What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5295519 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 5295519?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Water Fixed Charges: $282.20 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $19.47 awarded to landlord; Replace Voile Curtains: $241.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $40.63 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $45.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5295519?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5295519?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12534777-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5295519 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 5295519?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Water Fixed Charges: $282.20 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $19.47 awarded to landlord; Replace Voile Curtains: $241.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $40.63 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $45.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5295519?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5295519?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12534777-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5295519 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5295519 — net $214.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace voile curtains	$241.00		Replace voile curtains
Light bulbs/batteries	$19.47		Light bulbs/batteries
Water charges to end of tenancy	$45.60		Water charges to end of tenancy
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Replace smoke alarms	$40.63		Replace smoke alarms
Compensation: water fixed charges		$282.20	water fixed charges
Total award	$496.70	$282.20
Net award	$214.50
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$214.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $214.50 [The tenant/s]: $2,145.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 October 2025.
The landlord applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond and compensation for emotional distress.
The applications relate to a tenancy which ran from 23 October 2022 to 19 June 2025. The tenancy was renewed from 23 October 2024 and a further residential tenancy agreement signed. The agreement recorded that, after consultation, permission was given for a pet cat. The weekly rent was $610.00. Landlord’s Application
The landlord claimed for replacement voile curtains damaged by the tenant’s cat in various rooms, including the lounge and master bedroom. The tenant did not dispute that her cat damaged the curtains. The tenant also acknowledged that the replacements were not as good quality as the original curtains. The landlord explained that the replacements were unfinished and the wrong size. They also had some cuts and tears. I award the cost of replacement voile curtains ($241.00) which is less than the insurance excess ($550.00).
The landlord claimed the cost of replacement smoke alarms. The bases were still there but not the alarms. The landlord said the tenant had threatened to remove them at one stage, as they kept going off during cooking. The tenant confirmed that the property had smoke alarms but denied removing them. I place some weight on the landlord’s evidence that they would not have replaced them if they were not missing. A receipt from Mitre 10 for replacement smoke alarms dated 23 June 2025 was provided. There was also a written statement from a couple who were staying with the landlord at the time. I find on the balance of probabilities that the smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy, despite there not being any photographs showing the missing alarms/empty bases.
The landlord also claimed exemplary damages for removal of the smoke alarms. As discussed above, the tenant denied removing them and the landlord accepted the tenant did not take them to her new address. I decline to award exemplary damages.
The landlord claimed the cost of a replacement handle for an internal door. The tenant’s nephew was locked inside the bedroom. When the tenant tried to get him out, she found that the key provided did not work. She called the landlord and then arranged for a locksmith to open the door. Afterwards, the landlord replaced the door handle to prevent the same thing happening again. The landlord said this was cheaper than replacing the lock. I consider that this was a maintenance obligation and the landlord’s responsibility. This does not imply any criticism. The landlord was left having to deal with the consequences of a previous tenant’s decision to add a lock to an internal door.
The landlord claimed two replacement light bulbs. The tenant accepted that several lights required replacement. Tenants are required to replace standard light bulbs. I award the amount claimed.
The landlord claimed the cost of a bedroom window security stay removed from the master bedroom. The landlord said the stays were installed in 2006 just after the property was built, although in written submissions the landlord said the bedroom windows originally had security screens, not security stays. The tenant said the master bedroom had security screens when she moved in. Her evidence was that stays for two windows were purchased and installed by her with the landlord’s permission, although no receipts were provided. The tenant said that one window intentionally did not have a stay installed, so it could be used as an emergency exit. I understood this room was where the tenant slept with her children. In my view, it is unclear whether the stay was missing, as the landlord claims, or not installed, as the tenant claims.
The landlord claimed the final water bill ($45.60) less fixed costs which were erroneously charged to the tenant (a credit of $282.20). I make allowance for both in this order.
The landlord claimed cleaning costs of $150.00, which included travel time. At $30.00 per hour this equates to 5 hours of labour. There were cleaning issues with the dishwasher, the heat pump filter, the rangehood, the toilet, and 8 full- length drapes in the lounge which the landlord said had been soiled by the tenant’s cat. The tenant said she never used the dishwasher, the heat pump filters were the landlord’s responsibility, the toilet-seat hinges were rusted not dirty, and her cat was house-trained and had not soiled the drapes.
I agree with the tenant in respect of the heat pump filters. I consider this is more appropriately seen as part of the landlord’s maintenance obligation. The dishwasher filter is dirty in the landlord’s photographs, but it is unclear what condition it was in at the start of the tenancy (I note that tenants are generally not required to leave premises in a better condition than they found them). The photographs show the drapes were stained and required cleaning. The landlord said they needed to be individually washed, dried outside, and ironed. They also show the rangehood was greasy and needed cleaning. The amount claimed for cleaning is more than reasonable and is awarded.
The landlord claimed the cost of the tenant calling out a plumber to fix the hot water cylinder. This happened on a public holiday. The tenant said they were left with no hot water. They called out a plumber who replaced a faulty element. The tenant said the landlord raised her voice when she called her about it and refused to pay because she had her own plumber (who would only charge for parts). The landlord said she was not claiming reimbursement for the entire invoice, just the call-out fee and labour.
The plumber’s invoice was for a total of $387.45. The call-out charge on a public holiday was $180.00 plus GST and labour $90.00 plus GST. The tenant paid $150.00 towards the cost as requested by the landlord.
I consider the tenant was entitled to call out a plumber because the matter was arguably urgent (section 45(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). The tenant gave the landlord notice of the issue as required. I do not interpret the Act as requiring the tenant, faced with an immediate maintenance requirement, to first give notice to the landlord before doing anything, or to give the landlord an opportunity to fix the issue first. The tenant has contributed to the cost of a call out on a public holiday. I decline to order the tenant to provide further compensation to the landlord. Tenant’s Application
The tenant claimed compensation for emotional harm at the hearing. This related to the final inspection and subsequent communications. A request for access to the premises to collect her children’s playhouse was not pursued.
The parties had different recollections of what happened at the final inspection on 19 June 2025. Both said they felt intimidated and confronted by the other. The evidence is contradictory. Neither party seems to have referred to what happened at the inspection in subsequent messages. I am unable to find that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment at the final inspection.
After the inspection, the parties sent text messages to which both took exception. The landlord accused the tenant of being “ungrateful”, of being disrespectful to an elder Māori woman, and being part of a “lazy generation”. The tenant accused the landlord of being a bully, “nit-picky” and “a scrooge”. There were other personal comments on both sides.
The parties clearly had a falling out at the end of the tenancy. Both said things they may come to regret, although that was not evident at the hearing. Generally, a conflict of personalities by itself does not justify a finding that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment has been breached, and I note that there is no corresponding duty owed by tenants to landlords.
Further, the breach must interfere with the tenant’s use of the premises, and the interference must be substantial to justify compensation. When the parties sent their text messages between 19 June and about 24 June 2025, the tenancy had ended. The text exchanges included name calling but also more personal remarks, and probably caused emotional harm. However, I am not satisfied that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment was affected. Rather, there was a dispute about the bond after the tenancy ended. Filing Fee and Suppression
Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs.
Both parties sought suppression. Neither has been “wholly or substantially” successful. Most of the issues raised were relatively minor and of little or no public interest. The text exchanges included personal comments. I exercise my discretion to grant name suppression to both parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5295519 — net $214.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace voile curtains	$241.00		Replace voile curtains
Light bulbs/batteries	$19.47		Light bulbs/batteries
Water charges to end of tenancy	$45.60		Water charges to end of tenancy
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Replace smoke alarms	$40.63		Replace smoke alarms
Compensation: water fixed charges		$282.20	water fixed charges
Total award	$496.70	$282.20
Net award	$214.50
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$214.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $214.50 [The tenant/s]: $2,145.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 October 2025.
The landlord applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond and compensation for emotional distress.
The applications relate to a tenancy which ran from 23 October 2022 to 19 June 2025. The tenancy was renewed from 23 October 2024 and a further residential tenancy agreement signed. The agreement recorded that, after consultation, permission was given for a pet cat. The weekly rent was $610.00. Landlord’s Application
The landlord claimed for replacement voile curtains damaged by the tenant’s cat in various rooms, including the lounge and master bedroom. The tenant did not dispute that her cat damaged the curtains. The tenant also acknowledged that the replacements were not as good quality as the original curtains. The landlord explained that the replacements were unfinished and the wrong size. They also had some cuts and tears. I award the cost of replacement voile curtains ($241.00) which is less than the insurance excess ($550.00).
The landlord claimed the cost of replacement smoke alarms. The bases were still there but not the alarms. The landlord said the tenant had threatened to remove them at one stage, as they kept going off during cooking. The tenant confirmed that the property had smoke alarms but denied removing them. I place some weight on the landlord’s evidence that they would not have replaced them if they were not missing. A receipt from Mitre 10 for replacement smoke alarms dated 23 June 2025 was provided. There was also a written statement from a couple who were staying with the landlord at the time. I find on the balance of probabilities that the smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy, despite there not being any photographs showing the missing alarms/empty bases.
The landlord also claimed exemplary damages for removal of the smoke alarms. As discussed above, the tenant denied removing them and the landlord accepted the tenant did not take them to her new address. I decline to award exemplary damages.
The landlord claimed the cost of a replacement handle for an internal door. The tenant’s nephew was locked inside the bedroom. When the tenant tried to get him out, she found that the key provided did not work. She called the landlord and then arranged for a locksmith to open the door. Afterwards, the landlord replaced the door handle to prevent the same thing happening again. The landlord said this was cheaper than replacing the lock. I consider that this was a maintenance obligation and the landlord’s responsibility. This does not imply any criticism. The landlord was left having to deal with the consequences of a previous tenant’s decision to add a lock to an internal door.
The landlord claimed two replacement light bulbs. The tenant accepted that several lights required replacement. Tenants are required to replace standard light bulbs. I award the amount claimed.
The landlord claimed the cost of a bedroom window security stay removed from the master bedroom. The landlord said the stays were installed in 2006 just after the property was built, although in written submissions the landlord said the bedroom windows originally had security screens, not security stays. The tenant said the master bedroom had security screens when she moved in. Her evidence was that stays for two windows were purchased and installed by her with the landlord’s permission, although no receipts were provided. The tenant said that one window intentionally did not have a stay installed, so it could be used as an emergency exit. I understood this room was where the tenant slept with her children. In my view, it is unclear whether the stay was missing, as the landlord claims, or not installed, as the tenant claims.
The landlord claimed the final water bill ($45.60) less fixed costs which were erroneously charged to the tenant (a credit of $282.20). I make allowance for both in this order.
The landlord claimed cleaning costs of $150.00, which included travel time. At $30.00 per hour this equates to 5 hours of labour. There were cleaning issues with the dishwasher, the heat pump filter, the rangehood, the toilet, and 8 full- length drapes in the lounge which the landlord said had been soiled by the tenant’s cat. The tenant said she never used the dishwasher, the heat pump filters were the landlord’s responsibility, the toilet-seat hinges were rusted not dirty, and her cat was house-trained and had not soiled the drapes.
I agree with the tenant in respect of the heat pump filters. I consider this is more appropriately seen as part of the landlord’s maintenance obligation. The dishwasher filter is dirty in the landlord’s photographs, but it is unclear what condition it was in at the start of the tenancy (I note that tenants are generally not required to leave premises in a better condition than they found them). The photographs show the drapes were stained and required cleaning. The landlord said they needed to be individually washed, dried outside, and ironed. They also show the rangehood was greasy and needed cleaning. The amount claimed for cleaning is more than reasonable and is awarded.
The landlord claimed the cost of the tenant calling out a plumber to fix the hot water cylinder. This happened on a public holiday. The tenant said they were left with no hot water. They called out a plumber who replaced a faulty element. The tenant said the landlord raised her voice when she called her about it and refused to pay because she had her own plumber (who would only charge for parts). The landlord said she was not claiming reimbursement for the entire invoice, just the call-out fee and labour.
The plumber’s invoice was for a total of $387.45. The call-out charge on a public holiday was $180.00 plus GST and labour $90.00 plus GST. The tenant paid $150.00 towards the cost as requested by the landlord.
I consider the tenant was entitled to call out a plumber because the matter was arguably urgent (section 45(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). The tenant gave the landlord notice of the issue as required. I do not interpret the Act as requiring the tenant, faced with an immediate maintenance requirement, to first give notice to the landlord before doing anything, or to give the landlord an opportunity to fix the issue first. The tenant has contributed to the cost of a call out on a public holiday. I decline to order the tenant to provide further compensation to the landlord. Tenant’s Application
The tenant claimed compensation for emotional harm at the hearing. This related to the final inspection and subsequent communications. A request for access to the premises to collect her children’s playhouse was not pursued.
The parties had different recollections of what happened at the final inspection on 19 June 2025. Both said they felt intimidated and confronted by the other. The evidence is contradictory. Neither party seems to have referred to what happened at the inspection in subsequent messages. I am unable to find that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment at the final inspection.
After the inspection, the parties sent text messages to which both took exception. The landlord accused the tenant of being “ungrateful”, of being disrespectful to an elder Māori woman, and being part of a “lazy generation”. The tenant accused the landlord of being a bully, “nit-picky” and “a scrooge”. There were other personal comments on both sides.
The parties clearly had a falling out at the end of the tenancy. Both said things they may come to regret, although that was not evident at the hearing. Generally, a conflict of personalities by itself does not justify a finding that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment has been breached, and I note that there is no corresponding duty owed by tenants to landlords.
Further, the breach must interfere with the tenant’s use of the premises, and the interference must be substantial to justify compensation. When the parties sent their text messages between 19 June and about 24 June 2025, the tenancy had ended. The text exchanges included name calling but also more personal remarks, and probably caused emotional harm. However, I am not satisfied that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment was affected. Rather, there was a dispute about the bond after the tenancy ended. Filing Fee and Suppression
Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs.
Both parties sought suppression. Neither has been “wholly or substantially” successful. Most of the issues raised were relatively minor and of little or no public interest. The text exchanges included personal comments. I exercise my discretion to grant name suppression to both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5295519 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5295519 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions