What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404795 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5404795?

Cleaning: $204.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $243.57 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Mattress: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $247.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404795?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404795?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13765441-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404795 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5404795?

Cleaning: $204.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $243.57 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Mattress: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $247.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404795?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404795?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13765441-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5404795 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404795 — net $153.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30.9.2025	$243.57	Rent arrears to 30.9.2025
Rubbish removal: including disposal of mattress	$247.28	Rubbish removal: including disposal of mattress
Cleaning: and delivery of new mattress	$204.70	Cleaning: and delivery of new mattress
Replace furnishings: mattress	$50.00	Replace furnishings: mattress
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$153.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$153.55

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404795 — net $153.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30.9.2025	$243.57	Rent arrears to 30.9.2025
Rubbish removal: including disposal of mattress	$247.28	Rubbish removal: including disposal of mattress
Cleaning: and delivery of new mattress	$204.70	Cleaning: and delivery of new mattress
Replace furnishings: mattress	$50.00	Replace furnishings: mattress
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$153.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$153.55

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Matthew Goggin must pay [The landlord/s] $153.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $620.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with the director of the landlord company, and the property manager for the landlord company, appearing.
The landlord has applied for the following: a. Three weeks’ rent arrears of $930; b. Costs to replace a damaged mattress of $50; c. Costs to deliver new mattress and clean the room of $204.70 d. Repairs to handbasin of $287.50 e. Removal of belongings and rubbish of $297.28
The tenant has filed a cross application seeking: a. Refund of the bond of $620; b. Exemplary damages of $7,200 for knowingly leasing a room in the premises to another person (a co-tenant) who would clash strongly with the tenant including an allegation of criminal negligence; c. Exemplary damages of $7,200 for creating and allowing an unsafe living environment ; d. Exemplary damages of $7,200 for breaching the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment including the uses of surveillance cameras; e. Compensation of $12,000 for unfair termination of the tenancy; f. Compensation of $100 for stolen courier items. Burden of proof
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails and texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden. Where the other party does not attend the hearing, the allegations must still be proved to the civil standard.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, 1 in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02

Was the tenancy terminated fairly and what is owed for rent?

The landlord claims that the tenancy was to end on 28 September 2025. However, the landlord also claims that the tenant’s failure to vacate the premises on the termination date, failure to return the keys on the termination date, and failure to clear all belongings from his room on the termination date, entitles the landlord to further rent until all those steps were completed. They argue that the belongings were not removed until late October, and they seek a further three weeks’ rent. The tenant claims that the termination of the tenancy was unfair for which he seeks compensation.
Therefore, I must first determine the following issues: a. when did the tenancy end; b. was the tenancy ended fairly? I consider this issue is not whether the tenancy was terminated fairly, but whether it was terminated lawfully, in compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)? If not, is the tenant entitled to compensation? c. Can the landlord claim a further three weeks rent/loss of rent? Background facts
The premises are described by the landlord as a modern, three-storey townhouse. The ground and top floors each have two double-sized bedrooms and a bathroom. The middle floor contains a large open plan kitchen and lounge which opens out to an external deck. The landlord lets each bedroom in the house to individual tenants for their exclusive use and they share the other facilities. I understand that the number of tenants during this tenancy was less than six, such that the boarding house provisions in the RTA do not apply. 2
The tenant asked to rent the rear bedroom on the top floor. At that time both bedrooms on the top floor were vacant. Before letting the rooms, the property manager asked the tenant to meet with the other tenants living at the property to ensure that they had no objections to the tenancy. They did not and the parties signed a periodic tenancy agreement commencing on 16 June 2025.
After the tenant moved in, a couple (who I refer to as A and B) viewed the other bedroom on the top floor. They met with the tenant, and he advised the landlord that he was happy for them to move in as tenants.
Not long after A and B moved in, the tenant advised the landlord by email dated 27 August 2025 that B was unacceptable to him as a flatmate. He made serious allegations against him concerning his appearance, demeanour, likely political beliefs and says that he had already threatened the tenant with lethal violence three times. He demanded that A and B be removed from the premises 2 See Part 2A RTA immediately and threatened legal action against the landlord for criminally endangering his life by accepting B as a tenant. In this email he also wrote: “I will be leaving the apartment today temporarily, to remain safe from this man and if his tenancy does not cease, I will be terminating my own tenancy here and finding somewhere else to live.”
There followed an exchange of emails between the landlord (L) and the tenant (T) as follows:
8.2025 at 12.19pm—T to L: The tenant further complained that he felt B was imposing on his boundaries, watching him and may be intending to steal from him.
9.2025 at 4.35pm—L to T: Regarding your emails ......... In particular, your email of 17 August 2025 in which you stated that “I will be terminating my own tenancy here and finding somewhere else to live” we accept the termination of your tenancy.......We think that 3 weeks is probably a reasonable time for that, and that the tenancy would therefore end on or before 26 September......Please confirm you agree to this.
9.2025 at 3.50 (not clear whether am or pm)—T to L: I’d like to decline the termination of tenancy on the grounds that I must have had a lapse of reason when I thought I should leave. I’m more confident now that things can work out in the flat......Is that ok?
9.2025 at 11.01am—T to L: If you could get back to me on this as soon as poss....I’d like to stay in the flat as far as our contract goes....is that OK?
9.2025 at 2.56pm—L to T: You told us you were ending your tenancy, and we have accepted that. That is that the tenancy has been terminated by mutual agreement. Matters we considered in accepting your termination were: 1)That you have made the other tenants feel uneasy and unwelcome with your accusations. They are entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises, and you are denying that to them. 2) You have threatened [landlord name] with legal action. ............... 3) It is clear from your emails that you do not like being in the flat. This is not a good situation, and we think that your decision was made in the best interests of everyone.
9.2025 at 5.06pm—T to L: I’m going to reverse my decision to end my tenancy; a turnaround on a written decision within 24 hours is reasonable from a tenant..............
9.2025 at 11.52 am—L to T: You made an offer in writing to terminate your tenancy, and we accepted that offer also in writing. The offer and acceptance then became a binding contract. You have now made a new offer that you will stay as tenant. However, we have declined that, so the contract that you will leave the flat remains effective. Further.....your latest email does nothing to allay our concerns regarding your conduct towards other tenants..................................We understand that moving flat is disruptive, so to assist you, we will, if you now (today) accept this offer, agree to cease your rental from today until the date you leave the flat. That date to be no later than 3 weeks from today. This offer is made without prejudice and if not accepted will terminate today......
9.2025 at 7.09pm—T to L: You seem intent on having your way. I think you are wrong and unreasonable not to allow me to change my decision on leaving the apartment. I see you understand the seriousness of the leasing issues at this address, and that you are against me to the point of demanding strongly that I carry out my decision to leave. For that reason, I have decided to depart from an obvious trap here in the apartment and will accept your offer ending my tenancy no later than 28 September 2025 (3 weeks from now.............. The law
The RTA sets out the requirements for terminating a periodic tenancy for landlords and tenants. 3 A tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 21 days’ notice 4 with the notice to meet certain requirements including that it must be in writing and must specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises. 5
A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under the RTA, to give the notice or to make the application. 6 Discussion and findings

When was the tenancy terminated and was the termination lawful?

I have reviewed the email communications between the parties and make the following findings.
While the tenant indicated an intention to terminate the tenancy by email on 27 August 2025, if the landlord did not address his complaint about tenant B, he did not give a notice to terminate which meets the requirements of s51(3) RTA. In particular, he did not specify a termination date. Nor was he making an offer to terminate the tenancy which could be accepted by the landlord. The nature of his email was not an offer to vary a contract. i.e. the tenancy agreement. He was simply indicating an intention to terminate if the landlord did not remedy his complaint.
It was not open to the landlord to subsequently accept an offer to end the tenancy, because it was not an offer in the first place. When the landlord in its first email of 6 September purported to accept the offer and proposed a termination date of 26 September, the landlord stated: “please confirm you agree to this.” The tenant replied that he did not agree to termination. 3 See section 51 RTA 4 Section 51(2A) RTA 5 Section 51(3) RTA 6 See section 60AA RTA
The landlord’s response on 6 September at 2.56pm was to insist that a mutual agreement to terminate the tenancy had been reached. I find this is not the case and the landlord misrepresented the position at that point.
The tenant appears to accept he gave a notice to terminate but he believed he should be able to retract his notice. My assessment of the evidence is that he did not give notice to terminate the tenancy in the first place.
I consider that the landlord’s responses confused the tenant and encouraged a false belief that he could not resile from this so called “mutual agreement” to end the tenancy. Had the tenant left the tenancy at this point, I may have found that the landlord was in breach of s60AA by purporting to give a notice to end the tenancy when they knew they were not entitled to do so.
When the tenant again advised that wished to reverse his decision to terminate, the landlord in its email on 7 September maintained that a mutual and binding contract to end the tenancy had been reached and remained effective. However, they made an offer to cease the rent payable if the tenant vacated and ended the tenancy, no later than three weeks from the date of the offer. The tenant accepted the offer and agreed that the tenancy would end no later than 28 September.
At this point I consider a mutual agreement was reached. The tenant accepted the landlord’s offer to end the tenancy on 28 September for valuable consideration, in that no rent would be charged for the remaining three-week period. All the elements of a concluded contractual agreement are present at this point. Had the tenant believed that the landlord was wrong and could not insist on terminating the tenancy, he could have applied to the Tribunal for a determination. The tenant advised at the hearing that he would have used the Tribunal, but he wasn’t sure that it was safe for him to remain in the premises, so he decided to leave and agreed to end the tenancy. Therefore, I do not find that the tenancy was terminated in breach of s60AA by the landlord. The tenants claim that termination was unfair is not proved and the claim for compensation for unlawful termination is dismissed.

Is the landlord entitled to further rent/loss of rent?

The tenancy termination date was 28 September. However, the tenant did not vacate the premises until 30 September, returning the keys the next day on 1 October. I accept that the keys were returned on this date as promised, with the property manager confirming at the hearing that she had collected the keys by 2 October.
I accept that the tenant was in breach of the terms of the termination agreement by staying an extra 2 days. I also accept that this was a condition of the rent reduction. Therefore, he is liable to pay rent to 30 September.
On 30 September, the tenant sent the property manager an email stating: I got my stuff at 3pm. Unfortunately, I can’t get the desk or the chair or the kitset of drawers out of the room by myself, I’m going to have to leave them there for you to do with at your discretion. Also, I forgot to leave the apartment key, I’m going to return it tomorrow, I’ll put it in the letterbox before 12 midday.
The property manager replied on 1 October suggesting the tenant arrange for the Salvation Army (SA) to collect the furniture, otherwise the landlord would charge him for disposal by deduction from the bond. The tenant replied that he had arranged for SA to collect the goods. However, several attempts by SA to do so failed because no-one was home to open the door for them. The tenant asked the property manager if she could be there to open the door for SA. She agreed but advised the tenant that SA would need to telephone her 30 minutes ahead so she could travel to the premises. This did not happen and collection of the furniture by SA failed. The property manager eventually advised the tenant the furniture would be removed on 18/19 October with the disposal cost to come off the bond. The tenant accepted this.
The failure by the tenant to return the keys and the failure to remove his furniture does not mean that the tenancy continued beyond 30 September when the tenant vacated. I am not persuaded that the keys being returned one day late, and the items left in the room, prevented the landlord from re-letting the room so that they suffered a loss of rent. In any event they provided no evidence of any attempts to re-let the room.
The RTA provides that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or the RTA, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. 7 In this case, the landlord could easily have disposed of the furniture sooner or stored it elsewhere to ensure the room was ready for letting. They did not do so. In summary I find no grounds for awarding rent or loss of rent beyond 30 September 2025, when the tenant vacated the premises.
The landlord provided rent records which prove that they received rent from the tenant of $4,495 (being rent paid in advance of $6,200 less a refund of overpaid rent of $1,705). Rent owed for the tenancy from 16 June 2025 to 30 September 2025 is $4,738.57. Therefore, the tenant owes the landlord $243.57 arrears.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 8 7 Section 49 RTA 8 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA
I accept on the evidence provided, including photos, that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
There were belongings left in the room including the tenants’ furniture which had to be disposed of. The tenant maintains that he booked SA twice to collect the furniture, but no-one opened the door for them at the premises despite him messaging the other tenants to advise. He says that this is not his fault. However, it is not the landlord’s responsibility, if the tenant’s arrangements for collection fail. The tenant is fully responsible for removal of his belongings when the tenancy ends.
The room also required vacuuming as acknowledged by the tenant.
In addition, the landlord maintains that the tenant left rubbish beside the exterior recycling bins that was not bagged. The tenant says that he returned and bagged the items so that they could simply go out with the regular recycling/rubbish collection. He says that he should not have to pay the cost of the landlord having this rubbish removed by a private contractor along with the other items left in his room. The landlord did not provide any photos to show the exterior rubbish left behind. Therefore, they have not proved that it could not have gone out in the normal rubbish/recycling collection. I have reduced the removal costs claimed by $50 (from $297.28 to $247.28) to account for this.
The landlord provided a bed as part of the tenancy. There is no dispute that the mattress was soiled by the tenant during the tenancy. The landlord said the mattress could not be cleaned and needed to be thrown out which they also arranged. The tenant maintains the mattress could have been cleaned. I disagree. I address the issue of damage and the claim for a replacement mattress below. However, I accept that the rubbish removal costs which include mattress disposal may be claimed by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 9 Mattress
Based on the evidence, I accept that the mattress provided by the landlord was soiled during the tenancy which is acknowledged by the tenant. However, he 9 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA argues that it could be cleaned. I disagree and consider that the landlord was justified in replacing the mattress. A new mattress costing $50 was purchased which is reasonable. The landlord also incurred costs to have the mattress delivered which I find are reasonable. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Handbasin
The landlord says that the handbasin in the communal bathroom on the top floor was damaged during the tenancy by two cigarette burn marks. They claim that there was evidence that the tenant smoked in his room and, therefore, he likely caused the damage, which had to be repaired.
While I am satisfied that the damage was likely caused during the tenancy (given that the marks were not present at a prior inspection), I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant was responsible for the damage. Given that this was a communal bathroom, any of the other tenants, or their visitors may have been responsible. All the tenants residing at the premises are on separate tenancies. Therefore, they are not jointly and severally liable for damage caused by any one of them. Accordingly, I dismiss the claim. The tenant claims Missing courier package
The tenant alleges that a courier package containing DVDs worth $100, which he had delivered to the premises after he had vacated, was stolen by one or more of the other tenants living there. He seeks compensation of $100.
There is no evidence to support his claim nor any basis for holding the landlord liable. The claim is dismissed. Harassment/Unsafe living environment
The tenant claims that the landlord (in particular, the property manager) has breached their obligations under the RTA by: a. knowingly leasing a room in the premises to another person (co-tenant B) who would clash strongly with the tenant which he says amounts to criminal negligence; b. creating and allowing an unsafe living environment; c. causing or permitting interference with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The above allegations are framed as three separate breaches of the RTA for which the tenant seeks exemplary damages of $7,200 for each category. The law
There are two sections of the RTA under which these allegations might fall.
Under section 45(1)(d) RTA, a landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. A breach of this obligation is not an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be considered.
Under section 38(2) RTA, a landlord must 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.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. Facts and findings
The tenant made extensive claims regarding the property manager and tenant B in a written submission to the Tribunal that I will not repeat in detail, but the claims may be summarised as follows: a. The landlord had violent criminal intent towards the tenant by accepting B as a tenant; b. The landlord’s acceptance of tenant B created an unsafe living environment. The tenant made comments about the other tenant’s appearance, demeanour and political beliefs from which he judged that tenant B would be dominating, threatening and invade his sense of privacy and peace; c. He felt he was being watched, recorded or monitored including by video camera surveillance; d. He believed tenant B wanted to steal from him; e. He claimed that tenants A and B ‘s behaviour towards him was threatening.
The property manager and the other tenants provided affidavit evidence denying these allegations.
The tenant’s allegations are broad with no specific dates and times of alleged incidents. There is no other supporting evidence provided such as testimony from any independent witnesses nor any security camera footage.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved the allegations of interference with his quiet enjoyment of the premises, let alone harassment, with no other evidence to support the claims aside from his own testimony. Therefore, I dismiss the claims. Filing fee and Suppression
The landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. Therefore, I award them reimbursement of the filing fee.
Neither party sought suppression. However, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to 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. 10
The tenant has made serious allegations against the landlord and other tenants residing at the premises. Those allegations, which might have a potentially negative effect on the landlord and the other tenants, have not been proved. Therefore, the information concerning those claims is not in the public interest. Certainly, the other tenants are not parties to these proceedings, and I consider that their names and identifying details must be suppressed. While the landlord has not sought suppression, I consider that publication of the landlord’s details could lead to the identification of the other tenants. For that reason, I suppress the landlord’s name and identifying details and the address of the premises.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404795 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404795 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy terminated fairly and what is owed for rent?

When was the tenancy terminated and was the termination lawful?

Is the landlord entitled to further rent/loss of rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy terminated fairly and what is owed for rent?

When was the tenancy terminated and was the termination lawful?

Is the landlord entitled to further rent/loss of rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions