What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5451248 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5451248?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451248?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13516382-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5451248 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5451248?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451248?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13516382-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Jasper Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5451248 — Cleanliness

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 20 January 2025 and ended on 14 July 2025. The tenancy property is a three-bedroom home divided into two flats. The tenant lived in a one-bedroom flat while three other people lived in the other flat.
The tenant filed a claim on 26 June 2025, before the tenancy had ended, seeking compensation for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards and exemplary damages on the basis of the landlord’s failure to maintain, lodge the bond and giving retaliatory notice.
The landlord filed a claim on 20 February 2026 seeking compensation for cleaning and exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant had harassed the tenants in the other flat and had refused an inspection. Appearances
The first hearing of this matter was held by video conference on 15 October 2025. However the landlord mistakenly attended in in person at the Auckland District Court together with various witnesses. It was not possible to proceed with the parties in different forums and so the hearing was adjourned.
This hearing was then set down to be heard in person. However on 3 April 2026 the tenant advised that he was overseas and requested that the hearing proceed by way of video conference. That request was granted and new notices of hearing were sent out to the parties containing a link to join the video conference.
Only the landlord joined the video conference. I made several phone calls to the mobile number provided for the tenant but none of those calls connected. At my request the registry contacted the tenant by email and re-sent the link to join the hearing. However the tenant did not join the conference and did not respond to my phone calls or to the emails sent by the registry.
As the tenant has been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and has been sent a notice of hearing, the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. The tenant’s claim
As the tenant did not appear, and did not seek an adjournment, his claim is dismissed. The landlord’s claim Cleaning
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) RTA.
The landlord said that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The landlords said that they cleaned the property themselves and seek compensation of $200.00 for doing so.
The landlord did not produce any evidence (such as photos, video, reports, invoice with narrations) proving that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Harassment
The landlord claimed that the tenant has disturbed the neighbouring tenants.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord called the neighbouring tenants to give evidence. Those witnesses together stated that: a. On 4 June the tenant was making a hammering or banging noise early in the morning b. On 28 June 2025 the tenant was banging on the walls and making noise c. On 25 June 2025 they saw the tenant at the supermarket and he made a rude gesture to them d. On various dates in July 2025 (before the tenancy ended on 14 July 2025) there were incidents where the tenant told them to be quiet, challenged them, and recorded them on his phone when they were outside playing badminton in the garden.
The landlord also produced messages sent by the neighbouring tenants to the landlord about the noise incidents on 4 June and 28 July 2025.
When questioned at the hearing the landlord said that she did not issue a 14- day notice or even tell the tenant about the noise complaints.
While I accept that the banging was likely to have have disturbed the neighbouring tenants I am not satisfied that the tenant was aware that he was causing a disturbance as the landlord did not contact him about it. There was no evidence that the banging was directed at the neighbouring tenants in any way or was intended to trouble, worry or distress them.
The third incident occurred at the supermarket and, while unfortunate, I do not consider that it is sufficiently related to the tenancy.
When considering the later behaviour I cannot ignore the fact that tensions appear to have arisen between the tenant and the neighbouring tenants towards the end of the tenancy. There were complaints on both sides, including in the tenant’s application filed in the Tribunal.
Having reviewed the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenant has harassed the neighbouring tenants. It appears to me that these were neighbours living in close proximity, dealing with the usual inconveniences that can arise, but in this case with the added complication of a language barrier. There appear to have been frustration on both sides, and while I do consider that the neighbouring tenants were fair and honest in their evidence, I do not consider that the tenant’s behaviour reaches the level necessary for an award of exemplary damages to be made.
This claim is therefore not proven and is dismissed. Refusing an inspection
The landlord says that the tenant refused to allow them to enter to do the final inspection.
Section 48(2)(b) RTA provides that the landlord may enter the premises for the purposes of an inspection at any time between 8am and 7pm if they give not less than 48 hours notice.
Section 48(4)(b) provides that a tenant who fails to allow the landlord to enter once the have given notice commits an unlawful act.
The landlord produced the following message exchange as evidence that the tenant had refused and inspection:
Having reviewed the message I am not satisfied that the landlord has given notice and the tenant has refused. The landlord has simply asked the tenant to suggest a time, and when the tenant has responded to say that the landlord can check the property in their own time, the landlord has agreed.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As neither party has been the successful party I have not made orders reimbursing the filing fees or for the suppression of either party’s name.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 20 January 2025 and ended on 14 July 2025. The tenancy property is a three-bedroom home divided into two flats. The tenant lived in a one-bedroom flat while three other people lived in the other flat.
The tenant filed a claim on 26 June 2025, before the tenancy had ended, seeking compensation for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards and exemplary damages on the basis of the landlord’s failure to maintain, lodge the bond and giving retaliatory notice.
The landlord filed a claim on 20 February 2026 seeking compensation for cleaning and exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant had harassed the tenants in the other flat and had refused an inspection. Appearances
The first hearing of this matter was held by video conference on 15 October 2025. However the landlord mistakenly attended in in person at the Auckland District Court together with various witnesses. It was not possible to proceed with the parties in different forums and so the hearing was adjourned.
This hearing was then set down to be heard in person. However on 3 April 2026 the tenant advised that he was overseas and requested that the hearing proceed by way of video conference. That request was granted and new notices of hearing were sent out to the parties containing a link to join the video conference.
Only the landlord joined the video conference. I made several phone calls to the mobile number provided for the tenant but none of those calls connected. At my request the registry contacted the tenant by email and re-sent the link to join the hearing. However the tenant did not join the conference and did not respond to my phone calls or to the emails sent by the registry.
As the tenant has been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and has been sent a notice of hearing, the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. The tenant’s claim
As the tenant did not appear, and did not seek an adjournment, his claim is dismissed. The landlord’s claim Cleaning
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) RTA.
The landlord said that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The landlords said that they cleaned the property themselves and seek compensation of $200.00 for doing so.
The landlord did not produce any evidence (such as photos, video, reports, invoice with narrations) proving that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Harassment
The landlord claimed that the tenant has disturbed the neighbouring tenants.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord called the neighbouring tenants to give evidence. Those witnesses together stated that: a. On 4 June the tenant was making a hammering or banging noise early in the morning b. On 28 June 2025 the tenant was banging on the walls and making noise c. On 25 June 2025 they saw the tenant at the supermarket and he made a rude gesture to them d. On various dates in July 2025 (before the tenancy ended on 14 July 2025) there were incidents where the tenant told them to be quiet, challenged them, and recorded them on his phone when they were outside playing badminton in the garden.
The landlord also produced messages sent by the neighbouring tenants to the landlord about the noise incidents on 4 June and 28 July 2025.
When questioned at the hearing the landlord said that she did not issue a 14- day notice or even tell the tenant about the noise complaints.
While I accept that the banging was likely to have have disturbed the neighbouring tenants I am not satisfied that the tenant was aware that he was causing a disturbance as the landlord did not contact him about it. There was no evidence that the banging was directed at the neighbouring tenants in any way or was intended to trouble, worry or distress them.
The third incident occurred at the supermarket and, while unfortunate, I do not consider that it is sufficiently related to the tenancy.
When considering the later behaviour I cannot ignore the fact that tensions appear to have arisen between the tenant and the neighbouring tenants towards the end of the tenancy. There were complaints on both sides, including in the tenant’s application filed in the Tribunal.
Having reviewed the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenant has harassed the neighbouring tenants. It appears to me that these were neighbours living in close proximity, dealing with the usual inconveniences that can arise, but in this case with the added complication of a language barrier. There appear to have been frustration on both sides, and while I do consider that the neighbouring tenants were fair and honest in their evidence, I do not consider that the tenant’s behaviour reaches the level necessary for an award of exemplary damages to be made.
This claim is therefore not proven and is dismissed. Refusing an inspection
The landlord says that the tenant refused to allow them to enter to do the final inspection.
Section 48(2)(b) RTA provides that the landlord may enter the premises for the purposes of an inspection at any time between 8am and 7pm if they give not less than 48 hours notice.
Section 48(4)(b) provides that a tenant who fails to allow the landlord to enter once the have given notice commits an unlawful act.
The landlord produced the following message exchange as evidence that the tenant had refused and inspection:
Having reviewed the message I am not satisfied that the landlord has given notice and the tenant has refused. The landlord has simply asked the tenant to suggest a time, and when the tenant has responded to say that the landlord can check the property in their own time, the landlord has agreed.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As neither party has been the successful party I have not made orders reimbursing the filing fees or for the suppression of either party’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5451248 — Cleanliness at 15 Jasper Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5451248 — Cleanliness at 15 Jasper Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

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