What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384981 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5384981?

Compensation: $2,700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,525.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384981?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384981?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13727326-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384981 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5384981?

Compensation: $2,700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,525.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384981?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384981?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13727326-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11 Temuera Street, Otaki, 5512 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5384981 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384981 — net $797.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears 02/12/25 to 17/01/26	$3,525.00		Rent arrears 02/12/25 to 17/01/26
Compensation as set out below		$2,700.00	Compensation as set out below
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$3,525.00	$2,728.00
Net award	$797.00
Bond	$2,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$797.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384981 — net $797.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears 02/12/25 to 17/01/26	$3,525.00		Rent arrears 02/12/25 to 17/01/26
Compensation as set out below		$2,700.00	Compensation as set out below
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$3,525.00	$2,728.00
Net award	$797.00
Bond	$2,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$797.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.
The tenant is to pay Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agents For Rustam Nomozov $797.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agents For Rustam Nomozov: $797.00 The tenant: $1,303.00
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of the tenant at 11 Temuera Street, Otaki, Otaki 5512 is reduced to 17 January 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant lodged her Tenancy Tribunal application on 18 November 2026. Her application was for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy and for compensation arising from the state of the property. By the date of the first hearing on 30 January 2026, the tenant had vacated the property. She left the property on 17 January 2026.
The landlord’s Tenancy Tribunal application was lodged on 1 January 2026. The application was for termination for rent arrears. The landlord had issued a 14 day notice on 16 December. The rent arrears claim was to 5 January and amounted to $2,625.00. By the date of the first hearing on 30 January 2026, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears increased to $3,525.00 to cover the rent to 17 January 2026. The landlord also claimed a break lease fee of $1,099.52. The Tenant’s claim for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s grounds for the reduction of the fixed term relate to the state of cleanliness of the premises when the tenancy began on 7 October 2025. Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant provided a considerable amount of evidence about the condition of the property when the fixed term tenancy began on 7 October 2025 and after the tenant occupied the premises on 13 October. There are photos and emails and a statement from a person who assisted the tenant with cleaning.
I am satisfied that something went seriously wrong in the preparation of the premises for the tenant and her family. Although there was a commercial cleaner, both for the premises and the carpet, the efforts put in by those individuals did not result in the premises being provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The photos show areas of the premises that were very dirty. a. I am satisfied that although the carpet cleaner went over the carpets once or twice, the carpets were still dirty. The tenant stated that they were still damp causing a carpet odour. The tenant wiped a paper towel over the carpet and there was dirt on the towel. She hired a rug doctor and carried out further carpet cleaning. Her submission is that she went over the carpet in the lounge 11 times, taking 5 hours. She and her son cleaned the carpet in other rooms except where boxes were stored waiting for unpacking. At the second hearing she brought a container with the water extracted during ‘rug doctoring’. The water was dark brown. b. The oven needed a considerable amount of cleaning. The glass, the sides, the racks and the stove top were coated with baked on grease. c. Some vinyl floor areas needed to be scrubbed to remove the buildup of dirt. d. The photos show dirty kitchen cupboards that were not ready for stocking food. e. There is evidence of smears on walls and doors. f. There was mould on some windows. In the bathroom there was mould on the ceiling. It looked worse because of the peeling paint. The mould could not be removed by the tenant because the ceiling was too high. The mould was treated, and the ceiling repainted on 24 November, almost 7 weeks after the tenancy began. g. Four days after moving in, the tenant complained to the landlord about the smell of urine in cupboards and in the toilet area. h. The Clearlite roof had debris on it, reducing the natural light that could get through. A repair was also needed i. There were grass clippings and rubbish under the house. I note an invoice to the landlord for rubbish removal and lawns and removal of grass clippings dated 9 October.
The claim by the tenant is that she experienced extreme stress because of the way the property was presented. Her claim is that the premises was in such an unclean state and with damp carpets that her friend paid for her and her three children to stay at Levin’s Top 10 Holiday Park from 13 to 17 October. There are invoices confirming that stay.
By 17 October, 4 days after moving in, the tenant sent a letter to the landlord, requesting ‘an early termination of the tenancy’ and setting out the reasons why the tenant felt she could not stay there. The landlord did not accept the tenant’s request.
I have considered the evidence and am satisfied that the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness became a sufficiently seriousness breach of section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that it was perfectly reasonable for the tenant to request the tenancy to end. What should have been an enjoyable place to stay, with her children and baby, turned out to be a stressful struggle to remedy the cleanliness issue with the premises. The tenant did not feel supported by the landlord regarding her complaints which exacerbated the stress she experienced. The condition of the premises produced an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances and created a severe hardship for her. My view is that the landlord should have assessed the tenant’s circumstances more objectively when she requested to be released from the tenancy on 17 October. The landlord’s decision not to release her created a hardship for the tenant that was greater than the hardship for the landlord, who was still receiving normal rent.
By 18 November the tenant was desperate to end the tenancy. She applied to the Tribunal for termination. Unfortunately, the case was not able to be heard until 30 January. By 17 January the tenant had decided to break the lease.

What should the financial outcome be for the parties?

The tenant is claiming compensation for the rug doctor hire, for her time cleaning, for the stress she experienced due to the conditions she was living in and for the Holiday Park stays in October and when the chemical smell from the mould eradication was not bearable. She wants her bond to be refunded.
The tenant could have requested an order for exemplary damages for the landlord’s unlawful act of failing to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. As stated above, the maximum amount the Tribunal can order for this unlawful act is $7,200.00. The Tribunal cannot make an order for exemplary damages unless a party requests that in their application. The tenant did not request an order for exemplary damages in her application.
The landlord’s hardship is that rent has not been received from the tenant since 1 December 2025. The tenant has effectively had free rent from that date until when she left on 17 January 2026. The landlord has had to find another tenant and has not received rent for the period after the tenant left.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides as follows: ‘The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.’
I have considered the legal position and the merits and justice of this case. My determination is that the situation the parties now find themselves in was brought about by a serious breach on the part of the landlord. The landlord should have accepted and enabled the tenant to move on as soon as possible after her request on 17 October, about four days after moving in. I have been careful to assess whether the tenant has exaggerated the state of the premises and the stress it caused. Normally the problem of premises not being reasonably clean at the start of a tenancy is easily resolved by the landlord carrying out remedial work. However the problem in this case was that the breach by the landlord created a dispute and stress for the tenant that she should not have had to experience. I am satisfied that she has been realistic about both aspects of that hardship for her and her family. I therefore find the merits and justice to be that the financial outcome of this case should favour the tenant, not the landlord.
My decision is that the fixed term tenancy be reduced to end on 17 January 2026, the day the tenant left the premises. If the tenant had left the premises on an earlier date, I would have ended the tenancy earlier. The landlord was free to advertise the premises after that date and reduce any loss of rental income. In fact the landlord could have begun advertising the tenancy on 17 October after receiving the tenant’s letter requesting termination and it is likely that the landlord would have not suffered a loss of rental income. The cost of advertising for a new tenant is the landlord’s liability. It came about because the landlord breached an obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Therefore no order is made to reimburse the landlord for the cost of tenanting the premises after the tenant left.
The tenant occupied the premises from 2 December 2025 to 17 January without paying rent. The tenant has effectively received a benefit of $3,525.00 by the rent saved for that period. I have considered whether this is a reasonable setoff for the losses that the tenant has claimed. I had determined that the tenant has made a reasonable claim for the cost of a rug doctor and for her time cleaning. The hours she spent cleaning however cannot be quantified. It is reasonable that there was a rent reduction of $100.00 per week compensation due to the state of the premises for the first six weeks of the tenancy.
I am also satisfied from the correspondence that the landlord’s breach was the cause of considerable stress for the tenant. Applicant [name suppressed] v Singh (2022) NZTT Auckland 4315225 is a previous case which suggests appropriate bands where awards are made for emotional harm damages: “ A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
I have determined that “B” is an appropriate band in this case. The tenant experienced ‘mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety’. I would set the award at $1,500.00 for the period of time from 7 October to 17 January 2026.
The tenant has claimed that the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards. I find there is insufficient evidence for that claim to have been proved.
Having taken into account all matters in the tenant’s claim, $2,728.00 is the total compensation due to the tenant. This includes the filing fee of $28.00. The $3,525.00 rent arrears owed to the landlord from 2 December 2025 to 17 January 2026, is reduced by that $2,728.00. The amount therefore that is due to the landlord from the bond is $797.00. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has been successful with the claim, the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Name Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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.
The tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.
The landlord did not substantially succeed with their claim and therefore name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384981 — Rent arrears at 11 Temuera Street, Otaki, 5512

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384981 — Rent arrears at 11 Temuera Street, Otaki, 5512

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What should the financial outcome be for the parties?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What should the financial outcome be for the parties?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions