What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5131728 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5131728?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5131728?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5131728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12144702-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5131728 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5131728?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5131728?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5131728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12144702-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

102 Landing Drive, Albany, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5131728 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Dan Zhu represented the landlord. Both tenants were present.
The applicant sought orders for rent arrears and water rates.
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: “...[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.”
The tenancy that commenced on 7 December 2021 ended on 4 November 2024.
Some 11 days after the tenancy ended, on 25 November 2024, the agency head of property management, Mr Russell White met with Stephen Brown at its office. I was told that subsequently, a visit to the premises took place with another agent (“Scott”) and Stephen.
Later that same day, an email was sent to the tenants (and internal staff cipied). It read:
The full bond was process and returned to the tenants shortly afterwards.
This application was lodged some six weeks later on 15 January 2025, seeking rent arrears of $1,595.00 and water rates of $273.57.
Essentially, the tenants believe an agreement was reached and confirmed in the email above, and by the subsequent return of the bond to them. They believe the agreement reflected a settlement that addressed any debt against historic complaints of theirs regarding the premises condition and landlord performance during the tenancy.
The landlord believes it is entitled to seek rent arrears and water rates.

Should the tenants be able to reply on the earlier email and return of the bond?

Dan Zhu confirmed that Russell White is her manager. She was not present at the offices or premises on 25 November 2025 but submitted the agreement was made under duress because of the behaviour of Stephen.
Stephen responded that if so, why did one agent subsequently go to the premises alone to meet with him there? I have no evidence of any such behaviour as claimed. Dan Zhu mentioned some internal emails that evidence such concerns, but these were not provided. Even if they were provided and showed, I consider greater weighting on any direct communication with the tenants from the landlord as a record of agreement.
In returning the full bond, the wording of the email clearly states this is the “fairest option” and that the landlord would be “waiving any debt”.
In my mind, the email and return of the bond appears to reflect some consideration of other matters relating to the tenancy. It acknowledges some tenant debt existed at the time of the return of the bond in full. Given the sequence of events and the seniority of the people involved I cannot see the landlord has a right to later attempt to revisit any such debts. The tenants should be entitled to rely on the agreement and subsequent return of the bond in this instance.
I consider the agreement recorded in the 25 November 2024 email is binding on both parties. If a later claim was lodged due to a hidden menace (for example, methamphetamine contamination) or damage I may have reached a different conclusion but the rent arrears and water rates now sought should have been known on 25 November 2024 when the bond was intentionally released to the tenants. It is considered more likely than not that these were the debts considered in the overall decision of the agent to release the bond in full to the tenants. There is no evidence of coercion by the tenant. If the owner is unhappy with the binding decision of its agent back in November 2024 that is a matter between them and their agent.
The application must be dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Dan Zhu represented the landlord. Both tenants were present.
The applicant sought orders for rent arrears and water rates.
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: “...[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.”
The tenancy that commenced on 7 December 2021 ended on 4 November 2024.
Some 11 days after the tenancy ended, on 25 November 2024, the agency head of property management, Mr Russell White met with Stephen Brown at its office. I was told that subsequently, a visit to the premises took place with another agent (“Scott”) and Stephen.
Later that same day, an email was sent to the tenants (and internal staff cipied). It read:
The full bond was process and returned to the tenants shortly afterwards.
This application was lodged some six weeks later on 15 January 2025, seeking rent arrears of $1,595.00 and water rates of $273.57.
Essentially, the tenants believe an agreement was reached and confirmed in the email above, and by the subsequent return of the bond to them. They believe the agreement reflected a settlement that addressed any debt against historic complaints of theirs regarding the premises condition and landlord performance during the tenancy.
The landlord believes it is entitled to seek rent arrears and water rates.

Should the tenants be able to reply on the earlier email and return of the bond?

Dan Zhu confirmed that Russell White is her manager. She was not present at the offices or premises on 25 November 2025 but submitted the agreement was made under duress because of the behaviour of Stephen.
Stephen responded that if so, why did one agent subsequently go to the premises alone to meet with him there? I have no evidence of any such behaviour as claimed. Dan Zhu mentioned some internal emails that evidence such concerns, but these were not provided. Even if they were provided and showed, I consider greater weighting on any direct communication with the tenants from the landlord as a record of agreement.
In returning the full bond, the wording of the email clearly states this is the “fairest option” and that the landlord would be “waiving any debt”.
In my mind, the email and return of the bond appears to reflect some consideration of other matters relating to the tenancy. It acknowledges some tenant debt existed at the time of the return of the bond in full. Given the sequence of events and the seniority of the people involved I cannot see the landlord has a right to later attempt to revisit any such debts. The tenants should be entitled to rely on the agreement and subsequent return of the bond in this instance.
I consider the agreement recorded in the 25 November 2024 email is binding on both parties. If a later claim was lodged due to a hidden menace (for example, methamphetamine contamination) or damage I may have reached a different conclusion but the rent arrears and water rates now sought should have been known on 25 November 2024 when the bond was intentionally released to the tenants. It is considered more likely than not that these were the debts considered in the overall decision of the agent to release the bond in full to the tenants. There is no evidence of coercion by the tenant. If the owner is unhappy with the binding decision of its agent back in November 2024 that is a matter between them and their agent.
The application must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5131728 — Rent arrears at 102 Landing Drive, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5131728 — Rent arrears at 102 Landing Drive, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants be able to reply on the earlier email and return of the bond?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants be able to reply on the earlier email and return of the bond?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions