What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5504070 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5504070?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5504070?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5504070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14054852-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5504070 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5504070?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5504070?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5504070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14054852-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5504070 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Both applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The previous hearing was adjourned to join the owners as a second respondent and to determine the late landlord counterclaim.
The adjourning order noted the crux of the issue was where did the bed bugs, as experienced by the tenant, come from? If a source(s) was evidenced as more than likely, then consideration would move to what, if any, requirements under the RTA were not met, and should the party reasonable be liable for any consequential losses?
The adjourning order also advised at [9]:
Lastly, the adjourning order contained advice regarding evidence. This is repeated below for completeness.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated (with my emphasis): “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background
This was a boarding house tenancy. The boarding house has been owned by the current owners for some 20 years. It has previously operated as a [accommodation]. The owners recommenced direct management some 2-3 years ago. [The landlord/s] acts as agent for the owner although some onsite casual staff act in a cleaning or managerial role; at times acting without the knowledge or direction of the agent.
There was some confusion by the agent regarding its use of fixed-term contracts in a boarding house tenancy. That had some bearing on some of the landlord’s initial claims regarding rent arrears and associated break costs. These claims were withdrawn prior to hearing the landlord application. The agent should adapt its processes as discussed at the hearings.
The tenancy itself was of a very short duration. The tenant moved in on 14 April 2026 but left quickly after/during the fourth night after being relocated on the third day to a second room after being bitten (the first two nights were not a problem). The reason for his quick exit and subsequent application to the Tribunal was significant insect biting experienced by him from what appears from the evidence and location as consistent with bed bug bites.
The landlord counterclaim sought costs associated with exit costs or loss, as well as a legacy need for insect treatment and storage.
Rent was $250.00 per week. This was never paid by the tenant although his application sought one week of rent refunded. No recovery of rent arrears was sought by the landlord.
The bond of $1,000.00 was appropriately lodged by the landlord at the Bond Centre. But for the very late landlord counterclaim, the bond would have already been returned to the tenant at the first hearing per s 22B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
While the landlord questioned whether the tenant had actually been bitten, the medical evidence provided by the tenant confirms the existence of biting on him, consistent with bed bugs. The counter submission that this was a pre- existing skin condition has no justification. The landlord’s stance may have formed in the absence of the medical evidence submitted by the tenant as part of this application. It claimed to not have received it. A copy was provided at the hearing.
The genesis of both applications is bed bugs. Did they exist in-situ or did they “piggyback” in with the tenant? Secondly, regardless of origin, did either party fail to act reasonably and promptly once the problem arose?
These questions are addressed below.

What or who caused the bed bugs?

The tenant’s submission was that the bed bugs were present in the room at commencement. As he used his own mattress and bedding, he believed they were in the carpet and over the first two nights of no issues they migrated into his bed with the resulting bites, mostly on the legs later.
Prior to this tenancy the tenant said he was house sitting with some overnight stays at a hired lock-up garage between times. His mattress and other belongings were in this storage unit. It was not intended or permitted for the garage to be used for overnight stays. It later appears the tenant had recently been residing at least once another local boarding house (based on a written statement). I do not consider this inconsistency fatal but the period prior to this tenancy appears to have involved the tenant residing at multiple places. This history is of interest as if the bed bugs were not present at entry, the most likely alternative is they came in with the tenant. There was no indication of prior bed bugs or biting experienced by the tenant.
It is unusual for the landlord here to allow a tenant to bring in their own mattress. The owners confirmed in this instance permission was granted after the tenant requested his own be used due to a bad back. The room was prepared but had no mattress when shown. I was told that mattress was in storage.
He raised the biting problem with the casual staff member, [Staff member] after the first occurrence. The tenant wanted [Staff member] to appear as a witness as he believes conversations with him evidenced a history of previous bed bug issues. He also wanted another resident called but he did not have her name or contact details. As it was, [Staff member] has left for overseas but provided a written statement for the landlord. He confirmed he had been approached by the tenant to be a witness but had refused. His stance was not supportive of the tenant recounting.
The immediate steps taken by [Staff member] under owner direction were to assist the tenant with isolation of any possible home for a bug like clothing and to provide access to laundry and hot dryer equipment at no cost to clean any such item that may have been infected. It was arranged for the tenant to move into another room across from the first. This room was fully furnished with bedding included.
The tenant recounted that night experiencing further bites, this time more on his arms and chest. His belief is that this room was also infected but in the bedding itself.
He left during the night. An initial telephone consult with his GP was followed up two days later with a physical examination and a photo taken of areas bitten. The doctor records evidence of biting, consistent with bites from an insect.
The landlord provided the recent occupancy history of the room and those rooms nearby. The first room of the tenant had been vacant for some two months. I was told it had been subject to an insect bomb (standard and not bed bug specific) which I was told is the usual practice of the landlord between tenancies. The carpet had been vacuumed but the landlord was unaware of when the carpet was last deep cleaned. It is unlikely to have been during the recent management tenure of the owners (2-3 years).
The next room made available to the tenant after the biting was across a corridor. There are five rooms in this cluster. Of those, there is one that has had a long-term tenancy, albeit with the room being vacated while that tenant went to Fiji. Her possessions were kept in a storage room at the property. Upon her return earlier this year she was able to move back into the same room. Some two weeks after her return she complained of being bitten and the landlord undertook a fumigation using insect bombs. The tenant continues to reside there with her young adult son (who did not experience any bites) and I was told there has been no further related issues raised by her. The source of any biting at that time was unknown as the room continued some items from travels but also some most likely from the onsite storage used when she left.
The tenant claimed the boarding house has a history of such infestations. He recounted a conversation with the other tenant whose room was treated earlier this year because of biting. He also cited a critical review on a [website] that referenced bed bugs amongst a number of complaints. Of the 227 reviews on that site since [date], that is the only reference to bed bugs until a second submitted by this tenant. Given the tenant introduced such a review as validation, I consider it fair to place some weighting on all reviews as submitted. Any mention of bed bugs in reviews are less than 1% of the reviews. It is difficult to conclude a pattern of bed bugs at this property from such limited reference in visitor comments.
The landlord counterclaim reflects their own view that any bed bug infestation, if it existed, was a result of the tenant bringing in his own mattress and bedding. Having heard from all involved, I consider their response (including adverse comments to the tenant reflecting this view) reflects a genuine shock at such an event, rather than a defensive stance of them to a known problem.
The landlord pointed to the extended vacated state of the room (of some two months). The prior tenant had not mentioned any problems. A bed bug's life cycle stalls because the insects cannot complete development or reproduce without a blood meal but internet literature appears to support bed bug survival for periods more than two months. Vacancy alone does not exclude pre- existence.
Having carefully considered all submissions and evidence, I do not find either party has been able to establish the origin of the bed bugs as being due to a failure of the other. I do not consider either was aware of the risk or presence they might have introduced or allowed. The tenant unusually brought items that has been in his storage unit but accessed and occasionally used. He had also transited multiple places prior to this tenancy. The prior biting as experienced by another tenant is balanced against what is, apart from this tenant, only one instance historically alleged (back in 2021).
If I do not find the landlord knowing exposed the tenant to a risk of bed bugs due to any failure to maintain, I must also consider their responsiveness after being advised of the problem.

What was the landlord response to the bed bugs?

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so. Both advice and opportunity took place here within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s obligation to maintain is not absolute. A landlord must repair maintenance issues that arise within a reasonable time after it has knowledge of the disrepair. This means a landlord is not liable for a latent and unobservable defect that unexpectedly causes damage. However, the Tribunal may infer knowledge where it is obvious that the premises are not in a reasonable state of repair. 35. The landlord does not fail to maintain the premises if they repair the deficiency with a reasonable time after finding out about a defect. The District Court in Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 held: [T]he obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a 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.
The tenant first raised the biting issue with [Staff member]. [Staff member] received instructions from the owner and made another room available immediately. There was also a recounting by the owner of instructions given to minimise risk of anything removed from the room spreading any bugs. I heard possessions were placed in plastics bags. Provision of a washing machine and dryer to kill any bugs residing in those items was provided. The landlord later sought recovery of this cost, although at the time the offer appears more akin to an offer and good customer service. While not required here, if a determination was required I would not compensation such a cost.
The tenant claims to have experienced further biting in the second room. Unfortunately, while he collected several bugs from the first room, keeping them for several days and making a video, he was unable to evidence any bugs in the second room with photos or further video. He said after being bitten he removed the mattress protector and examined the mattress and saw black stains that he considered faecal marks. No red/blood staining was noticed. [The cleaner], the cleaner attended to the room and area. Depending on who I heard from, she either (a) confirmed the bugs (as recounted by the tenant), or (b) refuted bugs as present (as recounted by the owner). I am left [The party] the wiser on any such bed bug presence in the second room prior to the tenant entry. The owners’ claim, if bugs were present, the tenant must have carried them from the other room. I also have some consideration of a delay in symptoms after earlier biting in the first room.
I do not have evidence of any bed bugs in the second room.
I find the landlord response to have been reasonable and I do not find any proven grounds for tenant compensation. Summary
Neither applicant has been able to satisfy me evidentially that it is more likely than not that their accounting of the cause of the bed begs is correct. But for the varied prior tenant history, both personally and his possessions, a landlord of a large boarding house with reasonable turnover might have been expected to better evidence their operating procedures that make such an infestation less than likely. Here, the tenant has been transitory in several different locations, as well as overnight stays in his storage unit.
Unusually for this landlord, permission was given for a tenant to bring in their own mattress and bedding. The prior tenant movements and the bringing of his possessions into the first room creates some question of bug source. The first two nights of calm may have multiple explanations. I do not have sufficient evidence to conclude bed bugs were present in the second room and a source of subsequent evidence of biting on the upper limbs.
I do not find it proven the landlord was, or should have been, aware of any bed bugs in the first room prior to letting.
The second issue to be considered is whether the landlord was tardy or remiss in its response when biting was claimed? In short, no. The response was quick with tenant provided laundry and alternative accommodation. Given the different apportionment of responsibility for the problem some friction ensued but given the quick subsequent exit of the tenant any possible agreeable resolution became unobtainable.
The salient words of Judge Mather quoted in [6] above, regarding the evidential burden are reinforced here.
Given neither party has been able to prove their claims, I leave each to carry any cost or loss as may have been incurred.
The bond is the tenant’s money and that is released to him. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord and tenant both requested suppression in their application.
The presence of bed bugs is disconcerting and of public interest. In this matter I have weighted the minimal evidence of any pattern of previous landlord failures to prevent or address such infestation. The landlord is rightly concerned of reputational damage. Given the applicant has been unable to evidence landlord failures I consider this concern valid and for consideration.
Equally, the tenant has established it as more than likely he experienced bed bugs. The evidence of that is accepted. The source of the bed bugs, in my mind, remains unestablished.
I consider both parties interests outweigh any public interest in the publication of identifying details and I order full name and details suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5504070 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5504070 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What or who caused the bed bugs?

What was the landlord response to the bed bugs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

What or who caused the bed bugs?

What was the landlord response to the bed bugs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.