What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5475710 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 5475710?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475710?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475710?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13728859-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5475710 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 5475710?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475710?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475710?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13728859-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5475710 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5475710 — net $50.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: cleaning heat pump filters	$50.00	cleaning heat pump filters
Net award	$50.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$50.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5475710 — net $50.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: cleaning heat pump filters	$50.00	cleaning heat pump filters
Net award	$50.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$50.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord must pay [The tenant/s] $50.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Standen and Mr Monoyudous appeared for the landlord. [ Tenant] appeared for the tenant. The Tribunal was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
The tenancy commenced on 28 June 2025 for a fixed term to end 27 June 2026. On 25 March 2026, the tenant filed a claim seeking to reduce the fixed term for an unforeseen change in their personal circumstances. The tenant also claims that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonably clean condition. On 21 April 2026, the landlord filed a counterclaim that they had been abused by the tenant. The tenant is seeking an order reducing the fixed term, compensation for loss of amenity of $1,500.00, and exemplary damages. The landlord seeks exemplary damages. Landlords claim.
The landlord claims that some of their staff have been abused and intimidated by the tenant. The landlord states although they have no evidence to produce in support of the claim, that the tenant recorded the call. The tenant denies the claim.
While the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act) contains provisions protecting a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy from interference by the landlord, their agents, or from interference by the landlord’s other tenants, there are no reciprocal provisions allowing a landlord to claim that the tenant has interfered with their own peace, comfort, or privacy. There is no provision allowing the landlord to claim that the tenant has harassed them.
Although antisocial behaviour may constitute grounds for termination of a tenancy, the landlord has not served the required notices, and in any event does not seek termination. Similarly, a tenant who assaults or threatens to assault the landlord or an agent constitutes a breach that may also be grounds for termination. However, the landlord has not made these claims and does not seek termination.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Reduction of fixed term
The tenant stated that prior to entering into the agreement, they viewed the property once during the day and that when they did so, it was quiet.
The tenant stated that from July to present, there had been several occasions in which their peace, comfort, and privacy had been interfered with by the neighbours.
None of the neighbours is a tenant of the landlord.
The tenant states there have been parties, loud music until late at night or early in the morning, and day and night, dogs barking night and day, immediate neighbours burning rubbish, and being splashed over the fence by a neighbour’s swimming pool.
The tenant has produced short videos and audio recording of 1980s rock music playing in the daytime, low base dance music at night, dogs barking during the day, and of a fire located close to the fence where the flames can be seen extending above the fence. The tenant stated they had made at least ten calls to noise control, animal control, the SPCA, made 111 calls to police, who would not respond, and the fire brigade, who attended a few days after the fire to speak with the neighbours.
The tenants state they have complained to the landlord, who has suggested that they speak with the neighbours concerned and raise the matter with the Council but has otherwise refused to help.
The tenant states that the landlord agreed to end the fixed term, but on the basis that the tenant remains responsible for the rent until a new tenancy is entered into and for the reasonable costs of reletting. The tenant cannot accept these terms.
The tenant states they are a factory worker who works Monday to Thursday, starting at 5.30am, and that the other tenant is a student in the second year of their degree. They state that the noise is disrupting their sleep, significantly impacting on their day-to-day life and mental health. Law
A fixed-term tenancy cannot be ended by either party giving unilateral notice. Under section 50(1)(d) of the Act, a tenancy agreement, whether periodic or fixed term, may end where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
A common term of such agreements is liability for rent until a new tenancy is entered and reasonable reletting costs.
The usual legal position with a fixed-term agreement is that the term will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it.
Section 66(1) of the Act states: 66 Reduction of fixed-term tenancy On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant's circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
Before the Tribunal may reduce a fixed-term tenancy, the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that: (a) There has been a change in the tenant’s circumstances. (b) The change was unforeseen. (c) The unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and (d) The severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term were not reduced outweighs the hardship the respondent would suffer if the term were reduced.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage resulting from the reduction of the term. Analysis and decision
In reaching my decision, I have considered all evidence presented to the Tribunal, even if not specifically referred to.
The tenant bears the burden of proof. The standard required is the balance of probabilities. For the Tribunal to make an order reducing the term of a fixed-term tenancy, it must be satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term were not reduced would be greater than the hardship the other party would suffer if the term were reduced.
Noisy or disruptive neighbours are unfortunately common and are not usually regarded as an unforeseen change in personal circumstances, or if they are, as causing severe hardship, unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as evidence of significant impact on health or safety.
The only medical evidence is from a practitioner at a medical centre stating: “This is to certify that I have examined the patient described above. I am supporting her to be released from her rental due to health issues she is facing.”
The neighbours concerned are not tenants of the landlord. While the landlord may make their own complaints to the agencies mentioned and may approach the landlords of other tenants seeking assistance, if they can be identified, under the provisions of the Act, they cannot be held responsible for the actions of neighbours.
In this case, the landlord has acted responsibly by offering to enter into an agreement to end the tenancy on reasonable standard terms.
I am not satisfied that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenant’s personal circumstances. Even if I had been satisfied, the tenant’s medical evidence provided was insufficient to establish severe hardship. The claim to reduce the fixed term is declined. Failure to provide and maintain.
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to provide the property in a reasonably clean condition: i. There were bugs on the floor. ii. Mould on the backs of curtains iii. Inside of the oven was dirty. iv. Grease on the underside of the kitchen rangehood v. Inside of the laundry tub cabinet vi. Heat pump filter. vii. Fly dirt on light fixture in living room. viii. Area of surface mould on ceiling in living room ix. Surface mould on a wall in one of the bedrooms
The tenant produced photographs of the heat pump filters, a deceased cockroach, the backs of the living room curtain, inside the oven, the range hood filters, the inside of the oven, the ceiling in the living room, a wall in a bedroom, and a light fixture, all taken within the first month of the tenancy.
The tenant produced a pre-tenancy checklist completed by the property manager on 27 June 2025. The tenant stated that they added the matters referred to above and returned the document to the landlord on 06 July 2025. They state that apart from the changing a light bulb, none of the matters were addressed.
The tenant stated they continued to raise the issues with the landlord’s property manager at property inspections, of which there had been three since the commencement of the tenancy.
Although there are no emails, the tenant stated that they had raised the issues verbally and had shown the property manager the photographs.
The landlord stated that their practice was to fill out their part of a pre- tenancy inspection report and leave it with the tenant with instructions to complete it, after which a property manager would then collect it.
The landlord referred to a section in the report in which the tenant could note matters they wished the landlord to address, and that the only matters in that section were a kitchen light bulb, the cockroach on the floor, and security lights.
The landlord denies that the property was not provided in a reasonably clean condition.
The landlord states that a photograph of one dead cockroach does not mean that there was an infestation.
The landlord states that staining on the backs of the curtains shown in the tenant’s photographs is not mould and is historic water damage likely caused by condensation on the windows.
The landlord denies that the inside of the oven is dirty.
The landlord denies that the kitchen rangehood filter is dirty.
The landlord denies that the inside of the laundry tub cabinet is not reasonably clean.
The landlord believed that the cleaning of the heat pump filters was the responsibility of the tenant.
The landlord states that the fly dirt on one light fitting in the lounge does not mean that it is not reasonably clean.
The landlord questions whether the substance on the wall and ceiling, is in fact mould. They state that most houses suffer from mould from time to time, and the areas shown are minimal and could be easily wiped away. Law
Under section 45(1) (a) of the Act, the landlord must provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The Act does not require the property to be provided in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific method to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the available evidence, including inspection reports and photographs. Analysis and decision
The onus is on the tenant to establish on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations under the Act.
There is a direct conflict in the evidence of the tenant and landlord whose subjective views differ. The tenant submits that the property was not provided in a reasonably clean condition, and the landlord submits that it was.
The photographs are limited to a selected area. I am not satisfied they are indicative of the general cleanliness of the property.
I accept the landlord’s submission that a photograph of one dead cockroach does not mean that there was an infestation.
The landlord’s explanation regarding the staining on the backs of the curtains is plausible; while they may have historic water damage, it does not necessarily mean that they are not in a reasonably clean condition.
The inside of the oven shows signs of wear and tear.
The landlord also provided a photograph of the range hood filter. Neither party’s photographs are sufficient to make a proper assessment.
The inside of the laundry cabinet has some dust and a cobweb.
The light fitting shown has fly dirt on it.
The photographs of the substance on the wall and ceiling are not sufficiently clear to make an objective assessment.
Although there is a dead cockroach on the carpet, and fly dirt on a lone light fixture, and some dust and a cobweb inside the laundry cabinet, I am not satisfied that this alone is sufficient to establish that, objectively, the property was not provided in a reasonably clean condition.
However, I do not accept the landlord’s submission that they were not responsible for providing the heat pump with reasonably clean filters at the start of the tenancy. The heat pump is a source of heating for the purposes of the Healthy Homes Standards and, as such, should be both provided in a reasonable condition and maintained. Unclean filters will reduce efficiency. The filters clearly had not been recently cleaned, which was the landlord’s responsibility. The tenant cleaned them themselves. While there was no significant loss of amenity, the tenant was inconvenienced by having to perform a minor cleaning task, and I award the tenant $50.00 as reasonable compensation for their time and effort. Ants
On or about 01 August 2025, the tenant observed burnt ants dropping through a light fitting in the master bedroom, above and onto the bed.
The tenant has produced photographs of the light fitting and bedspread showing ants taken on 01 August 2025. They state they sent these to the landlord, and asked whether, if they purchased some ant killer, the landlord would reimburse them.
The tenant has provided the landlord’s reply, “Just like any other insects, ants are the tenant’s responsibility. The landlord will not pay.”
The tenant states they purchased an ant bait and applied it in the roof space above the bedroom. It appears that this was unsuccessful, and the tenant then applied cellotape to seal the fitting.
On or about 04 November 2025, they discovered ants swarming on the exterior of the property. They took photographs of the ants and sent them to the landlord on 24 November 2025, requesting professional pest control. There was an inspection on 25 November 2025.
The tenant stated that there was no response, and on 20 December 2025, they issued a 14-day breach notice, following which the landlord arranged treatment, which occurred on Christmas Eve.
The tenant states that the property manager advised that if the landlord arranged pest control, it would affect the tenant’s cats. The tenant stated that they doubted the property manager’s advice and, after conducting their own research, determined that the treatment would not affect their cat. The tenant believes that the delay was unreasonable.
The landlord stated the previous tenant had not raised any issues concerning ants.
They believed the tenant’s claim had no merit and was an attempt to extort money.
They stated they had visited the property in September 2025 and conducted an inspection but could not find any evidence of infestation.
They suggested that the tenant purchase ant bait and let them know if they had any ongoing issues. They stated that they had heard nothing further until 24 November 2025, when they received photographs of the ants on the exterior of the property.
They stated that during the inspection, the tenant had advised that they had put “honey and sugar” in the ceiling space. The landlord believed this was likely encouraging the ants to enter the property.
The landlord stated that the tenant had refused to allow treatment on the basis that it would affect their cat. The landlord stated that they sought advice that it would not.
The tenant replied, denying that they had said they had used honey and sugar, and stated that they had described the ant treatment as being “jam” due to its appearance. Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. This obligation includes maintaining any chattels provided with the tenancy for the use of the tenant.
To establish a breach under section 45(1)(b), the tenant must establish that more likely than not there is a defect, or failure to comply with the relevant provision.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010, the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence. Analysis and decision
There is no documentary record of the issue being raised between 01 August 2025 and 24 November 2025.
The matter was discussed during an inspection in September 2025, although there is no photographic evidence to make an independent assessment of the extent of the problem as at that date.
Although the landlord’s initial response was questionable, there is no evidence of the matter being raised again until the inspection in September 2025. As stated, there is insufficient evidence to make an objective assessment of the extent of any problem at that date. The matter was then raised again on 24 November 2025 and investigated on 25 November 2025.
English is not the tenant’s first language, and they have been assisted by an interpreter at the hearing. There is no evidence that an interpreter was present at the inspection. It appears that during discussions at the property in September 2025, the parties may have misunderstood one another. Again, there was a misunderstanding concerning the effect of treatment on cats. While this misunderstanding may have contributed to a delay in treatment, I am not satisfied that it was caused by only one party.
Based on an objective assessment of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations, and the claim is dismissed. Costs
If an applicant has been partly successful, the Tribunal has the discretion to order the respondent to pay the applicant the filing fee.
In this, case the tenant has partly succeeded in one claim. I am not satisfied it is fair and reasonable to order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord does not seek name suppression. The tenant does.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been wholly successful in defending the claim made against them, but only partly successful with their own claim. On a global assessment, I consider the tenant to have therefore been substantially successful in these proceedings. I order the suppression of their name and the tenancy address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5475710 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5475710 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions