What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457102 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5457102?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457102?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13768553-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457102 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5457102?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457102?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13768553-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 29P, 790 New North Road, Mount Albert, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5457102 — 14-day notice

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. I heard evidence from them both and from 2 witnesses for the landlord, both of whom are current tenants at the boarding house where the applicant tenant rented a room. Background
The tenancy started on 16 September 2025.
The boarding house has been managed by Mr Yip for about 22 years, so it is an established boarding house. Mr Floeter rent room 29P.
After about 1 month, the tenant reported fleas in his room. The landlord arranged for flea treatment. The tenant’s complaints continued, and he considered that the entire property (some 3000m²) required flea treatment.
The landlord provided 5 flea bomb treatments and sprayed the room twice. The tenant said the flea problem continued and never resolved.
On one occasion when the tenant complained to Mr Yip, the tenant became agitated and chased the landlord who, on police advice, hid in his office. The landlord contacted the mental health crisis team, but they were unwilling to become involved.
Other tenants complained about aspects of the tenant’s behaviour. The witnesses said that he smoked cannabis frequently in the main entrance area and made loud noises late at night and in the early hours of the morning. He knocked on other tenants’ doors asking for money.
Several tenants made written complaints, and many signed a petition asking the landlord to have the tenant removed.
Both parties made applications to the Tribunal. The tenant seeks a full refund of his rent and compensation arising from the flea infestation and damages for what he says was an attempted illegal eviction and harassment by the landlord.
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of part of the costs ($300.00) for flea treatment products. Law
Section 66U of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out when a landlord may terminate a tenancy. Depending on the reason, the landlord may terminate a boarding house tenancy immediately, on 48 hours’ notice, or on 14 days’ notice. A landlord may terminate a tenancy on 28 days’ notice without reason.
Section 60AA RTA provides that it is an unlawful act for the landlord to terminate the tenancy without grounds. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages, akin to a fine, are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? •Did the landlord wrongly attempt to evict the tenant and/or harass him? •Should the landlord be reimbursed the cost of flea treatments? 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

The tenant produced photos of lesions on his skin, but he has not provided any medical proof that the lesions are flea bites.
The landlord said that occasionally a tenant would complain of fleas, but with prompt treatment, the issue resolved immediately. He said he always kept flea bombs on hand.
The landlord said that the health inspector viewed the premises and was impressed with the level of cleanliness. The inspector told the tenant he should seek medical advice, but he did not.
The landlord said he gave the tenant anti-allergy pills and some money for him to wash his clothing. He said the tenant’s room was unclean and untidy and the tenant never seemed to shower.
Without proof that there was a flea infestation, the tenant’s application for compensation cannot succeed. He may have assumed that his skin lesions were due to flea bites, but there are other possible explanations for his skin lesions. To establish that the lesions were due to flea bites would require medical evidence, or some other kind of persuasive evidence, for example, the opinion of a pest destruction specialist.
I find it unlikely that the tenant’s continuing skin lesions shown in the photos he produced in evidence were due to flea bites. His room was only 13m², and the landlord provided flea treatments on so many occasions, well beyond the treatment for fleas that is recommended by the products used and by the health inspector.
The tenant’s application for compensation is dismissed.

Did the landlord wrongly attempt to evict the tenant and/or harass him?

The landlord did not evict the tenant. The tenant vacated the tenancy on 5 May 2026.
That the landlord mentioned he would serve a trespass notice on the tenant during the tenancy (but decided against that based on police advice) does not constitute an unlawful eviction.
The landlord took no action to evict the tenant other than apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy. I will address that issue later.
That the landlord issued a trespass notice once the tenant vacated the tenancy is not unlawful. The landlord did so on police advice at the same time as the bond was refunded to the tenant.
The tenant also alleges that the landlord harassed him by obtaining a petition from other tenant to justify his removal.
In order to decide whether there were grounds to terminate the tenancy, the landlord had to gather information. It was clear from the evidence the witnesses gave that the tenant was causing issues.
Under section 66U RTA only a landlord (not the Tribunal) can terminate a tenancy for the reasons set out. So, the landlord had to investigate the complaints from the other tenants to decide whether the applicant tenant was causing, or threatening to cause, serious disruption to the other tenants – section 66U(1)(a)(iii) RTA, or whether there were other reasons to justify terminating the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that some of the other tenants were threatening to make a Tribunal application against him for failing to act against this tenant for the disruption he was causing.
I do not find that the landlord harassed the tenant. The landlord had to act on the complaints by other tenants. His actions were objectively reasonable.
As the tenant has not proved that the landlord committed any unlawful acts I dismiss his application for exemplary damages.

Should the landlord be reimbursed the cost of flea treatments?

Frustrating as it was for the landlord to provide on-going flea treatments in the absence of any evidence of a flea infestation, I find that this is a cost best borne by the landlord. It has enabled the landlord to prove that he took all reasonable actions and therefore did not fail to perform any of his statutory responsibilities, such as the responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition.
After the initial treatment(s) the landlord could have declined to provide any further flea treatment. He did not decline to do so but that does not impose an obligation on the tenant to fund the additional treatments without prior notice that he would be liable for the cost.
I dismiss the landlord’s application.
Finally, I note that the landlord applied for an order terminating the tenancy. As I have noted, only a landlord can terminate the tenancy under section 66U RTA. The landlord could have issued a notice terminating the tenancy if he considered that there were grounds.
As it happens, the tenant decided to end the tenancy; he vacated on 5 May 2026. The application for termination is now moot. Result
For the reasons given, both applications are dismissed. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. I heard evidence from them both and from 2 witnesses for the landlord, both of whom are current tenants at the boarding house where the applicant tenant rented a room. Background
The tenancy started on 16 September 2025.
The boarding house has been managed by Mr Yip for about 22 years, so it is an established boarding house. Mr Floeter rent room 29P.
After about 1 month, the tenant reported fleas in his room. The landlord arranged for flea treatment. The tenant’s complaints continued, and he considered that the entire property (some 3000m²) required flea treatment.
The landlord provided 5 flea bomb treatments and sprayed the room twice. The tenant said the flea problem continued and never resolved.
On one occasion when the tenant complained to Mr Yip, the tenant became agitated and chased the landlord who, on police advice, hid in his office. The landlord contacted the mental health crisis team, but they were unwilling to become involved.
Other tenants complained about aspects of the tenant’s behaviour. The witnesses said that he smoked cannabis frequently in the main entrance area and made loud noises late at night and in the early hours of the morning. He knocked on other tenants’ doors asking for money.
Several tenants made written complaints, and many signed a petition asking the landlord to have the tenant removed.
Both parties made applications to the Tribunal. The tenant seeks a full refund of his rent and compensation arising from the flea infestation and damages for what he says was an attempted illegal eviction and harassment by the landlord.
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of part of the costs ($300.00) for flea treatment products. Law
Section 66U of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out when a landlord may terminate a tenancy. Depending on the reason, the landlord may terminate a boarding house tenancy immediately, on 48 hours’ notice, or on 14 days’ notice. A landlord may terminate a tenancy on 28 days’ notice without reason.
Section 60AA RTA provides that it is an unlawful act for the landlord to terminate the tenancy without grounds. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages, akin to a fine, are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? •Did the landlord wrongly attempt to evict the tenant and/or harass him? •Should the landlord be reimbursed the cost of flea treatments? 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

The tenant produced photos of lesions on his skin, but he has not provided any medical proof that the lesions are flea bites.
The landlord said that occasionally a tenant would complain of fleas, but with prompt treatment, the issue resolved immediately. He said he always kept flea bombs on hand.
The landlord said that the health inspector viewed the premises and was impressed with the level of cleanliness. The inspector told the tenant he should seek medical advice, but he did not.
The landlord said he gave the tenant anti-allergy pills and some money for him to wash his clothing. He said the tenant’s room was unclean and untidy and the tenant never seemed to shower.
Without proof that there was a flea infestation, the tenant’s application for compensation cannot succeed. He may have assumed that his skin lesions were due to flea bites, but there are other possible explanations for his skin lesions. To establish that the lesions were due to flea bites would require medical evidence, or some other kind of persuasive evidence, for example, the opinion of a pest destruction specialist.
I find it unlikely that the tenant’s continuing skin lesions shown in the photos he produced in evidence were due to flea bites. His room was only 13m², and the landlord provided flea treatments on so many occasions, well beyond the treatment for fleas that is recommended by the products used and by the health inspector.
The tenant’s application for compensation is dismissed.

Did the landlord wrongly attempt to evict the tenant and/or harass him?

The landlord did not evict the tenant. The tenant vacated the tenancy on 5 May 2026.
That the landlord mentioned he would serve a trespass notice on the tenant during the tenancy (but decided against that based on police advice) does not constitute an unlawful eviction.
The landlord took no action to evict the tenant other than apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy. I will address that issue later.
That the landlord issued a trespass notice once the tenant vacated the tenancy is not unlawful. The landlord did so on police advice at the same time as the bond was refunded to the tenant.
The tenant also alleges that the landlord harassed him by obtaining a petition from other tenant to justify his removal.
In order to decide whether there were grounds to terminate the tenancy, the landlord had to gather information. It was clear from the evidence the witnesses gave that the tenant was causing issues.
Under section 66U RTA only a landlord (not the Tribunal) can terminate a tenancy for the reasons set out. So, the landlord had to investigate the complaints from the other tenants to decide whether the applicant tenant was causing, or threatening to cause, serious disruption to the other tenants – section 66U(1)(a)(iii) RTA, or whether there were other reasons to justify terminating the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that some of the other tenants were threatening to make a Tribunal application against him for failing to act against this tenant for the disruption he was causing.
I do not find that the landlord harassed the tenant. The landlord had to act on the complaints by other tenants. His actions were objectively reasonable.
As the tenant has not proved that the landlord committed any unlawful acts I dismiss his application for exemplary damages.

Should the landlord be reimbursed the cost of flea treatments?

Frustrating as it was for the landlord to provide on-going flea treatments in the absence of any evidence of a flea infestation, I find that this is a cost best borne by the landlord. It has enabled the landlord to prove that he took all reasonable actions and therefore did not fail to perform any of his statutory responsibilities, such as the responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition.
After the initial treatment(s) the landlord could have declined to provide any further flea treatment. He did not decline to do so but that does not impose an obligation on the tenant to fund the additional treatments without prior notice that he would be liable for the cost.
I dismiss the landlord’s application.
Finally, I note that the landlord applied for an order terminating the tenancy. As I have noted, only a landlord can terminate the tenancy under section 66U RTA. The landlord could have issued a notice terminating the tenancy if he considered that there were grounds.
As it happens, the tenant decided to end the tenancy; he vacated on 5 May 2026. The application for termination is now moot. Result
For the reasons given, both applications are dismissed. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457102 — 14-day notice at Room 29P, 790 New North Road, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457102 — 14-day notice at Room 29P, 790 New North Road, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Did the landlord wrongly attempt to evict the tenant and/or harass him?

Should the landlord be reimbursed the cost of flea treatments?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Did the landlord wrongly attempt to evict the tenant and/or harass him?

Should the landlord be reimbursed the cost of flea treatments?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions