What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407757 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 5407757?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407757?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407757?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13243421-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407757 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 5407757?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407757?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407757?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13243421-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Flat 317, 158 Onehunga Mall, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407757 — State of repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application for suppression is refused.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
No order is made on the landlord’s application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord’s property manager (agent) also attended.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 9 May 2026. She also seeks compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord has filed a cross application opposing the tenant’s application. Background
This tenancy of a one-bedroom flat in a new apartment building began in May 2025. It is for a fixed term to 9 May 2026.
It seems that there were no problems until late November when the tenant woke up one morning and noticed that she had several bite marks on her body.
She suspected that they came from bed bugs, and she notified the landlord and sought their help to identify the deal with the problem.
The tenant bought and applied some over the counter pest control measures and used them on the flat.
The landlord was willing to arrange for a pest controller to attend the premises to investigate. They proposed that the cost would be shared equally between the landlord and the tenant. The tenant agreed.
A pest controller came and carried out an investigation and reported that they could not find bed bugs or any other type of bug. They opined that the insect that the tenant had photographed was a beetle.
The tenant was not happy with that response, and she instructed her own pest controllers. They came and treated the premises with some form of insecticide. There is no report from them.
The tenant went to see a doctor about the bites and because she was feeling anxious and stressed.
She moved out of the premises for a few days and stayed with her partner in Hamilton and spent a night in an Auckland hotel.
She returned to the flat after she had bought an air mattress which she slept on in the kitchen for a time.
There is no evidence of biting creatures in the premises now and the tenant relies on the property manager’s behaviour for her application to end the tenancy early.
As well as bugs, the tenant was unhappy with the way that the landlord’s property manager treated her. She claims that the property manager’s behaviour constitutes a breach of right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. Relevant Law
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. The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The Tribunal may and in some cases must terminate the tenancy and the available grounds for doing so are prescribed in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). None of those grounds is applicable in this case.
The Tribunal may also cancel a tenancy agreement where one party has acted in such a way in breach of the agreement that demonstrates that they do not intend to be bound by the agreement. That is sometimes known as a fundamental breach. Bugs
The landlord’s pest controllers found no evidence of bed bugs or other bugs in the premises. The tenant sought to explain that by pointing to the measures that she took to deal with them.
I think it is unlikely that, if there was an infestation of bed bugs at the time, that the tenant’s measures would have been so effective that there was no sign of them when the inspection took place.
I have some personal experience of bed bugs, and I know that they are difficult to eradicate. It is likely, in my view, that if there was an infestation of them in the premises, professional pest eradicators looking for them would have found them.
There is also the point that the tenant was not aware of being bitten until over six months into the tenancy. I don’t accept that beg bugs could have been in the premises or in furniture in the premises and lain dormant for six months. Bed bugs are indoor creatures, and they would be active inside no matter the state of the weather outside.
The tenant has not produced any hard or persuasive evidence that beg bugs or other biting bugs were present in the premises from the start of the tenancy and taking all things into consideration I must conclude that they were not.
I will not speculate as to how the tenant suffered bites, but I am satisfied that she has not proved that the landlord is responsible for them.
It follows that her claims for compensation arising from biting bugs in the premises must be dismissed. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant claims that the landlord’s agent has interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the premises by the agent’s conduct towards her and she claims that there has thereby been an unforeseen change in her circumstances. She says that this has caused her extreme hardship, and that the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under s66 of the Act to reduce the term the tenancy.
The tenant does not rely on any other ground under the Act to end the tenancy and no such ground is available to her. She has not, for example served a breach notice under s56 of the Act. Therefore, the only other ground available to her, as I have mentioned, is that the landlord (by its agent) has committed a fundamental breach of the tenancy agreement.
In my view, it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to consider reducing the term of the tenancy under s66. That section is intended to cover a change in circumstances that is otherwise outside the scope of the Act. For example, a change in a party’s financial position. Where a breach of obligation is alleged, the Act has provisions that allow the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy which obviously has same effect as reducing the term.
The evidence does not, on any view, establish a fundamental breach. At most, what the tenant alleges, would amount to a breach her right to quiet enjoyment which the Tribunal could deal with by awarding compensation and exemplary damages and, if necessary, making orders requiring the landlord and his agent to ensure that they do not interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The tenant’s claim itself relies on evidence to prove that the agent acted in such a way that it caused her emotional distress, negatively affected her well being and made her feel unsafe in the premises.
Examples include the agent arriving late to the premises for inspections. I note that a landlord is not required to give a time of day for an inspection. A landlord is entitled to enter the premises for an inspection between 8am and 7pm on a stated day after giving at least 48 hours notice. The tenant appears to think that the landlord cannot enter without the tenant’s consent even in those circumstances. That is wrong. A landlord cannot force entry, but if the tenant is there, they must allow the landlord entry. If they are not there, the landlord may enter.
The tenant says that the agent “threatened” to attend an inspection without the tenant. The agent was entitled to say that is what she might have to do.
If a tenant wants to be present for an inspection, a landlord will often try to accommodate that by agreeing a time or a time slot. In these circumstances, lateness of 10 to 20 minutes is neither here nor or there and it does not constitute an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
Another example is the agent’s conduct towards the tenant and her partner during an inspection. The tenant played an audio recording of the exchanges between her, her partner and the agent. I would describe some of the language used as abrupt, on both sides. I would not describe the agent’s conduct as unprofessional, let alone an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
I do not intend traversing all the evidence. Taken together it did not establish an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. It is not uncommon for there to be disagreements between landlords and tenants. Property managers represent the landlord, and they are entitled to express their views firmly, just as the tenants are. As long as they remain professional, and their views are reasonable, they do nothing wrong.
It follows that the tenant’s claim that the landlord has interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the premises must be dismissed.
To the extent that the tenant relies solely on her mental health for reducing the fixed term of the tenancy, I accept that she has suffered some stress and anxiety, but the evidence does not support that as a reason to reduce the fixed term.
I note that the landlord offered to release the tenant from the tenancy subject to finding another tenant and without cost to the tenant. He confirmed at the hearing that the offer remains open. The tenant may wish to take up that offer if she does not want to see the tenancy through to its end. Filing Fees
There was no need for the landlord’s application, so I make no order for payment of the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord has succeeded and so I have granted him name suppression.
I can find no good reason to grant the tenant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407757 — State of repair at Flat 317, 158 Onehunga Mall, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407757 — State of repair at Flat 317, 158 Onehunga Mall, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions