Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5425188 — Tenancy dispute at [address redacted]
Decided 27 May 2026 · Published 27 May 2026 · Application 5425188
- Boarding House
- Cleanliness
- Harassment
- Healthy homes
- Mould & damp
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
- Smoke alarms
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Picton
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Brennan
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $806.57
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $706.57
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reinstate table legs | $50.00 | Reinstate table legs | |
| Compensation: Lack of sub-floor insulation | $200.00 | Lack of sub-floor insulation | |
| Compensation: Quiet enjoyment | $400.00 | Quiet enjoyment | |
| Rent increase refund | $128.57 | Rent increase refund | |
| Filing fee |
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names.
- Monkeymoiz Limited Yvonne & Leith Brew must pay [The tenant/s] $606.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenants have applied for compensation.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, following the end of the tenancy.
- 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.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 1 January 2026. The bond was held by the landlord and any rent arrears at the end of the tenancy was resolved by the bond’s retention.
- The landlord sought 12 weeks rent as compensation for a claimed inability to relet the premises after this tenancy ended.
- The landlord submitted he had not attempted to relet as there were missing chattels. The lack of attempt appears a point of principle rather than any practical impediment.
- I raised the duty to mitigate a loss under s 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Frankly, I see there was no practical impediment to attempt to relet the premise from early January 2026. The premises was returned clean and tidy, and any claimed missing chattels were of no significance, especially as it was acknowledged by the landlord that some other tenants had preferred to use their own chattels. If it was a principled decision, then the consequences of any loss of rent remains with the landlord in this instance.
- The claim for rent/loss of rent is dismissed.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenants left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The landlord claimed the tenants removed three chattels claimed as provided. These were a microwave, Freeview box, and mattress. The claim regarding the mattress was that it had been swapped by the tenants with a lesser quality mattress.
- The tenants disputed the claims, saying they did not remove any such chattels, nor swap the mattress.
- There was no new written tenancy agreement for this tenancy. The tenants had moved from another premises at this address on 14 April 2025 and in the mind of the landlord it continued. That past tenancy agreement was also silent on any chattels. There were no entry photos to evidence such chattels as claimed.
- The landlord has failed to evidence to the required standard that the chattels were in place at commencement and formed part of the tenancy.
- Even if I am wrong, the age and condition of the chattels suggest significant depreciation such that no loss that might attract a compensation order exists. 1
- The claims for tenant liability of missing chattels are dismissed.
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.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or 1 The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I would have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
- A table was provided as part of the tenancy. During the tenancy it was dismantled by the tenants and placed into storage outside of the premises. A post-vacate reunion between the four legs and top was reduced due to missing bolts to fix the legs. There whereabout remain unknown.
- I consider the tenants dismantling and removal of the table required a reverse exercise from them at the end of the tenancy to reassemble and leave the table complete in the premises. The fact the bolts are missing
- The amount ordered is proved. Tenant application
- The tenants sought compensation of $2,000. This was based on claimed landlord failures to provide sub-floor insulation and bathroom extractor fan, interference with quiet enjoyment, and an illegal rent increase
Was the underfloor insulated?
- [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
- From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
- Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
- There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
- The premises has a skillion ceiling and as such it is not reasonably practical to install ceiling insulation. The landlord stated they have been insulating the cavities in the multiple units at this address as and when roofing is replaced.
- I heard the sub-floor is accessible and there be some limited crawl space at the back of the floor, it is reasonably practical to have insulated the underfloor well before this tenancy and within the statutory timeframe.
- The impact of this failure on the tenants is uncertain. I heard the back bedroom suffered from dampness and some mould on the wall was discovered at exit when a wardrobe that had covered that space was removed.
- Nothing during the tenant indicated mould and no health impacts were cited. I accept the tenants managed that room by using crystal damp proofing in the built-in wardrobes and a dehumidifier. The back wall of that room is south facing, and the room lacks much natural light. That said, appropriate insulation would be expected to mitigate some of the worst effects of the room’s orientation. As a minimum, a reduced need for commercial products and lesser electricity consumption may be reasonably assumed.
- Balancing the landlord’s failure to insulate against the minimal impact on the tenant I award compensation of $200.00 to the tenants.
Was a bathroom extractor fan installed?
- The tenants claim the landlord did not install a bathroom extractor fan as required.
- The landlord claimed he had been advised by an electrician installing such a fan in another unit that it was not practical to do so here. 2
- The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
- The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
- It is not disputed there is no bathroom extractor fan.
- Having reviewed the photos and considered the respective submission, I do not find the applicant has proved the landlord wrong in their stance that it was reasonably impractical to install an extractor and exempt. I also considered the lack of detriment to the bathroom use as acknowledged by the tenants. I must therefore dismiss the claim.
Did the rent increase unlawfully?
- The tenants claim the landlord increased their rent unlawfully.
- Section 24 RTA provides the rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and 2 There are five units at the address – part of a former motel. (b) that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c) the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given; and (d) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy
- The landlord advised the tenants by hand-delivered letter. All tenants in the five units received the increase letter on the same day. The rent was electricity inclusive, and the landlord claimed the increase of $15 per week was to recover the increased electricity costs they were incurring.
- There were two failures by the landlord. The first was treating this tenancy as a continuation of the previous tenancy of these tenants (in another unit). That means the increase occurred within the first 12 months of the tenancy.
- The second was that the landlord made the increase effective from the next rent payment, rather than the minimum 60 days as required.
- The tenant increased their rent payments within two weeks of notice. The rent increased from $385.00 to $400.00.
- This rent increase failed two of the prerequisites before any rent increase could become effective. I have determined the compensation for this should be the return to the $15 per week paid earlier than the minimum 60-day period as required. That is calculated to be $128.57. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
- 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 but this was not sought by the tenants I their application.
- 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 landlords live at the same address. There is a history of both amicable and less such interactions. The event specifically cited by the tenants pertains to a parking dispute in December 2025. The tenancy would end soon afterwards.
- The landlord was conducting exterior painting around the collective parking area. On or around 10 December 2025 he and one tenant talked about the problem of the parked car interfering. After discussion and an offer by the tenant to move the car the matter seems settled. During the next day the same tenant had cause to return during the day for a short period and he parked the car such that the landlord considered it intentionally parked to frustrate him as it would have been obvious he was painting in that area. He was not painting at that time but upon discovering the parked car he expressed his anger via a note left on the front door of the premises, after there was no response at the premises when he knocked. The letter does not make for good reading and reflects his mood at that time. Unfortunately, it also contained threats of termination at short notice (well within any permitted notice period).
- The tenants gave notice shortly after finding the note upon their return. The note starts, “[tenant], is this f-----g replay of the [redacted] act...” 3 An approach to the landlord to discuss was rebuffed. The landlord later in the hearing suggested he knew they would give notice if such a note was presented. This suggests more than “words in anger” with some other motivation possible. The note’s warning that this was “one strike (of two) towards you being served a 1 month notice to leave”.
- The tenants acknowledged the rent was cheap and they had balanced that with other aspects of the tenancy. There was little evidence of issues being raised during the tenancy. The landlord feels this application was motivated by a previous tenant application from another unit at this address. Whatever the motivation, the success of the application relies on proven landlord failures. Avoiding such failures was within the control of the landlord and I suggest it something he should reflect on. The proposed use of a professional property manager going forward offers a number of possible benefits to both the landlord and remaining tenants. 3 This was a reference to a separate, unsubstantiated dispute over parking at a local club between the tenant and someone else.
- The note left erred in tone and fact. The threat of termination was cited by the tenants as the trigger for them to move. They found a new tenancy quickly and within 21 days the tenancy had ended by tenant notice.
- I consider this a serious breach by the landlord. I have determined compensation is appropriate and I consider $400.00 appropriate (being one week of rent) after considering the event and impact.
- The tenants acknowledged the rent was cheap and they had balanced that with other aspects of the tenancy. There was little evidence of issues being raised during the tenancy. The landlord feels this application was motivated by a previous tenant application from another unit at this address. Whatever the motivation, the success of the application relies on proven landlord failures. Avoiding such failures was within the control of the landlord and I suggest it something he should reflect on. The proposed use of a professional property manager going forward offers a number of benefits to the landlord and remaining tenants. Filing fee
- The tenants have had substantial success with their application and are returned their filing fee. The landlord is to carry its own cost of filing. Suppression
- Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they have been substantially successful, name suppression is ordered. I do not suppress the tenancy address as there are public interest concerns that outweigh any possible tenant interest, given the failings of the landlord as determined here.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s2, s2016, s24, s38(2), s40(1), s40(2), s45(1), s49, s49B(3), s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: smoke alarms
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5425188 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 5425188?
Compensation: Lack of sub-floor insu…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Reinstate Table Legs: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Increase Refund: $128.57 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425188?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425188?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13665882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.