What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5108968?

The tribunal order states: This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 10 April 2025 under

How much money was awarded in case 5108968?

Previous Order Application 5097868 D…: $677.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $926.45 awarded to landlord; Door: $320.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5108968?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5108968?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13181643-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5108968?

The tribunal order states: This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 10 April 2025 under

How much money was awarded in case 5108968?

Previous Order Application 5097868 D…: $677.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $926.45 awarded to landlord; Door: $320.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5108968?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5108968?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13181643-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 9, 180 Surrey Crescent, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5108968 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5108968 — net $569.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 06/12/2024	$926.45		Rent arrears to 06/12/2024
Repairs: door	$320.00		Repairs: door
Previous order application 5097868 dated 10/04/2025		$677.00	Previous order application 5097868 dated 10/04/2025
Total award	$1,246.45	$677.00
Net award	$569.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$569.45

Order

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 10 April 2025 under application 5097868.
Sylvain Joel Emmanuel IZART and Michael Olivier Nicolas IZART to pay Room Renter Limited As Agent For Owner $569.45 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $569.45 (6496805-013) to Room Renter Limited As Agent For Owner immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $300.55 (6496805-013) to Sylvain Joel Emmanuel IZART and Michael Olivier Nicolas IZART immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via video conference on 11 December 2025.
The tenancy was from 26 January 2024 until 6 December 2024.
The tenant had occupied rooms 8 and 9 of the boarding house. However, this application was only for room 9. The Tribunal had already heard his claim regarding room 8 and made an order on 10 April 2025 under application 5097868.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant claimed that room 9 was too small and suffered from mould and dampness issues. The tenant said that the room also had exposed nails in the carpet creating a safety hazard.
The tenant claimed that room 9 also suffered from odour and ventilation issues from being adjacent to room 8 which had no windows and lacked ventilation.
The tenant claimed renting both rooms 8 and 9 at the same time increased the financial strain for the tenant due to overlapping payments.
The tenant claimed that the persistent mould and dampness issues contributed to the respiratory discomfort and coughing for a tenant. The tenant also claimed that the stress from the room conditions worsened the tenant’s fiancée’s eczema. The tenant acknowledged that they did not have any formal medical documentation to support this claim.
The tenant also claimed that there was rat infestation at the premises and that the landlord had asked the tenants to handle the rat poison provided themselves instead of placing it for them. The landlord then threatened to charge for pest control due to the tenants’ failure to lay the poison provided.
The tenant also raised issues with the general neglect of the smoke alarms and maintenance.
The tenant also claimed that the termination notice emailed to the tenant was retaliatory.
The tenant applied for full refund of the rent paid and additional $5,000.00 for compensation for stress, hardship and damage to personal belongings caused by the substandard living conditions.
The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears of $926.45, and compensation for door repair, door lock and window latch handle replacement and window glass replacement.
The landlord also applied for the compensation and exemplary damages for the tenant disrupting the quiet enjoyment of other tenants.
I deal with the tenant’s application first. 5108968, 53051393 Size, mould, dampness and safety claims
The tenant claimed that the room 9 only had 4 square meters of area where the tenant could stand upright due to the sloping ceiling line.
Regulation 10 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 stipulate that every habitable room must have a height from floor to ceiling of at least 2.1 metres in case of an existing house and at least 2.4 metres for a new house. If there is a sloping ceiling, that height must be over at least one-half of its floor area with the lowest height being not less than 1.5 metres.
Regulation 8 stipulates that every bedroom to have a minimum width of 1.8 metres and a minimum total of 6 square metres.
The tenant provided a 35-second video showing what room 9 looked like including the mould by the bed. However, the video was wholly inadequate to show any measurements of the room.
Regarding the mould and dampness claim, the video showed mould between the bed and the wall.
The landlord disputed that there was any mould or dampness issues in room 9 as there was no mould issues when the tenant first started occupying room 9. On the contrary, there was evidence of other boarders complaining about the tenant not adequately ventilating rooms 8 and 9 despite keeping birds there.
Mould and dampness management is a joint responsibility between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord must provide the premises free from dampness and mould, and the tenant must keep it that way by ventilating it as required.
From the video provided by the tenant, it was not possible to determine whether the mould or dampness issues were due to the premises itself or due to the tenant’s lack of ventilation.
The tenant did not provide any evidence of significant exposed nails in the carpet causing a safety hazard.
Regarding the room 8 being next to room 9, any odour and ventilation issues with room 8 was dealt with at the previous Tribunal hearing. Room 9 had full sized openable windows and hence had no odour or ventilation issues.
Any increased “financial strain” for the tenants having rented 2 rooms instead of 1 room cannot be a claim that the Tribunal can grant any compensation for as it was the tenant’s decision to rent 2 rooms from the landlord. The landlord did not force the tenant to rent both rooms.
Regarding the health issues claimed, the tenant acknowledged that there was no medical documentation to support the claim. This claim has not been proven to the required standard. 5108968, 53051394 Rat poison, smoke alarm and maintenance claims
One of the tenants at the boarding house complained about sighting a rat in one of the rooms.
The landlord’s handyman purchased the traps on 15 May 2024 and left the rat poison at the premises on 16 May 2025. The landlord requested the tenants to put the poison out as bait where they saw the rat last. However, the tenants took the poison bait inside and did not place them anywhere. The tenants were of the view that the handyman should have placed it as the tenants did not have plastic gloves or other adequate gear to handle the poisonous bait.
The tenant also raised complaints about 2 smoke alarms at the premises. Those were added to the landlord’s maintenance program and were replaced by the owner of the house. They were first raised on 6 June 2024 and replaced on 19 June 2024.
The tenant said that the landlord should have promptly replaced them instead of asking the tenants “unnecessary questions”.
The tenant claimed that whenever there were problems with the premises, the landlord’s response was often dismissive, accusatory and unsafe.
Other than general accusatory claims, the tenant did not provide evidence to prove the claims. I do not find that the tenant has proven these claims to the required standard.
The claims seemed to be based on animosity between the parties rather than actual failings under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
I dismiss these claims. Retaliatory notice
On 28 November 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant claimed that the retaliatory notice was in response to the tenant’s complaints about the room sent by email on 13 September 2024. However, having read the email threads, I find that the landlord had emailed the tenant back adequately regarding the complaints raised at the time. 5108968, 53051395
Instead, there was evidence of numerous complaints by other boarders against the tenant himself. The tenant’s response to those complaints also give weight to the landlord’s explanation that the termination was due to the tenant’s behaviour rather than anything in retaliation to the tenant’s exercise of any right.
I do not find that the tenant has proven this claim. Tenant’s claims dismissed
As I do not find that the tenant has proven his claims, I do not award the tenant anything for this application.
I now turn to the landlord’s application. Landlord’s cross-application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The rent arrears of $926.45 to the end of the tenancy was not disputed by the tenant. Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay this amount to the landlord.
For damage claims, the landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The tenant accepted liability and costs for the damage done to the door of $320.00. However, the tenant disputed having caused any damage to the door lock and window latch handle and the glass crack around the latch on the window glass.
The landlord was unable to prove that the damage was more than fair wear and tear and that the tenant had caused the damage to the latch handle or the window glass. Therefore, I do not grant compensation for these.
Regarding the landlord’s claim of the tenant causing interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any person at the boarding house, I do not find that the tenant’s behaviour amounted to harassment. I do not find that there was a particular pattern of behaviour by the tenant to amount to harassment to justify compensation or exemplary damages. 5108968, 53051396
I accept that the landlord has provided evidence of other tenants not getting along with one of the two tenants of this claim. However, I find that it would be best described as personality incompatibilities more so than harassment by the tenant.
Therefore, I do not grant compensation or exemplary damages as sought by the landlord. Filing fee reimbursement
As neither party can be described as having wholly or substantially succeeded with the application, I do not order for any reimbursement of the filing fees. Name suppression
Both parties wanted name suppression if they were to succeed with their applications.
However, I do not find that either party has wholly or substantially succeeded with their applications.
I do not see any basis for name suppression and therefore no details are suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5108968 — net $569.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 06/12/2024	$926.45		Rent arrears to 06/12/2024
Repairs: door	$320.00		Repairs: door
Previous order application 5097868 dated 10/04/2025		$677.00	Previous order application 5097868 dated 10/04/2025
Total award	$1,246.45	$677.00
Net award	$569.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$569.45

Order

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 10 April 2025 under application 5097868.
Sylvain Joel Emmanuel IZART and Michael Olivier Nicolas IZART to pay Room Renter Limited As Agent For Owner $569.45 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $569.45 (6496805-013) to Room Renter Limited As Agent For Owner immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $300.55 (6496805-013) to Sylvain Joel Emmanuel IZART and Michael Olivier Nicolas IZART immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via video conference on 11 December 2025.
The tenancy was from 26 January 2024 until 6 December 2024.
The tenant had occupied rooms 8 and 9 of the boarding house. However, this application was only for room 9. The Tribunal had already heard his claim regarding room 8 and made an order on 10 April 2025 under application 5097868.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant claimed that room 9 was too small and suffered from mould and dampness issues. The tenant said that the room also had exposed nails in the carpet creating a safety hazard.
The tenant claimed that room 9 also suffered from odour and ventilation issues from being adjacent to room 8 which had no windows and lacked ventilation.
The tenant claimed renting both rooms 8 and 9 at the same time increased the financial strain for the tenant due to overlapping payments.
The tenant claimed that the persistent mould and dampness issues contributed to the respiratory discomfort and coughing for a tenant. The tenant also claimed that the stress from the room conditions worsened the tenant’s fiancée’s eczema. The tenant acknowledged that they did not have any formal medical documentation to support this claim.
The tenant also claimed that there was rat infestation at the premises and that the landlord had asked the tenants to handle the rat poison provided themselves instead of placing it for them. The landlord then threatened to charge for pest control due to the tenants’ failure to lay the poison provided.
The tenant also raised issues with the general neglect of the smoke alarms and maintenance.
The tenant also claimed that the termination notice emailed to the tenant was retaliatory.
The tenant applied for full refund of the rent paid and additional $5,000.00 for compensation for stress, hardship and damage to personal belongings caused by the substandard living conditions.
The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears of $926.45, and compensation for door repair, door lock and window latch handle replacement and window glass replacement.
The landlord also applied for the compensation and exemplary damages for the tenant disrupting the quiet enjoyment of other tenants.
I deal with the tenant’s application first. 5108968, 53051393 Size, mould, dampness and safety claims
The tenant claimed that the room 9 only had 4 square meters of area where the tenant could stand upright due to the sloping ceiling line.
Regulation 10 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 stipulate that every habitable room must have a height from floor to ceiling of at least 2.1 metres in case of an existing house and at least 2.4 metres for a new house. If there is a sloping ceiling, that height must be over at least one-half of its floor area with the lowest height being not less than 1.5 metres.
Regulation 8 stipulates that every bedroom to have a minimum width of 1.8 metres and a minimum total of 6 square metres.
The tenant provided a 35-second video showing what room 9 looked like including the mould by the bed. However, the video was wholly inadequate to show any measurements of the room.
Regarding the mould and dampness claim, the video showed mould between the bed and the wall.
The landlord disputed that there was any mould or dampness issues in room 9 as there was no mould issues when the tenant first started occupying room 9. On the contrary, there was evidence of other boarders complaining about the tenant not adequately ventilating rooms 8 and 9 despite keeping birds there.
Mould and dampness management is a joint responsibility between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord must provide the premises free from dampness and mould, and the tenant must keep it that way by ventilating it as required.
From the video provided by the tenant, it was not possible to determine whether the mould or dampness issues were due to the premises itself or due to the tenant’s lack of ventilation.
The tenant did not provide any evidence of significant exposed nails in the carpet causing a safety hazard.
Regarding the room 8 being next to room 9, any odour and ventilation issues with room 8 was dealt with at the previous Tribunal hearing. Room 9 had full sized openable windows and hence had no odour or ventilation issues.
Any increased “financial strain” for the tenants having rented 2 rooms instead of 1 room cannot be a claim that the Tribunal can grant any compensation for as it was the tenant’s decision to rent 2 rooms from the landlord. The landlord did not force the tenant to rent both rooms.
Regarding the health issues claimed, the tenant acknowledged that there was no medical documentation to support the claim. This claim has not been proven to the required standard. 5108968, 53051394 Rat poison, smoke alarm and maintenance claims
One of the tenants at the boarding house complained about sighting a rat in one of the rooms.
The landlord’s handyman purchased the traps on 15 May 2024 and left the rat poison at the premises on 16 May 2025. The landlord requested the tenants to put the poison out as bait where they saw the rat last. However, the tenants took the poison bait inside and did not place them anywhere. The tenants were of the view that the handyman should have placed it as the tenants did not have plastic gloves or other adequate gear to handle the poisonous bait.
The tenant also raised complaints about 2 smoke alarms at the premises. Those were added to the landlord’s maintenance program and were replaced by the owner of the house. They were first raised on 6 June 2024 and replaced on 19 June 2024.
The tenant said that the landlord should have promptly replaced them instead of asking the tenants “unnecessary questions”.
The tenant claimed that whenever there were problems with the premises, the landlord’s response was often dismissive, accusatory and unsafe.
Other than general accusatory claims, the tenant did not provide evidence to prove the claims. I do not find that the tenant has proven these claims to the required standard.
The claims seemed to be based on animosity between the parties rather than actual failings under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
I dismiss these claims. Retaliatory notice
On 28 November 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant claimed that the retaliatory notice was in response to the tenant’s complaints about the room sent by email on 13 September 2024. However, having read the email threads, I find that the landlord had emailed the tenant back adequately regarding the complaints raised at the time. 5108968, 53051395
Instead, there was evidence of numerous complaints by other boarders against the tenant himself. The tenant’s response to those complaints also give weight to the landlord’s explanation that the termination was due to the tenant’s behaviour rather than anything in retaliation to the tenant’s exercise of any right.
I do not find that the tenant has proven this claim. Tenant’s claims dismissed
As I do not find that the tenant has proven his claims, I do not award the tenant anything for this application.
I now turn to the landlord’s application. Landlord’s cross-application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The rent arrears of $926.45 to the end of the tenancy was not disputed by the tenant. Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay this amount to the landlord.
For damage claims, the landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The tenant accepted liability and costs for the damage done to the door of $320.00. However, the tenant disputed having caused any damage to the door lock and window latch handle and the glass crack around the latch on the window glass.
The landlord was unable to prove that the damage was more than fair wear and tear and that the tenant had caused the damage to the latch handle or the window glass. Therefore, I do not grant compensation for these.
Regarding the landlord’s claim of the tenant causing interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any person at the boarding house, I do not find that the tenant’s behaviour amounted to harassment. I do not find that there was a particular pattern of behaviour by the tenant to amount to harassment to justify compensation or exemplary damages. 5108968, 53051396
I accept that the landlord has provided evidence of other tenants not getting along with one of the two tenants of this claim. However, I find that it would be best described as personality incompatibilities more so than harassment by the tenant.
Therefore, I do not grant compensation or exemplary damages as sought by the landlord. Filing fee reimbursement
As neither party can be described as having wholly or substantially succeeded with the application, I do not order for any reimbursement of the filing fees. Name suppression
Both parties wanted name suppression if they were to succeed with their applications.
However, I do not find that either party has wholly or substantially succeeded with their applications.
I do not see any basis for name suppression and therefore no details are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5108968 — Rent arrears at Room 9, 180 Surrey Crescent, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5108968 — Rent arrears at Room 9, 180 Surrey Crescent, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions