What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5255079 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5255079?

Compensation: New Bond: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful termination,…: $4,070.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $10,457.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255079?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255079?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13207646-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5255079 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5255079?

Compensation: New Bond: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful termination,…: $4,070.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $10,457.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255079?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255079?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13207646-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5255079 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5255079 — net $1,987.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$10,457.14		7. The Landlord seeks rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and refund of the bond.
Compensation: Unlawful termination, stress, moving cost		$4,070.00	Unlawful termination, stress, moving cost
Compensation: new bond		$2,200.00	new bond
Total award	$10,457.14	$6,270.00
Net award	$1,987.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,987.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5255079 — net $1,987.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$10,457.14		7. The Landlord seeks rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and refund of the bond.
Compensation: Unlawful termination, stress, moving cost		$4,070.00	Unlawful termination, stress, moving cost
Compensation: new bond		$2,200.00	new bond
Total award	$10,457.14	$6,270.00
Net award	$1,987.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,987.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlords name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,987.14 immediately, being rent arrears to 12 May 2022.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlord was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter. At the first hearing, the Landlord was unaccompanied. He submitted he had previously filed an application to the Tribunal but could not recall when and where or explain the outcome.
At the second hearing, the Landlord attended with his wife and amended the amounts claimed. His wife clarified an earlier application had been filed after the tenancy ended but was adjourned so the Tenant could be served. The Landlord then filed this new application. At the hearing, the Tenant handed up the bulk of their evidence in support of their cross- application which was filed a few days prior to the hearing.
The Landlord seeks rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and refund of the bond.
The Tenant seeks compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
This decision has been delayed due to the factual complexity of the case. There were multiple versions of rent summaries, some evidence was filed under the wrong party, the Tenant’s evidence was filed late, there were conflicting Tenancy Agreements filed, a prior application about the same tenancy, the Landlord had communication barriers and the Landlord appointed an agent with an unclear appointment timeframe. All of these factors made it challenging to ascertain a clear account of the facts.
After the hearing on 23 January 2026, the Landlord filed further documents on or about 19 February 2026. The Tribunal had not requested this material, and it has not been considered. It would be unfair to admit this new evidence after the hearing finished without giving the other party a chance to respond. For this reason, the Tribunal has not considered this evidence. Valid Tenancy Agreement
The terms for rent and the length of the tenancy were disputed by the parties.
The Landlord produced a tenancy agreement dated 14 October 2021 to 11 October 2023 which recorded $1,100.00 per week rent for 1/22 Northumberland Street. It was unsigned due to COVID-19 Level 3 restrictions. The Landlord says this reflects the true agreement the parties agreed to.
Before this, the Tenant had signed a flatmate agreement dated 27 August 2021 for $700.00 rent per week for the upstairs level of the same property (kitchen, bathroom, lounge, and three bedrooms). The Tenant paid $2,200.00 as a security deposit. A flat-sharing agreement was filed which showed Haere Mai Comfort Lodge as the Head Tenant.
The Tenant initially communicated with the Landlord’s agent, Ms Amy Zhang (“Ms Zhang”) from August to October 2021. Although the Landlord claimed Ms Zhang’s agency ended in December 2021, emails from Ms Zhang indicate her formal agency role ended around late September 2021 but she continued acting as an interpreter for the Landlord. An email dated 5 October 2021 from the Tenant to Ms Zhang records the Tenant agreeing to rent of $1,100.00 per week. Bank statements also show the Tenant paid rent of $1100.00 per week from 13 October to 15 December 2021, after previously paying $700.00.
The Landlord claimed he always intended to rent the entire property as one tenancy. If the Tenant did not wish to share facilities, he was happy for her to leave.
The Tenant submitted the true agreement between the parties was a fixed term tenancy from 7 September 2021 to 4 September 2023 at $700.00 per week. She claimed there was a typing error where the 3 at the end of 202 was omitted. She said that she was pressured by the Landlord to pay $1,100.00 in rent, which exceeded her WINZ entitlement. If she did not agree to $1100.00 she feared she would be homeless during COVID when it was very difficult to secure rental properties. She also claims a later verbal agreement was made with the Landlord, reducing the rent to $800.00 per week from 16 December 2021. This was made during one of the Landlords adhoc visits to her house to negotiate the $1100.00 rent. There is no independent evidence of this reduction of rent such as a varied Tenancy Agreement or statement from a third party witness to the conversation.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenants email of 5 October 2021 and the Tenant’s payment history of rent persuasive that the Landlord’s agreement was agreed to by both parties. There is no independent evidence of coercion or duress provided by the Tenant and there is no evidence that there was difficulty in securing rental properties during level 3.
I therefore find the rent was $1,100.00 per week and the Landlords tenancy agreement was the agreement the parties agreed to. Rent and Water Rates Arrears
The Landlord sought rent arrears of $13,600.00 up to 1 June 2022 because that was the date the keys was received from the Tenant. He says arrears arose when the Tenant reduced payments to $800.00 in December 2021 and did not pay rent in April and May 2022. He provided rent summaries and bank statements to prove the amount owing.
On 12 February 2022, the Landlord issued a 90-day notice to terminate for renovations, ending 12 May 2022.
The Tenant denies owing rent arrears and says rent was paid until early May 2022. She moved out in the first week of May 2022. She says the bond and advance rent should cover any shortfall.
In considering the evidence, the rent summaries and bank records provided by the parties show no payments made by the Tenant after March 2022. I find the tenancy ended on 12 May 2022 pursuant to the 90-day notice and rent arrears accrued to that date not 1 June 2022.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Landlord also claimed water rates and produced water rates invoices. When asked if these were sent to the Tenant during the tenancy, the Landlord stated they hand-delivered them to the Tenant because of their language barrier. The Landlord could not confirm the dates he visited the property to deliver them and the names of the interpreters who accompanied him.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A 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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The Landlord claims the following damage occurred during the tenancy: repair to the living room ceiling, wall damage on the ground floor, replacement of glass in the ground floor toilet door, and damage to a storage door. He provided photographs of the damages and a repair quote in support.
The Tenant denies responsibility. She says the alleged damage was located downstairs, an area she did not have access to. She states she did not cause the ceiling or wall damage, was unaware of the broken toilet glass, and had never seen the storage door damage. No entry or exit inspection reports were completed. She maintains she had no control over the downstairs occupants and no involvement with that area.
In considering the evidence, there is no entry inspection report to establish the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. In the absence of that evidence, and given the dispute about access to the downstairs area, I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the damage occurred during the tenancy or that the Tenant was responsible.
The claim is dismissed. Tenants claims Compensation- unlawful termination
The Tenant seeks $3,000.00 in compensation for early termination of the fixed-term tenancy. She received a notice dated 12 February 2022 requiring the tenancy to end on 12 May 2022, despite it being fixed until 2023. The reasons given were because the property required extensive alterations, refurbishment etc. She says she had relocated from Whangārei with her two daughters on the understanding the tenancy was long term. The notice caused significant stress and required her to secure alternative accommodation. She claims $1,000.00 for moving expenses (including petrol, trailer hire, disposal and replacement of furniture) and $2,070.00 for a new bond. She did not provide any evidence of the moving costs or the new furniture purchased except for the new bond being paid to the new rental property in her bank account statement.
The Landlord submitted the real reason the Tenant was asked to leave was due to rent arrears and he did not know why the agent they appointed, ticked extensive alterations as the reasons for termination. He also questioned the validity of the new bond payment by the Tenant because there was no evidence beyond her bank statement that this was payment of the bond to the new landlord.
Section 60A RTA provides the grounds for when a fixed term tenancy can end. A fixed term tenancy can only end by agreement of both parties or notice is given in accordance with a permitted ground.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord was not entitled to terminate the fixed-term tenancy on the grounds provided. As a result, the Tenant had to relocate unexpectedly and incurred significant stress and moving costs. The only documented expense was the new bond payment. While it is reasonable to accept that petrol and incidental moving costs were incurred, no receipts were provided for petrol or furniture. I therefore award $2000.00 for the stress incurred ($1800.00) and reasonable moving expenses ($200.00) and $2070.00 for the new bond but decline any further amount. I accept the bank statement was sufficient proof of payment of the new bond.
The amounts ordered are proved. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The Tenant also claimed $100.00 as compensation for the Landlord repeatedly sending interpreters to negotiate rent changes. She said three different people visited on separate occasions and that discussions took place during Level 3 restrictions about increasing the rent to $1,100.00 per week, later reduced to $800.00.
The Landlord denied entering the house during these visits. He said discussions took place outside, that notice was given before attending, and that visits were for water bills, plumbing issues, and rent arrears.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant provided no specific dates, times, or evidence of unlawful entry. She also did not show the actual loss she experienced from the Landlord’s actions. I am not satisfied there was interference with her quiet enjoyment.
This claim is dismissed. Claim for late filing of the bond
The Tenant paid $2,200.00 bond on 27 August 2021 to the Landlord. It was not lodged until 25 January 2022 which was outside the required 23 working days. The Tenant claimed compensation and stated that she did not feel secure because of the Landlords actions.
The Landlord acknowledged he filed this late and said he relied on his agent, believing she would attend to it. This was his first tenancy so he was not fully aware of his obligations.
Section 19(1)(b) RTA provides a Landlord must lodge a bond within 23 working days of receipt of it from the Tenant.
Compensation can be awarded if the Tenant can show there was a breach of the Tenancy Agreement that caused them loss.
In considering the evidence, the obligation to lodge the bond rests with the Landlord despite them appointing an agent to do this. I find there was a breach by the Landlord, however in terms of compensation, the Tenant has not shown the actual loss they experienced from lodging the bond late.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed. Exemplary Damages
The Tenant sought exemplary damages for unlawful termination, emotional distress, attempted rent increases, procedural failures, and maintenance issues.
Section 109(2) RTA provides: A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a) 12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— (i)an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii)a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b)12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant has not applied within the required timeframe for exemplary damages.
The claim is therefore dismissed.
As both parties have been partly successful, name suppression is granted to both parties and each party is to bear their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255079 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255079 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions