies knocking on the Tenant’s door at 5:30am on 22 May 2025. The Landlord says he first knocked on the Tenant’s door at 11am to ask when he could view the Premises. The Landlord said the Tenant simply said not now, and he returned to his own apartment to wait. The Landlord says he had previously verbally told the Tenant that he had arranged for his broker to come and view the Premises at 5:30pm on 22 May 2025, but confirmed he did not give the Tenant notice of that in writing.
The Landlord says he happened to bump into the Tenant in the hallway at approximately midday on 22 May 2025. During the conversation in the hallway, he says the Tenant advised she would not have moved out by 5:30pm and told him he would need to reschedule his broker meeting, which he says he did. The Landlord denies acting in an intimidating manner and says the parties agreed Mr Daji could carry out a final inspection at 5pm that day, which is what occurred.
I am not satisfied the Landlord’s requests to view the repairs to the living room wall amounted to harassment. While I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the Landlord did knock of the Tenant’s door at 5:30am on 22 May 2025, 11 I do not find that incident, or the interactions in the hallway that day, or other occasions when Mr Daji might have knocked on her door in the days prior, amount to harassment. I am satisfied that a landlord knocking on a tenant’s door to communicate about matters such as the end of the tenancy, and any repairs that the landlord has agreed to the tenant carrying out, are not a breach of a tenant’s quiet enjoyment. A landlord is entitled to make such enquires, and knocking on the front door of a premise is a reasonable way to do so.
I am not satisfied the Landlord acted in a particularly intimidating manner, or was aggressive in his demeanour or tone. Certainly, I am not satisfied his communications were designed to trouble, worry or distress the Tenant, nor to wear out, tire, or exhaust her. There was no such pattern of behaviour directed towards the Tenant.
I find the Landlord did not commit an unlawful act and dismiss the Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment. 11 The text message the Tenant sent to Ms Daji at 8:41am on 22 May 2025, as read out by the Tenant during the hearing, refer to the Tenant denying Mr Daji access when he knocked at 5:30am that day.

Was the notice of termination issued on 22 February 2025 retaliatory?

On 22 February 2025, the Landlord emailed the Tenant a 90-day notice ending the tenancy on 22 May 2025. 12 The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, a tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, their landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. 13
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 14
The Tenant submitted the Landlord had issued the notice to terminate because they said they intended to sell the Premises. 15 The Tenant says they believe that was not the real reason, and that the Landlord was instead motivated by the souring of the relationship between the Landlord and the Tenant.
However, at the hearing, the Tenant accepted that, given the amendments to the Act that came into effect on 30 January 2025, the Landlord was entitled to give 90-days’ notice to terminate the tenancy without giving any reason. 16 The fact that the Landlord gave a reason (their intention to sell the Premises) did not bind the Landlord to follow that course, nor to follow that course within a certain time-frame. 17
The Tenant did not present any evidence to prove the Landlord was wholly or partly motivated by the Tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the Landlord. Rather, the Tenant simply suspected the Landlord’s motivation to issue the notice was not that as stated in their email of 22 February 2025.
I find the Landlord did not commit an unlawful act and dismiss the Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for retaliatory notice. Should the Tenant’s name be suppressed?
The Tenant sought suppression of their name, however, the Tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in their claim. 12 The correct calculation of 90 days would have had the tenancy end at the end of 23 May 2025, however, the Tenant did not take issue with the calculation of the tenancy end date. 13 Section 54(1) of the Act. 14 Section 54(2)-(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act. 15 As stated in the email issuing the notice of termination dated 22 February 2025. 16 Section 51(1) of the Act. 17 That is consistent with the amendment removing the previous 51(2)(a) that a landlord may terminate a tenancy by giving 90 days’ notice if the premises are to be put on the market within 90 days of the termination date.
I have considered whether I should grant the Tenant name suppression order having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest. 18
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. In my view, the application for name suppression ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the Tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the Tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the Tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282853 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 405B, 43 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023,

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282853 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 405B, 43 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023,

Order

Reasons

Premises?

Tenant?

Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for damage to internal walls?

Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for carpet cleaning?

Was the notice of termination issued on 22 February 2025 retaliatory?

Order

Reasons

Premises?

Tenant?

Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for damage to internal walls?

Should the Landlord retain the bond in full or in part for carpet cleaning?

Was the notice of termination issued on 22 February 2025 retaliatory?