What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331190 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5331190?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331190?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12713962-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331190 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5331190?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331190?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12713962-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12B Patey Street, Epsom, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331190 — 14-day notice

Order

The application by the Tenant is dismissed. Reason
Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
The Tenant has applied for termination, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages.
The tenancy commenced on 19 June 2025 and was fixed until 6 February 2027.
The onus is on the Applicant to prove their case to the Tribunal. This means it is the Tenants job to prove their case by providing supporting evidence for their claim. Termination of the tenancy
The Tenant sought immediate termination because the Landlord had breached their statutory obligations.
On 17 June 2025, prior to the commencement of the tenancy, the parties conducted an property inspection. Following this inspection, the Tenant emailed the Landlord on the same date advising that the bathrooms were not clean; the kitchen surfaces were greasy; the fridge and gas stove had not been cleaned; the carpet and wooden floors were dusty and dirty; there were stains and scratches on the bedroom walls; the garden was overgrown and untidy; and both the laundry room and washing machine were unclean.
On 4 August 2025, the Tenant reported that the neighbours had repeatedly left their rubbish bin in the driveway, obstructing her access to the property. This ongoing obstruction made it difficult for her to enter and exit the driveway. The Tenant further advised that, because the Landlord did not address the issue with the neighbour, she continued to experience conflict with them, which adversely affected her peaceful enjoyment of the premises
On 5 August 2025, the Tenant issued the Landlord with a 14-day notice to remedy the following breaches: a) On 22 July 2025, the Landlord interfered with the Tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment by commenting on the presence of the Tenant’s guests and the vehicles in her driveway, causing her to feel monitored and uncomfortable in her own home. The Landlord was also observed frequently walking around or near the property during the evenings when the Tenant was not at home. b) On or about 22 July 2025, the Landlord sent an email to the Tenant advising that, if she was not home, he would enter the property to permit maintenance workers to replace the front door glass.
The Tenant also complained the neighbour at 12A entered her front yard and deck without permission. This was reported to the Police and a Police report number provided.
On 19 August 2025, the Tenant reported that a Building Inspector engaged by the Landlord attended the premises to conduct an inspection. Following the inspection, the Tenant discovered that her bedroom key had been broken, the main gate had been left open, and the toilet light had been left on. These issues raised significant security concerns for the Tenant, her family, and the property.
On 20 August 2025, the Tenant reported that the kitchen waste disposal unit was no longer functioning, despite having operated properly prior to the inspection. The Tenant further noted that the Landlord failed to lock the main door and left the bathroom and storage room lights on. Additionally, the Tenant stated that the Landlord opened her bedroom wardrobe without her consent
On 23 August 2025, the Tenant issued a further 14-day notice to remedy stating the following breaches: a) Reiterating the same breaches at paragraph 8(a) and (b) b) The neighbours vehicles and rubbish bins blocked the driveway and he failed to act. c) The Landlord pressured her to pay the bills by sending multiple reminders.
On or about 7 October 2025, the Tenant submitted the neighbour was blocking the driveway again and sent a photograph to the Landlord.
In support of the Tenants claims, they provided email correspondence of the 14-day notices and complaints to the Landlord, photographs of the rubbish bins, a broken key, the bedroom door handle and cars in the driveway.
The Landlord submitted that he had the carpets and property professionally cleaned at the start of the tenancy. He provided invoices to substantiate this and submitted that the Tenant was demanding a ‘Sheraton Hotel’ standard of cleanliness for a house that was 20 years old.
The Landlord denied monitoring her property. He did not live in the area or have personal relationships with the neighbours to warrant visiting the property. He claimed the Tenant had a heightened sensitivity to any communication.
The Landlord provided email evidence from the Tenants neighbour which stated that they never blocked the Tenants access with their rubbish bins. They had lived at their property since 2011 and they had always placed their rubbish bins in the same place on Sunday night ready for collection in the morning. The neighbour also wrote that they never blocked the driveway with their vehicles and it may have been a delivery car.
The Landlord provided email evidence from the Tenant complaining that a neighbour went onto her front deck in front of the living room to retrieve carpet that had fallen over was startling. This was an invasion of her privacy. She asked the Landlord to speak to the neighbour.
The Landlord submitted that he never intended to enter the property without the Tenant’s consent. He provided email correspondence showing he had offered to attend the property to allow a tradesperson to repair the window after the Tenant advised that the tradesperson was running late. In his email, the Landlord wrote: “Is there going to be someone there to let the glass people in at 9.45am tomorrow? Otherwise I will come over and let them in.”
The Landlord denied breaking the bedroom door key. He produced a photograph showing the key bent in the lock and stated that he was informed the Building Inspector attempted to remove the key, causing it to break. The Landlord further stated that arrangements were made to attend to the waste disposal unit. He also provided email correspondence from the Building Inspector confirming they did not leave the door ajar
The Landlord submitted evidence that he consistently attempted to accommodate the Tenant’s requests. He stated that when the Tenant requested a spare gas bottle, he provided one; when she reported issues with the dishwasher, he replaced it with a new unit. He further submitted that he arranged for commercial cleaning of the carpets and the property, sealed gaps in the glass shower, and installed edging around the glass doors.
The Landlord further stated that he suspected the Tenant may have been using the property as an Airbnb accommodation. He said this suspicion arose due to the frequency of maintenance-related complaints, reports from the neighbour that several different people appeared to be living at the property, and observations of bed linen placed on the front porch. He also noted sudden changes in delivery and repair appointments, with the Tenant advising on multiple occasions that she was overseas. The Tenant responded that the individuals observed were her visiting family members.
The Landlord denied pressuring the Tenant to pay the water bill, stating that he merely issued a reminder.
The Landlord provided references from previous tenants, which described him as professional, reliable, and considerate, noting that he demonstrated genuine care as a landlord, was highly responsive to issues, communicated clearly, and ensured tenants were able to enjoy quiet and peaceful occupation of the premise. The law
There are limited mechanisms for terminating a fixed-term tenancy prior to its expiry. The parties may mutually agree to end the tenancy, or, if the Tenant alleges a breach by the Landlord, the provisions of section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) apply.
This provides: (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a) The other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b) in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i) the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii) the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c) that 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.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant has not proven that the Landlord breached his obligations pursuant to the two 14-day notices issued by the Tenant. The Tenant was required to demonstrate that the Landlord breached these obligations, that she had properly issued the notice, and that she had allowed the Landlord sufficient time to remedy the alleged breaches. Whilst she had provided the notice, there was insufficient evidence that the Landlord monitored her property, such as video footage or witness statements. I find that the Landlord did not enter the property unlawfully, and his statement regarding allowing tradespersons access was taken out of context. It was understood as an offer to assist the Tenant, rather than a statement indicating he would permit entry without her consent. The Tenant’s allegations regarding the rubbish bin and vehicle obstruction were not obligations of the Landlord, as the neighbours were not his tenants. The Tenant also did not provide evidence of the Landlord pressuring her to pay bills, such as emails or specific dates of contact.
I considered only whether the breaches listed in the 14-day notices had occurred. The other breaches raised by the Tenant were not listed in the 14- day notices so were not given as much weight in deciding whether to terminate this tenancy.
The claim is dismissed. Cleaning and moving costs
The Tenant claimed compensation for moving and cleaning costs incurred as a result of the Landlord’s alleged breaches. However, the Tenant did not provide sufficient evidence of the breaches, nor did she provide receipts or other documentation to substantiate the cleaning and moving costs claimed.
The claim is dismissed. Partial rent refund
The Tenant sought a refund of rent equating to $2400.00. This was a reduction of $200.00 per week for the period during which the premises did not meet the agreed standard of habitability and her quiet enjoyment was significantly disrupted. She stated that the Landlord failed to repair the kitchen waste disposal unit and did not provide a replacement bedroom key. She further claimed that the occupants of 12A repeatedly obstructed her access by parking multiple vehicles on the shared driveway, entering her yard without permission, walking onto her deck, and placing rubbish bins in the middle of the driveway.
The Tenant also asserted that during inspections the Landlord failed to secure the main door and turn off lights, which created safety concerns and further interfered with her quiet enjoyment. She stated that despite her repeated emails, no effective action was taken. She argued that these ongoing issues reduced the value of the tenancy and therefore requested a fair rent reduction for the affected period.
The Landlord disputed these claims earlier at paragraphs 15-23 of this Order.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the Landlord breached his obligations. The Landlord was not responsible for the neighbours’ conduct and therefore was not in breach regarding the placement of rubbish bins or trespass. These matters were issues the Tenant should have resolved directly with her neighbours.
The claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The Tenant claimed exemplary damages, asserting that the Landlord failed to provide notification of the change of landlord within 10 working days.
The Landlord submitted that the landlord listed on the bond form was initially Ray White and was subsequently changed to the Landlord. He contended that this did not constitute an unlawful breach for which exemplary damages could be awarded.
In considering the evidence, the landlord failing to notify the Tenant of the change in landlord is not an unlawful act subject to exemplary damages.
The claim is dismissed. Name suppression
Section 95A(1) provides 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.
As the Tenant has been unsuccessful in their claim, name suppression is not granted to the Tenant. A Aiolupotea 14 November 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331190 — 14-day notice at 12B Patey Street, Epsom, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331190 — 14-day notice at 12B Patey Street, Epsom, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions