What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5374741 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,278.00 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5374741?

Compensation: $1,250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5374741?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5374741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13843826-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5374741 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,278.00 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5374741?

Compensation: $1,250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5374741?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5374741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13843826-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Blease Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5374741 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5374741 — net $1,278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,250.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,278.00
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,278.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,278.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (BN-00100436) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 13 June 2025 and was a fixed-term tenancy for one year.
Shortly after moving into the property, the tenant's ex partner, passed away. He was also the father of her children, who were residing with her at the rental property.
The tenant says that, following his death, she and her children were in shock and stayed with family.
The landlord agreed to an early end to the tenancy on the condition that the property was re-tenanted and that the tenants met the reasonable costs associated with re-letting the property.
The landlord ultimately appointed their own casual letting agent and assumed responsibility for re-letting the property in September. A new tenancy commenced on 7 November 2025.
The landlord says rent was paid until 30 October 2025. They do not seek recovery of the final week's rent.
The applicant seeks: a) a refund of the bond; b) compensation equivalent to approximately six weeks' rent for the period taken to re-let the property; and c) $2,000.00 compensation for a cockroach infestation present at the commencement of the tenancy.

Is the tenant entitled to the bond?

In their response, the landlord identifies a number of payments that they say the tenant agreed to pay, including the letting fee and other re-letting costs. However, the landlord has not filed a cross-application seeking recovery of those amounts.
Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where a tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond, whether in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application setting out that counterclaim.
The landlord has not filed such an application. Accordingly, I must order that the bond be refunded to the tenants. Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for rent paid after notification of the request to end the tenancy?
The tenant says that, on or about 11 July 2025, they notified the landlord of their circumstances and requested to be released from the fixed-term tenancy. They say they continued to cooperate with the landlord's requests over the following months, but that the landlord was slow to engage with prospective tenants, resulting in the tenants continuing to incur liability for rent for approximately five months while they were no longer residing at the property.
The landlord says they received four applications to rent the property between 11 July and the commencement of the replacement tenancy. The first application was declined because the applicants offered a lower rent than the landlord sought, and the landlord asked the tenant to cover the shortfall. The second application was from six men, whom the landlord considered unsuitable. The third application was withdrawn by the prospective tenants. The fourth applicants ultimately became the replacement tenants.
The applicant also produced evidence that the property was advertised on Facebook and generated significant interest from prospective tenants.
The evidence does not permit firm conclusions about every decision made during the re-letting process. However, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the landlord was slow to mitigate the parties' losses.
That said, the tenant did not apply to the Tribunal under s 66 to seek an order terminating the fixed-term tenancy. Had such an application been made and granted, the tenant would still likely have remained responsible for rent until a replacement tenant was found, together with any reasonable compensation ordered by the Tribunal.
While I am satisfied that the landlord could have acted more promptly to mitigate both their own losses and those of the tenant, that conduct does not, in the circumstances of this case, amount to a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act giving rise to a compensatory award.
Accordingly, I make no award in respect of the rent paid after notification of the tenant's request to end the tenancy.

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for the cockroach infestation?

The tenants provided evidence that cockroaches were present in the property when they moved in on 12 June 2025, and that they notified the landlord immediately.
The landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to treat the property on two occasions over the following month. Despite those treatments, the evidence indicates that cockroaches remained present until mid-July.
Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The landlord says that vacant possession of the property was obtained on 30 May 2025 and invites me to infer that the tenants introduced the infestation after taking possession.
I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that such an inference should be drawn. I am satisfied that the infestation existed at the commencement of the tenancy and that the landlord was therefore in breach of s 45(1)(a).
The presence of cockroaches materially affected the tenants' enjoyment of the premises. I consider it appropriate to award compensation for loss of amenity at the rate of $250 per week for the first five weeks of the tenancy, during which the tenants did not receive the full benefit of the premises for which they were paying rent. Filing fee
Because the applicant has been substantially successful in their application I award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5374741 — net $1,278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,250.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,278.00
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,278.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,278.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (BN-00100436) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 13 June 2025 and was a fixed-term tenancy for one year.
Shortly after moving into the property, the tenant's ex partner, passed away. He was also the father of her children, who were residing with her at the rental property.
The tenant says that, following his death, she and her children were in shock and stayed with family.
The landlord agreed to an early end to the tenancy on the condition that the property was re-tenanted and that the tenants met the reasonable costs associated with re-letting the property.
The landlord ultimately appointed their own casual letting agent and assumed responsibility for re-letting the property in September. A new tenancy commenced on 7 November 2025.
The landlord says rent was paid until 30 October 2025. They do not seek recovery of the final week's rent.
The applicant seeks: a) a refund of the bond; b) compensation equivalent to approximately six weeks' rent for the period taken to re-let the property; and c) $2,000.00 compensation for a cockroach infestation present at the commencement of the tenancy.

Is the tenant entitled to the bond?

In their response, the landlord identifies a number of payments that they say the tenant agreed to pay, including the letting fee and other re-letting costs. However, the landlord has not filed a cross-application seeking recovery of those amounts.
Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where a tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond, whether in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application setting out that counterclaim.
The landlord has not filed such an application. Accordingly, I must order that the bond be refunded to the tenants. Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for rent paid after notification of the request to end the tenancy?
The tenant says that, on or about 11 July 2025, they notified the landlord of their circumstances and requested to be released from the fixed-term tenancy. They say they continued to cooperate with the landlord's requests over the following months, but that the landlord was slow to engage with prospective tenants, resulting in the tenants continuing to incur liability for rent for approximately five months while they were no longer residing at the property.
The landlord says they received four applications to rent the property between 11 July and the commencement of the replacement tenancy. The first application was declined because the applicants offered a lower rent than the landlord sought, and the landlord asked the tenant to cover the shortfall. The second application was from six men, whom the landlord considered unsuitable. The third application was withdrawn by the prospective tenants. The fourth applicants ultimately became the replacement tenants.
The applicant also produced evidence that the property was advertised on Facebook and generated significant interest from prospective tenants.
The evidence does not permit firm conclusions about every decision made during the re-letting process. However, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the landlord was slow to mitigate the parties' losses.
That said, the tenant did not apply to the Tribunal under s 66 to seek an order terminating the fixed-term tenancy. Had such an application been made and granted, the tenant would still likely have remained responsible for rent until a replacement tenant was found, together with any reasonable compensation ordered by the Tribunal.
While I am satisfied that the landlord could have acted more promptly to mitigate both their own losses and those of the tenant, that conduct does not, in the circumstances of this case, amount to a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act giving rise to a compensatory award.
Accordingly, I make no award in respect of the rent paid after notification of the tenant's request to end the tenancy.

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for the cockroach infestation?

The tenants provided evidence that cockroaches were present in the property when they moved in on 12 June 2025, and that they notified the landlord immediately.
The landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to treat the property on two occasions over the following month. Despite those treatments, the evidence indicates that cockroaches remained present until mid-July.
Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The landlord says that vacant possession of the property was obtained on 30 May 2025 and invites me to infer that the tenants introduced the infestation after taking possession.
I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that such an inference should be drawn. I am satisfied that the infestation existed at the commencement of the tenancy and that the landlord was therefore in breach of s 45(1)(a).
The presence of cockroaches materially affected the tenants' enjoyment of the premises. I consider it appropriate to award compensation for loss of amenity at the rate of $250 per week for the first five weeks of the tenancy, during which the tenants did not receive the full benefit of the premises for which they were paying rent. Filing fee
Because the applicant has been substantially successful in their application I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5374741 — Tenancy dispute at 43 Blease Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5374741 — Tenancy dispute at 43 Blease Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to the bond?

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for the cockroach infestation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to the bond?

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for the cockroach infestation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions