What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358970 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 5358970?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: One Day'S Rent: $72.85 awarded to tenant; Power Bills: $210.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358970?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13039574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358970 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 5358970?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: One Day'S Rent: $72.85 awarded to tenant; Power Bills: $210.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358970?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13039574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5358970 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358970 — net $1,802.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Power bills	$210.74		Power bills
Cleaning	$100.00		Cleaning
Refund of bond		$2,040.00	Refund of bond
Compensation: One day's rent		$72.85	One day's rent
Total award	$310.74	$2,112.85
Net award		$1,802.11
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,802.11

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358970 — net $1,802.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Power bills	$210.74		Power bills
Cleaning	$100.00		Cleaning
Refund of bond		$2,040.00	Refund of bond
Compensation: One day's rent		$72.85	One day's rent
Total award	$310.74	$2,112.85
Net award		$1,802.11
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,802.11

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,802.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held in person on the 20 January 2026.
This tenancy of a 1-bedroom apartment began on the 11 May 2024 and ended on the 8 September 2025.
The original landlord was [Previous landlord redacted]. However, in early 2025 [The landlord/s] took over the management of the tenancy.
The landlord filed their claim on the 1 October 2025 seeking: • Break lease fees of $920.00 • Rent until the 21 October 2025. • Cleaning costs of $250.00 • Power costs of $210.74 • Filing fee
The tenant filed his claim on the 3 October 2025. He has claimed $2040 for compensation for: • No follow up by the landlord to a break in that was reported. • Landlord failed to address the concerns that the tenant raised regarding the noise from the refrigerator • That the landlord has treated him unfairly causing stress.
The tenant accepted at hearing that he owed the amount the landlord had claimed for power.
The tenant disputes all the landlord’s other claims. He says that he was on a periodic tenancy and was entitled to give notice. He says that he left the property in a better condition than what it was rented out for. He seeks that the Tribunal make a determination on whether he had a period or fixed term tenancy at the time he gave notice, and to order the landlord to pay him any monies owed as a result of that determination.
The bond has been returned to the landlord. The tenant allowed the bond to be paid but made it clear that he disputed the landlord’s claims. I am satisfied that the tenant did not waive his rights to the bond by allowing it to be paid to the landlord. Background to the dispute
At the heart of this dispute is whether the tenant is liable for the costs relating to the end of a fixed term tenancy, in particular rent until the 21 October 2025 and lease break fee costs.
The tenant and landlord signed a periodic tenancy on the 11 May 2024. A periodic tenancy can be ended by the tenant by giving notice but could not (at the time that the tenancy was entered into) be ended by the landlord unless one of the particular circumstances outlined in section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) was met. From 30 January 2025 the law changed, and landlords could give 90 day no fault notices to end periodic tenancies.
On the 22 April 2025 the tenant received an email from the landlord that said:
The tenant says that he understood from that email that if he did not take option 1, then his tenancy would end. He sent an email the following day that said that he choose option 1.
On or about the 1 May 2025 the landlord sent via the document portal a document called Renewal of Fixed Term Tenancy. That document was signed by the tenant on the 1 May but was not signed by the landlord until 1 October 2025, sometime after the tenancy had ended.
On the 13 August 2025 the tenant gave notice to the landlord to end the tenancy. The tenant says that he did so due to safety concerns that he had at his tenancy. He said that at the time he gave notice he believed that he had a periodic tenancy which he could end by giving 21 days’ notice.
The tenant says that after giving this notice that the property manager informed him that as he had signed up to a renewal of fixed term tenancy on the 1 May 2025 and that he could not simply give notice to end the tenancy.
The landlord told the tenant that he would need to sign a release of fixed term tenancy agreement and pay both a break lease fee and the rent until a new tenant was found. The tenant says that he was surprised to learn that he had a fixed term tenancy, and this is evidenced by his email dated 13 August back to the landlord where the tenant says “considering initial agreement was an open term with [Previous landlord redacted], may I please request these fees subsidized to assist my transition.” (sic)
The tenant says that despite his reservations about the type of tenancy that he had, in order to end the tenancy, the tenant signed the release of fixed term tenancy agreement, on the 13 August 2025. The agreement to release a fixed term tenancy records an end date of the 7 September 2025 and says that the tenant is liable for rent until new tenants are found and the payment of release fee of $920.00 inclusive of GST to the landlord. Again, this agreement was never signed by the landlord.
The tenant says that he then agreed to pay over the bond to cover the release fee and the power owed, and he understood that payment of the release fee and power would be sufficient, and he would get the balance of the bond back.
The landlord says that it never agreed that the tenant would be released from the tenancy on the payment of the release fee and the outstanding charges. It says that as the tenant signed both the renewal of fixed term tenancy and the release of fixed term tenancy agreement then he is liable for the rent until new tenants were found (to 21 October 2025) as well as the release fees of $920.
The tenant says he should not be liable for the release costs and rent until new tenants were found because the landlord ‘tricked’ him into entering the renewal of the fixed term tenancy. Was the ‘renewal of fixed term tenancy agreement’ binding?
It is not disputed that the original tenancy agreement was periodic. This means that there was no need to renew the tenancy and the landlord’s email of the 22 April was incorrect.
Section 78(1)(g) of the Residential Tenancies act 1986 (RTA) provides: where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part).
I am satisfied that the tenant was induced to enter into the renewal of the fixed term tenancy because of the landlord’s email of the 22 April 2025 which mistakenly stated that he had a fixed term agreement (when he did not) and that he was required to enter into a 12 month fixed term tenancy or give notice to end the tenancy.
I do not consider that the landlord’s email accorded with the true agreement (which was that the tenant had a periodic tenancy) and I consider it appropriate in the circumstances to set aside the Renewal of the Fixed Term Agreement as the tenant only agreed to enter into the Renewal because of the landlord’s email which made it clear that if he did not enter into the renewal then they would treat his tenancy as coming to an end.
I also set aside the tenant’s agreement to pay the costs to break the fixed term. This is because the tenant only entered into this agreement because the landlord told them that he was bound by the renewal agreement. As I am setting aside the renewal agreement then the tenant should not be liable for any fees incurred which arise as a consequence of that document. This means that the tenant is not liable for the break fee costs or rent until the new tenancy started.
Even if I am wrong in determining that the tenant was induced by mistake or misrepresentation into entering the Renewal of Fixed term, I consider that the landlord’s email of the 22 April was a breach of s137 RTA.
Section 137 of the RTA says: No person shall— (a) enter into any transaction, or make any contract or arrangement, purporting to do, whether presently or at some future time or upon the happening of any event or contingency, anything that contravenes or will contravene any of the provisions of this Act; or (b) enter into any transaction or make any contract or arrangement, whether orally or in writing, or do anything, for the purpose of or having the effect of, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of this Act.
I consider that the email of the 22 April 2025 was a prohibited transaction as it purported an arrangement that was contrary to the tenant’s rights under the periodic tenancy. A landlord cannot require a tenant in periodic tenancy to enter into a fixed term tenancy in order to retain the tenancy. Further a landlord cannot purport to terminate a tenancy by only giving 21 days notice (which is effectively what option 2 would have done).
Section 137 (3) provides: Subject to subsection (4), any provision of any transaction, contract, or arrangement entered into in contravention of subsection (1) that would have the effect of, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of this Act shall be of no effect.
As I have found that the email of the 22 April 2025 was a prohibited transaction, then every document that the tenant and landlord entered into after that, including the renewal of tenancy and the agreement to pay was of no effect, as they derived from the prohibited transaction.
The tenant is not liable for any rent past the end date of his tenancy 8 September 2025, nor for the break lease fees.
The landlord’s rent statement shows that the tenant paid rent till the 9 September 2025. The tenant was only liable for rent until the 8 September and therefore the tenant is owed one days rent by the landlord. Did the tenant leave the property in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy?
Tenant’s must leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 1
The tenant says that he cleaned the property, and that no issues with the cleaning were raised with him until the new property manager came on board in October 2025.
The landlord seeks cleaning costs for cleaning of the rangehood, oven, kitchen cupboards and cabinets. The landlord has provided a quote of $287 inclusive of GST from its contractors dated 12 September 2025.
The landlord confirmed that the final inspection was not carried out until the 18 September, and showed me photographs of the oven, kitchen drawers and rangehood taken at the inspection.
I am satisfied that it is likely that the tenant did not leave the oven and some kitchen drawers in a reasonably tidy condition. I award the landlord $100.00 for cleaning. I consider this a reasonable amount to remedy the areas that needed cleaning. I note that the landlord did not provide the Tribunal with a copy of the invoice for the cleaning only the quote which was dated before the final inspection.
The amounts ordered are proven. The tenant’s claims.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to address security concerns at the property and failed to provide CCTV footage when requested of an alleged incident in September 2024, and also failed to investigate an allegation a made by the tenant of another tenant assaulting him, shortly before the tenancy ended.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven any breach of the RTA. The tenant provided one email dated the 6 November 2024 where he says that his neighbour saw two strangers in his unit a month ago and that he didn’t think much about it at the time as it could have been an inspection or a service. He refers to some damage to the door and says “just curious if there are any similar report and if there is any CCTV dating back to September?”.
The landlord says that it understands that the security team reviewed the CCTV footage that they had but could not see any evidence of someone breaking into the tenant’s flat. The landlord also said that the tenant did not raise the alleged assault with them, the tenant confirmed that he had told the lady at the desk about the incident.
Landlords must take reasonable steps to ensure that other tenants at the property do not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of other residents. I am not satisfied that the landlord breached any obligation to the tenant. I am satisfied 1 S40(1)(e)(iii) RTA. that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the tenant’s concerns about his apartment. I do not consider it reasonable to expect a landlord to address a serious allegation of assault by another tenant, without having had a complaint in writing from the tenant or other witnesses to the alleged assault. I consider that the tenant should have brought the assault in writing to the landlord. The landlord could have then investigated the matter further.
The tenant claims that the landlord has treated him unfairly, he says that he was treated unfairly after his tenancy ended. A breach of quiet enjoyment can only occur during his tenancy, not afterwards. The emails and treatment that the tenant complains about occurred after his tenancy ended and are about this dispute. There is no breach of quiet enjoyment or other provision of the RTA.
The tenant did not provide any evidence of the noise from the refrigerator or that he had made complaints to the landlord which the landlord had failed to address. The tenant has not proven this claim. Name suppression and filing fee.
Both parties sought suppression. The tenant has been mainly successful in defending the landlord’s claims but not successful in his claims. Likewise, the landlord has not been successful in most of their claims but is successful in defending the tenant’s claims. Usually this would mean that neither party would be given suppression.
However, given some of the evidence provided and the genuine fear that the tenant has for his safety, I consider it appropriate to suppress both parties’ names in this matter and the address of the property.
As both parties have not been substantially successful in proving their claims the I do not award the filing fee to either.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358970 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358970 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions