How much money was awarded in case 5366142?

By Consent - Painting: $633.45 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366142?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13213641-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5366142?

By Consent - Painting: $633.45 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366142?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13213641-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 8, 11A Fife Lane, Miramar, Wellington 6022, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5366142 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366142 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366142 — net $136.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent - painting	$633.45	By consent - painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$136.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$136.45

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Te Toi Mahana $136.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $525.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Te Toi Mahana immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the bond.

At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claims for the TV bracket and the kitchen cupboard. The tenant accepted the claims for painting. Orders for the landlord’s claim are made by consent.

At the hearing the tenant asked to focus on the claim for the appliances he disposed of at the end of the tenancy, and for me to decide whether the landlord met the obligation to protect his quiet enjoyment.

I note this hearing was only for the tenant and related to the tenancy that ran from 20 January 2023 to 09 July 2025. The tenant asked me to consider some wider social issues relating to other tenants, but I only have the jurisdiction to consider his tenancy.

Did the landlord meet the obligation to protect quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims the landlord has allowed other tenants in the complex to breach his quiet enjoyment. Section 45 (1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that the landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes of permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. This is the tenant’s claim to prove.

The tenant said that he had several problems with one other tenant (T1) and with a visitor (V1) who often stays in the complex. The problems have been ongoing since this tenancy started in 2023. From 12 February – 12 April 2025 T1 hammered outside and inside his unit, including during the night and early in the morning. This disturbed the tenant’s sleep. The tenant advised the landlord of this. He applied for a transfer but this was declined in May. The tenant said the hammering started again in June and T1 then made two threats against his safety in July 2025. The tenant gave up all hope of the matter being resolved and instead moved out on 9 July 2025, advising the landlord when he dropped the keys at their office.

The landlord said it was aware of the issue. T1 was warned in April but there is little more the landlord can do without some independent supporting evidence, such as from noise control. The landlord noted that the tenant’s email sent on 10 July, the day after he handed in the keys, records the tenancy managers were ‘actively addressing’ the responsibility of the tenant permitting V1 to be on site. The landlord did not charge rent in lieu of notice, even though the tenant should have given three weeks notice.

I am not persuaded by the tenant’s submission. The landlord warned T1 in April. The tenant acknowledged that the landlord was taking steps to address the breach by V1. The tenant did not contact the police after the threats by T1, so there is no independent evidence of the threats or the seriousness. I find the tenant has not proved the landlord did not act to protect his quiet enjoyment. All claims relating to this breach are dismissed.

Should the landlord pay to replace appliances?

The tenant could not find anywhere suitable to move to in a hurry and so he ended up in a boarding house. There was only room for his clothing, bedding and computer. He disposed of his furniture and appliances because he could not afford to pay for storage. He wants the landlords to pay the cost of replacing his ‘big ticket’ appliances. The landlord submitted that it was the tenant’s choice to dispose of the appliances. He did this before he moved out, so the landlord could not make other arrangements to help the tenant.

I find there is no legal obligation on the landlord to pay for replacement appliances. The tenant has not proved there was a breach of quiet enjoyment, or a reason to move out so quickly. He did not leave the appliances in the unit, so there was no obligation on the landlord to store any items of value. This claim is dismissed. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

I have considered suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. I have used my discretion to suppress the tenant’s name because the order for painting was made by consent and I do not find there is public interest in his name. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in social housing.

I have sent a request to the Bond Centre.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366142 — net $136.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent - painting	$633.45	By consent - painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$136.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$136.45

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Te Toi Mahana $136.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $525.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Te Toi Mahana immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claims for the TV bracket and the kitchen cupboard. The tenant accepted the claims for painting. Orders for the landlord’s claim are made by consent.

Did the landlord meet the obligation to protect quiet enjoyment?

Should the landlord pay to replace appliances?

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

I have sent a request to the Bond Centre.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366142 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 8, 11A Fife Lane, Miramar, Wellington 6022,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366142 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 8, 11A Fife Lane, Miramar, Wellington 6022,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord meet the obligation to protect quiet enjoyment?

Should the landlord pay to replace appliances?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord meet the obligation to protect quiet enjoyment?

Should the landlord pay to replace appliances?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions