How much money was awarded in case 5180551?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; By Consent: Replace Carparking Card: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $170.18 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain he…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,185.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5180551?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5180551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12195170-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5180551?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; By Consent: Replace Carparking Card: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $170.18 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain he…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,185.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5180551?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5180551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12195170-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 24, 218 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5180551 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5180551 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5180551 — net $2,005.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 May 2025	$2,185.71		Rent arrears to 13 May 2025
By consent: Cleaning	$120.00		By consent: Cleaning
By consent: Replace carparking card	$30.00		By consent: Replace carparking card
By consent: Water rates	$170.18		By consent: Water rates
Compensation: Failure to maintain heat pump		$500.00	Failure to maintain heat pump
Total award	$2,505.89	$500.00
Net award	$2,005.89
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,005.89

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,005.89 immediately from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,005.89 [The tenant/s]: $1,594.11

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 31 July 2025. The landlord was represented by Xiaowei Pan.

The tenant sought to amend their application orally at the hearing to include a claim that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in relation to the heat pump. 1 The landlord did not oppose this request and I allowed the tenant to amend their application accordingly.

The tenant claims the landlord has breached the following obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): a. Failure to lodge the bond within 23 working days of payment being made (section 19(1)(b), 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA); and b. Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (section 45(1)(b) RTA).

The landlord has filed a cross-application seeking rent arrears and compensation for the following items: a. Cleaning:$120.00 b. Replace carparking card:$30.00 c. Outstanding water invoice:$170.18

The tenant does not dispute any of the landlord’s claims for compensation, which I grant by consent.

This decision only discusses the tenant’s claims for alleged breaches of the RTA and the landlord’s claim for rent arrears.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(b). evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of 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.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. TENANT’S CLAIMS Failure to lodge the bond

A landlord must lodge a bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after payment is made. Failure to do so constitutes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be ordered. 2

The tenant claims their bond of $3,600.00 was not lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after payment was made. The tenant claims they paid the bond some time around 25 or 26 July 2024 and never received a receipt, which is why they believe the bond was not lodged.

The landlord claims the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre on 12 August 2024, which is within 23 working days after the tenant claims they made payment.

The landlord submitted a letter from the Bond Centre dated 9 June 2025, which states the bond of $3,600.00 was lodged by direct credit on 12 August 2024.

This letter convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre on 12 August 2024. The tenant claims they paid the bond around 25 – 26 July 2024. 12 August 2024 is 12 working days from the earlier date of 25 July 2024. Therefore, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord lodged the bond within 23 working days after payment was made. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 19(2)(b), 19(2) and Schedule 1A. Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA states: (1) The landlord shall – ... (a) Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and ...

It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is a reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy the problem. 3

There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.

A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 4 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 5

There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 6 Evidence and submissions of the parties

The tenant gave evidence that the heat pump stopped working on 29 July 2024. They advised the landlord who sent someone to investigate the issue immediately. The tenant claims the heat pump worked temporarily but stopped working again the very next day. The tenant claims they were without a working heat pump until 29 August 2024 when a replacement was installed.

The tenant gave evidence that having a working heat pump was very important to them, especially because they have young children. The tenant claims the 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 4 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 5 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 6 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. landlord did not offer them an alternative heating source and the heater used by the tenant was insufficient to heat the living area. The tenant claims they were unable to use the living area as often as they would have liked.

The landlord accepts that the heat pump stopped working shortly after a technician visited the premises on 29 July 2024 in response to the tenant’s complaint. The landlord also accepts that the problem was not remedied until 29 August 2024 when a replacement heat pump was installed.

The landlord claims the reason for the delay was because efforts were being made to locate a replacement part for the heat pump in New Zealand. When it became apparent that this was not possible and a new heat pump would need to be installed, the landlord claims they had to first seek the approval of the Body Corporate, which took some time. The landlord claims that as soon as approval was received, a replacement heat pump was installed. Analysis

Both parties agree that the broken heat pump was mentioned by the tenant to the landlord on 29 July 2024 and was not fixed until 28 August 2024, which is a period of approximately 5 weeks.

I accept the tenant’s evidence that the landlord did not supply an alternative, suitable heating source whilst the premises were without a working heat pump. The landlord did not offer any evidence to the contrary.

By failing to provide the tenant with a suitable, alternative heating source for the main living area and taking approximately 5 weeks to replace the broken heat pump, I find the landlord breached their obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $100.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have considered the following factors: a. The tenancy agreement lists the heat pump as a chattel provided by the landlord to the tenant as part of the tenancy. b. The tenancy agreement states that the premises is compliant with the healthy homes’ standards from 27 July 2024. Part of the compliance relates to the fact that the premises is noted as having a 3.5 kilowatt heat pump in the main living area. c. The premises were without a working heat pump from 29 July 2025 – 28 August 2025, which is the middle of winter. Not being able to adequately heat the main living area during this time would have significantly detracted from the amenity of the premises.

The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for a total of $500.00. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Rent arrears

A tenant must pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 7

Both parties accept the tenancy ended on 13 May 2025.

The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves the tenant owes $2,185.71 in rent arrears up to 15 May 2025.

The tenant accepts the accuracy of the landlord’s rent summary, but claims they did not pay rent, because the premises were without a working heat pump from 29 July 2024 – 28 August 2024.

The fact that a tenant was without a working heat pump from 29 July 2024 – 28 August 2024 does not detract from their obligation to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. I have considered the tenant’s claim in relation to the heat pump and ordered the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 in compensation.

The landlord has submitted rent records which prove the tenant owes $2,185.71 in rent arrears up to 13 May 2025.

The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $2,185.71. FILING FEE & NAME SUPPRESSION

Both parties have been substantially successful with their claims. Therefore, I do not order either part to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant both parties’ request for name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5180551 — net $2,005.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 May 2025	$2,185.71		Rent arrears to 13 May 2025
By consent: Cleaning	$120.00		By consent: Cleaning
By consent: Replace carparking card	$30.00		By consent: Replace carparking card
By consent: Water rates	$170.18		By consent: Water rates
Compensation: Failure to maintain heat pump		$500.00	Failure to maintain heat pump
Total award	$2,505.89	$500.00
Net award	$2,005.89
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,005.89

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,005.89 immediately from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,005.89 [The tenant/s]: $1,594.11

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 31 July 2025. The landlord was represented by Xiaowei Pan.

The landlord has filed a cross-application seeking rent arrears and compensation for the following items: a. Cleaning:$120.00 b. Replace carparking card:$30.00 c. Outstanding water invoice:$170.18

The tenant does not dispute any of the landlord’s claims for compensation, which I grant by consent.

This decision only discusses the tenant’s claims for alleged breaches of the RTA and the landlord’s claim for rent arrears.

BURDEN OF PROOF

The landlord claims the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre on 12 August 2024, which is within 23 working days after the tenant claims they made payment.

The landlord submitted a letter from the Bond Centre dated 9 June 2025, which states the bond of $3,600.00 was lodged by direct credit on 12 August 2024.

There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.

There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 6 Evidence and submissions of the parties

Both parties agree that the broken heat pump was mentioned by the tenant to the landlord on 29 July 2024 and was not fixed until 28 August 2024, which is a period of approximately 5 weeks.

The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for a total of $500.00. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Rent arrears

A tenant must pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 7

Both parties accept the tenancy ended on 13 May 2025.

The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves the tenant owes $2,185.71 in rent arrears up to 15 May 2025.

The tenant accepts the accuracy of the landlord’s rent summary, but claims they did not pay rent, because the premises were without a working heat pump from 29 July 2024 – 28 August 2024.

The landlord has submitted rent records which prove the tenant owes $2,185.71 in rent arrears up to 13 May 2025.

The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $2,185.71. FILING FEE & NAME SUPPRESSION

Tenancy Tribunal case 5180551 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 24, 218 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5180551 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 24, 218 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BURDEN OF PROOF

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BURDEN OF PROOF

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions