What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5445711?

The tribunal order states: Both the tenant’s application and the landlord’s application are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5445711?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445711?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13282069-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5445711?

The tribunal order states: Both the tenant’s application and the landlord’s application are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5445711?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445711?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13282069-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

120A Pah Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5445711 — Mould

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 13 March 2025.

The tenancy began on 22 May 2025 and ended on 26 September 2025.

The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages.

The landlord applied for compensation and exemplary damages. Tenant’s application

The tenant claims a breach of her quiet enjoyment due to being harassed by the landlord in relation to requests to open the windows and blinds during the day. The tenant also complained about a tin roof which resulted in disturbed sleep when it rained.

The tenant also referred to the landlord complaining that she was making too much noise. The landlord had texted the tenant about some banging which the tenant denied. The tenant also said that she hardly made any noise and didn’t want to feel uncomfortable and restricted with her daily life or peaceful living.

The landlord had texted the tenant a couple of times asking her to open the windows and curtains when she was out and then turning on the heat pump when she returned. The reason given was to prevent mildew and mould.

Quiet enjoyment means the right to use the premises without unreasonable interference from the landlord. For a breach to be established, the landlord’s actions must go beyond simple requests and amount to harassment or significant interference with the tenant’s ability to enjoy the premises.

After considering the evidence produced, I am not satisfied that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment as provided for by section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

The tenant also claimed in respect of the living condition at the premises including paranormal activity due to the previous tenant passing away during the week before this tenant moved in.

In relation to the deceased tenant who lived at the premises before this tenant the claim is that the landlords should have told her that someone had died there. The tenant said the landlords failed to act with good faith and transparency.

The tenant said that there was paranormal activity because when she returned from work one day there were marks on the floor which turned out to be coffee, but she did not drink coffee.

At the hearing the tenant said that the landlord should have waited 21 days after the death of a tenant before a new tenancy starts. She referred to law that she had read about this, but it seems that she had read section 50A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which is not relevant because it deals with termination of a tenancy on the death of a sole tenant. In this situation the previous tenant had been given notice for the tenancy to end and the tenant passed away on the day that she was due to move out.

The tenant referred to her Spanish custom which required a “resting time” after someone has passed away and referred to Māori tikanga on the death of a person. Neither Spanish custom nor Māori tikanga are provided for in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In her notice to end the tenancy dated 28 August 2025 the tenant referred to being misled by the landlord not disclosing vital information about the previous tenant’s death in the unit. She said that if she knew she would never have moved in. In that letter she also proposed that she be able to end the tenancy immediately, receive the full bond and be reimbursed the rent paid for the previous two and a half months of the tenancy. The landlord did not agree with this proposal.

The landlord said that the previous tenant was not well, and she was due to move out the day that she died. It was determined that the previous tenant had passed due to natural causes. The landlord checked the NZ Landlords website which advised that where there was a natural death there was no requirement for mandatory disclosure. They said that they were aware that the landlord could not mislead or lie and that is why they told the tenant about the previous tenant when asked.

There is no specific requirement in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that obliges a landlord to disclose to a new tenant that a previous tenant died in the premises. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not list non-disclosure of a death as a breach or as grounds for compensation. The tenant’s claim in respect of the deceased previous tenant is dismissed.

The tenant claimed compensation for items which she said went missing during the time that she was moving out of the premises. On the day that she moved out the removal company were late, so the tenant took some things in her car and the removalists arrived when she was not there. She thought that everything, including items that were in the carport, had been loaded onto the truck. It wasn’t until five or six days after she moved that the tenant noticed some items missing.

The tenant has identified the missing items as including a yoga ball, a box of collector items, perfume, a fan, a sewing machine, a granite pestle and mortar and other household items. When the tenant noticed the items missing, she submitted a report to the Police.

The landlord denied any knowledge of the missing items other than the yoga ball which was in a tree in the steep part of the section. The landlord said that the week the tenant moved there were extremely windy conditions.

The landlord had no knowledge of the other missing items until they received a telephone call from the Police.

There is no evidence that the landlord is responsible for the items that the tenant identified as missing. The tenant’s claim for compensation in relation to the missing items is dismissed.

The tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed. Landlord’s application

The landlord claimed that the tenant had interfered with their peaceful enjoyment. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not provide any protection for the peaceful enjoyment for the landlord. The tenant is entitled to the protection of quiet enjoyment 1 but that protection is not available to the landlord.

The landlord referred to stress from the tenant and a verbal assault. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a tenancy can be terminated following an assault or threat of assault 2 but that is not relevant in this situation.

At the hearing the landlord submitted a video recording where the tenant alleged that the landlord had caused a crack in the windscreen of her car. While some of the interaction was unfortunate, especially when the tenant suggested the previous tenant may have taken her life due to receiving notice for the tenancy to end, the recorded incident in my view does not amount to verbal abuse.

The landlord’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 13 March 2025.

The tenancy began on 22 May 2025 and ended on 26 September 2025.

The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages.

The landlord applied for compensation and exemplary damages. Tenant’s application

The tenant also claimed in respect of the living condition at the premises including paranormal activity due to the previous tenant passing away during the week before this tenant moved in.

The tenant said that there was paranormal activity because when she returned from work one day there were marks on the floor which turned out to be coffee, but she did not drink coffee.

The landlord had no knowledge of the other missing items until they received a telephone call from the Police.

There is no evidence that the landlord is responsible for the items that the tenant identified as missing. The tenant’s claim for compensation in relation to the missing items is dismissed.

The tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed. Landlord’s application

The landlord’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445711 — Mould at 120A Pah Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445711 — Mould at 120A Pah Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions