What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292981 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 5292981?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292981?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292981?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12559105-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292981 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 5292981?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292981?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292981?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12559105-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5292981 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Lime Real Estate Limited As Agent For C L & T J Hodson must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The tenant lodged this application against the agent only. The respondent’s name in this order is adjusted to reflect the underlying agency established in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation, and the filing fee.

Should the bond be returned to the tenant?

The landlord had a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services and does not intend to do so.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
The landlord stated a bond refund form had been sent to the Bond Centre some time back. I have no evidence of that and the bond has remained there.

Should the tenant be compensated?

The tenant sought orders for $138.00 and $2,560.00 general damages.
The first claim is effectively a refund of the same amount paid by the tenant to the owner. The intention was to reimburse the owner for a 50% share of a cleaning invoice incurred by the landlord.
The payment was made by the tenant while in dispute with the agent regarding vacated issues. His intention was that the owner should not be out of pocket. I do not consider there are grounds for a revision now, or to effectively transfer that sum onto the landlord. The cleaning costs, amongst other vacate issues, was in dispute and the correct process was to have the landlord lodge an application and evidence the basis for any monetary orders against the tenant. The $138.00 as paid to the owner is not the subject of any order here.
The second claim was for four weeks rent due to the claimed failures of the landlord close to the end, and subsequently after the tenancy ended as the parties disputed liability for certain efforts or costs.
The timing here is important. The tenancy ended 15 June 2025 and a new tenancy formed immediately afterwards. This placed a time pressure to ensure the incoming tenants received the premises as required by s 45(1)(a)(b) RTA – that is, the premises are reasonable state of cleanliness and repair.
Essentially, the final inspection was conducted before the last day of the tenancy. Issues were raised by the landlord that it believed were the responsibility of the tenant. Email exchanges provided confirm a disagreement that continued and then escalated with what I believe to be inappropriate messaging between the parties. The landlord arranged a cleaner who attended before the tenancy end date. The cost was sought from the tenant. The tenant rightfully asserted his right to return and ensure any remedy was completed before the end of the tenancy. Given the absence of any counterclaim I do not need to make any determination regarding the cleaning costs but I note, prima facie, the managing of this exit and cost as incurred (and then sought for recovery) might have been smoother – that assessment does not assign any particular responsibility.
The situation was clouded as the tenant had earlier left with an informal re- letting arrangement in place. The tenant paid rent as due until the tenancy ended. No new tenancy formed prior to the fixed-term ending as intended on 15 June 2025.
I discussed at the hearing the provision of s 38(2) RTA that provide the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” This was raised at that time as the section pertains to the “use of the premises”. During the final stage the tenant, while liable for rent, was not residing in the premises. Regardless, I do not consider the final events during the actual tenancy met the threshold for consideration of compensation.
I consider the main issues (and related friction) arose after the tenancy ended. Section 38 does not apply and s 102 states the Tribunal shall have no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings before it 1 , with some exceptions such as where, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is generally limited to breaches that occur during the tenancy. The usual approach of the Tribunal is that post-tenancy distress or such is not something that can be compensated here. Unresolved disputes should be placed in front of the Tribunal as an alternative to protracted debate where the parties are clearly not going to reach any mutual agreement and tensions are escalating.
The tenant expressed broader public interest concerns as a dual motivator in his pursuit of this application. His concerns have been aired. The landlord has been able to respond.
I dismiss the claims for compensation. 1 S 102(4) provides for the application filing fee to be paid as a separate cost Application filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant requested suppression in his application. As he has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Lime Real Estate Limited As Agent For C L & T J Hodson must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The tenant lodged this application against the agent only. The respondent’s name in this order is adjusted to reflect the underlying agency established in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation, and the filing fee.

Should the bond be returned to the tenant?

The landlord had a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services and does not intend to do so.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
The landlord stated a bond refund form had been sent to the Bond Centre some time back. I have no evidence of that and the bond has remained there.

Should the tenant be compensated?

The tenant sought orders for $138.00 and $2,560.00 general damages.
The first claim is effectively a refund of the same amount paid by the tenant to the owner. The intention was to reimburse the owner for a 50% share of a cleaning invoice incurred by the landlord.
The payment was made by the tenant while in dispute with the agent regarding vacated issues. His intention was that the owner should not be out of pocket. I do not consider there are grounds for a revision now, or to effectively transfer that sum onto the landlord. The cleaning costs, amongst other vacate issues, was in dispute and the correct process was to have the landlord lodge an application and evidence the basis for any monetary orders against the tenant. The $138.00 as paid to the owner is not the subject of any order here.
The second claim was for four weeks rent due to the claimed failures of the landlord close to the end, and subsequently after the tenancy ended as the parties disputed liability for certain efforts or costs.
The timing here is important. The tenancy ended 15 June 2025 and a new tenancy formed immediately afterwards. This placed a time pressure to ensure the incoming tenants received the premises as required by s 45(1)(a)(b) RTA – that is, the premises are reasonable state of cleanliness and repair.
Essentially, the final inspection was conducted before the last day of the tenancy. Issues were raised by the landlord that it believed were the responsibility of the tenant. Email exchanges provided confirm a disagreement that continued and then escalated with what I believe to be inappropriate messaging between the parties. The landlord arranged a cleaner who attended before the tenancy end date. The cost was sought from the tenant. The tenant rightfully asserted his right to return and ensure any remedy was completed before the end of the tenancy. Given the absence of any counterclaim I do not need to make any determination regarding the cleaning costs but I note, prima facie, the managing of this exit and cost as incurred (and then sought for recovery) might have been smoother – that assessment does not assign any particular responsibility.
The situation was clouded as the tenant had earlier left with an informal re- letting arrangement in place. The tenant paid rent as due until the tenancy ended. No new tenancy formed prior to the fixed-term ending as intended on 15 June 2025.
I discussed at the hearing the provision of s 38(2) RTA that provide the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” This was raised at that time as the section pertains to the “use of the premises”. During the final stage the tenant, while liable for rent, was not residing in the premises. Regardless, I do not consider the final events during the actual tenancy met the threshold for consideration of compensation.
I consider the main issues (and related friction) arose after the tenancy ended. Section 38 does not apply and s 102 states the Tribunal shall have no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings before it 1 , with some exceptions such as where, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is generally limited to breaches that occur during the tenancy. The usual approach of the Tribunal is that post-tenancy distress or such is not something that can be compensated here. Unresolved disputes should be placed in front of the Tribunal as an alternative to protracted debate where the parties are clearly not going to reach any mutual agreement and tensions are escalating.
The tenant expressed broader public interest concerns as a dual motivator in his pursuit of this application. His concerns have been aired. The landlord has been able to respond.
I dismiss the claims for compensation. 1 S 102(4) provides for the application filing fee to be paid as a separate cost Application filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant requested suppression in his application. As he has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5292981 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5292981 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the bond be returned to the tenant?

Should the tenant be compensated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the bond be returned to the tenant?

Should the tenant be compensated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions