How much money was awarded in case 5401831?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,005.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401831?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13566527-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5401831?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,005.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401831?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13566527-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 14 Richard Farrell Avenue, Remuera, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5401831 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401831 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5401831 — net $2,955.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,005.00		Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00		Carpet Cleaning
Exemplary damages		$250.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$7,205.00	$250.00
Net award	$2,955.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,955.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

Angiline Rauf must pay [The landlord/s] $2,955.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 30 March 2026.

A Case Conference was convened on 23 December 2025 which recorded the issues to be considered at the hearing.

The tenant applied for exemplary damages for unlawful discrimination, breach of quiet enjoyment, late filing of the bond, compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment, that the premises was an unlawful residential premises, there was a retaliatory termination and seeks a declaration that the tenancy will become a periodic tenancy, and the tenant is not liable for rent arrears.

The landlord applied for rent arrears, for compensation for carpet cleaning and exemplary damages for harassment. Tenant application

The tenant claimed that the landlord has unlawfully discriminated against her 1 .

The tenancy was for a fixed term due to end on 15 January 2026. Before the tenancy ended the landlord asked the tenant if she would like a further one-year fixed term tenancy but the tenant did not agree to this. The parties therefore agreed that the tenancy would not continue beyond the expiry 2 .

The tenant said that the landlord was harassing her to sign a fixed term tenancy, but the evidence shows that the landlord was negotiating in relation to whether the tenancy would continue beyond the fixed term, which he is entitled to do. The tenant wanted a periodic tenancy, but the landlord did not agree to this, which he is also entitled to do. Discrimination

The tenant’s claim that the landlord discriminated against her was in relation to her cousin who lives in a rest home in Rotorua and is confined to a wheelchair. I cannot see a link between the tenant’s cousin and the landlord. It seems that the tenant is claiming that the landlord was not understanding of the tenant’s wish to visit her cousin and assist with her care. That is nothing to do with this tenancy. I cannot find any evidence of the landlord discriminating against the tenant or any other person as provided for in the Act 3 . That claim is dismissed. Interference with privacy 1 Section 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 60A(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 Section 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986

The tenant claimed the landlord had interfered with her privacy 4 and interfered with her quiet enjoyment.

In her written submissions the tenant refers to the landlord aggressively telling her how disgusting it was picking up her dog faeces when he was mowing the lawn. That occurred on 1 November 2025. The tenant also refers to communication on 8 November 2025 when the landlord aggressively told the tenant he was not happy with a hole in the garden where he throws grass clippings. The tenant also referred to an email the landlord sent her asking to meet to discuss the end of the tenancy.

There was one occasion where the tenant said the landlord attended her premises to inspect a report of a dripping shower. That occurred on 12 November 2025. The tenant said the landlord entered with his tools but did not carry out any repairs.

The landlord confirmed that he did attend at the premises on 12 November 2025 and identified a slow drip in the shower. He said he originally planned to return to repair it but then became unwell and because it was a minor drip he decided to wait until the tenancy ended to carry out the repair.

The tenant referred to noise from the downstairs neighbours. The “noise” was described as loud praying at 7am each morning. She also said that the smoke alarm would go off from the tenants burning something.

The landlord said that he raised the issue with the other tenants, and they told him that they would be quieter. On the evidence it appears that the landlord took reasonable steps to comply with section 45(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord is not expected to guarantee absolute quiet but must act reasonably in response to complaints.

On the evidence before me I cannot identify any interference with the tenant’s privacy or a breach of her quiet enjoyment. The landlord was entitled to attend at the premises to carry out maintenance and to discuss issues with the tenant such as the dog faeces and he took reasonable steps in relation to the neighbours. The tenant’s claim for breach of her privacy and quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Late filing of bond

Angiline Rauf claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. 4 Section 38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant submitted evidence showing that the bond of $4,000.00 was lodged with the Bond Centre on 25 November 2025, ten months after commencement of the tenancy. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant said that she paid the bond to the landlord before the tenancy commenced on 16 January 2025.

The landlord acknowledged that he had made a mistake by not lodging the bond. He said that when he realised, he immediately lodged it.

The landlord has five tenancies in total and has been a landlord for 13 years. He confirmed that there has been one other occasion where he has failed to lodge the bond within the required timeframe.

The landlord should have processes in place to avoid mistakes such as this especially given the number of tenancies he has, the length of time he has been a landlord and that this has happened previously. In the circumstances, I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $250.00 is reasonable. Unlawful residential tenancy

The tenant claimed that the premises were unlawful residential premises 5 .

The evidence is that the tenant occupies the upstairs of a large home with two separate tenancies downstairs (one 2-bedroom unit and one 3-bedroom unit).

The tenant enquired with Auckland Council in relation to whether the premises were able to be used as three separate units. An email from Auckland Council to the landlord dated 9 January 2026 records that the property file shows on the consented plans that the unit below (unit 3) is meant to be two garages, a laundry area and two rooms. 5 Section 78A Residential Tenancies Act 1986

After an inspection by Auckland Council an email dated 27 January 2026 records that Council records show the building is approved as an eight-bedroom dwelling for a single household, and there is no approval for use as three self- contained units. The email further states that the change means the building is now being used as a sleeping residential, which is considered a change of use under the Building Act and the current use is not compliant with sections 114 and 115 of the Building Act 2004.

On 3 February 2026 Auckland Council issued a notice to fix to the landlord under the Building Act 2004 and gave the landlord three months to comply with the notice by applying for change of use or stop renting the house as three separate units.

At the hearing the landlord advised that he purchased this property in 2009 and before buying he went through the property file and saw that there was no internal access between the upstairs and downstairs of the premises. He believed that the conversion to three units was permitted.

The landlord produced the Auckland Council Notice of Valuation which describes the property as “house & basement flat &”. The landlord sought the assistance of Burrett & Associates, Architecture and Engineering. A letter from that firm dated 27 March 2026 records that the firm had been involved in the renovation of bathrooms on the lower level in 2004 and a CCC was issued for this on 10 August 2009. The Certificate was produced by the landlord and relates to relining existing framing and installation of new bathroom fittings. The letter further records that the notice to fix was under review by Principal Specialists at Auckland Council. The view of this firm is that the current notice to fix is incorrect and likely to be withdrawn.

The landlord produced plans which he says shows that in 1967 there was a permitted development of the downstairs to a one-bedroom flat. The building consent application May 2004 records that both the present use and intended use of site was residential flats. The plans from 2004 clearly show that the downstairs of the premises was a separate residence.

At the date of hearing neither party advised the outcome of the review of the notice to fix by Auckland Council. While the tenant has sought a declaration that the premises are unlawful residential premises due to change of use from one dwelling to three separate units, the evidence submitted by the landlord at the time hearing raises doubt that this is an unlawful residential tenancy.

In addition, there is no suggestion that the upstairs area, which this tenant occupied, was an unlawful residential tenancy. The Tribunal can only make a declaration about the lawfulness of the tenancy that is the subject of the application. As the application before the Tribunal is about the upstairs tenancy, the Tribunal cannot make a declaration about the lawfulness of the downstairs units unless the application specifically relates to those tenancies.

The tenant’s claim for a declaration that the premises is an unlawful residential tenancy is dismissed.

Where a tenancy is declared to be an unlawful residential tenancy the Tribunal must not award rent arrears unless there are special circumstances 6 . As the Tribunal has not made that declaration the tenant remains liable for any rent arrears owed. Retaliatory notice

The tenant claimed that the landlord had given notice which she seeks a declaration that it was retaliatory 7 .

The parties agreed at the Case Conference held on 23 December 2025 that the tenancy would end on 15 January 2026. The order dated 23 December 2025 records that by consent, the tenancy was terminated, and possession was granted to the landlord.

The tenancy did not end by the landlord giving notice and therefore the Tribunal cannot declare that the notice was retaliatory. That claim is dismissed. Periodic tenancy

The tenant sought a declaration that the tenancy would become a periodic tenancy. As the tenancy has concluded it is not necessary to consider that part of the tenant’s claim and it is dismissed. Landlord application

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.

The landlord claimed for compensation for carpet cleaning. The landlord produced photographs showing carpet stains. While the carpet appears aged there are obvious stains which I consider were likely caused by this tenant. I award $200.00 for carpet cleaning.

The landlord claimed exemplary damages for harassment by the tenant. Section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, “The tenant shall not - (c)cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises 6 Section 78A(3)(a)(i) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 7 Section 54 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.”

Section 40(3A)(d) provides that a contravention of subsection (2)(c) is an unlawful act in circumstances that amount to harassment of a tenant or a neighbour of the tenant. It does not include a landlord. There is no legal basis to award exemplary damages for harassment by the tenant against the landlord.

The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages due to harassment is dismissed.

As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the landlord’s name from this order as sought.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5401831 — net $2,955.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,005.00		Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00		Carpet Cleaning
Exemplary damages		$250.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$7,205.00	$250.00
Net award	$2,955.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,955.00