What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489771 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5489771?

Compensation: $1,760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489771?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13825954-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489771 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5489771?

Compensation: $1,760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489771?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13825954-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 205, 871 Colombo Street, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5489771 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5489771. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
s application for compensation is dismissed. 2. The landlord’s application is dismissed. 3. The Bond Centre to pay the b	$1,760.00		s application for compensation is dismissed. 2. The landlord’s application is dismissed. 3. The Bond Centre to pay the b

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Patterson represented the landlord in person. Ms Kakinuma attended by phone from Japan. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning ($70.00) and for the replacement cost of a pillow ($25.00).

The tenant has applied for compensation of $11,500.00 mostly in response to the landlord’s claim against her. Background

The tenancy started on 27 September 2025 and ended on 13 February 2026.

At the end of the tenancy the landlord left a bond refund form on the bench for the tenant to sign.

The tenant did not sign the form. The landlord emailed her about deductions from the bond and eventually sought a ‘one-person’ bond refund.

Because the bond is disputed, the bond remains with the Bond Centre.

At the end of the tenancy the landlord had some cleaning done and replaced what it said was a missing pillow – 4 were supplied and only 3 were there at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant applied to the Tribunal first. She seeks a refund of her bond and compensation.

The landlord then cross-applied seeking $95.00 from the bond. Issues

The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the replacement cost of a pillow? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? •Should the bond be paid to the tenant? Law

Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; to leave all chattels provided by the landlord.

Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). 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. Discussion Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the replacement cost of a pillow?

At the end of a tenancy a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean, not clean to a standard where a new tenancy can commence.

The landlord produced photos in evidence which show that some cleaning was required. But landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies. The invoice produced in evidence does not narrate the cleaning that was done. It just states ‘cleaning’.

On the evidence presented I cannot conclude that the tenant failed to meet her statutory responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean. I dismiss the landlord’s claim for cleaning.

The evidence about the pillow is in conflict. The landlord states that 4 pillows were supplied at the start of the tenancy, the tenant says only 3 were supplied.

Without clear evidence, such as a photo of the chattels provided, or a written chattels list from the start of the tenancy, I do not find this claim proved.

Further, the claim is for $25.00. Allowing for depreciation/fair wear and tear, the landlord might at best have succeeded for 50% of the amount claimed, $12.50. Valuable Tribunal time should not be wasted on a claim of such low value. I dismiss this claim for lack of proof. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

The tenant has claimed compensation of $11,500.00. The claim is wholly unrealistic. Her response mostly focuses on the claim the landlord made against her, but also include several matters of general complaint.

The tenant said she used AI to translate her submissions, but it seems to me that they were prepared by AI. While there is nothing wrong with seeking AI assistance, the submissions should still be legally correct. Some of the submissions the tenant made are not legally correct (for example, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear claims under the Fair Trading Act 1986).

The submissions run to 17 pages and refer to a ‘severe pattern of professional negligence, harassment, and attempted fraud’, and include headings such as: •Organizational collapse and deliberate negligence •Strategic delay and lack of professional integrity •Professional negligence regarding safety •Evidence of mental distress, harassment & retaliation •Extreme physical and mental strain •Professional malice and ethical breach •Abuse of good faith and emotional impact

The tenant’s written submissions can best be described as hyperbole when seen in the context of the dispute – a landlord claim for $95.00 from the bond. That is reinforced by the statement that the submissions have been prepared not only for this Tribunal but for the Real Estate Authority (sic) and the Human Rights Commission ‘and all other relevant public authorities and regulatory bodies’.

The Tribunal is not a forum of general complaint. Compensation follows a breach by one party (in this case the landlord) of its statutory responsibilities objectively determined. The Tribunal does not compensate hurt feelings or a belief that the person has been treated rudely, or unfairly, or that communication was perceived to be poor.

The only possible breach by the landlord concerns a lock that failed. Ms Patterson gave evidence that it was repaired promptly as soon as she became aware of it. No landlord breach arises from that.

The tenant has failed to prove any breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities for which the Tribunal would award compensation. I dismiss her application.

Should the bond be paid to the tenant?

The bond belongs to the tenant in law. As the landlord’s claims against the bond are dismissed, the bond must be paid to the tenant. Result

The landlord’s claim for cleaning and the replacement cost of a pillow is dismissed.

The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

The bond will be paid to the tenant. Name suppression

Both parties sought name suppression. I make no orders for name suppression. The landlord’s application is unsuccessful. The tenant’s application (other than for the refund of the bond) is also unsuccessful 2 .

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5489771. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
s application for compensation is dismissed. 2. The landlord’s application is dismissed. 3. The Bond Centre to pay the b	$1,760.00		s application for compensation is dismissed. 2. The landlord’s application is dismissed. 3. The Bond Centre to pay the b