What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292799 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 5292799?

Compensation: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292799?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292799?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12542287-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292799 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 5292799?

Compensation: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292799?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292799?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12542287-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 171 Pigeon Mountain Road, Half Moon Bay, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5292799 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5292799 — net $277.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$250.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$277.00
Bond	$2,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$277.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 171 Pigeon Mountain Road, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012 is reduced and now ends at 12am, Saturday 21 June 2025.
Saurabh Naik must pay [The tenant/s] $277.00 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A Gujarati interpreter was available at the hearing if the tenants required assistance.
This tenancy was to commence on 21 June 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 21 June 2026.
The tenants have applied to be released from the fixed term tenancy, for compensation, exemplary damages and release of the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation. Background
The tenants viewed the premises on 2 June 2025 and advised the landlord that they were happy to rent the premises provided they were clean and tidy. The tenants signed the tenancy agreement and got the key for the premises on 21 June 2025, the day that the tenancy was to commence.
When the tenants went to move in, they considered that the premises were not clean enough. They called the landlord who advised them to try to get professional cleaners to clean the premises. The tenants were unable to find cleaners on such short notice.
The tenants advised the landlord that they would not be moving into the premises. Tenants applications
The tenants have applied for compensation in relation to the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 .
At the hearing the tenants produced videos and photographs showing that the premises was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness including in relation to the dishwasher, rangehood, curtain, kitchen bench, bathroom sink and mirror, carpet (dirt and stains), skirting and walls (writing, stains, dirt and cobwebs).
The tenants said that the presence of bugs at the premises convinced them that the premises was not safe for them and their two young children.
On the evidence produced I am satisfied that the landlord has breached his responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and the breach is serious. It would be inequitable to require the tenants to remain bound by the tenancy.
The tenants claim compensation in relation to the removal company which was about to move the tenant’s furniture to the premises. When the tenants 1 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 discovered the unclean condition and were unable to find cleaners on short notice to rectify the situation, they cancelled the removal company. They had paid a deposit of $250.00 which was not refundable, and they seek this amount by way of compensation. The amount of $250.00 as compensation is awarded to the tenants.
The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 21 June 2026.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The change in the circumstances is the unclean condition of the premises on the day that they were due to move in.
The tenants would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. With short notice the tenants needed to find alternate accommodation. They managed to negotiate a return to the tenancy that they had just moved out of. The tenants are paying rent for that tenancy.
The landlord would suffer hardship if the term were reduced. The landlord owns two houses. This property was the landlord’s family home before he purchased another home nearby. Both houses have a mortgage, and the landlord is self- employed.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While the landlord has applied for compensation of the lost rent from the date that the tenancy was to commence until the date that he managed to find a new tenant (15 July 2025) I am not satisfied that the tenants are responsible for this situation.
The landlord should have provided the premises in a reasonably clean state which is a responsibility of the landlord as set out in the Act 2 .
As the tenant did not move into the premises, I reduce the fixed term to the date that the tenancy was to commence and therefore the tenant does not owe any 2 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 rent to the landlord. I note that the tenant had paid one weeks rent in advance, but the landlord has rightly returned that money to the tenant.
The tenants applied for exemplary damages but at the hearing clarified that they just sought the money for the removal company which was the monetary loss that they suffered. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Landlord’s application
As stated above the landlord applies for compensation as he was unable to re- tenant the premises from 21 June 2025 until 15 July 2025.
The reason that this tenancy did not commence was because the landlord breached his obligation 3 to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition at the start of the tenancy. I accept the evidence of the tenants that they were ready and willing to move into the premises if they were in a reasonably clean state.
The landlord had put the onus on the tenants to find cleaners on the move in day, but it is his responsibility to ensure that the premises are clean at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that he tried to get the tenant to inspect the premises earlier in June so that he could undertake further cleaning if the cleanliness did not meet the tenant’s standard. The key date is when the tenancy is to start. That is when the premises need to be clean. Reasonably clean means free from visible dirt, dust, grime and rubbish. The surfaces, floors and appliances should be wiped down and sanitary. The standard is what a reasonable person would expect, not necessarily what the tenant or landlord personally prefers.
As the landlord was at fault he is not entitled to compensation. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants also sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the successful party 4 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5292799 — net $277.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$250.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$277.00
Bond	$2,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$277.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 171 Pigeon Mountain Road, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012 is reduced and now ends at 12am, Saturday 21 June 2025.
Saurabh Naik must pay [The tenant/s] $277.00 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A Gujarati interpreter was available at the hearing if the tenants required assistance.
This tenancy was to commence on 21 June 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 21 June 2026.
The tenants have applied to be released from the fixed term tenancy, for compensation, exemplary damages and release of the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation. Background
The tenants viewed the premises on 2 June 2025 and advised the landlord that they were happy to rent the premises provided they were clean and tidy. The tenants signed the tenancy agreement and got the key for the premises on 21 June 2025, the day that the tenancy was to commence.
When the tenants went to move in, they considered that the premises were not clean enough. They called the landlord who advised them to try to get professional cleaners to clean the premises. The tenants were unable to find cleaners on such short notice.
The tenants advised the landlord that they would not be moving into the premises. Tenants applications
The tenants have applied for compensation in relation to the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 .
At the hearing the tenants produced videos and photographs showing that the premises was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness including in relation to the dishwasher, rangehood, curtain, kitchen bench, bathroom sink and mirror, carpet (dirt and stains), skirting and walls (writing, stains, dirt and cobwebs).
The tenants said that the presence of bugs at the premises convinced them that the premises was not safe for them and their two young children.
On the evidence produced I am satisfied that the landlord has breached his responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and the breach is serious. It would be inequitable to require the tenants to remain bound by the tenancy.
The tenants claim compensation in relation to the removal company which was about to move the tenant’s furniture to the premises. When the tenants 1 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 discovered the unclean condition and were unable to find cleaners on short notice to rectify the situation, they cancelled the removal company. They had paid a deposit of $250.00 which was not refundable, and they seek this amount by way of compensation. The amount of $250.00 as compensation is awarded to the tenants.
The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 21 June 2026.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The change in the circumstances is the unclean condition of the premises on the day that they were due to move in.
The tenants would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. With short notice the tenants needed to find alternate accommodation. They managed to negotiate a return to the tenancy that they had just moved out of. The tenants are paying rent for that tenancy.
The landlord would suffer hardship if the term were reduced. The landlord owns two houses. This property was the landlord’s family home before he purchased another home nearby. Both houses have a mortgage, and the landlord is self- employed.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While the landlord has applied for compensation of the lost rent from the date that the tenancy was to commence until the date that he managed to find a new tenant (15 July 2025) I am not satisfied that the tenants are responsible for this situation.
The landlord should have provided the premises in a reasonably clean state which is a responsibility of the landlord as set out in the Act 2 .
As the tenant did not move into the premises, I reduce the fixed term to the date that the tenancy was to commence and therefore the tenant does not owe any 2 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 rent to the landlord. I note that the tenant had paid one weeks rent in advance, but the landlord has rightly returned that money to the tenant.
The tenants applied for exemplary damages but at the hearing clarified that they just sought the money for the removal company which was the monetary loss that they suffered. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Landlord’s application
As stated above the landlord applies for compensation as he was unable to re- tenant the premises from 21 June 2025 until 15 July 2025.
The reason that this tenancy did not commence was because the landlord breached his obligation 3 to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition at the start of the tenancy. I accept the evidence of the tenants that they were ready and willing to move into the premises if they were in a reasonably clean state.
The landlord had put the onus on the tenants to find cleaners on the move in day, but it is his responsibility to ensure that the premises are clean at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that he tried to get the tenant to inspect the premises earlier in June so that he could undertake further cleaning if the cleanliness did not meet the tenant’s standard. The key date is when the tenancy is to start. That is when the premises need to be clean. Reasonably clean means free from visible dirt, dust, grime and rubbish. The surfaces, floors and appliances should be wiped down and sanitary. The standard is what a reasonable person would expect, not necessarily what the tenant or landlord personally prefers.
As the landlord was at fault he is not entitled to compensation. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants also sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the successful party 4 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5292799 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 171 Pigeon Mountain Road, Half Moon Bay,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5292799 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 171 Pigeon Mountain Road, Half Moon Bay,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions