What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5339921?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (6291387-015) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5339921?

Cleaning: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $240.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339921?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13081333-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5339921?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (6291387-015) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5339921?

Cleaning: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $240.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339921?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13081333-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1222, 147 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339921 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5339921 — net $255.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$240.00	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$15.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$255.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$255.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (6291387-015) immediately apportioned as follows: Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Koeien Klompen Limited And Karl Officer Bradley Cox: $255.00 Zerong Xiao and Haolin Lyu: $1,985.00
The payment of $255.00 from the tenant’s bond is in full and final settlement of all claims that the landlord can bring against these tenants.
The tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims payment of his bond under s22B Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) and also seeks compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of quiet enjoyment. The bond.
The tenancy ended on the 6 August 2025. The landlord conducted an inspection on Friday the 8 August 2025. Following that inspection the landlord contacted the tenant and asked the tenant to come back and clean the property and clean the carpet. The tenant went back to the property and cleaned up as requested and cleaned the carpet.
The landlord says that the tenant’s cleaning was up to standard, but that the carpet needed further cleaning to remove stains. The landlord had the carpet cleaned by its contractors and sought to deduct the cost of the cleaning from the bond. The tenant disputed liability for the carpet cleaning, they say they did not cause stains in all of the areas cleaned and that the price is too high.
As there was a disagreement between the parties about the bond, the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal under s22B RTA.
Section 22B RTA provides: a. If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. b. If the tenant applied to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim. (own emphasis)
The effect of this provision, is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counter claim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, then the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenants.
The landlord has not filed a counterclaim, I explained to the parties that a result of that I must release the bond to the tenant. The tenant said that he would accept that owed a few days rent, and that he would pay something towards carpet cleaning.
The parties agreed that the sum of $255.00 could be deducted from the bond and paid to the landlord in full and final settlement of any claims that the landlord had against the tenant. I have therefore made orders giving effect to that agreement. Breaches of quiet enjoyment.
The tenant claims that the landlord breached his quiet enjoyment as follows: a. Speaking to him in an angry tone and manner in the phone call on the 8 August. b. Using swear words and abusive language when describing the condition that the tenants had left the property in, describing it shitty, dirty and filthy, which was offensive. c. Requiring him to go to the apartment to clean up the apartment alone which made the tenant feel scared. d. Unnecessarily delaying the resolution of the bond. e. Making threats and misrepresentations about the price of the carpet and cleaning, which was greatly inflated, and referring to a 14 day notice when the tenant said he would go to the Tribunal.
The landlord disputes that it breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The landlord says that he was angry and annoyed with the tenants for the state that they had left the property in, because he had another tenant who was due to move in that weekend and the new tenant could not move in with the property needing cleaning. He says that his tone was angry, but he did not yell or act abusively towards the tenants. He says he cannot recall the exact words he used but says that the reference to the property was dirty was accurate. He gave me photographs of the property taken at his inspection that day which he says show the condition of the property.
The landlord says that he never threatened the tenant and tried to explain that if the tenant did not do the cleaning, the landlord would need to do the cleaning and that this would be more cost to the tenant. He says that he did not require the tenant to do the cleaning and that the dispute over the necessity and cost of carpet cleaning was a genuine dispute.
The landlord says that he offered to the tenant to release the remainder of the bond that was not in dispute, but that the tenant did not take this option.
Section 38(2) RTA sets out what is a breach of quiet enjoyment. The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant
In order to establish a breach of quiet enjoyment it must be more than a disagreement or a clash of personalities. In the case of Smith & Olmstead v Floris [1994] NZTT Auckland 1404/93 it was said: Quiet enjoyment effectively means the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Balanced against that however, one must bear in mind that the landlord/tenant relationship is between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type.
Genuine disputes between the parties about whether a party has fulfilled their obligations under the RTA, are not breaches of quiet enjoyment.
In the District Court decision of Sybilis v Croft and Bryt the District Court confirmed that poor behaviour by the landlord to a tenant (which had included offensive name calling) after the tenancy ended could not be a breach of quiet enjoyment. 1 This is because the tenancy has ended and s38 RTA requires the breach to affect the use of the premises.
All the behaviour or incidents that the tenant claims are breaches of quiet enjoyment occurred after the tenancy ended and therefore cannot be breaches of quiet enjoyment.
The tenant submitted that the s38 RTA should apply here, even though the tenancy has ended because it was a dispute about the bond. I disagree, s38 RTA specifically requires the breach of quiet enjoyment to be in relation to the use of the premises. Once the tenancy has ended then the tenant’s have no right to possession and therefore the actions of the landlord cannot be a breach of their quiet enjoyment.
I also note that in Sybilis, the Judge noted that this does not affect tenant’s being able to avail themselves of other remedies or complaints in other jurisdictions. The tenant has lodged a complaint with the Police.
For the reasons given above I dismiss the tenant’s claim for breaches of quiet enjoyment.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5339921 — net $255.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$240.00	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$15.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$255.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$255.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (6291387-015) immediately apportioned as follows: Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Koeien Klompen Limited And Karl Officer Bradley Cox: $255.00 Zerong Xiao and Haolin Lyu: $1,985.00
The payment of $255.00 from the tenant’s bond is in full and final settlement of all claims that the landlord can bring against these tenants.
The tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims payment of his bond under s22B Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) and also seeks compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of quiet enjoyment. The bond.
The tenancy ended on the 6 August 2025. The landlord conducted an inspection on Friday the 8 August 2025. Following that inspection the landlord contacted the tenant and asked the tenant to come back and clean the property and clean the carpet. The tenant went back to the property and cleaned up as requested and cleaned the carpet.
The landlord says that the tenant’s cleaning was up to standard, but that the carpet needed further cleaning to remove stains. The landlord had the carpet cleaned by its contractors and sought to deduct the cost of the cleaning from the bond. The tenant disputed liability for the carpet cleaning, they say they did not cause stains in all of the areas cleaned and that the price is too high.
As there was a disagreement between the parties about the bond, the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal under s22B RTA.
Section 22B RTA provides: a. If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. b. If the tenant applied to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim. (own emphasis)
The effect of this provision, is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counter claim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, then the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenants.
The landlord has not filed a counterclaim, I explained to the parties that a result of that I must release the bond to the tenant. The tenant said that he would accept that owed a few days rent, and that he would pay something towards carpet cleaning.
The parties agreed that the sum of $255.00 could be deducted from the bond and paid to the landlord in full and final settlement of any claims that the landlord had against the tenant. I have therefore made orders giving effect to that agreement. Breaches of quiet enjoyment.
The tenant claims that the landlord breached his quiet enjoyment as follows: a. Speaking to him in an angry tone and manner in the phone call on the 8 August. b. Using swear words and abusive language when describing the condition that the tenants had left the property in, describing it shitty, dirty and filthy, which was offensive. c. Requiring him to go to the apartment to clean up the apartment alone which made the tenant feel scared. d. Unnecessarily delaying the resolution of the bond. e. Making threats and misrepresentations about the price of the carpet and cleaning, which was greatly inflated, and referring to a 14 day notice when the tenant said he would go to the Tribunal.
The landlord disputes that it breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The landlord says that he was angry and annoyed with the tenants for the state that they had left the property in, because he had another tenant who was due to move in that weekend and the new tenant could not move in with the property needing cleaning. He says that his tone was angry, but he did not yell or act abusively towards the tenants. He says he cannot recall the exact words he used but says that the reference to the property was dirty was accurate. He gave me photographs of the property taken at his inspection that day which he says show the condition of the property.
The landlord says that he never threatened the tenant and tried to explain that if the tenant did not do the cleaning, the landlord would need to do the cleaning and that this would be more cost to the tenant. He says that he did not require the tenant to do the cleaning and that the dispute over the necessity and cost of carpet cleaning was a genuine dispute.
The landlord says that he offered to the tenant to release the remainder of the bond that was not in dispute, but that the tenant did not take this option.
Section 38(2) RTA sets out what is a breach of quiet enjoyment. The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant
In order to establish a breach of quiet enjoyment it must be more than a disagreement or a clash of personalities. In the case of Smith & Olmstead v Floris [1994] NZTT Auckland 1404/93 it was said: Quiet enjoyment effectively means the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Balanced against that however, one must bear in mind that the landlord/tenant relationship is between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type.
Genuine disputes between the parties about whether a party has fulfilled their obligations under the RTA, are not breaches of quiet enjoyment.
In the District Court decision of Sybilis v Croft and Bryt the District Court confirmed that poor behaviour by the landlord to a tenant (which had included offensive name calling) after the tenancy ended could not be a breach of quiet enjoyment. 1 This is because the tenancy has ended and s38 RTA requires the breach to affect the use of the premises.
All the behaviour or incidents that the tenant claims are breaches of quiet enjoyment occurred after the tenancy ended and therefore cannot be breaches of quiet enjoyment.
The tenant submitted that the s38 RTA should apply here, even though the tenancy has ended because it was a dispute about the bond. I disagree, s38 RTA specifically requires the breach of quiet enjoyment to be in relation to the use of the premises. Once the tenancy has ended then the tenant’s have no right to possession and therefore the actions of the landlord cannot be a breach of their quiet enjoyment.
I also note that in Sybilis, the Judge noted that this does not affect tenant’s being able to avail themselves of other remedies or complaints in other jurisdictions. The tenant has lodged a complaint with the Police.
For the reasons given above I dismiss the tenant’s claim for breaches of quiet enjoyment.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339921 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1222, 147 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339921 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1222, 147 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions