What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5420817 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 5420817?

Compensation: 20% reduction in rent…: $705.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: 50% reduction in rent…: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Disposal Of Items: $33.98 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Food Expenses: $527.16 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Inconvenience: $325.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of air-fryer and…: $109.60 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Pest Mitigation Costs: $256.69 awarded to tenant; Expenses Due To Early Termination: $418.60 awarded to landlord; Rent Loss Under Fixed Term Contract: $2,599.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420817?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420817?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13502897-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5420817 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 5420817?

Compensation: 20% reduction in rent…: $705.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: 50% reduction in rent…: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Disposal Of Items: $33.98 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Food Expenses: $527.16 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Inconvenience: $325.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of air-fryer and…: $109.60 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Pest Mitigation Costs: $256.69 awarded to tenant; Expenses Due To Early Termination: $418.60 awarded to landlord; Rent Loss Under Fixed Term Contract: $2,599.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420817?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420817?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13502897-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

57 Fenwick Crescent, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5420817 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

57 Fenwick Crescent, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5420817 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5420817 — net $410.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent loss under fixed term contract to 11 Feb 2026	$2,599.97		Rent loss under fixed term contract to 11 Feb 2026
Expenses due to early termination	$418.60		Expenses due to early termination
Compensation: 50% reduction in rent for 14 days		$650.00	50% reduction in rent for 14 days
Compensation: 20% reduction in rent for 37 days		$705.71	20% reduction in rent for 37 days
Compensation: Disposal of items		$33.98	Disposal of items
Compensation: Loss of air-fryer and mirror (80		$109.60	Loss of air-fryer and mirror (80
Compensation: Food expenses		$527.16	Food expenses
Compensation: Pest mitigation costs		$256.69	Pest mitigation costs
Compensation: Inconvenience		$325.00	Inconvenience
Total award	$3,018.57	$2,608.14
Net award	$410.43
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$410.43

Claims and awards for application 5420817 — net $410.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent loss under fixed term contract to 11 Feb 2026

Amount: $2,599.97
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent loss under fixed term contract to 11 Feb 2026

Expenses due to early termination

Amount: $418.60
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Expenses due to early termination

Compensation: 50% reduction in rent for 14 days

Amount: $650.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 50% reduction in rent for 14 days

Compensation: 20% reduction in rent for 37 days

Amount: $705.71
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 20% reduction in rent for 37 days

Compensation: Disposal of items

Amount: $33.98
Awarded to: Tenant

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — Firstly, the property was not abandoned. The landlord agreed to release the tenants from the tenancy.

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
The tenancy terminated by agreement on 14 January 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows and calculated in accordance with the table below: [The landlord/s]: $410.43 [The tenant/s]: $2,189.57

Reasons

[Tenant 1] (for both tenants) and the landlord’s agent attended the hearing on 3 March 2026. [Tenant 1] was assisted by an interpreter of the Mandarin language. Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal.
This was a fixed-term tenancy starting on 22 December 2025 and due to end on 3 January 2027.
The tenants say the kitchen and dining room were seriously infested with cockroaches from the first day of the tenancy. They notified the landlord on 26 December 2025 who arranged professional pest control treatment but declined to give a rent reduction. The landlord says the cockroach infestation was minor.
The tenants moved their kitchen appliances and other belongings into the garage to prevent the cockroaches from infesting them. They did not use the kitchen or dining area while they waited for pest control, which took place on 31 December 2025. The family slept in one room, blocked up all gaps into that bedroom and frequently sprayed insect spray to prevent the cockroaches getting into other rooms.
The tenants decided to find somewhere else to live and told the landlord they would move out. They did so on 14 January 2026. The landlord agreed to end the tenancy early but on condition the tenants pay rent until new tenants took over and expenses related to finding the new tenants.
The tenants do not agree they should pay these and claim a rent reduction and their own expenses.
The applications are:- a. The landlord has applied for refund of the bond and an order for:- i. rent payable under the fixed term contract up to the date new tenants were found which is $2,599.97 to 11 February 2026, and ii. compensation of $837.20 for expenses related to ending the tenancy early, and iii. end of tenancy costs (cleaning $57.50, gardening $69.00, power reconnection $103.50). b. The tenants have applied for:- i. refund of the bond of $2,600.00, ii. release from liability under the fixed term tenancy because of what they say was a serious cockroach infestation, iii. compensation of 50% of the rent they have paid because they did not have the use of essential living areas especially the kitchen and dining areas, iv. compensation for expenses or loss related to the cockroaches of a total of $1,139.33, v. moving costs of $1,091.80.
All references to “RTA” mean the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

What are the issues to be decided?

The issues to be decided are:- a. Was the cockroach infestation a breach by the landlord? b. Did the landlord and tenant agree to end the fixed term tenancy early?

And, if so, on what terms?

c. Should the term of the tenancy be reduced by the Tribunal? i. Should the tenancy be terminated because of the breach by the landlord? Section 56 RTA. ii. Could the Tribunal terminate the tenancy because it was partly uninhabitable? Section 59 RTA. iii. Was the cockroach infestation an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances that would cause severe hardship if the term of the tenancy was not reduced? Section 66 RTA. d. Are the tenants liable to pay rent until the property was re-let and reasonable expenses? e. Is the landlord liable to pay compensation to the tenants because there were cockroaches? f. Has the landlord proved the claims for cleaning, lawn mowing, and reconnecting power? The law on fixed term tenancies

A tenancy for a fixed term is a binding legal contract which usually includes a requirement that the tenant is liable to pay rent until the end of the term.
A fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by either party giving notice to the other except in limited circumstances. 1
A landlord and tenant may agree to end a fixed term tenancy early; section 50(1)(d) RTA.
If this is applied for, the Tenancy Tribunal may end a fixed-term tenancy, or reduce its term, if:- a. there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement, or the RTA, and the nature or extent of that breach means it would be inequitable (unfair) to refuse to terminate the tenancy; section 56 RTA. Where the breach is capable of remedy, the tenant must first serve a notice on the landlord requiring them to remedy the breach within a reasonable period (of at least 14 days) and must show they have failed to do so. b. in circumstances where there has been no breach (for example, a weather event), the premises are partly uninhabitable, and it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to reinstate the property or the tenant to continue the tenancy at a reduced rent (s59(4) RTA), or c. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant's circumstances, and it would cause them severe hardship if the term was not reduced, and that hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party (s66 RTA).
A tenant has a legal right to assign a tenancy with the prior written consent of a landlord and in accordance with reasonable conditions attached to that consent by the landlord; section 43B(1) RTA. 2
A landlord is entitled to recover from a tenant any expenses reasonably incurred in respect of consenting to an assignment or early ending of the tenancy; s44A RTA.

What does the tenancy agreement say?

The written clauses of the tenancy agreement (the contract) between the parties are important. These are almost always binding. 3
The relevant clauses in this tenancy agreement are:- 1 A fixed-term tenancy can be terminated by notice where a tenant has been charged with assault on a landlord/owner/agent, premises are unlawful or wholly uninhabitable or contaminated above a maximum inhabitable level specified in regulations; see s50(1)(a) RTA. A tenant may withdraw from a tenancy due to proven family violence; s56B RTA. 2 An “assignment” of a tenancy is a transfer to a person of all of the rights that a tenant has under a tenancy agreement; section 2 RTA. 3 Unless they are inconsistent with the law in the RTA or reduce the tenant’s rights (section 11 RTA), or there is some other serious fault with the agreement (see section 78(1)(f) and (g) RTA). In Section 4:

Was the cockroach infestation a breach by the landlord?

All landlords have a legal obligation to:- a. Provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and b. Provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair. See section 45(1)(a) and (b) RTA.
My decision is that there was a cockroach infestation inside the house during this tenancy which is a breach by the landlord of:- a. clause 37 of the tenancy agreement which is a requirement to keep the premises free from pests for the first 30 days of the tenancy, and b. section 45(1)(a) RTA as cockroaches nesting inside a house is not “a reasonable state of cleanliness”.
The evidence that supports my decision is:- a. The tenants’ photographs dated from 26 December 2025 until they moved out on 14 January 2026, showing live and dead cockroaches on kitchen surfaces, in cupboards, under and in appliances. b. Communication from the tenant to the landlord on 26 December 2025 notifying them they had discovered cockroaches after using insect bombs the day before moving in. She describes the situation worsening over the next few days causing her and her child to be distressed and not able to use the kitchen as it is not safe to prepare food. c. The tenant’s oral evidence describing discovering the cockroaches from the first day of the tenancy and every day afterwards. d. Written and oral evidence from both the landlord and the tenant’s pest control experts that there was an infestation of cockroaches living and nesting inside the house. i. The landlord’s expert report said: “... the treatment that was done would kill the adults and that we would do another treatment in four to six weeks time so there was fresh bait there for any eggs that may hatch out. ... In short there is a German Cockroach infestation in the house but it is minor in nature.” ii. The tenant’s expert report said: “The property has been infested by german cockroach at a medium level. As a picture show the german cockroach leave the black dropping around the kitchen cabinet hinge, which mean they already made a nest nearby for a while”.
In summary, I am satisfied the cockroaches were present from the start of the tenancy, that there were more than one or two and that they were nesting inside the house and that this is a breach by the landlord. Did the landlord and tenant agree to end the fixed term tenancy early? If so, on what terms?
A landlord and tenant can agree to end a fixed term tenancy early.
The important communication between the parties is: - [my underlining] a. On 26 December 2025, the tenants notified the landlord of the cockroach infestation, asked for a rent reduction, and said they “... will not be residing in the property anymore.” b. On 29 December 2025, the landlord confirmed they had engaged pest control, declined the rent reduction, and gave written information about the process and costs of early termination of the tenancy, including continuing to pay rent until a new tenant is found and liability for costs related to this and any rent shortfall up to the end of term. c. On 31 December 2025, the tenant said: I plan to relocate to a suitable residence as soon as possible. I will cooperate with property viewings to find new tenants ... . d. On 4 January 2026, the tenant wrote to confirm she had paid full rent “under protest”. e. On 5 January 2026, the landlord says: We have had another talk with the landlord and we are willing to release you from the tenancy earlier to assist your situation. f. On 5 and 6 January 2026, the landlord asks if the tenant agrees to the terms of ending the tenancy early and the tenant says her view is that the Tribunal will decide these as she has made this application. g. On 11 January 2026, the tenant advises the landlord of a vacate date. h. On 12 January 2026, the landlord replies: As previously advised, the landlord has agreed to bring the tenancy to an early end, however, it will be subjected to your compliance with the requirements and costs outlined in our email dated 29 December 2025 at 11:16.
The terms of the tenancy agreement are also relevant. These said:- a. the tenant “agrees to make all payments” (clause 1c), and b. “is liable for rent payments until the expiry date of the fixed term provided at least 21 days before the expiry date, the Tenant gives the Landlord written notice of the Tenant’s intention not to continue with the tenancy or the reletting date, whichever is the earlier” (clause 3b), [my underlining], and c. “... the landlord may seek to recover expenses incurred for ... terminating a fixed- term tenancy agreement prior to the end date ...” (clause 27b).
Clause 3b would benefit from punctuation or brackets to help it make sense. I have underlined the key words in clause 3b. In my view, the words between the underlining should be in brackets because they refer to when a tenant gives notice to end a fixed term tenancy on the end date of the term; see section 60A RTA.
Clause 27b is a statement of the legal right of a landlord to recover reasonable expenses when agreeing to terminate a tenancy which is contained in s44A RTA.
The tenants agreed to these clauses when they signed the tenancy agreement.
When the tenants told the landlord they had decided to leave the premises, and the landlord agreed to release them early, the tenants were contractually required to pay the rent in accordance with clauses 1c and 3b in the tenancy agreement. That is, until the end of the term or the reletting date.
Clause 27b and s44A RTA mean the tenants must pay the landlord’s reasonable expenses related to the early termination of the tenancy.
The tenants cannot refuse to do so, and the landlord did not need to ask them to agree again (as it did in several emails).
It is clear from the communication that the landlord did not waive or “give away” the right to claim the rent and expenses. This means its claims are validly made.
I address the amount of the claims later in this decision.

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

The tenants have applied for an order that they be released from the fixed term tenancy because of the cockroach infestation.
I do not need to make an order to reduce the term of the tenancy because I have decided (above) that the parties agreed to do so themselves. The tenancy ended on 14 January 2026.
However, for completeness, I record that I would not have reduced the term of the fixed term tenancy.
I have set out my reasons for this below as it may assist the parties. Should the tenancy be terminated because of the breach by the landlord? Section 56 RTA.
The tenants applied for an order to terminate the tenancy “due to a serious breach of the landlord’s obligations”. 4 This is an application under section 56 RTA.
When either a landlord or tenant breaches their obligations, the other party can apply to the Tribunal for an order to terminate the tenancy but, if the breach can be remedied, they must:- a. Give the other party written notice of the breach and ask them to remedy it within a reasonable period which must be of at least 14 days; and b. Prove the other party failed to remedy the breach within that reasonable period. See s56(1)(b) RTA.
The tenants did give the landlord written notice specifying the nature of the breach (on 26 and 29 December 2025) and requiring it to be remedied (by pest control treatment and reducing the rent).
However, they did not specify a reasonable period (of not less than 14 days) within which the landlord was required to remedy the breach. Instead, the 4 As written in the tenants’ application to the Tribunal. tenant had already decided that she would not continue to reside in the property (she said this in her communication on 26 and 31 December 2025).
Also, in my view, the landlord did remedy the breach within a reasonable period. It arranged and paid for pest control treatment. The first of these treatments took place on 31 December 2025. I heard oral evidence from both the landlord’s and tenants’ pest control experts that the first treatment would kill almost all the bugs in 24 to 48 hours and only the occasional pest should be seen after that. Both experts also said a second treatment would usually be needed about a month later and possibly subsequent treatments to kill any new bugs that hatched.
The tenants disagree and say the treatment must not have worked properly because it did not remove all cockroaches (photos taken on the days after the pest treatment up until the day they moved out show there were still live bugs).
I have sympathy for the tenants. It was clear that they were very upset and stressed by the cockroaches. In their opinion, the kitchen and dining areas were not usable or habitable and they were too frightened to sleep properly for fear the bugs would get into the bedroom. They described the infestation as serious, or severe, and said that it was the first pest control expert who told them these particular inside cockroaches were a pest that must be removed for safety reasons. The tenants said they then read a lot of material on the internet that convinced them this was correct.
However, the evidence does not support a view that the infestation was severe. Neither the landlord’s nor the tenant’s experts said this. 5 They both agreed that it was not ideal or desirable to have German cockroaches in a house because the bugs would feed off bits of food or other organic material in the house which may be decomposing and could then transfer bacteria to other household surfaces or food. They also said that German cockroach numbers could rapidly increase inside especially when conditions were warm.
The tenants’ photos taken in the days after the treatment do show live cockroaches. This does not prove the infestation was severe or that the treatment did not work. As best I can tell, there are just one or two bugs visible at a time. This is consistent with what the experts said would happen.
I am satisfied that the landlord did remedy the breach by engaging professional pest control and communicating to the tenants (on 5 January 2026) that there would be ongoing treatment. 5 The landlord’s pest expert said in writing that it was “minor” and the tenants’ expert said it was “at a medium level”.
My decision is that, after the first pest treatment had been allowed the 48 hours to work and the tenants had been told about the repeat treatment process, the “infestation” (cockroaches nesting) was remedied. Single cockroaches may still be seen but the ongoing treatment plan would make sure any nesting or increase would stop.
Also, before the Tribunal terminates a tenancy because of a breach by one party, it must be satisfied that the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable (unfair) to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenants were very distressed but the presence of cockroaches that are being treated by professional methods was not a breach so serious as to justify termination of a fixed term tenancy. I would have dismissed the tenants’ application to terminate the tenancy for breach by the landlord. Could the Tribunal terminate the tenancy because the premises were partly uninhabitable? Section 59 RTA.
The tenants also said in their application that the kitchen and dining areas could not be used for food preparation or for eating because the presence of cockroaches made this unhealthy. The tenants also removed their kitchen appliances and many other belongings to the garage as they were worried the cockroaches may start to nest inside them.
The Tribunal can make an order to terminate a tenancy if part of premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, but the law says this section only applies where the damage or destruction has not been caused by a breach; s59(4) RTA.
In my view, the purpose of this section is to allow for the tenancy to terminate and rent to reduce when there has been damage caused by an event outside of the control of either party (eg weather, natural disasters, or building element failure).
The section does not apply to a maintenance issue that can be remedied. Was the cockroach infestation an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances that would cause severe hardship if the term of the tenancy was not reduced? Section 66 RTA.
The Tribunal can reduce the term of a tenancy where, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship they would suffer if the tenancy was not reduced is greater than hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
The District Court has decided that an “unforeseen change” must be something that was well outside the contemplation of the parties at the time the tenancy agreement was entered into and that issues of relatively minor maintenance could not fall into the definition. 6 The issues in that case were a smell of cat urine, a faulty kitchen rangehood, a broken showerhead, and a broken spa pool.
The Judge said these were no doubt irritating, but could all be remedied or reduced or improved and therefore it would not cause severe hardship to continue the tenancy.
The cockroach infestation was not an issue so serious or severe that it could not be remedied. Both the tenants 7 and the landlord 8 took steps to remedy, reduce and improve the situation.
The other remedy is that the tenants could seek compensation for the effects of the cockroach infestation which is what they have done in this application.
Relatively minor or common maintenance, cleanliness or pest issues cannot be said to be “unforeseen” in a tenancy. Sometimes they happen and when they do, they can be remedied or the effect of them reduced.
My decision is that this cockroach infestation is not an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances, and I would not have reduced the term of the tenancy under s66 RTA. Are the tenants liable to pay rent until the premises were re-let and the landlord’s claimed expenses?
My decisions that the landlord and tenants agreed to reduce the term of the tenancy mean that the tenants are liable to pay rent until the premises were re-let and to pay the landlord’s reasonable expenses related to the early termination.
If a landlord agrees to end a fixed term tenancy early, it must take reasonable steps to advertise and re-let the premises as quickly as possible. This is called mitigating its loss and is an obligation to limit the damage or loss caused by a breach by the tenant’s request to end the tenancy early; s49 RTA. 6 Davies v Clarke & Snead [2017] NZDC 21608 at 32 – 41. 7 They removed their belongings to the garage and did not use the house for food preparation or eating. They wrapped belongings in plastic wrap, fumigated appliances and threw away two items. They closely guarded their sleeping space. 8 Arranging and paying for the pest treatment and communicating with the tenants about the treatment plan.
The tenants only gave a few days’ notice of their vacate date (notifying the landlord on 11 January that they would move out on 14 January 2026). The landlord advertised the next day on 12 January 2026. New tenants were found from 12 February 2026. This is a reasonable period between tenancies in the circumstances and I award the rent up to 11 February 2026 which is $2,599.97.
The landlord has provided a breakdown and verifying evidence of its expenses in advertising the property, credit checks, and time in viewings, inspections and administration. These are not unreasonable.
However, what does seem unfair is that the tenants wanted to be released from the tenancy because of a situation that was not their fault and was outside of their control. I have decided it is fairest to reduce this claim by 50% in the circumstances. I award the landlord half of $837.20 which is $418.60. Is the landlord liable to pay compensation to the tenants related to the cockroaches?
The tenants seek compensation related to the cockroach infestation. I have found this was a breach by the landlord. The tenants can claim reasonable loss or expenses that are reasonably foreseeable or related to the breach.
I address the claims below. a. The tenants seek a 50% rent reduction. They say they were not able to safely or healthily use the kitchen and dining areas or to install their appliances and belongings inside. I agree that it was reasonable of the tenants to avoid use of the food preparation and eating areas, and to keep their appliances and belongings out of the house until the infestation had been treated. The evidence from the pest experts supports their concern that there was a risk of cross-contamination and of the bugs getting into their belongings. The evidence also supports a view that the kitchen and dining areas were safe to use from 48 hours after the pest treatment on 31 December 2025. The tenants do not agree but, as I have decided above, the experts say it is highly likely that very few cockroaches would remain after that time, and the follow-up treatments would make sure they did not nest. I award 50% of the rent paid from 22 December 2025 up to 4 January 2026 which allows two days for moving belongings inside. The rent for 14 days is $1,300.00 so 50% of this is $650.00 which is awarded to the tenants as compensation. b. I award compensation of a further 20% of the rent for the period from 5 January 2026 up to 11 February 2026 (which is the rent period the landlord has claimed for). The landlord had guaranteed in the tenancy agreement that the premises would be free of pests for the first 30 days. They were not. The tenants were not at fault in any way, yet they were the people having to live with the situation. The pest control experts said a second treatment a month after the first would be required. This would be on about 31 January 2026. I apply the 20% compensation up to the date the landlord has claimed rent for. Total rent for this time is $3,528.57 so compensation of 20% is $705.71 which is awarded. c. The tenants claim $192.50 for the costs of an inspection and report from a pest control expert they engaged to give a second opinion. They were not sure that the treatment the landlord had arranged had been effective. I decline this claim. The tenants requested more details about the landlord’s pest treatment on 5 January 2026 and were given information on 6 January 2026. In my view, there was no need for them to engage another expert. d. The tenants say that their air-fryer and a full-length mirror were damaged due to the cockroaches. The bugs went inside the air-fryer which could not be reassembled after it was fumigated. The frame of the mirror fell apart after fumigation. I accept these claims as reasonable and related and award 80% of the quoted values. The discount is because the damaged items were used. I award $109.60. e. I award the claim for dump fees for the contaminated air-fryer and mirror which is $33.98. f. The tenants claim $527.16 in pre-prepared, restaurant or takeaway food. I award this claim. I note that some of the receipts relate to dates after 4 January 2026 which is when I have decided the kitchen and dining areas could be used. However, the receipts are representative. The amount claimed is about $37.00 per day, for the 14 days the food areas and appliances could not be used, which I consider is a reasonable amount. g. I award the claim for the receipted cost of pest treatment of the house and fumigation of appliances (the tenants did this themselves). This is $256.69. h. The tenants seek compensation of $1,091.80 for moving costs. I decline this claim. As I have decided above, the landlord remedied the cockroach infestation and there were no grounds for the Tribunal to reduce the term of this tenancy. This means the costs of the tenants’ decision to move elsewhere are theirs. The landlord is not liable to contribute or pay these. General compensation for inconvenience. The Tribunal may award general compensation for stress and inconvenience in appropriate cases. I do so here. The tenants were expecting to move into a pest-free home and start their new lives in a new city. They ended up having to remove their belongings and fumigate them to make sure they were not infested. I award $325.00 (half a week’s rent) for this time and effort. Has the landlord proved the claims for cleaning, lawn mowing, and reconnecting power?
The landlord claims end of tenancy expenses. I address these below:- a. Cleaning of “dust accumulation” due to what the landlord called the property being “abandoned by the tenant”. This claim is dismissed. Firstly, the property was not abandoned. The landlord agreed to release the tenants from the tenancy. Secondly, there was no evidence to prove any cleaning was needed. b. Power reconnection fee. This claim is dismissed. The tenants disconnected the power when they vacated. That is normal. They are not responsible for a fee being charged to the next tenant. c. Lawn mowing and garden maintenance. The landlord again refers to an abandonment. The invoice is for mowing the lawn the day before the new tenants moved in. I dismiss this claim. The tenancy ended with the landlord’s consent on 14 January 2026 and so did the tenants’ obligation to mow the lawn. Filing fees, division of bond and suppression of names
Both parties have been partly successful so the filing fees will remain as paid.
Compensation has been awarded to both parties. The end result is that the landlord will be paid $410.43 from the bond.
The Tribunal must order suppression of names where a party has been substantially successful with their claims unless publication is in the public interest or there is some other good reason; s95A RTA.
Both parties have been substantially successful here. And both have been unsuccessful in some claims.
There were cockroaches that caused inconvenience and real consequences for the tenants through no fault of theirs. The landlord acted to remedy the problem and agreed to the tenants’ request to end the tenancy. I am satisfied that both parties names should be suppressed. They did the best they could in an unfortunate situation.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5420817 — net $410.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent loss under fixed term contract to 11 Feb 2026	$2,599.97		Rent loss under fixed term contract to 11 Feb 2026
Expenses due to early termination	$418.60		Expenses due to early termination
Compensation: 50% reduction in rent for 14 days		$650.00	50% reduction in rent for 14 days
Compensation: 20% reduction in rent for 37 days		$705.71	20% reduction in rent for 37 days
Compensation: Disposal of items		$33.98	Disposal of items
Compensation: Loss of air-fryer and mirror (80		$109.60	Loss of air-fryer and mirror (80
Compensation: Food expenses		$527.16	Food expenses
Compensation: Pest mitigation costs		$256.69	Pest mitigation costs
Compensation: Inconvenience		$325.00	Inconvenience
Total award	$3,018.57	$2,608.14
Net award	$410.43
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$410.43

Claims and awards for application 5420817 — net $410.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent loss under fixed term contract to 11 Feb 2026

Amount: $2,599.97
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent loss under fixed term contract to 11 Feb 2026

Expenses due to early termination

Amount: $418.60
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Expenses due to early termination

Compensation: 50% reduction in rent for 14 days

Amount: $650.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 50% reduction in rent for 14 days

Compensation: 20% reduction in rent for 37 days

Amount: $705.71
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 20% reduction in rent for 37 days

Compensation: Disposal of items

Amount: $33.98
Awarded to: Tenant

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — Firstly, the property was not abandoned. The landlord agreed to release the tenants from the tenancy.

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
The tenancy terminated by agreement on 14 January 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows and calculated in accordance with the table below: [The landlord/s]: $410.43 [The tenant/s]: $2,189.57

Reasons

[Tenant 1] (for both tenants) and the landlord’s agent attended the hearing on 3 March 2026. [Tenant 1] was assisted by an interpreter of the Mandarin language. Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal.
This was a fixed-term tenancy starting on 22 December 2025 and due to end on 3 January 2027.
The tenants say the kitchen and dining room were seriously infested with cockroaches from the first day of the tenancy. They notified the landlord on 26 December 2025 who arranged professional pest control treatment but declined to give a rent reduction. The landlord says the cockroach infestation was minor.
The tenants moved their kitchen appliances and other belongings into the garage to prevent the cockroaches from infesting them. They did not use the kitchen or dining area while they waited for pest control, which took place on 31 December 2025. The family slept in one room, blocked up all gaps into that bedroom and frequently sprayed insect spray to prevent the cockroaches getting into other rooms.
The tenants decided to find somewhere else to live and told the landlord they would move out. They did so on 14 January 2026. The landlord agreed to end the tenancy early but on condition the tenants pay rent until new tenants took over and expenses related to finding the new tenants.
The tenants do not agree they should pay these and claim a rent reduction and their own expenses.
The applications are:- a. The landlord has applied for refund of the bond and an order for:- i. rent payable under the fixed term contract up to the date new tenants were found which is $2,599.97 to 11 February 2026, and ii. compensation of $837.20 for expenses related to ending the tenancy early, and iii. end of tenancy costs (cleaning $57.50, gardening $69.00, power reconnection $103.50). b. The tenants have applied for:- i. refund of the bond of $2,600.00, ii. release from liability under the fixed term tenancy because of what they say was a serious cockroach infestation, iii. compensation of 50% of the rent they have paid because they did not have the use of essential living areas especially the kitchen and dining areas, iv. compensation for expenses or loss related to the cockroaches of a total of $1,139.33, v. moving costs of $1,091.80.
All references to “RTA” mean the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

What are the issues to be decided?

The issues to be decided are:- a. Was the cockroach infestation a breach by the landlord? b. Did the landlord and tenant agree to end the fixed term tenancy early?

And, if so, on what terms?

A tenancy for a fixed term is a binding legal contract which usually includes a requirement that the tenant is liable to pay rent until the end of the term.
A fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by either party giving notice to the other except in limited circumstances. 1
A landlord and tenant may agree to end a fixed term tenancy early; section 50(1)(d) RTA.
If this is applied for, the Tenancy Tribunal may end a fixed-term tenancy, or reduce its term, if:- a. there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement, or the RTA, and the nature or extent of that breach means it would be inequitable (unfair) to refuse to terminate the tenancy; section 56 RTA. Where the breach is capable of remedy, the tenant must first serve a notice on the landlord requiring them to remedy the breach within a reasonable period (of at least 14 days) and must show they have failed to do so. b. in circumstances where there has been no breach (for example, a weather event), the premises are partly uninhabitable, and it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to reinstate the property or the tenant to continue the tenancy at a reduced rent (s59(4) RTA), or c. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant's circumstances, and it would cause them severe hardship if the term was not reduced, and that hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party (s66 RTA).
A tenant has a legal right to assign a tenancy with the prior written consent of a landlord and in accordance with reasonable conditions attached to that consent by the landlord; section 43B(1) RTA. 2
A landlord is entitled to recover from a tenant any expenses reasonably incurred in respect of consenting to an assignment or early ending of the tenancy; s44A RTA.

What does the tenancy agreement say?

The written clauses of the tenancy agreement (the contract) between the parties are important. These are almost always binding. 3
The relevant clauses in this tenancy agreement are:- 1 A fixed-term tenancy can be terminated by notice where a tenant has been charged with assault on a landlord/owner/agent, premises are unlawful or wholly uninhabitable or contaminated above a maximum inhabitable level specified in regulations; see s50(1)(a) RTA. A tenant may withdraw from a tenancy due to proven family violence; s56B RTA. 2 An “assignment” of a tenancy is a transfer to a person of all of the rights that a tenant has under a tenancy agreement; section 2 RTA. 3 Unless they are inconsistent with the law in the RTA or reduce the tenant’s rights (section 11 RTA), or there is some other serious fault with the agreement (see section 78(1)(f) and (g) RTA). In Section 4:

Was the cockroach infestation a breach by the landlord?

All landlords have a legal obligation to:- a. Provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and b. Provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair. See section 45(1)(a) and (b) RTA.
My decision is that there was a cockroach infestation inside the house during this tenancy which is a breach by the landlord of:- a. clause 37 of the tenancy agreement which is a requirement to keep the premises free from pests for the first 30 days of the tenancy, and b. section 45(1)(a) RTA as cockroaches nesting inside a house is not “a reasonable state of cleanliness”.
The evidence that supports my decision is:- a. The tenants’ photographs dated from 26 December 2025 until they moved out on 14 January 2026, showing live and dead cockroaches on kitchen surfaces, in cupboards, under and in appliances. b. Communication from the tenant to the landlord on 26 December 2025 notifying them they had discovered cockroaches after using insect bombs the day before moving in. She describes the situation worsening over the next few days causing her and her child to be distressed and not able to use the kitchen as it is not safe to prepare food. c. The tenant’s oral evidence describing discovering the cockroaches from the first day of the tenancy and every day afterwards. d. Written and oral evidence from both the landlord and the tenant’s pest control experts that there was an infestation of cockroaches living and nesting inside the house. i. The landlord’s expert report said: “... the treatment that was done would kill the adults and that we would do another treatment in four to six weeks time so there was fresh bait there for any eggs that may hatch out. ... In short there is a German Cockroach infestation in the house but it is minor in nature.” ii. The tenant’s expert report said: “The property has been infested by german cockroach at a medium level. As a picture show the german cockroach leave the black dropping around the kitchen cabinet hinge, which mean they already made a nest nearby for a while”.
In summary, I am satisfied the cockroaches were present from the start of the tenancy, that there were more than one or two and that they were nesting inside the house and that this is a breach by the landlord. Did the landlord and tenant agree to end the fixed term tenancy early? If so, on what terms?
A landlord and tenant can agree to end a fixed term tenancy early.
The important communication between the parties is: - [my underlining] a. On 26 December 2025, the tenants notified the landlord of the cockroach infestation, asked for a rent reduction, and said they “... will not be residing in the property anymore.” b. On 29 December 2025, the landlord confirmed they had engaged pest control, declined the rent reduction, and gave written information about the process and costs of early termination of the tenancy, including continuing to pay rent until a new tenant is found and liability for costs related to this and any rent shortfall up to the end of term. c. On 31 December 2025, the tenant said: I plan to relocate to a suitable residence as soon as possible. I will cooperate with property viewings to find new tenants ... . d. On 4 January 2026, the tenant wrote to confirm she had paid full rent “under protest”. e. On 5 January 2026, the landlord says: We have had another talk with the landlord and we are willing to release you from the tenancy earlier to assist your situation. f. On 5 and 6 January 2026, the landlord asks if the tenant agrees to the terms of ending the tenancy early and the tenant says her view is that the Tribunal will decide these as she has made this application. g. On 11 January 2026, the tenant advises the landlord of a vacate date. h. On 12 January 2026, the landlord replies: As previously advised, the landlord has agreed to bring the tenancy to an early end, however, it will be subjected to your compliance with the requirements and costs outlined in our email dated 29 December 2025 at 11:16.
The terms of the tenancy agreement are also relevant. These said:- a. the tenant “agrees to make all payments” (clause 1c), and b. “is liable for rent payments until the expiry date of the fixed term provided at least 21 days before the expiry date, the Tenant gives the Landlord written notice of the Tenant’s intention not to continue with the tenancy or the reletting date, whichever is the earlier” (clause 3b), [my underlining], and c. “... the landlord may seek to recover expenses incurred for ... terminating a fixed- term tenancy agreement prior to the end date ...” (clause 27b).
Clause 3b would benefit from punctuation or brackets to help it make sense. I have underlined the key words in clause 3b. In my view, the words between the underlining should be in brackets because they refer to when a tenant gives notice to end a fixed term tenancy on the end date of the term; see section 60A RTA.
Clause 27b is a statement of the legal right of a landlord to recover reasonable expenses when agreeing to terminate a tenancy which is contained in s44A RTA.
The tenants agreed to these clauses when they signed the tenancy agreement.
When the tenants told the landlord they had decided to leave the premises, and the landlord agreed to release them early, the tenants were contractually required to pay the rent in accordance with clauses 1c and 3b in the tenancy agreement. That is, until the end of the term or the reletting date.
Clause 27b and s44A RTA mean the tenants must pay the landlord’s reasonable expenses related to the early termination of the tenancy.
The tenants cannot refuse to do so, and the landlord did not need to ask them to agree again (as it did in several emails).
It is clear from the communication that the landlord did not waive or “give away” the right to claim the rent and expenses. This means its claims are validly made.
I address the amount of the claims later in this decision.

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

The tenants have applied for an order that they be released from the fixed term tenancy because of the cockroach infestation.
I do not need to make an order to reduce the term of the tenancy because I have decided (above) that the parties agreed to do so themselves. The tenancy ended on 14 January 2026.
However, for completeness, I record that I would not have reduced the term of the fixed term tenancy.
I have set out my reasons for this below as it may assist the parties. Should the tenancy be terminated because of the breach by the landlord? Section 56 RTA.
The tenants applied for an order to terminate the tenancy “due to a serious breach of the landlord’s obligations”. 4 This is an application under section 56 RTA.
When either a landlord or tenant breaches their obligations, the other party can apply to the Tribunal for an order to terminate the tenancy but, if the breach can be remedied, they must:- a. Give the other party written notice of the breach and ask them to remedy it within a reasonable period which must be of at least 14 days; and b. Prove the other party failed to remedy the breach within that reasonable period. See s56(1)(b) RTA.
The tenants did give the landlord written notice specifying the nature of the breach (on 26 and 29 December 2025) and requiring it to be remedied (by pest control treatment and reducing the rent).
However, they did not specify a reasonable period (of not less than 14 days) within which the landlord was required to remedy the breach. Instead, the 4 As written in the tenants’ application to the Tribunal. tenant had already decided that she would not continue to reside in the property (she said this in her communication on 26 and 31 December 2025).
Also, in my view, the landlord did remedy the breach within a reasonable period. It arranged and paid for pest control treatment. The first of these treatments took place on 31 December 2025. I heard oral evidence from both the landlord’s and tenants’ pest control experts that the first treatment would kill almost all the bugs in 24 to 48 hours and only the occasional pest should be seen after that. Both experts also said a second treatment would usually be needed about a month later and possibly subsequent treatments to kill any new bugs that hatched.
The tenants disagree and say the treatment must not have worked properly because it did not remove all cockroaches (photos taken on the days after the pest treatment up until the day they moved out show there were still live bugs).
I have sympathy for the tenants. It was clear that they were very upset and stressed by the cockroaches. In their opinion, the kitchen and dining areas were not usable or habitable and they were too frightened to sleep properly for fear the bugs would get into the bedroom. They described the infestation as serious, or severe, and said that it was the first pest control expert who told them these particular inside cockroaches were a pest that must be removed for safety reasons. The tenants said they then read a lot of material on the internet that convinced them this was correct.
However, the evidence does not support a view that the infestation was severe. Neither the landlord’s nor the tenant’s experts said this. 5 They both agreed that it was not ideal or desirable to have German cockroaches in a house because the bugs would feed off bits of food or other organic material in the house which may be decomposing and could then transfer bacteria to other household surfaces or food. They also said that German cockroach numbers could rapidly increase inside especially when conditions were warm.
The tenants’ photos taken in the days after the treatment do show live cockroaches. This does not prove the infestation was severe or that the treatment did not work. As best I can tell, there are just one or two bugs visible at a time. This is consistent with what the experts said would happen.
I am satisfied that the landlord did remedy the breach by engaging professional pest control and communicating to the tenants (on 5 January 2026) that there would be ongoing treatment. 5 The landlord’s pest expert said in writing that it was “minor” and the tenants’ expert said it was “at a medium level”.
My decision is that, after the first pest treatment had been allowed the 48 hours to work and the tenants had been told about the repeat treatment process, the “infestation” (cockroaches nesting) was remedied. Single cockroaches may still be seen but the ongoing treatment plan would make sure any nesting or increase would stop.
Also, before the Tribunal terminates a tenancy because of a breach by one party, it must be satisfied that the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable (unfair) to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenants were very distressed but the presence of cockroaches that are being treated by professional methods was not a breach so serious as to justify termination of a fixed term tenancy. I would have dismissed the tenants’ application to terminate the tenancy for breach by the landlord. Could the Tribunal terminate the tenancy because the premises were partly uninhabitable? Section 59 RTA.
The tenants also said in their application that the kitchen and dining areas could not be used for food preparation or for eating because the presence of cockroaches made this unhealthy. The tenants also removed their kitchen appliances and many other belongings to the garage as they were worried the cockroaches may start to nest inside them.
The Tribunal can make an order to terminate a tenancy if part of premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, but the law says this section only applies where the damage or destruction has not been caused by a breach; s59(4) RTA.
In my view, the purpose of this section is to allow for the tenancy to terminate and rent to reduce when there has been damage caused by an event outside of the control of either party (eg weather, natural disasters, or building element failure).
The section does not apply to a maintenance issue that can be remedied. Was the cockroach infestation an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances that would cause severe hardship if the term of the tenancy was not reduced? Section 66 RTA.
The Tribunal can reduce the term of a tenancy where, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship they would suffer if the tenancy was not reduced is greater than hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
The District Court has decided that an “unforeseen change” must be something that was well outside the contemplation of the parties at the time the tenancy agreement was entered into and that issues of relatively minor maintenance could not fall into the definition. 6 The issues in that case were a smell of cat urine, a faulty kitchen rangehood, a broken showerhead, and a broken spa pool.
The Judge said these were no doubt irritating, but could all be remedied or reduced or improved and therefore it would not cause severe hardship to continue the tenancy.
The cockroach infestation was not an issue so serious or severe that it could not be remedied. Both the tenants 7 and the landlord 8 took steps to remedy, reduce and improve the situation.
The other remedy is that the tenants could seek compensation for the effects of the cockroach infestation which is what they have done in this application.
Relatively minor or common maintenance, cleanliness or pest issues cannot be said to be “unforeseen” in a tenancy. Sometimes they happen and when they do, they can be remedied or the effect of them reduced.
My decision is that this cockroach infestation is not an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances, and I would not have reduced the term of the tenancy under s66 RTA. Are the tenants liable to pay rent until the premises were re-let and the landlord’s claimed expenses?
My decisions that the landlord and tenants agreed to reduce the term of the tenancy mean that the tenants are liable to pay rent until the premises were re-let and to pay the landlord’s reasonable expenses related to the early termination.
If a landlord agrees to end a fixed term tenancy early, it must take reasonable steps to advertise and re-let the premises as quickly as possible. This is called mitigating its loss and is an obligation to limit the damage or loss caused by a breach by the tenant’s request to end the tenancy early; s49 RTA. 6 Davies v Clarke & Snead [2017] NZDC 21608 at 32 – 41. 7 They removed their belongings to the garage and did not use the house for food preparation or eating. They wrapped belongings in plastic wrap, fumigated appliances and threw away two items. They closely guarded their sleeping space. 8 Arranging and paying for the pest treatment and communicating with the tenants about the treatment plan.
The tenants only gave a few days’ notice of their vacate date (notifying the landlord on 11 January that they would move out on 14 January 2026). The landlord advertised the next day on 12 January 2026. New tenants were found from 12 February 2026. This is a reasonable period between tenancies in the circumstances and I award the rent up to 11 February 2026 which is $2,599.97.
The landlord has provided a breakdown and verifying evidence of its expenses in advertising the property, credit checks, and time in viewings, inspections and administration. These are not unreasonable.
However, what does seem unfair is that the tenants wanted to be released from the tenancy because of a situation that was not their fault and was outside of their control. I have decided it is fairest to reduce this claim by 50% in the circumstances. I award the landlord half of $837.20 which is $418.60. Is the landlord liable to pay compensation to the tenants related to the cockroaches?
The tenants seek compensation related to the cockroach infestation. I have found this was a breach by the landlord. The tenants can claim reasonable loss or expenses that are reasonably foreseeable or related to the breach.
I address the claims below. a. The tenants seek a 50% rent reduction. They say they were not able to safely or healthily use the kitchen and dining areas or to install their appliances and belongings inside. I agree that it was reasonable of the tenants to avoid use of the food preparation and eating areas, and to keep their appliances and belongings out of the house until the infestation had been treated. The evidence from the pest experts supports their concern that there was a risk of cross-contamination and of the bugs getting into their belongings. The evidence also supports a view that the kitchen and dining areas were safe to use from 48 hours after the pest treatment on 31 December 2025. The tenants do not agree but, as I have decided above, the experts say it is highly likely that very few cockroaches would remain after that time, and the follow-up treatments would make sure they did not nest. I award 50% of the rent paid from 22 December 2025 up to 4 January 2026 which allows two days for moving belongings inside. The rent for 14 days is $1,300.00 so 50% of this is $650.00 which is awarded to the tenants as compensation. b. I award compensation of a further 20% of the rent for the period from 5 January 2026 up to 11 February 2026 (which is the rent period the landlord has claimed for). The landlord had guaranteed in the tenancy agreement that the premises would be free of pests for the first 30 days. They were not. The tenants were not at fault in any way, yet they were the people having to live with the situation. The pest control experts said a second treatment a month after the first would be required. This would be on about 31 January 2026. I apply the 20% compensation up to the date the landlord has claimed rent for. Total rent for this time is $3,528.57 so compensation of 20% is $705.71 which is awarded. c. The tenants claim $192.50 for the costs of an inspection and report from a pest control expert they engaged to give a second opinion. They were not sure that the treatment the landlord had arranged had been effective. I decline this claim. The tenants requested more details about the landlord’s pest treatment on 5 January 2026 and were given information on 6 January 2026. In my view, there was no need for them to engage another expert. d. The tenants say that their air-fryer and a full-length mirror were damaged due to the cockroaches. The bugs went inside the air-fryer which could not be reassembled after it was fumigated. The frame of the mirror fell apart after fumigation. I accept these claims as reasonable and related and award 80% of the quoted values. The discount is because the damaged items were used. I award $109.60. e. I award the claim for dump fees for the contaminated air-fryer and mirror which is $33.98. f. The tenants claim $527.16 in pre-prepared, restaurant or takeaway food. I award this claim. I note that some of the receipts relate to dates after 4 January 2026 which is when I have decided the kitchen and dining areas could be used. However, the receipts are representative. The amount claimed is about $37.00 per day, for the 14 days the food areas and appliances could not be used, which I consider is a reasonable amount. g. I award the claim for the receipted cost of pest treatment of the house and fumigation of appliances (the tenants did this themselves). This is $256.69. h. The tenants seek compensation of $1,091.80 for moving costs. I decline this claim. As I have decided above, the landlord remedied the cockroach infestation and there were no grounds for the Tribunal to reduce the term of this tenancy. This means the costs of the tenants’ decision to move elsewhere are theirs. The landlord is not liable to contribute or pay these. General compensation for inconvenience. The Tribunal may award general compensation for stress and inconvenience in appropriate cases. I do so here. The tenants were expecting to move into a pest-free home and start their new lives in a new city. They ended up having to remove their belongings and fumigate them to make sure they were not infested. I award $325.00 (half a week’s rent) for this time and effort. Has the landlord proved the claims for cleaning, lawn mowing, and reconnecting power?
The landlord claims end of tenancy expenses. I address these below:- a. Cleaning of “dust accumulation” due to what the landlord called the property being “abandoned by the tenant”. This claim is dismissed. Firstly, the property was not abandoned. The landlord agreed to release the tenants from the tenancy. Secondly, there was no evidence to prove any cleaning was needed. b. Power reconnection fee. This claim is dismissed. The tenants disconnected the power when they vacated. That is normal. They are not responsible for a fee being charged to the next tenant. c. Lawn mowing and garden maintenance. The landlord again refers to an abandonment. The invoice is for mowing the lawn the day before the new tenants moved in. I dismiss this claim. The tenancy ended with the landlord’s consent on 14 January 2026 and so did the tenants’ obligation to mow the lawn. Filing fees, division of bond and suppression of names
Both parties have been partly successful so the filing fees will remain as paid.
Compensation has been awarded to both parties. The end result is that the landlord will be paid $410.43 from the bond.
The Tribunal must order suppression of names where a party has been substantially successful with their claims unless publication is in the public interest or there is some other good reason; s95A RTA.
Both parties have been substantially successful here. And both have been unsuccessful in some claims.
There were cockroaches that caused inconvenience and real consequences for the tenants through no fault of theirs. The landlord acted to remedy the problem and agreed to the tenants’ request to end the tenancy. I am satisfied that both parties names should be suppressed. They did the best they could in an unfortunate situation.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420817 — Tenancy dispute at 57 Fenwick Crescent, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420817 — Tenancy dispute at 57 Fenwick Crescent, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What are the issues to be decided?

And, if so, on what terms?

What does the tenancy agreement say?

Was the cockroach infestation a breach by the landlord?

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What are the issues to be decided?

And, if so, on what terms?

What does the tenancy agreement say?

Was the cockroach infestation a breach by the landlord?

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions