What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370506 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 5370506?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Credit/Criminal Che…: $63.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370506?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370506?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13258348-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370506 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 5370506?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Credit/Criminal Che…: $63.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370506?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370506?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13258348-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 27 Moata Road, One Tree Hill, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370506 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5370506 — net $2,105.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of credit/criminal check	$63.00	Reimbursement of credit/criminal check
Repayment of bond	$2,014.91	nd so I must order the landlord to reimburse the remaining bond to the tenant - $2,014.91. Reimbursement of filing fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,105.91
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,105.91

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,105.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing – the tenant by telephone and the landlord via Teams.
This tenancy ended on 19 April 2025 and the tenant makes a number of claims against the landlord.
I shall address each claim in turn. Reimbursements of advertising fee and credit/criminal check
This was a fixed term tenancy due to expire on 19 April 2025. On 18 February 2025 the tenant advised the landlord that she would not be renewing her contract.
On 17 March 2025 the tenant advised the landlord that she had changed her mind and that she wanted to stay in the tenancy. She also wanted to add her husband’s name to the tenancy agreement.
The landlord requested that she reimburse him the cost of advertising that he had already done to get a new tenant ($218.00) and the cost of doing a criminal/credit check ($63.00) on her husband. The tenant paid these amounts.
The tenant now seeks reimbursement of those costs.
If a tenant agrees to do something that goes against the terms of the tenancy agreement or the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, then that agreement is not enforceable against the tenant.
I am not allowing the tenant’s claim for the advertising costs. This is because the landlord paid for advertising which was not then needed because the tenant changed her mind. The landlord has suffered a loss as a result of the tenant’s conduct.
I am ordering the landlord to reimburse the cost of the credit/criminal check to the tenant. This is because these kinds of costs are part and parcel of a landlord’s business and tenants ought not to be required to pay for them. While I note the landlord’s position that he was getting nothing out of adding the tenant to the tenancy agreement, this does not take away from the fact that tenants are not required to pay for credit checks. I also note that it is in the best interests of a landlord to obtain such checks before allowing a tenant to be named on a tenancy agreement. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a 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.
The tenant claims an award of exemplary damages because the landlord breached this section in circumstances amounting to harassment.
I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim because: (a) The tenant referred to things that had occurred after the tenancy ended and so those instances do not come within the auspices of s38(2) which refers to things that occur when the tenant was using the premises; and (b) I do not consider that a landlord advising a tenant of a plan to remedy damages in the house before the tenancy ended and advising her of what he considered would be the cost of remedying the damages, amounts to harassment. In my view it is merely a list of his expectations. Reimbursement of the bond
The tenant has already paid the bond to the landlord. This covered rent arrears and outstanding water rates leaving $2,014.19 in bond money, held by the landlord.
The tenant now seeks reimbursement of that bond.
As stated earlier, an agreement cannot be enforced against a tenant if that agreement does not comply with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, or is in breach of any other agreement.
I accept that the tenant released the bond to the landlord because she thought that would make all the issues go away. It has not made the issues go away and the landlord continues to seek payment for vacated tenancy costs.
Further to this, s22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that if a tenant applies to the Tribunal for the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
In this case the landlord has not made a counterclaim in the Tribunal and so I must order the landlord to reimburse the remaining bond to the tenant - $2,014.91. Reimbursement of filing fee
I am ordering the landlord to reimburse the filing fee to the tenant because the tenant was substantially successful with this claim against him. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
I am allowing the tenant’s application for suppression of her name pursuant to s95A(3).
On my own initiative and pursuant to s95A(1), I am also ordering suppression of the landlord’s name. This is because I do not consider there is any public interest in having his name published, particularly as there were significant claims being made against him which have not been dismissed. C ter Haar 10 March 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5370506 — net $2,105.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of credit/criminal check	$63.00	Reimbursement of credit/criminal check
Repayment of bond	$2,014.91	nd so I must order the landlord to reimburse the remaining bond to the tenant - $2,014.91. Reimbursement of filing fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,105.91
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,105.91

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,105.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing – the tenant by telephone and the landlord via Teams.
This tenancy ended on 19 April 2025 and the tenant makes a number of claims against the landlord.
I shall address each claim in turn. Reimbursements of advertising fee and credit/criminal check
This was a fixed term tenancy due to expire on 19 April 2025. On 18 February 2025 the tenant advised the landlord that she would not be renewing her contract.
On 17 March 2025 the tenant advised the landlord that she had changed her mind and that she wanted to stay in the tenancy. She also wanted to add her husband’s name to the tenancy agreement.
The landlord requested that she reimburse him the cost of advertising that he had already done to get a new tenant ($218.00) and the cost of doing a criminal/credit check ($63.00) on her husband. The tenant paid these amounts.
The tenant now seeks reimbursement of those costs.
If a tenant agrees to do something that goes against the terms of the tenancy agreement or the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, then that agreement is not enforceable against the tenant.
I am not allowing the tenant’s claim for the advertising costs. This is because the landlord paid for advertising which was not then needed because the tenant changed her mind. The landlord has suffered a loss as a result of the tenant’s conduct.
I am ordering the landlord to reimburse the cost of the credit/criminal check to the tenant. This is because these kinds of costs are part and parcel of a landlord’s business and tenants ought not to be required to pay for them. While I note the landlord’s position that he was getting nothing out of adding the tenant to the tenancy agreement, this does not take away from the fact that tenants are not required to pay for credit checks. I also note that it is in the best interests of a landlord to obtain such checks before allowing a tenant to be named on a tenancy agreement. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a 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.
The tenant claims an award of exemplary damages because the landlord breached this section in circumstances amounting to harassment.
I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim because: (a) The tenant referred to things that had occurred after the tenancy ended and so those instances do not come within the auspices of s38(2) which refers to things that occur when the tenant was using the premises; and (b) I do not consider that a landlord advising a tenant of a plan to remedy damages in the house before the tenancy ended and advising her of what he considered would be the cost of remedying the damages, amounts to harassment. In my view it is merely a list of his expectations. Reimbursement of the bond
The tenant has already paid the bond to the landlord. This covered rent arrears and outstanding water rates leaving $2,014.19 in bond money, held by the landlord.
The tenant now seeks reimbursement of that bond.
As stated earlier, an agreement cannot be enforced against a tenant if that agreement does not comply with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, or is in breach of any other agreement.
I accept that the tenant released the bond to the landlord because she thought that would make all the issues go away. It has not made the issues go away and the landlord continues to seek payment for vacated tenancy costs.
Further to this, s22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that if a tenant applies to the Tribunal for the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
In this case the landlord has not made a counterclaim in the Tribunal and so I must order the landlord to reimburse the remaining bond to the tenant - $2,014.91. Reimbursement of filing fee
I am ordering the landlord to reimburse the filing fee to the tenant because the tenant was substantially successful with this claim against him. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
I am allowing the tenant’s application for suppression of her name pursuant to s95A(3).
On my own initiative and pursuant to s95A(1), I am also ordering suppression of the landlord’s name. This is because I do not consider there is any public interest in having his name published, particularly as there were significant claims being made against him which have not been dismissed. C ter Haar 10 March 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370506 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 27 Moata Road, One Tree Hill, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370506 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 27 Moata Road, One Tree Hill, Auckland 1061

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