What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5295679 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Tuscancity Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5295679?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,314.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5295679?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5295679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12583346-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5295679 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Tuscancity Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5295679?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,314.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5295679?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5295679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12583346-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 617, 100 Greys Avenue, Auckland 1010, Parkside Tenancy Tribunal Case 5295679 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5295679 — net $541.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 July 2025	$2,314.29	Rent arrears to 31 July 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$541.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$541.29

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Tuscancity Property Management Limited As Agent For Mrs R D Parker And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $541.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 () to Tuscancity Property Management Limited As Agent For Mrs R D Parker And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

This is a cross application. Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Tajali and Ms Soriano.
An applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, “on the balance of probabilities”.
The tenant is seeking an early release from the fixed-term tenancy, refund of the rent and bond she paid, postage for returning the keys, reimbursement for alternative accommodation she took from 24 June 2025 until 30 June 2025 and then again from 16 July 2025 until 21 July 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation for a pest control report from NZ Pest Control and rent arrears.
Both parties are seeking reimbursement for their filing fees. The tenant’s claims
On 19 June 2025, the tenant [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and the landlord Tuscancity Property Management on behalf of Mrs RD Parker and Mr WA Dennis completed a fixed term tenancy agreement starting on 19 June 2025 and ending on 12 January 2026.
The tenant picked up the keys to the premises on 19 June 2025, but because of other commitments, she did not first visit the premises until 24 June 2025.
At about 4.00 pm on 24 June 2025, the tenant entered the premises and was unhappy with the condition she found them in. In particular she saw what she thought to be signs of bed bugs on the fully furnished apartment’s bedding. She sent her first text message to Mr Tajali at about 4.00 pm and a second at 7.54 pm followed by several more in which she mentioned the bed bugs and advised she considered this was a breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide a habitable property. She wrote that she was terminating the tenancy agreement and this was non-negotiable.
Mr Tajali responded at 8.29 pm and then again at 8.57 pm and 9.27 pm. He said the photographs she was providing were of ants not bed bugs and that her wish to terminate the tenancy was not agreed or accepted by Tuscancity.
Later, the tenant raised other problems, including dust in a drawer and wet washing that had been left in the washer/dryer and which had begun to smell. In the hearing today, she also provided photographs of bedding with five marks on them which she said looks like blood.
The tenant collected one of the bugs that she thought was a bed bug and sent it away to be analysed by Asure Quality Pest Lab. On 19 August 2025, Asure Quality Pest Lab identified the bug to be a Pharoah’s ant.
On 26 June 2025 Tuscan City Property had NZ Pest Control inspect the whole apartment at 617/100 Greys Avenue, Auckland, for any signs of pest activity. None were noted.
The tenant said in the hearing today that there were many dead bugs on the bedding. However, the photographs she provided showed only one or two dead bugs. Specifically I could see one dead bug that looked like a fly and one dead bug that looked like an ant.
In response to the tenant’s other claims, the landlord noted that the premises had remained unoccupied for almost a week between the tenancy beginning and the tenant moving in. The landlord suggested dust would have settled over this time, it is reasonable to expect insects to have moved around inside the apartment in this time, and the washing which was in the washing machine may have begun to smell.
In the course of the hearing, the landlord provided photographs of the premises from just before the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs included a photograph of the washing in the washing machine.
The tenant accepted the photographs more or less accurately portrayed the premises as she found them, although she repeated that there was dust in the drawers and some spots of what appeared to be blood on a duvet.
The landlord accepted there was washing in the washer/dryer, there may have been dust in the drawers, and there may have been marks on a duvet although they denied the marks could be reliably assessed as being blood.
A landlord has an obligation to provide a premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, see the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 45(1)(a), and to provide and maintain the premises reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises, section 45(1)(b).
A tenant can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate a tenancy in the case of a breach by the landlord which is capable of being remedied, if the tenant serves a 14-day notice on the landlord and the landlord fails to remedy the breach within the specified time, and if the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. See the RTA section 56.
The RTA does not provide a tenant with a right to terminate a tenancy for not providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness or repair, without first giving the landlord a lawful opportunity to remedy the breach.
For this reason, I determine that the tenant’s attempt to terminate the tenancy on 24 June 2025 was not lawful. The landlord was therefore within their rights to decline to accept the termination and in that case, the tenancy continued.
I also determine that despite the premises not being in perfect condition at the beginning of the tenancy, the defects (some dead bugs, dust in a drawer, five marks on one of the duvets and washing left in the washing machine) were not sufficient to reasonably warrant the tenant vacating the premises and finding other accommodation for the ensuing days at the landlord’s expense. Therefore I decline to make an award reimbursing the tenant for her costs at other accommodation as a result of her dissatisfaction with the premises.
I accept that the tenant not entering the premises for five days after signing the tenancy agreement would have had some consequence on the condition of the premises by the time the tenant did enter them. In particular the washing in the washing machine is likely to have begun to smell and some insects and dust may have moved.
I also note that despite a short delay after the tenant first attempting to make contact with the landlord, the landlord was responsive to the tenant and her concerns, despite it being after hours. Unfortunately the tenant became entrenched in her position based on her misidentification of some dead insects. The landlord’s claims
The landlord claims that because the tenant signed a fixed-term tenancy and did not lawfully terminate the tenancy, she must pay for rent until the end of the tenancy or until a replacement tenancy began, whichever comes first.
A replacement tenancy began on 31 July 2025. The landlord provided a ledger that I am satisfied proves rent up to this time amounted to $2,314.29.
The landlord is seeking reimbursement of $165.00 for the NZ Pest Control assessment they undertook.
The landlord undertook this report of their own volition. This report is a tool that is part of Tuscan City’s case. I am not persuaded the tenant is obligated to reimburse the landlord for a cost of this type and I decline to order it.
Because Tuscancity Property Management Limited As Agent For Mrs R D Parker And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5295679 — net $541.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 July 2025	$2,314.29	Rent arrears to 31 July 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$541.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$541.29

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Tuscancity Property Management Limited As Agent For Mrs R D Parker And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $541.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 () to Tuscancity Property Management Limited As Agent For Mrs R D Parker And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

This is a cross application. Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Tajali and Ms Soriano.
An applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, “on the balance of probabilities”.
The tenant is seeking an early release from the fixed-term tenancy, refund of the rent and bond she paid, postage for returning the keys, reimbursement for alternative accommodation she took from 24 June 2025 until 30 June 2025 and then again from 16 July 2025 until 21 July 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation for a pest control report from NZ Pest Control and rent arrears.
Both parties are seeking reimbursement for their filing fees. The tenant’s claims
On 19 June 2025, the tenant [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and the landlord Tuscancity Property Management on behalf of Mrs RD Parker and Mr WA Dennis completed a fixed term tenancy agreement starting on 19 June 2025 and ending on 12 January 2026.
The tenant picked up the keys to the premises on 19 June 2025, but because of other commitments, she did not first visit the premises until 24 June 2025.
At about 4.00 pm on 24 June 2025, the tenant entered the premises and was unhappy with the condition she found them in. In particular she saw what she thought to be signs of bed bugs on the fully furnished apartment’s bedding. She sent her first text message to Mr Tajali at about 4.00 pm and a second at 7.54 pm followed by several more in which she mentioned the bed bugs and advised she considered this was a breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide a habitable property. She wrote that she was terminating the tenancy agreement and this was non-negotiable.
Mr Tajali responded at 8.29 pm and then again at 8.57 pm and 9.27 pm. He said the photographs she was providing were of ants not bed bugs and that her wish to terminate the tenancy was not agreed or accepted by Tuscancity.
Later, the tenant raised other problems, including dust in a drawer and wet washing that had been left in the washer/dryer and which had begun to smell. In the hearing today, she also provided photographs of bedding with five marks on them which she said looks like blood.
The tenant collected one of the bugs that she thought was a bed bug and sent it away to be analysed by Asure Quality Pest Lab. On 19 August 2025, Asure Quality Pest Lab identified the bug to be a Pharoah’s ant.
On 26 June 2025 Tuscan City Property had NZ Pest Control inspect the whole apartment at 617/100 Greys Avenue, Auckland, for any signs of pest activity. None were noted.
The tenant said in the hearing today that there were many dead bugs on the bedding. However, the photographs she provided showed only one or two dead bugs. Specifically I could see one dead bug that looked like a fly and one dead bug that looked like an ant.
In response to the tenant’s other claims, the landlord noted that the premises had remained unoccupied for almost a week between the tenancy beginning and the tenant moving in. The landlord suggested dust would have settled over this time, it is reasonable to expect insects to have moved around inside the apartment in this time, and the washing which was in the washing machine may have begun to smell.
In the course of the hearing, the landlord provided photographs of the premises from just before the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs included a photograph of the washing in the washing machine.
The tenant accepted the photographs more or less accurately portrayed the premises as she found them, although she repeated that there was dust in the drawers and some spots of what appeared to be blood on a duvet.
The landlord accepted there was washing in the washer/dryer, there may have been dust in the drawers, and there may have been marks on a duvet although they denied the marks could be reliably assessed as being blood.
A landlord has an obligation to provide a premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, see the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 45(1)(a), and to provide and maintain the premises reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises, section 45(1)(b).
A tenant can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate a tenancy in the case of a breach by the landlord which is capable of being remedied, if the tenant serves a 14-day notice on the landlord and the landlord fails to remedy the breach within the specified time, and if the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. See the RTA section 56.
The RTA does not provide a tenant with a right to terminate a tenancy for not providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness or repair, without first giving the landlord a lawful opportunity to remedy the breach.
For this reason, I determine that the tenant’s attempt to terminate the tenancy on 24 June 2025 was not lawful. The landlord was therefore within their rights to decline to accept the termination and in that case, the tenancy continued.
I also determine that despite the premises not being in perfect condition at the beginning of the tenancy, the defects (some dead bugs, dust in a drawer, five marks on one of the duvets and washing left in the washing machine) were not sufficient to reasonably warrant the tenant vacating the premises and finding other accommodation for the ensuing days at the landlord’s expense. Therefore I decline to make an award reimbursing the tenant for her costs at other accommodation as a result of her dissatisfaction with the premises.
I accept that the tenant not entering the premises for five days after signing the tenancy agreement would have had some consequence on the condition of the premises by the time the tenant did enter them. In particular the washing in the washing machine is likely to have begun to smell and some insects and dust may have moved.
I also note that despite a short delay after the tenant first attempting to make contact with the landlord, the landlord was responsive to the tenant and her concerns, despite it being after hours. Unfortunately the tenant became entrenched in her position based on her misidentification of some dead insects. The landlord’s claims
The landlord claims that because the tenant signed a fixed-term tenancy and did not lawfully terminate the tenancy, she must pay for rent until the end of the tenancy or until a replacement tenancy began, whichever comes first.
A replacement tenancy began on 31 July 2025. The landlord provided a ledger that I am satisfied proves rent up to this time amounted to $2,314.29.
The landlord is seeking reimbursement of $165.00 for the NZ Pest Control assessment they undertook.
The landlord undertook this report of their own volition. This report is a tool that is part of Tuscan City’s case. I am not persuaded the tenant is obligated to reimburse the landlord for a cost of this type and I decline to order it.
Because Tuscancity Property Management Limited As Agent For Mrs R D Parker And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5295679 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 617, 100 Greys Avenue, Auckland 1010, Parkside

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5295679 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 617, 100 Greys Avenue, Auckland 1010, Parkside

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.