What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5411909 about?

The tribunal order states: Ilona Mazurova must pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5411909?

Cleaning: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $528.64 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,105.72 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $114.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5411909?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5411909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13268407-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5411909 about?

The tribunal order states: Ilona Mazurova must pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5411909?

Cleaning: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $528.64 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,105.72 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $114.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5411909?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5411909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13268407-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8, 8 Glidepath Road, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5411909 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5411909 — net $2,601.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,105.72	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$114.50	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning	$224.25	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs	$528.64	Repairs
Net award	$2,601.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,601.11

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5411909 — net $2,601.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,105.72	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$114.50	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning	$224.25	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs	$528.64	Repairs
Net award	$2,601.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,601.11

Order

Ilona Mazurova must pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Joanna Den Hollander $2,601.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (BN-17423518) to Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Joanna Den Hollander immediately.

Tenant application 5441408 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a continuation hearing after a previous adjournment to allow the tenant to lodge a counterclaim. The bond was released to the landlord in the adjourning order with a final monetary order to follow this final hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant counterclaimed, seeking compensation and exemplary damages.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely. The landlord application

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 19 January 2026. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy are as awarded and as agreed with by the tenant.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and that a commercial stain removal carpet treatment was required.
The landlord provided two videos and a series of exit photos in support of both claims. Invoices of $224.25 for carpet stain removal and $528.64 for cleaning (as well as repairs - see below) were provided.
The landlord advised a separate cleaning invoice was incurred and paid by the owner prior to the next tenancy but that was for tasks considered above any tenant responsibility.
The tenant also provided some photos from during the tenancy and at exit. A challenge in such comparison is that alignment of the respective photos taken is difficult. The intention of the photographer may be to show issues requiring attention while for another it is to show there are no issues. How that influences the direction of the camera when taking the photo results in such a challenge.
Having considered the submissions and evidence I award the stain removal cost as claimed. The cost of cleaning the baking tray is also accepted as is the removal of lint from the dryer.
Except for the carpet, and walls as determined below, the premises were left by the tenant in what appears to be good condition. The invoiced claim for oven cleaning is clearly wrong – the oven was in good condition. The landlord submitted it was added in error as a line item in the invoice. I considered a reduction in the invoiced amount to reflect the disparity but having considered the explanation, as well as in assessing the other invoiced tasks as to their reasonableness, vis-à-vis the evidence, I accept the invoice as claimed.
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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The following damage/need for cleaning, as noted in the invoice description below, was caused during the tenancy. Note some tasks could be considered cleaning and addressed above. The section it is addressed is considered somewhat moot here if the landlord evidences the need.
The wall repairs involved both cleaning and repair so I do not consider attempting to split the tasks to separate costs is required, nor it would change the monetary outcome. Given the detail in the invoice I consider all items here, with the exception of the oven and hob clean as claimed:
The premises was new at commencement of this tenancy. The tenant raised wear and tear as an explanation. Such a consideration, especially in a new premises with freshly painted walls, is required and should be allowed for.
However, the damage to the walls, either from markings, minor holes, or from the subsequent removal of fixtures, as evidenced in some provided photos is considered more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. When compared to the rest of the premises good condition, the state of some of the walls, as shown, appears incongruous.
I find the landlord’s evidence established tenant liability and the expected effort shown in the photos appears consistent with the claimed invoiced costs to remedy.
The amounts ordered are proved. The tenant application
The tenant claimed compensation and exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord committed unlawful acts under the RTA in “issuing multiple notices within a short period without adequate explanation”, which she believed “amounted to harassment and retaliatory conduct.”
The tenant submitted the actions caused her “significant stress and hardship as a tenant” and required her to respond urgently to multiple notices while managing the end of the tenancy.
Having heard more from the tenant at the hearing I consider her claims mainly pertain to the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment (s 38 RTA). A second issue regarding retaliatory notice was raised and that is also addressed. Quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). 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 s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 s 109(3) 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.
The tenant submitted harassing communications from the landlord of at least four times, being: (a) 16 May 2024 (first 14-day notice following end of tenancy warning); (b) 24 April 2025 - Carpet Threat (attached to carpet issue files) (c) 25 August 2025 - multiple notices sent within one week, which means that the second notice issued, was an invalid duplicate rent notice, under section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”); (d) November 2025 - 14 day rent areas / Tenancy tribunal / Retaliatory 90-day termination notice (all during a 14-day notice to remedy rent arrears, which was valid).
The tenant feels aggrieved at what was considered excessive and “disproportionate” enforcement behaviour.
The landlord submitted that the tenant did not engage in timely communication and that they were exercising their statutory rights in serving the respective notices.
I agree with the landlord’s assertion at the time that there was no impediment to a landlord serving different notices in parallel, such as occurred here. While the tenant appears genuine in her promise she was going to stop the growing rent arrears, and then address them while maintain rent as due, the landlord was entitled to deal with the real time situation unfolding. The tenant’s financial stress was known and the final rent arrears owing in this order offer, in my mind, some justification for the agent acting to protect the interests of their principal.
Section 40(1)(a) RTA requires the tenant shall pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. Sub-section (c) requires the tenant keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
If the tenant fails to meet either requirement above it is challenging to find prompt, related responses from the landlord to it to be considered harassment here.
The claim is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
The tenant claims the landlord “issued a retaliatory 90‑day notice while a lawful remedy 14-day notice period was still running, in clear breach of section 54 of the RTA.”
Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 holds that the Tribunal may declare a notice to terminate a tenancy of no effect, and retaliatory if: In giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00 (see s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
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 s 109(3) RTA).
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? If not, are there grounds to extend the notice period under s 96(2) RTA? In Realty House Whakatane Limited v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081, the District Court held that the time limit for filing an application is mandatory but may be extended in limited circumstances. c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to ... to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights.
In this instance, there is a close proximity between the tenant making a compliant to the landlord and the landlord notice to terminate. Neither party provided a copy of the notice to terminate. As it happened, the tenancy ended earlier through tenant notice. I have assumed the notice complied with the requirements of s 51 RTA. I do not consider the tenant compliant was frivolous or vexatious, albeit as apparent by this determination, I do find the complaints such that any landlord failure has been proven.
As I explained at the hearing, the purpose of s 54 is to offer some protection to tenants exercising their right. The tenant had made a compliant to the landlord regarding what she considered to be unacceptable behaviour of the landlord but as already determined above, the communications from the landlord, while unwelcome, were in response to tenant failures and utilised appropriate tools within the Act and the tenancy agreement to manage such situations where the root cause of action was a tenant failure to meet their obligations.
I note that the tenant raised with the landlord the prospect of a Tribunal application by her regarding these issues around the same time as the complaint and notice to terminate (mid-November 2025) but no application was lodged at that time. The tenant explained this was due to other issues that made any application at that time difficult.
I do not consider the tenant has established the notice to terminate was retaliatory. The complaint related to active management of a rent arrears situation. Having met both parties via video and heard their respective recounting I consider it possible there were personality differences between the agent and tenant that might have exasperated the situation. While that may have created some friction, I note this by way of possible explanation but reinforce that I do not find it proven the landlord acted in such a way that the tenant claims should result in orders for compensation of exemplary damages.
The claim therefore must be dismissed. Filing fee
Because Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Joanna Den Hollander has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5411909 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 8, 8 Glidepath Road, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5411909 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 8, 8 Glidepath Road, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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