What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328950 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 5328950?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328950?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Mould & damp, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12500915-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328950 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 5328950?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328950?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Mould & damp, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12500915-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 407, 85 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328950 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed within two weeks of the date of this decision: a. Secure the cooktop to the bench to ensure it is secure, and that there are no gaps between the cooktop and bench.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 2, then the tenant may seek further orders from the Tribunal.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. The tenant seeks orders reducing the term of her fixed-term tenancy, compensation, and work orders.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today, with the landlord being represented by Ms Shama and Ms Canning, the property managers.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 14 February 2025, and is a fixed-term tenancy to 13 February 2026.
The premises are in an apartment complex.
As I will discuss further below, soon after the tenancy commenced, the tenant raised various concerns with the landlord, but importantly, concerns over the ventilation in the bathroom, and cleanliness. The tenant does not consider that the landlord acted reasonably in addressing those concerns, but again, I will discuss those further below.
The tenant requested to end the fixed-term tenancy early, but that was declined by the landlord. The tenant has filed this application with the Tribunal, which came to a hearing in the North Shore District Courthouse on 2 October 2025.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed she seeks the following orders: a. Release from fixed-term lease b. Compensation for cleaning c. Compensation for being unable to use the bathroom and laundry d. Work order (extractor fan in bathroom and laundry, cook top)

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

I will consider each claim in turn below, but before I do so, I will address separately the tenants’ concerns around the bathroom extractor fan. Bathroom ventilation
The evidence is that there is an extraction system in the bathroom, with a vent in the ceiling, not far from the shower box. The shower box is a standard glass shower box.
The tenancy agreement includes a Healthy Homes Standards statement. That records the situation of ventilation in the bathroom, confirming that there is a fan installed, it was installed before 2019, and it is “120mm Passive ventilation the fan works all the time”.
The pre-tenancy inspection report has been provided, from an inspection on 12 February 2025, and that records the extractor fan in the bathroom being in good condition, and “in good working order”.
On 22 February 2025, that is about a week after the tenancy started, the tenant emailed the property manager advising that the fan in the bathroom does not work, so water would run down the walls. I presume the reference was to condensation.
In May the tenant again raised the issue of the fan in the bathroom not working, and then on 28 May 2025 emailed the landlord: “I am not fused [sic] by the fan in the bathroom and it not working because I shower elsewhere”
The tenant raised the issue of condensation again in August, again noting that she had been showering elsewhere and was unable to dry her clothes because of condensation and mould.
In August the issue was raised with the building manager, who recommended testing by placing a tissue on the vent to assess if air was sucking through the grill, and the result of that is that the tissue would stay for a period of time, but fall off. I took that to mean there was limited airflow.
The electrician attended the premises, and I note an email from 22 August 2022 from the property manager, which records that the grill has been cleaned on the vent, and that it was “working fine”.
When I step back and consider the information I have available, I am not persuaded that there is a fault with the extractor fan. Based on the information available, the extraction system in the bathroom was installed at the time the complex was built, and simply put, other than the grill being dirty, I am not persuaded that there is any material deficiency with that system. Certainly, there is insufficient evidence for me to draw that conclusion, noting that the system has been inspected by an electrician in August. Claim 1 – Release from fixed-term lease
The tenant seeks an order that she be released from the fixed-term tenancy, given the issues with the ventilation in the bathroom, the general state of uncleanliness of the tenancy, and stress she has endured because of the situation with her tenancy, which has led her to needing to resign from her job.
The significant issue for the tenant relates to issues with the bathroom extractor fan. The tenant’s position is that the ventilation in the bathroom has been inadequate, which means that if she uses the shower or the dryer, that condensation would form on the walls, leading to the premises being damp, and potentially mouldy.
The tenant states that because of the condensation issue, she has been unable to shower at the apartment, so she joined a gym and would shower there. The issues with the ventilation take significance for the tenant, and she states that the landlord has not taken her concerns seriously, nor addressed any ventilation deficiencies.
At the hearing I raised with the tenant, that one of the ways in which the tenancy term can be reduced, is if there has been an unforeseen change in her circumstances, and in response to that question, the tenant referred to the stress arising from the tenancy difficulties discussed in this order. The tenant says that she needed to give up her work because of the stress involved. The tenant said she had been dealing with other things and did not need the property issues on top of that. The tenant is out of work now.
The tenant also raised issues with a neighbouring tenant who has parties and disturbs her quiet enjoyment.
The landlord opposes releasing the tenant from the fixed-term tenancy early. The landlord says that when a 14-day notice was provided in August 2025, they had all the work in that notice completed.
I raised with the landlord, that the tenant complained that the bathroom fan was not working in February 2025. I found the landlord’s response difficult to follow, because on the one hand it was submitted that the vent needed cleaning which is a tenant’s responsibility, but on the other hand, the landlord disputed that the vent was not clean, referring to the pre-let tenancy inspection.
Otherwise, the landlord states that there was ventilation in the bathroom that complied with the Healthy Homes Standards.
Ms Adamson disputes that there is a fan in the bathroom.
In relation to the neighbour causing the disturbance, the landlord confirmed that the tenant is not one of the landlord’s tenants, but otherwise confirmed that the property manager for that tenancy and body corporate manager are dealing with this matter. Analysis
As I indicated to the parties at the hearing, it is normally the situation with a fixed-term contract that there is an expectation that the contract will run for the full fixed-term period. The RTA does have some provisions which would allow for the truncating of a fixed-term tenancy agreement. In my assessment, the two provisions which would be relevant would be section 66 which relates to reducing the term of a fixed-term tenancy, or section 56, which relates to a termination of the tenancy when there has been a breach of the RTA. Section 66 – Reduction of a fixed term tenancy
Section 66 of the RTA allows the Tribunal to order a reduction of the fixed- term tenancy agreement. That provision holds in part: On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
There is a high threshold that needs to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular, the applicant (tenant in this case) will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in her circumstances; and b. that change was unforeseen; and c. that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not ended; and d. the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term was not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced.
The first and second criteria require that there be a change in the tenant’s circumstances, and that those changed circumstances are unforeseen.
On balance, I am not persuaded that either situation has been established. There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to show that there has been a change in the circumstances of the tenant since the Tenancy started in February this year.
But if I were wrong in that, and I considered the change in the tenant’s circumstances related to her change in employment, or stress around dealings with the Tenancy, I would not find those changes to be unforeseen.
The change of employment would not be unforeseen in the context of the tenant resigning from her work; the action of handing notice to your employer must mean that the outcome would be foreseeable. But I am also not convinced that the stresses arising from the tenants’ interactions with the landlord would be unforeseen either. It is not unusual for a landlord and tenant to disagree on various matters; that is a fairly common situation in many tenancies throughout New Zealand. There are of course safeguards in place, such as a tenant or landlord being able to go to the Tenancy Tribunal and receive orders if they consider that there has been a breach that the other party is not adequately responding to.
As it relates to the disturbance from the neighbour, I do not consider that it would be unforeseen. The tenant has elected to live in an apartment building, and it would be expected that the tenant cannot control what happens in her neighbours’ units, and she may well face disturbances arising from the close living environment.
But what remains is that I am not persuaded that there has been a change in circumstances of the tenant that would be unforeseen, sufficient to base an order reducing the fixture Tenancy under section 66. Section 56 – Termination for a breach
Section 56 of the RTA is a general termination provision. That allows the Tribunal to order a termination of the tenancy when: a. The other party has committed a breach of some obligation; and b. If the breach is capable of remedy, the party has not resolved that breach within 14 days of receiving a notice to remedy; and c. That the breach is of such an extent, or such a nature that it would be an equitable to refuse termination.
In this case, the tenant issued a 14 day notice to the landlord on 13 August 2025. In that notice, the tenant raised five points, but when I consider those matters, I am satisfied that either there is no breach, or any breach has been remedied, or it would not be inequitable to refuse termination, for these reasons. a. Bathroom fan - for the reasons as set out above, while there is evidence to support that the vent may have been dirty, there is insufficient evidence to show that it did not comply with the necessary legal criteria, and in any event, the vent was cleaned within 14 days. b. Oven – the landlord agrees that the oven needed to be replaced, and it was replaced within 14 days. c. Rug – there is insufficient evidence to establish that the landlord has breached some obligation to the tenant in relation to the rug. But even if I were wrong in that, it would not be inequitable to refuse termination of the tenancy merely because of stains on the rug, particularly in the context of the landlord offerring to clean the rug, but that being declined by the tenant. d. Kitchen cabinet doors – the tenant states that she in fact fixed that herself, so there would be nothing for the landlord to fix. e. Toilet bowl stains – I accept they were marks on the bottom of the toilet bowl, but I am not convinced that represents a breach of the obligation on the part of the landlord. It is well recognised that older toilet bowls will have effectively permanent marks, as they age, but more would be required to show that the toilet was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy. But even if I were wrong in that, again staining on a toilet bowl would not be of sufficient moment to justify terminating the tenancy from an equity perspective. f. Electrical issues – the tenant raised issues over whether switches were safe, but those were replaced by an electrician within 14 days.
For those reasons, I am unable to conclude that there would be sufficient grounds to terminate the tenancy based on the 14-day notice, or to reduce the term of the tenancy under section 66. This application must be dismissed. Claim 2 – Compensation for cleaning
The tenant says that when she moved into the premises, there was a strong smell of food from the prior tenant. The tenant said that she spent a good week scrubbing the walls and cleaning the premises. The tenant notes that the extractor fan was very unclean, so she undertook extensive cleaning of that.
The landlord states that the entry inspection report does reflect that the premises were clean at the start of the tenancy, with no issues being raised by the tenant around cleaning being needed at the time.
Ms Adamson referred to the handwritten record provided from her initial assessment, but agreed that she did undertake the cleaning herself. Analysis
The question to be determined is whether compensation for cleaning the premises can be provided.
Section 45 of the RTA sets out the landlord’s responsibilities, and that confirms that: The landlord shall...provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The landlord is not required to provide the premises in an immaculate condition, only in a state that is reasonably clean. That is the same standard the tenant is required to return the premises to the landlord, at the end of the tenancy.
On 17 February 2025, the tenant returned a pre-tenancy condition report to the landlord, advising that she considered that the situation with the tenancy was different to that assessed by the landlord. In that, the tenant noted that there was a smell of Indian food in the apartment, and she also noted stains to the floor rug. Note was made of the kitchen extractor fan being covered in grease, and also in the covering email that the rug had lots of stains that she had been cleaning over the weekend.
The property manager efficiently replied, advising that they would organise somebody to clean the rug.
On 20 February 2025, the tenant replied advising that there was not much point in organising a carpet cleaner “ because it would cost me in water”.
The landlord replied on 21 February, encouraging the tenant to agree that the carpet cleaner proceed with cleaning the rug, as that activity would not require much water. However the tenant did subsequently email the landlord proposing that she could arrange a rug doctor to clean the rug.
Overall, in my view the premises were provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean state. The landlord has provided photographs taken at the start of the tenancy, which do in my assessment, show reasonably clean premises.
The landlord’s pre-tenancy inspection also confirms the premises are clean. While the tenant has recorded in her handwritten assessment that the premises smelled of food, but that falls short of proving that the premises were unclean overall. The tenant says in their handwritten report that the extractor fan was covered in grease. I have no reason to discount that, but overall, that would seem to be an isolated failing. Overall, the premises were, in my assessment, reasonably clean.
As far as the rug is concerned, the landlord had offered to have the rug cleaned, but the tenant declined that. That being the case, it would not be reasonable to award compensation for any marks on the rug.
Therefore, there is no basis to order compensation to the tenant. Claim 3 – Compensation for being unable to use the bathroom and laundry
The tenant states that the landlord was not taking her concerns about the bathroom seriously, and she considers that the landlord has not acted reasonably. The tenant says that she joined a gym just to have access to a shower.
The landlord refers to the entry report, reporting that the fan was in good working condition, and that the bathroom otherwise could be used. Analysis
The tenant’s position is that the bathroom could not be used, because the ventilation was inadequate. For the reasons I have set out above, I do not accept that is the case, on the evidence available. The bathroom is an internal bathroom, without opening windows, and I accepted that the bathroom is reliant on the mechanical ventilation. But I am not persuaded that there is evidence to show that it was not operating as intended. I accept that condensation would arise from showering, but that is an inevitable consequence of a shower box of that nature, and even if there were a very effective internal extraction system, there would still be condensation to some degree.
As far as the dryer is concerned, the evidence is that it is a washer condenser, so there would be no venting of moist air from the dryer.
I find there is no basis to order compensation for the bathroom and laundry being unusable. Claim 4 – Work order (extractor fan and stove top)
The tenant seeks an extractor fan to be installed in the bathroom.
In terms of the hob, the hob is sitting on blocks of wood, and this presents a safety risk.
The landlord’s position is that the extractor fan is working and as per how the building was designed and built.
In relation to the hob, the landlord states that the contractor has been contacted, and they are at the quotation stage to get that fixed permanently. Analysis
As far as the bathroom extraction system is concerned, I am not persuaded that there is any fault with that system, so I declined to make work orders in relation to it.
However, as I indicated that the hearing, it is reasonable to make a work order in relation to the cooktop. The evidence is that the landlord replaced the oven which is underneath the cooktop, but unfortunately that has meant the cooktop does not seat into the benchtop properly, and now sits proud. In order to support the cooker, temporary small wooden blocks have been placed to hold it off the surface of the bench. That is not satisfactory, and I agree with the tenant that it presents a safety issue.
I will make a work order for the landlord to secure the cooktop to the benchtop in a way that the cooktop is safe, without any gaps between the cooktop and the bench surface. The landlord must do this within two weeks.
I decline to make an alternate order, because the landlord is required by law, to provide cooking facilities.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The tenant seeks a name suppression order, the landlord does not.
At the hearing, the tenant explained the reasons why she wanted named suppression. In the circumstances, I will not detail those in this decision, but I am satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for the Tribunal to extend its discretion to order tenant named suppression, notwithstanding that the tenant has been mostly unsuccessful in her application. Tenant name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328950 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 407, 85 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328950 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 407, 85 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions