What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5441618 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 5441618?

Compensation: Failure to provide pre…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,232.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5441618?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5441618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13547558-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5441618 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 5441618?

Compensation: Failure to provide pre…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,232.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5441618?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5441618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13547558-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5441618 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5441618 — net $232.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 March 2026	$1,232.14		Rent arrears to 7 March 2026
Compensation: Failure to provide premises in a		$1,000.00	compensation for this breach. Taking the following factors into account, I find $1,000.00 to be reasonable: a.
Total award	$1,232.14	$1,000.00
Net award	$232.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$232.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5441618 — net $232.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 March 2026	$1,232.14		Rent arrears to 7 March 2026
Compensation: Failure to provide premises in a		$1,000.00	compensation for this breach. Taking the following factors into account, I find $1,000.00 to be reasonable: a.
Total award	$1,232.14	$1,000.00
Net award	$232.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$232.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $232.14 to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,492.86 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 April 2026. [The landlord] appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The tenancy began on 7 February 2026 and was meant to be for a fixed-term ending on 5 February 2027. The tenant claims the premises were not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy. In particular, they claim that the carpet in the lounge smelt very bad and had staining consisting with animal faeces. The tenant declined to live in the premises, which were ultimately re- tenanted on 8 March 2026. The landlord seeks rent arrears up to 7 March 2026, which the tenant claims they should not have to pay. The issues I must determine are: a. Were the premises provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness? b. When did the fixed term tenancy end? c. Should the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy be granted? d. How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears? e. Should the tenant pay the landlord $770.00 for the costs reasonably incurred in ending the fixed-term tenancy early?
Before determining these issues, I discuss some general legal principles that apply to the case.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence and submissions were made at the hearing. This decision may not refer to everything that was said or submitted however, the parties can be assured that I have considered it. Compensation
Both parties seek compensation for alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Were the premises provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The law

A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 2
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7 1 See Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(a). 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises were not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy for the following reasons: a. There were cobwebs and mould in the top part of the wardrobes in the bedrooms. b. There was mould and staining on the back of the curtains. c. There were cockroaches in the kitchen. d. The internal doors had borer holes in them. e. There was mould on the bottom of the shower box. f. The carpet in the lounge smelt very bad and was stained. The tenant claims the staining and smell were consistent with animal faeces, although they accept they cannot be sure about the cause. g. The outdoor rubbish bins were full.
The tenant submitted photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy to support their oral evidence.
The landlord claims the premises were reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy and relies on photographs taken on 5 February 2026, two days before the tenancy began. The landlord claims the premises appear reasonably clean in the photographs and says that the state of the premises was actually improved by 7 February 2026, because it was professionally cleaned, including the carpet, on 4 and 6 February 2026. The landlord submitted invoices for cleaning and carpet cleaning.
The landlord accepts the carpet in the lounge was stained but denies this was a result of animal faeces. The landlord claims the staining was a result of the former tenant’s children drawing on the carpet. The landlord accepts the carpet smelt slightly damp and like chemicals when they visited the premises on 5 February 2026. They deny the smell was as bad as the tenant claims it was. The landlord gave evidence the smell was a result of the carpets having been professionally cleaned and not fully dried out. The landlord says they left the windows slightly ajar after their visit on 5 February 2026 to help ventilate the premises and dry the carpet out.
The landlord accepts there are borer holes on some of the internal doors, but gave evidence this was a result of a previous infestation and there was no active infestation at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord claims they visited the premises on 7 February 2026 after receiving the tenant’s complaint. They claim the state of the premises was nowhere near what the tenant described it to be in. Analysis
The photographs taken on 5 February 2026 show the premises in a reasonably clean condition. I say this because the floors appear to have been vacuumed and mopped, and the surfaces wiped down. The bathroom and kitchen appear to have been cleaned. The silicone at the base of the shower is mouldy however, this is minimal and the result of fair wear and tear. The same can be said regarding the plastic seal on the shower door. The base of the shower where the doors track has some dust in it and could have done with a wipe however, this is minimal. Importantly however, the landlord’s photographs do not show some aspects of the house that the tenant’s photographs do.
The photographs submitted by the tenant show cobwebs and small amounts of mould in the top area of the wardrobes. The landlord did not submit any photographs of this area. The tenant’s photographs also show the outdoor rubbish bins are full and that the back of some of the curtains are heavily stained.
The photographs submitted by the tenant show one dead cockroach on the floor. The tenant gave evidence there were lots of baby cockroaches, which were unable to be photographed because they ran away quickly. In the absence of any photographs or other supporting evidence, I am not convinced there was more than one cockroach present. The photographs submitted by both parties do not show the premises to be in a condition likely to attract multiple cockroaches and no evidence of an infestation was submitted.
I am also not convinced on the balance of probabilities that there was an active infestation of borer in the wooden, internal doors. The photographs submitted by the tenant show some borer holes in the bottom of some of the doors however, no evidence of an active infestation was submitted. The premises are clearly quite dated from the photographs and the damage caused by the borer holes is minimal. I find the condition of the internal doors to be consistent with the likely age of the premises.
On the basis of the evidence presented, I find the top wardrobe area in the bedrooms was not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy. I also find that some of the curtains were not reasonably clean, nor were the outdoor rubbish bins. I now turn to consider the carpet.
The photographs submitted by the tenant show some moderate staining to the carpet in the lounge. Moderate carpet stains do not render a premises unreasonably clean, provided the carpet has been professionally cleaned and there is no smell. In this case, I am satisfied the carpets were professionally cleaned on 4 February 2026, because the landlord has submitted an invoice for this. On the balance of probabilities, I find the carpet smelt at the beginning of the tenancy on 7 February 2026 as a result of having been professionally cleaned and not properly drying out before the tenancy began. I am not convinced the smell was due to animal faeces. No expert evidence to this effect was submitted and the landlord gave evidence the prior tenant did not have a pet.
The parties gave conflicting evidence about the extent of the smell. The tenant claims it was significant and lingered in the days following the beginning of the tenancy, whereas the landlord claims it was minor and did not linger.
Cases involving smells are always difficult to determine. This is because a smell cannot be bottled up and provided to the Tribunal as evidence. It is also difficult to convey a smell from photographs alone. In this case, the tenant has submitted written evidence from two witnesses who assisted them with moving into the premises. Both witnesses confirm that the carpet smell was strong at the beginning of the tenancy. In written documents, these witnesses respectively state: “I also noticed a strong dog/animal smell inside the house, particularly in the living area. The odour was noticeable immediately upon entry,” “Shortly after entering the property, it was clear that there was a strong dog smell, along with a urine like odour, especially in the lounge area.”
The carpet was professionally cleaned on 4 February 2026 and the windows were left slightly ajar from 5 February 2026 - 7 February 2026. This limited ventilation following the steam cleaning of the carpets, together with the tenant’s witness’ written evidence, means I consider it more likely than not that the smell was strong at the beginning of the tenancy.
I have considered the fact that the tenant’s witnesses are friends of the tenant and the potential for bias however, I do not find that this materially effects the reliability or credibility of their written accounts. I consider the tenant’s witness’ evidence is supported by the limited ventilation of the premises between 4 February 2026 – 7 February 2026.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the smell lingered for longer than one week. The landlord submitted an email sent to the tenant on 10 February 2026 advising that the owner had visited the premises to fix a flickering light, install new sealant in the shower and clean the top part of the wardrobes. The landlord states that the owner advised that the carpet did not smell at this time. By this stage, the tenant was only using the premises for storage and not living in them. The keys were returned to the landlord on 13 February 2026. The tenant’s witness’ only discuss the smell of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy, not in the days following. For these reasons, I find there is insufficient evidence to convince me on the balance of probabilities that the smell in the carpet lingered for longer than a maximum of one week.
To conclude, I find the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness for the following reasons: a. There were cobwebs and mould in the top parts of the wardrobes in the bedrooms. b. Some curtains were badly stained. c. The carpet in the lounge smelt strongly as a result of being professionally cleaned and not having fully dried out. d. The outdoor rubbish bins were full.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. Taking the following factors into account, I find $1,000.00 to be reasonable: a. Nature of the breach. Failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness is a serious breach, as evidenced by the fact that in the worst cases, exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 8 I find the facts of this case fall towards the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness. Overall, I am convinced the premises were provided in mostly reasonably clean state, with the exception to the areas listed above. Whilst the carpet smelt at the beginning of the tenancy, I am not convinced this was a result of animal faeces, nor am I convinced the smell lingered longer than one week. b. Duration of the breach. This is difficult to assess, because the tenant did not live in the premises and returned the keys to the landlord on 13 February 2026. I find the wardrobes were remedied on 10 February 2026 when the owner visited the premises. I also find the carpet most likely stopped smelling by 14 February 2026. No evidence about whether the stained curtains were replaced was submitted. The bins were most likely emptied on Tuesday, 10 February 2026. c. Effect of the breach on the party. The state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy meant the tenancy got off to a very bad start. In an email sent to the landlord on 9 February 2026, the tenant advised that the experience had been disappointing and that they no longer trusted the landlord or wanted to continue with the tenancy. I accept the breach resulted in stress, anxiety and inconvenience to the tenant. The tenant also claims they incurred moving costs twice. First, the initial cost to move into the premises and again to move back into the temporary accommodation they were staying at. The tenant claims they also incurred costs of $3,035.00 in temporary accommodation costs (5.5 weeks at $550.00 per week). 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. The tenant did not submit invoices for the moving of their goods but gave evidence they spent $360.00 for the first move and $399.00 for the second move. A quote for the second move was submitted and text messages between the mover and the tenant for the first move were submitted however, these messages do not state the final cost for the first move, just the hourly rate. The tenant claims they paid cash for their temporary accommodation and did not submit any invoices for these payments. Because I find the breach was most likely remedied by 14 February 2026, the landlord is only liable for the costs incurred for one week of the tenant’s temporary accommodation, not 5.5 weeks. The landlord is also only liable for the tenant’s initial moving costs, not the second. This is because the second cost to move the tenant’s goods was incurred as a result of the tenant deciding they no longer wanted to continue with the tenancy, irrespective of whether the breach had been remedied or not. .

When did the fixed term tenancy end?

The law

A fixed term tenancy ends on the expiry of the fixed term or, if any of sections 55AA, 56A(1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A or 59B apply, by giving notice in accordance with the applicable section. 9
A fixed term tenancy can also end by order of the Tribunal pursuant to the powers conferred on it by the RTA. 10 For example, a landlord may apply to the Tribunal to end a fixed term tenancy if a tenant is more than 21 days in arrears under section 55(1)(a) RTA.
A tenant may also end a fixed term tenancy early with the landlord’s prior written consent and in accordance with any conditions attached to that consent. 11
A fixed-term tenancy also ends where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent. 12 Analysis
On 9 February 2026, the tenant sent the landlord an email advising that they did not wish to continue with the tenancy. The tenant said: 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 50(1)(a). 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 50(1)(f). 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 44(2). 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 50(1)(d). ... After careful consideration, we wish to be clear that we do not feel comfortable continuing with this tenancy. The condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy, together with the differing views on what constitutes a reasonably clean and habitable standard, has resulted in a breakdown of trust. Unfortunately, this has meant the tenancy has started on the wrong footing, and we do not wish to proceed further. ...
None of the provisions in sections 55AA, 56A(1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A or 59B RTA applied to allow the tenant to end the tenancy by giving notice. The tenant did not send the landlord a 14-day notice and then apply to the Tribunal to end the tenancy either. The landlord agreed to allow the tenant to end the tenancy early, provided the tenant continued to pay rent until a new tenancy began and paid a lease break fee of $770.00. The tenant did not agree to these conditions. Although the tenant delivered up vacant possession of the premises to on 13 February 2026 with the landlord’s written consent, the landlord’s consent was premised on certain conditions, which the tenant did not agree to.
In these circumstances, I find the tenancy ended on 7 March 2026, which is one day before the new tenancy began. The landlord submitted a copy of the tenancy agreement for the new tenancy, which confirms it began on 8 March 2026.

Should the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

The law

Section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that the Tribunal may reduce a fixed-term tenancy where: a. There has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. There would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term were not reduced; and c. The applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term were reduced.
Examples where the Tribunal has found there to be an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances are: 13 a. Unexpected loss of income through becoming unemployed; b. Where the tenant must leave the locality for employment purposes; c. Where the tenant’s partner leaves and the remaining tenant can no longer afford to pay the rent; d. Where the tenant has a child and needs larger or cheaper premises; e. Where the tenant suffers a disability and must move to premises that can accommodate the disability (for example, wheelchair accessible); and f. Where the landlord having previously lived in the premises has to return to the area sooner than expected and resume occupation of the premises. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims the fixed-term tenancy should be reduced because of the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. In particular, the tenant claims the premises were not reasonably clean and the carpet smelt very bad. The tenant also claims the fact that the carpet was stained in the lounge was not disclosed to them. Analysis
The tenant viewed the premises remotely by video. They were living in Wellington at the time and moving to Auckland for employment purposes. They needed a place to stay when they arrived and wanted to secure a tenancy in advance of their move.
I have no doubt that the tenant did not expect the carpet to smell at the beginning of the tenancy and that this was unexpected. It is also likely that the tenant did not see the stained carpet in the lounge during their remote viewing and this was also unexpected, together with the fact that the wardrobes in the bedrooms had mould and spiderwebs in them and the rubbish bins were full. The difficulty for the tenant, however, is that all of these things relate to the premises and not the tenant. For this reason, the test in section 66 RTA is not met and the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed. 13 See for example Hippolite v J P Morgan Real Estate Tenancy Tribunal Palmerston North TT 431/96, 9 May 1996; Petrache v Higgins and Shearer Tenancy Tribunal Christchurch TT 2222/96, 8 October 1996; Kim v Watson District Court Wellington CIV-2009-085-946, 17 September 2009. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy has been dismissed. This means the tenant is liable to pay rent up to the end of the tenancy, which is 7 March 2026. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $1,232.14 up to this date.
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $1,232.14. Should the tenant pay the landlord $770.00 for the costs reasonably incurred in ending the fixed-term tenancy early? The law
A landlord who consents to the early termination of a fixed-term tenancy is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination. 14
Where a landlord seeks to recover such expenses, they must first provide the tenant with an itemised account of the expenses. 15 Analysis
The landlord seeks to recover $770.00 from the tenant for the costs reasonably incurred in ending the fixed term tenancy early such as, marketing the premises, completing viewings and vetting prospective tenants. [The landlord] submitted a copy of an email sent to the tenant on 16 February 2026, providing an itemised account for all of these things however, they did not provide a copy of an invoice addressed to the owner. In the absence of an invoice addressed to the owner, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has incurred a cost of $770.00 in connection with the early termination of the fixed-term tenancy.
For this reason, the landlord has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Both parties have been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the other party the filing fee. 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 44A(1). 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 44A(2).
Both parties requested name suppression. Because both parties have been substantially successful with their claim, I must grant their request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5441618 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5441618 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Were the premises provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

When did the fixed term tenancy end?

Should the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Were the premises provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

When did the fixed term tenancy end?

Should the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions