What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343101 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 5343101?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343101?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13362050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343101 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 5343101?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343101?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13362050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 2, 217 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343101 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343101 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$500.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Chatly Group Limited Seema Chatly must pay [The tenant/s] $528.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 27 March 2026.
This is a boarding house tenancy which commenced on 1 December 2021.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, a work order, and compensation.
The bond issue has been resolved. The landlord produced evidence that the bond has been lodged with the Bond Centre. The tenant advised that he is happy with how this has been resolved.
The tenant was not specific in relation to the work order sought. Instead in his application he states he wants the landlord to fix everything. Other than ensuring that the premises are kept clean and that the fire doors remain closed, there are no specific work orders required.
The issues raised by the tenant at the hearing included: (a) Cleanliness; (b) A dog in the premises (when BH rules state no pets); (c) Fire doors being kept open; (d) Pests (cockroaches and midgey flies); (e) Landlord entered room without notice; (f) Tenant not given notice of premises for sale; and (g) The front door does not close all the time;
The main issue before the Tribunal is the issue of cleanliness in the premises. The tenant has produced photographs, most of which he took in July 2025. Those photographs show what appears to be old, stale bread in an oven warmer drawer, dirty kitchen surfaces, dirty interior of fridges, dirty interior of microwave (including a cockroach), dirty oven drawer, dirty and mouldy freezer door, dirty and cracked glass stovetop, overflowing rubbish bins, a blocked and full toilet bowl, dirty interior of oven and stovetop.
The landlord said that the photographs were likely taken on a day when cleaning was not carried out, but it would have been cleaned the following day. This is because the landlord says that cleaning is carried out every second day.
I do not accept that the level of uncleanliness shows areas which have been cleaned the previous day, which would have been the case if they are cleaned every second day. Some of the photographs show dirt that has been there for weeks if not months, rather than one or two days.
Section 66I(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides; “The landlord of a boarding house must, at all times – ensure that the facilities of the premises are in a reasonable state of cleanliness;...”
The evidence shows that the boarding house was not kept in a reasonable state of cleanliness during the tenancy. The landlord is therefore in breach of their obligations. The Tribunal awards compensation of $500.00 to the tenant for loss of amenity.
In relation to the dog in the premises, the landlord has proceedings in the Tribunal with the tenant concerned. Due to the ongoing proceedings before a different Adjudicator this issue cannot be progressed further.
The tenant says that the fire doors upstairs are wedged open by some of the tenants. When the landlord produced the live stream video of the premises it was pointed out that one of the doors was wedged open, but it seems that the landlord had not noticed this. The landlord needs to ensure that the requirement to keep fire doors closed is complied with and take steps if it persists as an issue.
The tenant has raised the issue of pests such as cockroaches and flies. The tenant produced photographs showing cockroaches and flies in the kitchen with one in the microwave. A further photograph was taken the night before the hearing where there were cockroaches under the fridge when it was moved for cleaning under.
The landlord produced invoices for pest treatment dated 4 March 2025, 22 October 2025, 29 December 2025 and 9 February 2026.
I accept that cockroaches and flies can be a challenging problem, but they will persist where the premises are not kept clean. As stated above, I consider that the premises were not reasonably clean when the tenant took photographs in July 2025. I have considered the pest situation when awarding compensation for the unclean premises.
The tenant claims that the landlord entered his room without notice when he was not there. The landlord confirms that one of his staff entered the room to check smoke alarms and install them if required. This occurred on 5 August 2025. The landlord had texted the tenant to request entry that day, but the tenant said no because he was not home. The landlord must give 24 hours’ notice to enter the room 1 .
The landlord acknowledged that one of his staff had entered the room when he should not have. The landlord said that he had apologised to the tenant. I do not consider that this one incident is serious enough to warrant an award against the landlord.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to advise that the premises are on the market for sale. Section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where a landlord puts the premises on the market for the purposes of sale, the landlord must as soon as practicable give written notice of the fact to the tenant.
The landlord said that all tenants were provided written notice before the premises were put on the market, by putting a letter under each tenant’s door. 1 Section 66R(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 The tenant argues that there is a step inside his door which means that a notice could not be put under his door.
With conflicting evidence on this issue, I am unable to conclude whether the notice was given as required. In any event, the tenant did not provide any evidence of what, if any, impact this may have had on him.
The tenant claims that the front door does not always close and is therefore not secure. The landlord said that the front door is accessed with a keycode, and it has a door closer. While it may be that some tenants do not ensure that the door closes behind them, the presence of a door closer is sufficient for the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the premises are secure.
The parties have managed to reach some agreement including that the landlord will provide a fridge for the tenant’s use which will also include a fridge lock.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343101 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$500.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Chatly Group Limited Seema Chatly must pay [The tenant/s] $528.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 27 March 2026.
This is a boarding house tenancy which commenced on 1 December 2021.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, a work order, and compensation.
The bond issue has been resolved. The landlord produced evidence that the bond has been lodged with the Bond Centre. The tenant advised that he is happy with how this has been resolved.
The tenant was not specific in relation to the work order sought. Instead in his application he states he wants the landlord to fix everything. Other than ensuring that the premises are kept clean and that the fire doors remain closed, there are no specific work orders required.
The issues raised by the tenant at the hearing included: (a) Cleanliness; (b) A dog in the premises (when BH rules state no pets); (c) Fire doors being kept open; (d) Pests (cockroaches and midgey flies); (e) Landlord entered room without notice; (f) Tenant not given notice of premises for sale; and (g) The front door does not close all the time;
The main issue before the Tribunal is the issue of cleanliness in the premises. The tenant has produced photographs, most of which he took in July 2025. Those photographs show what appears to be old, stale bread in an oven warmer drawer, dirty kitchen surfaces, dirty interior of fridges, dirty interior of microwave (including a cockroach), dirty oven drawer, dirty and mouldy freezer door, dirty and cracked glass stovetop, overflowing rubbish bins, a blocked and full toilet bowl, dirty interior of oven and stovetop.
The landlord said that the photographs were likely taken on a day when cleaning was not carried out, but it would have been cleaned the following day. This is because the landlord says that cleaning is carried out every second day.
I do not accept that the level of uncleanliness shows areas which have been cleaned the previous day, which would have been the case if they are cleaned every second day. Some of the photographs show dirt that has been there for weeks if not months, rather than one or two days.
Section 66I(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides; “The landlord of a boarding house must, at all times – ensure that the facilities of the premises are in a reasonable state of cleanliness;...”
The evidence shows that the boarding house was not kept in a reasonable state of cleanliness during the tenancy. The landlord is therefore in breach of their obligations. The Tribunal awards compensation of $500.00 to the tenant for loss of amenity.
In relation to the dog in the premises, the landlord has proceedings in the Tribunal with the tenant concerned. Due to the ongoing proceedings before a different Adjudicator this issue cannot be progressed further.
The tenant says that the fire doors upstairs are wedged open by some of the tenants. When the landlord produced the live stream video of the premises it was pointed out that one of the doors was wedged open, but it seems that the landlord had not noticed this. The landlord needs to ensure that the requirement to keep fire doors closed is complied with and take steps if it persists as an issue.
The tenant has raised the issue of pests such as cockroaches and flies. The tenant produced photographs showing cockroaches and flies in the kitchen with one in the microwave. A further photograph was taken the night before the hearing where there were cockroaches under the fridge when it was moved for cleaning under.
The landlord produced invoices for pest treatment dated 4 March 2025, 22 October 2025, 29 December 2025 and 9 February 2026.
I accept that cockroaches and flies can be a challenging problem, but they will persist where the premises are not kept clean. As stated above, I consider that the premises were not reasonably clean when the tenant took photographs in July 2025. I have considered the pest situation when awarding compensation for the unclean premises.
The tenant claims that the landlord entered his room without notice when he was not there. The landlord confirms that one of his staff entered the room to check smoke alarms and install them if required. This occurred on 5 August 2025. The landlord had texted the tenant to request entry that day, but the tenant said no because he was not home. The landlord must give 24 hours’ notice to enter the room 1 .
The landlord acknowledged that one of his staff had entered the room when he should not have. The landlord said that he had apologised to the tenant. I do not consider that this one incident is serious enough to warrant an award against the landlord.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to advise that the premises are on the market for sale. Section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where a landlord puts the premises on the market for the purposes of sale, the landlord must as soon as practicable give written notice of the fact to the tenant.
The landlord said that all tenants were provided written notice before the premises were put on the market, by putting a letter under each tenant’s door. 1 Section 66R(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 The tenant argues that there is a step inside his door which means that a notice could not be put under his door.
With conflicting evidence on this issue, I am unable to conclude whether the notice was given as required. In any event, the tenant did not provide any evidence of what, if any, impact this may have had on him.
The tenant claims that the front door does not always close and is therefore not secure. The landlord said that the front door is accessed with a keycode, and it has a door closer. While it may be that some tenants do not ensure that the door closes behind them, the presence of a door closer is sufficient for the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the premises are secure.
The parties have managed to reach some agreement including that the landlord will provide a fridge for the tenant’s use which will also include a fridge lock.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343101 — Tenancy dispute at Room 2, 217 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343101 — Tenancy dispute at Room 2, 217 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions