What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5320735 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by each party. As it

How much money was awarded in case 5320735?

Cleaning: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Fixed Term Break Expenses: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $19,840.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $76.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5320735?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5320735?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13039738-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5320735 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by each party. As it

How much money was awarded in case 5320735?

Cleaning: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Fixed Term Break Expenses: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $19,840.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $76.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5320735?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5320735?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13039738-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5320735 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5320735 — net $18,283.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 January 2026	$19,840.00	Rent arrears to 4 January 2026
Fixed term break expenses	$450.00	Fixed term break expenses
Repairs and cleaning	$1,400.00	Repairs and cleaning
Water rates	$76.04	Water rates
1 See s.95A(1) __________________________________________________________________________________ 53207352 Pest control	$207.00	1 See s.95A(1) __________________________________________________________________________________ 53207352 Pest control
Net award	$18,283.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,283.04

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5320735 — net $18,283.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 January 2026	$19,840.00	Rent arrears to 4 January 2026
Fixed term break expenses	$450.00	Fixed term break expenses
Repairs and cleaning	$1,400.00	Repairs and cleaning
Water rates	$76.04	Water rates
1 See s.95A(1) __________________________________________________________________________________ 53207352 Pest control	$207.00	1 See s.95A(1) __________________________________________________________________________________ 53207352 Pest control
Net award	$18,283.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,283.04

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by each party. As it has been substantially successful, the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenants have not substantially succeeded with their claim and the grounds for suppression of the tenants’ details are not established. 1 However there is information in this Order personal to the tenants and their family which mean that their details should also be suppressed.
By way of declaration, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] terminated and possession returned to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on 4 January 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $0.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] immediately, calculated as shown below:

The tenants’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was scheduled for a full day on 22 January 2026.
At 1:45pm on 20 January, [Tenant 1] e-mailed the Registry: “Regarding the matter above, I am currently experiencing an extreme family emergency. My children and I are at physical risk, and my wife has been admitted to a mental health facility. As a result, I am physically and emotionally unwell and unable to attend the hearing at this time. I respectfully request an adjournment, as I am not in a condition to participate at present.”
I received that adjournment request at 12:37 on 21 January. At 1:49pm on that day the parties were notified as follows: “I sympathise if the tenant is in difficult circumstances. However, these proceedings have been before the Tribunal since September last year and have been adjourned previously at the tenants’ request. Witnesses have been required to be available tomorrow at the tenants’ request. The applications need to be determined. It would not be fair to adjourn the hearing without unequivocal and independent verification that the tenant is medically incapable of attending.”
Nothing further was received from the tenants and the tenants did not attend the hearing. Both were phoned but neither call was answered.
At the start of the hearing I asked the landlord whether it would agree to the tenants’ adjournment request. The landlord did not agree.
I decided to continue with the hearing, being mindful as well that at the tenants’ request the landlord had arranged for the attendance of two witnesses and a further four had been required by witness summons’ to be available to give evidence remotely.
Those witnesses were heard from and I was able to put to them the tenants’ position on the factual issues they could attest to as set out in the tenants’ pleadings and submissions. The Background
The premises these applications are about is unit 2 in a 3 unit complex. All are tenanted, with the tenancies managed by the landlord.
The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy for a term from 7 July 2025 to 6 July 2026.
The tenants we allowed to move in before the tenancy start date and were there from around 1 July.
On 5 July the landlord received a complaint from the occupiers of unit 3 about excessive noise late at night from the premises. The complaint was supported by video evidence the landlord found to be credible. The landlord issued the tenants with a 14 day breach notice on 8 July, which read: “I am writing to inform that we have received complaints from a neighbour about loud noise and shouting from your property on Saturday night 5th July which disturbed the surrounding residents. This breaches your tenancy obligations. Please take immediate steps to reduce noise. This is a 14 day notice to remedy the issue. Further complaints may result in another formal breach notice. Repeated breaches of Act may lead to the tenancy termination. This letter is not an eviction notice. It is a notice giving you until 22 July 2025 (at least 14 days from but not including today) to remedy the situation by doing following: immediately reduce the noise levels”
The tenants responded the same day stating that “While we categorically reject this allegation as baseless, evidence-free and even pre-dating our official move in, we acknowledge that the notice exposes a broader intent:...clearly this tenancy is untenable for both parties. We fully agree with that conclusion and are prepared to act on it”.
The response asserted that the notice had no basis but “...rather reflects a broader hostility to our presence...prompted by the discriminatory and retaliatory behaviour of the neighbours in Unit 1 and 3....”
The tenants’ response also alleged multiple breaches of the landlord’s obligations: • overcrowding and unauthorised uses in the other units; • harassment and retaliation; • intimidation and blocked access; • discrimination; • medical impacts; • deficiencies in the property (cockroach infestation, numerous electrical faults, leaking plumbing).
The tenants proposed termination of the tenancy on 22 July with full release of their bond and no fees, penalties or rent payable beyond that date.
The landlord did not agree to that proposal and responded by explaining the process for an agreed early end to a fixed term tenancy, involving the landlord trying to find replacement tenants, the tenants paying expenses incurred by the landlord due to the tenancy ending before the fixed term expiry and the tenants continuing to pay rent until a new tenancy started.
The tenants paid rent until 17 August 2025 and vacated shortly before. The landlord did an exit inspection on 15 August.
The landlord took some time to find new tenants. A new tenancy started on 5 January 2026. The Applications Tenants’ Application
The first application was filed by the tenants on 24 July 2025. As at the hearing, they seek Orders: a. releasing them from the fixed term tenancy: b. awarding them compensation and/ or exemplary damages for breaches of the landlord’s obligation to: i. provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair 2 ; ii. comply with Healthy Homes standards 3 ; iii. take reasonable steps to prevent interruption to their peaceful use of the premises by the landlord’s other tenants 4 ; iv. issuing a retaliatory 14 day notice; v. harassment 5 .
The landlord’s application was filed on 7 August 2025. As at the date of hearing the landlord seeks Orders for: a. payment of unpaid water rates b. payment of rent through to the start of the new tenancy; c. compensation for the cost of pest control at the premises; d. compensation for cleaning and repair work; e. compensation and/ or exemplary damages for: i.emotional harm; ii.reputational damage; iii.unlawful acts; iv.costs. 2 S.45(1)(b) RTA 3 S.45(1)(bb) 4 S.45(1)(e) 5 S.38(3)
Each party also claims breaches by the other of other legislation - the Crimes Act, Privacy Act, Human Rights Act, Harassment Act, Defamation Act.
The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 6 . There is some overlap, for instance it is an unlawful act under the RTA to discriminate in contravention of the Human Rights Act 7 , but the Tribunal has no general jurisdiction to consider breaches of other legislation.
Equally, the Tribunal can only consider parties’ conduct to the extent it is relevant to their contractual obligations to each other under the agreement and in application of the RTA. Tenants’ Claims The Evidence
I have considered the evidence, including photographic and video evidence and submissions filed by the parties. I have heard from the landlord’s witnesses, who the tenants required to be available.
The landlord has provided information about other litigation [Tenant 1] been involved in. I have not considered that evidence as it is not relevant to the findings I am required to make.
I set out below my findings on the factual issues on which assessment of the tenants’ claims will rest. Healthy Homes compliance
I heard from Mr Feng who issued a Healthy Homes report dated 1 July 2025, assessing the premises as compliant with Healthy Homes standards.
There is no basis in the evidence to question that assessment.
The tenants asserted that they were at the premises on 1 July 2025 and did not see Mr Feng inspecting. They say therefore the report is false and fraudulent.
I put that to Mr Feng, who explained that after the inspection, an assessment of the required heating capacity for the premises was done using the online tenancy services tool. The report was dated after that assessment was done and therefore after the inspection took place. I find that a plausible explanation for the report being given a date later than the date the premises were inspected. 6 S.77(1) RTA 7 S.12 RTA
The allegation that the premises were not Healthy Homes compliant is not proved. Pest Control.
I heard from Mr Mai who treated the premises for cockroaches on 20 July 2025 after the tenants raised with the landlord concerns about an infestation.
Mr Mai reported on 21 July that “I think the main reason for [the infestation] is the tenant’s hygiene issues as you can see 4,5,6 photos I could see clothes and food scraps all over the floor, the house need a thorough vacuuming and cleaning”
Photos were attached to his report, which confirm those observations.
The premises had been treated by Mr Mai previously, during a prior tenancy, for cockroaches. The entry inspection shows 1 dead cockroach.
The premises had been unoccupied for around 5 months before this tenancy started.
I put to Mr Mai whether it was possible for the premises to have been infested with cockroaches before this tenancy started. His evidence was that while it might be possible for a cockroach population to survive for 5 months without the food sources provided by human occupation, it would be unlikely for them to thrive or exist in large numbers. His clear view is that the food sources provided by the tenants’ occupation of the premises, as shown by the photos attached to his report, was the most likely cause of the infestation he treated on 20 July.
Based on that evidence, I find it proved more likely than not, that the presence of cockroaches in the premises at that time did not constitute a breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition but was caused by the tenants’ failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 8
The tenants should compensate the landlord for the cost of the pest control treatment as proved by the invoice provided. Electrical Issues
The tenants reported to the landlord that there was no power to over half of the power outlets. The landlord had its electrician inspect. He found that one of the sockets in three double sockets in the premises was not working and fixed them 8 S.40(1)(c) RTA
I heard from the electrician who attended. His evidence is that there was no risk of harm from what he found. His assessment is that the problem was caused by poor quality electrical fittings.
Provision of the electrical infrastructure in safe and working condition is the landlord’s responsibility.
The evidence shows that when made aware of the problem the landlord acted reasonably quickly to have it fixed. The extent of the problem is not one that caused a proven loss to the tenants for which compensation should be paid.
The electrician’s evidence is that he told the tenants at the time of the extent and nature of the issue, which was very much less serious than he had ben led to expect. Plumbing issues
The tenant reported a leak in a bathroom basin. The landlord had a plumber attend. Two issues were found, a slightly leaking tap and loose drainpipe under an ensuite sink. The plumber fixed them.
Again those are part of the landlord’s maintenance responsibility but no failure by the landlord to properly respond to the tenant’s notification of the need for repair is proved. No loss is proved and no award of compensation is required. Harassment/ breach of Quiet Enjoyment/ Discrimination/ Retaliatory Notice
Statements were put in evidence from the occupier of Unit 1 and from the daughter of the occupiers of Unit 3. I also heard evidence from them at the hearing (the people occupying unit 3 at that time are elderly, do not speak English and have returned to China).
Their evidence, which I have no reason not to accept is, in summary: a. around the time of their moving in at the beginning of July, the tenants had acted confrontationally over minor parking issues; b. on 4 July the occupiers of unit 3 were woken by loud shouting and screaming from unit 2. They had genuine concerns about occupants there being exposed to family violence. They made a complaint to the landlord with video evidence in support. c. the occupier of unit 1 had been in the habit of parking his ute at unit 2 while it was unoccupied. When the tenants moved in, he moved it when asked and stopped parking there. He occasionally parked in the common area very briefly while picking up or dropping off from his unit; d. He says, “Ever since the new neighbours moved in we have been able to hear them slamming doors, shouting and screaming at each other, running around so loudly that it sounds like it's in our unit. I had been woken up after 10:00pm multiple days in a row from loud bangs with shouting and running come up I gave him the benefit of the doubt and didn't raise this with them to see if it would stop, it carried on every night until one night I was woken up three times in the space of two hours, the latest being at almost 11pm, when I have to wake up for work at 6:00” He accepts he did go to unit 2, knocked on the door and asked them to be quiet. He says there was no abuse or intimidation involved. e. His evidence is that although the loud noises from unit 2 continued after that, he did not approach the tenants about it again because of the allegations made about his first visit. f. Neither the occupiers of unit 1 or unit 3 had concerns about strangers lurking or acting suspiciously in the area.
Nothing in the evidence supports a finding that the neighbours’ or landlord’s actions were discriminatory in breach of the Human Rights Act.
I do not find the tenants’ depiction of the situation after they moved into the premises, is supported by the evidence.
I find that the landlords had a reasonable evidential basis for issuing the 14 day notice on 5 July 2025. There is no evidence of it being issued in retaliatory circumstances and I note the landlord’s evidence that the complaints made to the landlord by the tenants about what was happening, were raised with the occupiers of units 1 and 3. But no formal 14 day breach notice was issued because unlike the initial complaint from unit 3, the tenants’ complaints were not supported by evidence. That is reasonable.
I should note too that it is only giving a termination notice, not a 14 day notice to remedy, in retaliatory circumstances, which is an unlawful act. 9 Medical effects
The tenants claim that the actions of the unit 1 and 3 occupiers and the landlord’s failures, have had a devastating emotional and psychological impact on their family.
Evidence has been provided that [Tenant 1] and their son suffer from ADHD and [Tenant 2] suffers from PTSD. That is difficult for them but as those diagnoses were made before the start of the tenancy and in the case of [Tenant 9 S.54(1) RTA 1], refers to previous diagnosis, it is difficult to see this tenancy or any breach of the landlord’s obligations, as the cause of those difficulties. Summary – tenant’s claims
The evidence does not support the tenants’ claims.
It follows that I find no basis proved for an award of compensation or exemplary damages against the landlord.
It follows too that no grounds are proved entitling the tenants to cancel the fixed term tenancy.
The evidence does not show a basis for reducing the fixed term under s.66 RTA. 10 Landlord’s claims Rent
Because the tenants did not have grounds to end the fixed term early, they are responsible for paying rent to the date a new tenancy started.
The landlords do however have an obligation to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss of rents claimed 11 .
The landlord’s evidence is that immediately following the first case conference, they advertised the premises as available for rent. It took some time to find new tenants as it had previously, the premises having been vacant for 5 months before this tenancy started.
I do not find it proved that the landlord breached its obligation to take reasonable steps to mitigate its loss by looking for replacement tenants.
The tenants are therefore required to pay rent for the premises to the date before the new tenancy started on 5 January 2026.
The tenant had paid rent to 17 August 2025, although one rent payment was $950.00 rather than $990.00, so $40.00 was owed for that short payment.
Rent payable from 18 August 2025 to 4 January 2026 is 20 weeks @ $990.00 per week + $40.00 = $19840. 10 That would require the tenants to prove that because of an unforeseen change in their circumstances the severe hardship they would suffer t the term wasn’t reduced would be greater than the hardship caused to the landlord if it was. 11 S.49 RTA Break fees
Where a tenant wishes to end a fixed term early, a landlord is entitled to recover expenses reasonably incurred in respect of the early termination 12 . An itemised account of the expenses must be provided.
The landlord claims reimbursement for expenses totalling $1,293.75, being an advertising charge of $150.00 and 15 hours’ time for viewings @ $65.00 per hour (plus GST).
Because this fixed term tenancy was due to end in July 2026, the landlord would, at that time, have incurred the same or similar costs to find new tenants then. Those expenses are not caused by the tenants ending the fixed term early. Rather, they have had to be paid earlier than they would have otherwise.
That is the loss caused to the landlord but there is also an inconvenience and cost to having to go through the exercise of finding new tenants early which should be allowed for in the compensated awarded. I assess $450.00 of those expenses as reasonable compensation to the landlord. Water Rates
The landlord is entitled to be reimbursed the charges for water used at the premises by the tenants, as shown by the landlord’s ledger records. Repairs/ Cleaning
The landlord has provided photographs from the beginning of the tenancy and from 15 August 2025 after the tenants had vacated. The tenants have also provided end of tenancy photographs.
That evidence shows that while the premises were left, for the most part, reasonably clean and tidy, the stove need further cleaning and there were oil stains on the kitchen floor that needed to be cleaned.
It shows than it a number of areas there were significant scratches and marks on the walls that needed to be repaired. The waste disposal unit was found not to be working.
That damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have not disproved liability. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the repair cost. 13 12 S.44A RTA 13 S.49B(2) RTA
The landlord has provided an invoice proving the cost of having that work done, totalling $1,529.50. Allowance for depreciation is required in respect of the replacement waste disposal unit and the award is reduced accordingly. Other claims
The landlord claims that the tenant has made unfounded and damaging claims about the landlord and its integrity. It claims: a.$2,000.00 compensation for emotional harm; b.$3,000.00 compensation for reputational loss; c.$10,000.00 in exemplary damages for unlawful acts by the tenants.
The landlord is a company, it does not have feelings or emotions.
The landlord is a professional property management company. It will have, through this Order, a record of its actions which will protect it from reputational loss from unfounded allegations.
A claim for exemplary damages can only been made where the other party has committed an unlawful act as defined in the RTA. The landlord is unable to point to the unlawful act committed by the tenants which could provide a basis for that award of exemplary damages.
Those claims are dismissed. Costs
The starting point is that unless the parties are legally represented, the Tribunal does not award costs. 14 Neither party was represented by counsel.
Costs can however be awarded where the Tribunal considers that the proceedings are vexatious or frivolous or ought not to have been brought. 15
The tenants’ approach to these proceedings has been unduly combative. The hostile and unwarranted response to the landlord’s initial and justified 14 day notice, exemplifies the tenants’ approach to the dispute.
The tenants have sought to involve the witnesses to a degree they have clearly found unjustified and intimidatory. Prejudicial and unfounded allegations have been made.
The landlord is particularly critical of the tenants having required all the witnesses to be made available for cross examination at the hearing. However, 14 S.102(1) RTA 15 S.102(2)(a) the landlord has submitted evidence from those witnesses and the tenants are entitled to the opportunity to test that evidence.
The tenants’ conduct of the proceedings has no doubt contributed to the costs.
That said, the landlord has responded in kind with far ranging allegations of misconduct of all kinds against the tenants and claims that simply cannot be supported. That too has added to the costs.
My finding is that the tenants’ claims are not supported by the evidence. By a small margin, I do not make a finding that they knew their claims to be unfounded. If the claims were brought from a genuine, though incorrect view that they were justified, I would not consider them to be vexatious or frivolous.
I make no award of costs
The landlord has been substantially successful and is entitled to be reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5320735 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5320735 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions