What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5494509?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5494509?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5494509?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5494509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13687621-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5494509?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5494509?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5494509?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5494509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13687621-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 504, 21 Tawari Street, Mount Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5494509 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant seeks compensation in the form of moving costs ($560) and carpet cleaning costs ($150) that the tenant incurred (or will be incurring) in this 3- month fixed term tenancy.

The tenant contends that she was not aware that planned renovation works will be carried out on the apartment building in September or October 2026, which will necessitate the tenant having to vacate earlier than the 1 year that they expect to reside at the premises.

However, the parties’ tenancy agreement is only for a fixed term of 3 months until 30 June 2026 after which the agreement will automatically convert to periodic.

Any expectation that the tenant has or intends to rely upon must be based on the express and stated terms of the tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s email to the tenant on 16 March 2026 makes it clear that the offer for the tenancy is “for a fixed term of 3 months which automatically converts to periodic afterwards”. The tenant’s response by return email on the same day is “yes I am happy to sign with that”.

If the landlord had represented to the tenant that this tenancy is meant to be for a longer term, of say 1 year, as alleged by the tenant, then I would expect the tenant to not reply with a “yes” to only entering into a 3-month fixed term tenancy. The tenant should have responded with “no”, I expect to stay for at least 1 year, so please redraft the agreement to reflect a fixed term of 1 year.

The landlord denies ever undertaking with the tenant to give them a term which is longer than 3 months. As it is, under the terms of a fixed term tenancy, either party can give 21 day’s notice prior to the expiry of the fixed term that they do not intend to renew the fixed term tenancy.

The landlord says that they have not given any notice to the tenant about not letting the fixed term tenancy roll over automatically to periodic on 30 June 2026. The landlord has also not given the tenant any formal notice about when the periodic tenancy might come to an end in which case the landlord would be obliged to give 90 days’ notice (without giving any reasons, under section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

The landlord also says that no notification has been given by the body corporate about renovation works which is presently worrying the tenant. Any news of works being required to be done in September or October 2026 remains hearsay only.

Be that as it may, the material issue before the Tribunal is whether the landlord had represented or agreed to provide the tenant with a tenancy term that is long term or at least one year.

The clear written evidence before me is no, the tenancy agreement signed by the parties is only for a fixed term of 3 months after which it becomes periodic.

That being the case, there is no basis for the tenant to allege that the landlord is in breach of the tenancy agreement in place.

I must therefore dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation for moving costs.

As for carpet cleaning costs, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) provides that tenants are only obliged to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.

Here, section 17 of the tenancy agreement states: “...at the conclusion of the tenancy, the carpets will be inspected to see if they meet the standard of reasonably clean and tidy....”

I do not consider section 17 of the tenancy agreement, as it is presently drafted, to contradict the RTA standard of cleaning, ie., reasonably clean and tidy.

For those reasons, the tenant’s claim for compensation of $710.00 fails.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks compensation in the form of moving costs ($560) and carpet cleaning costs ($150) that the tenant incurred (or will be incurring) in this 3- month fixed term tenancy.
The tenant contends that she was not aware that planned renovation works will be carried out on the apartment building in September or October 2026, which will necessitate the tenant having to vacate earlier than the 1 year that they expect to reside at the premises.
However, the parties’ tenancy agreement is only for a fixed term of 3 months until 30 June 2026 after which the agreement will automatically convert to periodic.
Any expectation that the tenant has or intends to rely upon must be based on the express and stated terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s email to the tenant on 16 March 2026 makes it clear that the offer for the tenancy is “for a fixed term of 3 months which automatically converts to periodic afterwards”. The tenant’s response by return email on the same day is “yes I am happy to sign with that”.
If the landlord had represented to the tenant that this tenancy is meant to be for a longer term, of say 1 year, as alleged by the tenant, then I would expect the tenant to not reply with a “yes” to only entering into a 3-month fixed term tenancy. The tenant should have responded with “no”, I expect to stay for at least 1 year, so please redraft the agreement to reflect a fixed term of 1 year.
The landlord denies ever undertaking with the tenant to give them a term which is longer than 3 months. As it is, under the terms of a fixed term tenancy, either party can give 21 day’s notice prior to the expiry of the fixed term that they do not intend to renew the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord says that they have not given any notice to the tenant about not letting the fixed term tenancy roll over automatically to periodic on 30 June 2026. The landlord has also not given the tenant any formal notice about when the periodic tenancy might come to an end in which case the landlord would be obliged to give 90 days’ notice (without giving any reasons, under section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The landlord also says that no notification has been given by the body corporate about renovation works which is presently worrying the tenant. Any news of works being required to be done in September or October 2026 remains hearsay only.
Be that as it may, the material issue before the Tribunal is whether the landlord had represented or agreed to provide the tenant with a tenancy term that is long term or at least one year.
The clear written evidence before me is no, the tenancy agreement signed by the parties is only for a fixed term of 3 months after which it becomes periodic.
That being the case, there is no basis for the tenant to allege that the landlord is in breach of the tenancy agreement in place.
I must therefore dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation for moving costs.
As for carpet cleaning costs, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) provides that tenants are only obliged to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
Here, section 17 of the tenancy agreement states: “...at the conclusion of the tenancy, the carpets will be inspected to see if they meet the standard of reasonably clean and tidy....”
I do not consider section 17 of the tenancy agreement, as it is presently drafted, to contradict the RTA standard of cleaning, ie., reasonably clean and tidy.
For those reasons, the tenant’s claim for compensation of $710.00 fails.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5494509 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 504, 21 Tawari Street, Mount Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5494509 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 504, 21 Tawari Street, Mount Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions