What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375587 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 5375587?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375587?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375587?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13672621-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375587 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 5375587?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375587?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375587?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13672621-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5375587 — State of repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 May 2026.
The tenancy was from 26 December 2022 until 12 October 2025.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord had deducted $1,028.94 from the bond for rent and water arrears. The bond refund form was signed by both parties. The bond was released to the parties on 12 November 2025.
On 28 October 2025, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for the following: a. Incorrect calculation of rent and water rates arrears; b. Rent exceeding market rent; c. Failure to maintain the premise; d. Delayed bond refund; and e. False allegations, rudeness and stressful communication post-tenancy. Rent and water rates
I deal with the rent and water rates calculations first.
The tenant claimed that the landlord’s calculation of rent and water arrears was wrong. The tenant said the last day of the tenancy was promised to be rent free, and the water meter had been wrongly attributed to a different property at the beginning of the tenancy.
At the hearing, I went through the rent and water rates summary. I found that the landlord’s summaries had been correct. The water meter readings were corrected during the tenancy, and the tenant was correctly credited the difference.
The tenant said that the tenant was allowed to have one day free of rent at the end of the tenancy to finish cleaning the premises. The owner was called as a witness to confirm this. The owner said that the tenant could have one day free of rent if the water arrears was accepted by the tenant. The tenant at the time did agree, but the tenant lodging an application to challenge the water rates to the Tribunal is evidence of the tenant not accepting the water arrears.
I find that the one day rent free day was conditional on the tenant accepting the water rates in a “full and final settlement” manner. As the tenant did not fully accept the water rates arrears, I find the landlord was justified in charging for the final day of the tenancy for cleaning.
Therefore, I find that the landlord’s calculations had been correct. Rent exceeding market rent
The tenant claimed that the rent that the tenant was paying exceeded the market rent by a substantial amount.
Under section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), “market rent” is what a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.
The tenant was paying $830.00 per week for rent. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord relisted the premises at the same price. However, the price was reduced to $800.00 due to lack of interest. In the end, the subsequent tenant was able to negotiate the weekly rent down to $790.00.
This premises was a 4-bedroom new-build. The Tenancy Services statistics for that area had $760.00 as median rent and $860.00 as its upper quartile. I cannot find that $830.00 for this premises as exceeding market rent by a substantial amount at the time of the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain the premises
The tenant had claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant says that the tenant raised issues about the bathroom extractor fan being incorrectly connected, the bathroom heat lights being wrongly wired and bathroom heat pump lights not working with the property manager during an inspection.
Those issues were recorded in the inspection notes, but tenant said that nothing was done for seven to eight weeks.
There was evidence that the landlord did send some contractors to attend to the issues in July 2025 when they were raised, but it seems that the work was never finalised. However, there were no follow ups by the tenant for this.
I do not find that the tenant had adequately raised the issues again with the landlord after the contractors had failed to complete the work. There were no emails by the tenant, no 14-day notices by the tenant or anything to escalate this issue with the landlord again by the tenant.
I do not find that landlord had failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I do not find that this justifies any compensation. Delayed bond refund
The tenant claimed that the bond refund was delayed without explanation. The tenant vacated on 11 October 2025, but the bond was not released until 12 November 2025.
Although unfortunate, a delay of a month in the bond refund is not unusual. This is especially so when there is a dispute between the parties as to how much bond should be withheld for compensation and arrears.
I find that there was no fault on the landlord’s side at all. I dismiss this claim. False allegations, rudeness and stressful communication post-tenancy
The tenant claimed that the property mangers were unreasonable in accusing the tenant of misplacing the garage remote and swipe cards 15 days after vacating the tenancy, in demanding cleaning the premises to a higher standard, speaking rudely and treating the tenants disrespectfully on phone calls and raising new concerns on a daily basis causing significant stress and anxiety.
Although that may have been how the tenant felt, I do not find that there was harassment by the landlord. Having seen the correspondences, I do not find that the landlord was unreasonable in having raised those issues.
Accordingly, the tenant’s application is dismissed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 May 2026.
The tenancy was from 26 December 2022 until 12 October 2025.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord had deducted $1,028.94 from the bond for rent and water arrears. The bond refund form was signed by both parties. The bond was released to the parties on 12 November 2025.
On 28 October 2025, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for the following: a. Incorrect calculation of rent and water rates arrears; b. Rent exceeding market rent; c. Failure to maintain the premise; d. Delayed bond refund; and e. False allegations, rudeness and stressful communication post-tenancy. Rent and water rates
I deal with the rent and water rates calculations first.
The tenant claimed that the landlord’s calculation of rent and water arrears was wrong. The tenant said the last day of the tenancy was promised to be rent free, and the water meter had been wrongly attributed to a different property at the beginning of the tenancy.
At the hearing, I went through the rent and water rates summary. I found that the landlord’s summaries had been correct. The water meter readings were corrected during the tenancy, and the tenant was correctly credited the difference.
The tenant said that the tenant was allowed to have one day free of rent at the end of the tenancy to finish cleaning the premises. The owner was called as a witness to confirm this. The owner said that the tenant could have one day free of rent if the water arrears was accepted by the tenant. The tenant at the time did agree, but the tenant lodging an application to challenge the water rates to the Tribunal is evidence of the tenant not accepting the water arrears.
I find that the one day rent free day was conditional on the tenant accepting the water rates in a “full and final settlement” manner. As the tenant did not fully accept the water rates arrears, I find the landlord was justified in charging for the final day of the tenancy for cleaning.
Therefore, I find that the landlord’s calculations had been correct. Rent exceeding market rent
The tenant claimed that the rent that the tenant was paying exceeded the market rent by a substantial amount.
Under section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), “market rent” is what a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.
The tenant was paying $830.00 per week for rent. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord relisted the premises at the same price. However, the price was reduced to $800.00 due to lack of interest. In the end, the subsequent tenant was able to negotiate the weekly rent down to $790.00.
This premises was a 4-bedroom new-build. The Tenancy Services statistics for that area had $760.00 as median rent and $860.00 as its upper quartile. I cannot find that $830.00 for this premises as exceeding market rent by a substantial amount at the time of the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain the premises
The tenant had claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant says that the tenant raised issues about the bathroom extractor fan being incorrectly connected, the bathroom heat lights being wrongly wired and bathroom heat pump lights not working with the property manager during an inspection.
Those issues were recorded in the inspection notes, but tenant said that nothing was done for seven to eight weeks.
There was evidence that the landlord did send some contractors to attend to the issues in July 2025 when they were raised, but it seems that the work was never finalised. However, there were no follow ups by the tenant for this.
I do not find that the tenant had adequately raised the issues again with the landlord after the contractors had failed to complete the work. There were no emails by the tenant, no 14-day notices by the tenant or anything to escalate this issue with the landlord again by the tenant.
I do not find that landlord had failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I do not find that this justifies any compensation. Delayed bond refund
The tenant claimed that the bond refund was delayed without explanation. The tenant vacated on 11 October 2025, but the bond was not released until 12 November 2025.
Although unfortunate, a delay of a month in the bond refund is not unusual. This is especially so when there is a dispute between the parties as to how much bond should be withheld for compensation and arrears.
I find that there was no fault on the landlord’s side at all. I dismiss this claim. False allegations, rudeness and stressful communication post-tenancy
The tenant claimed that the property mangers were unreasonable in accusing the tenant of misplacing the garage remote and swipe cards 15 days after vacating the tenancy, in demanding cleaning the premises to a higher standard, speaking rudely and treating the tenants disrespectfully on phone calls and raising new concerns on a daily basis causing significant stress and anxiety.
Although that may have been how the tenant felt, I do not find that there was harassment by the landlord. Having seen the correspondences, I do not find that the landlord was unreasonable in having raised those issues.
Accordingly, the tenant’s application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375587 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375587 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions