What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5222032?

The tribunal order states: Riccardo Padovan must pay Gerry Natanael and Irene Susantio $1,827.00

How much money was awarded in case 5222032?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222032?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222032?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12001474-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5222032?

The tribunal order states: Riccardo Padovan must pay Gerry Natanael and Irene Susantio $1,827.00

How much money was awarded in case 5222032?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222032?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222032?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12001474-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15A Peach Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5222032 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5222032 — net $1,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,200.00	The claim for rent arrears is proven. Reimbursement of costs associated with early termination of the fixed term
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,827.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,827.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5222032 — net $1,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,200.00	The claim for rent arrears is proven. Reimbursement of costs associated with early termination of the fixed term
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,827.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,827.00

Order

Riccardo Padovan must pay Gerry Natanael and Irene Susantio $1,827.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (BN-00043377) to Gerry Natanael and Irene Susantio immediately.
The tenant’s claim in respect of failing to lodge the bond within the required timeframe is proven.
The remaining claims by the tenant are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by the court appointed Italian interpreter.
The Tribunal also received viva voce evidence from two witnesses called by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for early termination of the fixed term, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks return of his bond, compensation for alleged Healthy Home breaches and failing to maintain premises. Relevant Legal Considerations
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
Both parties filed substantial documentation in support of their claims. I have not referred to all material in my decision however the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
The premises consist of a two-level house with 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. There are currently 4 tenants residing at the property. The landlord confirmed that each person living in the house has their own tenancy agreement. The tenant confirmed during the hearing that he found out about the house via Facebook. The tenancy was a room-by-room arrangement. Landlord application

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy started on 24 October 2024 and ended on 29 May 2025. The tenant was subject to a fixed term agreement for 11 months from 24 October 2024 to 28 September 2025.
The tenant moved out early on 26 March 2024, having provided the landlord with what he stated was a legal 28 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenant stated that he moved out early due to the noise from other tenants coupled with an issue with insects.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a rent ledger proving the amount outstanding up until the start of a new tenancy.
The landlord provided evidence during the hearing of a tenancy agreement confirming the start date of 30 May 2025 for the new tenancy. The landlord served a 14-day notice to remedy on the tenant on 26 March 2025 in respect of the rent. The landlord accepted during the hearing that this notice should have been served on 27 March 2025.
The tenant says that he tried to find a replacement tenant via TradeMe however these attempts were unsuccessful. He says that two people came to look at the room but were not interested. The tenant suggested that they were not interested due to the state of the property.
Having sighted the evidence in respect of the fixed term tenancy I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the rent up to 29 May 2025.
As explained to the tenant during the hearing, a fixed term agreement cannot be ended with a 28-day notice. An agreement of this type can only terminate early by mutual agreement between the parties or by order of the Tenancy Tribunal. The landlord is entitled to claim for rent arrears up to the start of a new tenancy.
I am satisfied that the amount rent claimed by the landlord is owed by the tenant.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Reimbursement of costs associated with early termination of the fixed term
The landlord claims for costs incurred as a result of the early termination of the fixed term agreement. They say that they have incurred mileage costs as a result of having to drive back and forth to the tenancy address to show prospective tenants. They claim $144.14 for mileage.
The landlord has attempted to recover expenses incurred in respect of early termination under Section 50(1)(d) without providing an itemised account.
A landlord must provide an itemised account to the tenant of any expenses incurred in respect of early termination under Section 50(1)(d)]. See section 44A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has not provided an itemised account to the tenant as required.
Accordingly, the claim is dismissed. Tenant application Failure to maintain premises
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the property in respect of pest control, flies and noise issues.
The tenant says that he observed cockroaches on approximately 10 separate occasions. The tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlords dated 13 March 2025.
The landlords visited the property on 19 March at the request of another tenant (also a witness in these proceedings) and could not find any pests. They also checked the garage to see if there were any nests but could not find anything. The landlord confirmed that they replied to the tenant the same day to enquire about the insects. They say that the tenant never responded.
The landlord followed up by email asking that they be contacted in the event there are further issues.
The tenant confirmed that at no stage did he find cockroaches in his bedroom. The cockroaches were only located in the kitchen area. The fly traps were also located in the kitchen area. The Tribunal was provided with photographic evidence confirming the presence of cockroaches and flies in the kitchen area.
The tenant says that ongoing noise came from the keyless electronic lock on the front door of the house. The tenant says that when the door would close the lock would make an electronic chirping sound each time which would last approximately 30 seconds. The tenant says that this would disturb his sleep as other tenants entered and exited the front door during the night.
The landlords say that it is a keyless lock which makes a small noise but no way does it last for 30 seconds.
The tenant served a 14-day notice to remedy on the landlord on 13 March 2025.
Under section 45, a landlord must • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence is clear that cockroaches and flies were only located in the common area of house. The landlord also advised that on 15 February 2025 during an inspection they discovered piles of rubbish by the front door which had been there for a period of time due to a missed rubbish collection.
The sighting of cockroaches and flies in an area of the house shared by other tenants does not, on the evidence provided, constitute a breach of the landlord’s obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act “(RTA”). There is also evidence provided which clearly indicates that the landlords responded promptly to the issues raised.
Tenants have an obligation under the RTA to ensure that the premises are kept reasonably clean. They also have a responsibility to ensure that their actions do not attract pests such as cockroaches and flies. This includes ensuring that food waste is properly disposed of, and rubbish is not allowed to accumulate as these habits attract pests such as cockroaches and flies.
It is the responsibility of all tenants to take reasonable steps to prevent such issues by maintaining a hygienic living environment throughout the duration of the tenancy.
I also find that the noise generated by an electronic door lock does not constitute a breach of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA. The Act requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and to ensure the property complies with all relevant health and safety requirements. The operational sound of a security device such as an electronic lock is not unreasonable, nor does it pose a health and safety risk. Provided the lock functions properly and securely, the noise level – being incidental to normal use – does not amount to a failure by the landlord to meet their legal obligations. I also note that any tenant must display a degree of tolerance if they make the conscious decision to live in close confines with others.
The claim of failing to maintain has not been established and is therefore dismissed. Healthy Homes Compliance and Insulation Statement
Riccardo Padovan claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlords did not provide him with the Healthy Homes compliance statement and the insulation statement. The landlords provided a screenshot of the Healthy Homes assessment front page dated 11 May 2022 confirming that the premises fully comply with the Healthy Homes standards.
Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Agreement as signed by the tenant on 21 October 2024 clearly records the insulation statement. The tenant also accepted during the hearing that he did not make a formal request for a copy of the records relating to the landlord’s compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The claim has not been established and is therefore dismissed. Harassment
Riccardo Padovan claims the landlord has harassed them.
The tenant claims harassment by the landlord during the final inspection. The tenant says that from the moment he gave notice the landlords refused to discuss the issues by email and instead wanted to meet up to discuss.
The tenant says that there was bad behaviour on the part of the landlords. The tenant says that the landlords undertook the final inspection on 27 March 2025. The landlord, the tenant and his witness were there for the final inspection. The tenant says that the landlord wanted to discuss the issue of breaking the lease early during the final inspection and the tenant wanted to discuss the issue by email. The tenant says that the landlord started filming the tenant on their phone as he was trying to leave. The tenant also claims that the landlord blocked the doorway preventing him from leaving.
The landlord stated that they asked for a meeting in respect of the tenant wanting to break the fixed the fixed term early. They offered to meet the tenant at his place of work. They say that the tenant did not respond. The landlords then offered to meet him somewhere else, but the tenant refused. They say that the tenant asked to communicate by email. The landlords say they then contacted Tenancy Services for advice. They also say that they were unaware that the tenant was going to bring another person with him to the final inspection. They say that the final inspection started well but after they inspected the room the tenant asked the landlord to go downstairs. The landlord says that they only started recording the inspection towards to the end due to fears for their safety.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
I am entirely satisfied that the landlords did not harass the tenant. The evidence filed by the tenant simply does not support this claim. Having heard the evidence received during the hearing along with the documents filed with the application it is abundantly clear that the landlords merely wanted to discuss the premature termination of the fixed term agreement with the tenant and receive assurances from the tenant that the rent would be paid up until such time as a new tenant was found. They had every right to be concerned that they would never see the tenant again or receive any further rent payments.
In my view they had every right to discuss the issue with the tenant, who from my assessment has been largely responsible for the manner in which events have turned out.
This claim has not been established. Failure to lodge bond within the required time
Riccardo Padovan claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not lodge his bond until 27 February 2025, nearly 4 months after the start of the tenancy.
The landlords accept that they did not lodge the bond straight away. They say that they are not professional landlords. They also say that they had parents in their home country who were unwell at the time which caused distraction.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant confirmed during the hearing that he does not seek exemplary damages for the bond being lodged late.
Based on the evidence provided by the tenant, along with the landlord’s acceptance I am satisfied that the bond was not lodged within the required timeframe. I also accept that the landlord did not intentionally withhold the bond.
Accordingly, I find the claim proven but do not award exemplary damages in respect of this finding. Unlawful entry
The tenant claims that the landlord entered the property without providing the required notice.
The tenant says that on 19 March 2025 the landlords turned up without giving the required notice. The landlords say that they were asked to attend by the other tenant on 16 March 2025. They provided the tenant at least two days’ notice that they would attend on 19 March to change the batteries on the smoke alarm.
This tenant claims that he only received 2 hours’ notice. He takes issue with the fact that the landlords went into the garage and cleaned. The landlord’s evidence was that they went to the garage to look for evidence of pests.
Section 48 of the RTA sets out the requirements around a landlord’s right to enter the premises. This requires the landlord to give 24 hours’ notice to enter the premises when undertaking maintenance. But that provision also confirms that the landlord can lawfully enter the premises at any time, with the consent of the tenant given freely at or immediately before the entry (in that case notice is not necessary).
If the landlord fails to comply with the entry requirements, then they commit an unlawful act, and therefore exemplary damages could be ordered. But the problem for the tenants is subsection 7 which holds that “In this section premises does not include land or facilities
I accept the evidence that consent for entry had been given by one of the co- tenants. The landlord only needed to receive consent from one tenant to enter the premises, which allows the landlord or the agent (the contractor) to lawfully enter the premises. I accept that the landlord did not enter the tenant’s bedroom. Based on the evidence provided I do not accept that the landlord’s entered the property unlawfully.
I conclude there is insufficient evidence to establish an unlawful entry claim. Tenant witnesses:
The tenant called two witnesses to provide viva voce evidence in support of his claims.
The first witness says that he was there for the final inspection on 27 March 2025. The room was clean. He says that the landlords wanted to have a conversation with the tenant. He says that they were both negotiating with each other. He says that the landlords told the tenant that if he gives up his bond then that will be the end of matters. They then asked the tenant if he agreed with that.
The landlords asked a question to the witness during the hearing. They asked whether it was them as the landlords who proposed the solution. The landlords say that it was the other witness who asked the question as to whether there was a way to resolve the matter. The witness confirmed that the landlords did not put pressure on the tenant although he stated that he could tell that there was “strong tension” between the parties. The witness also says that the landlords blocked the way so that they could not leave without discussing the issues.
The second witness says that there were several instances where he found insects in the house. This witness lived in the house from 2 November 2024 to May 2025. He says that he saw insects in the hallway of the house. He says that no matter how diligently he cleaned they were still there. He stated that he brought these issues to the attention of the landlord but could not recall. He says that he did so by telephone and not in writing. He also stated that he sent a video to the landlord via Facebook messenger. The witness says that he was not used to New Zealand standards compared to back home in the United States.
The landlord questioned the witness about him contacting them. They checked their records and confirmed a message from the witness dated 4 February 2025 stating that there was to be a meeting between the flatmates to discuss the cleanliness of the house. The landlord confirmed that there was no video received from the witness.
There was also a witness statement from Shaun Jenkins filed in support by tenant.
This witness did not attend the hearing. For the sake of completeness, I acknowledge receipt of this witness statement and have considered the information provided.
Notwithstanding the evidence from the witnesses I am satisfied that this evidence does not support the various claims filed by the tenant.
Because Gerry Natanael, Irene Susantio has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The tenant’s claim in respect of failing to lodge the bond within the required timeframe has been proven. Accordingly, recognising the landlord’s omission in this regard I do not order suppression of the landlord name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222032 — Rent arrears at 15A Peach Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222032 — Rent arrears at 15A Peach Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions