What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5257124 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5257124?

Rent Arrears: $6,695.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $394.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257124?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257124?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12067921-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5257124 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5257124?

Rent Arrears: $6,695.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $394.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257124?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257124?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12067921-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5257124 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257124 — net $4,330.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23/06/25	$6,695.71	Rent arrears to 23/06/25
Water rates for the period 11/11/24 – 28/05/25	$394.73	Water rates for the period 11/11/24 – 28/05/25
Net award	$4,330.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,330.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application for suppression is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Ebony Iharaia Herewini must pay [The landlord/s] $4,330.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Property manager] attended the remote hearing for the landlord. The tenant attended by phone.
On 13 May 2025, the landlord applied for orders for termination, rent arrears, outgoings and refund of the bond.
However, on 23 June 2025, the tenancy came to an end.
On 2 July 2025, the night before the hearing, the landlord filed a large number of documents in support of further claims seeking compensation for cleaning and damages. As they were filed only the night before the hearing, the tenant had not had an opportunity to review the additional claims and evidence.
If the landlord wishes to pursue the claims for compensation, a new application will need to be filed seeking those orders.
At the hearing today, I considered only the following: a. Rent arrears to 23/06/25, total sought $6,695.71. b. Water rates for period 13/08/24 – 28/05/25, total sought $475.01. c. Refund of the bond. d. Reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 June 2025. The tenant agreed she owes some rent arrears but was unsure of the exact amount.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $6,695.71.
An order is made accordingly.

How much is owed for water consumed during the tenancy?

The landlord provided a summary of Tenancy Invoices which recorded the water charges invoiced to the tenant.
The landlord sought a total of $475.01 for unpaid water charges.
The only invoices from the Body Corporate to the landlord which were filed by the landlord in support of the figures recorded in the Tenancy Invoices summary were the following: a. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 11/11/24 – 11/12/24 for $97.33. b. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 11/12/24 – 10/01/25 for $97.33. c. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 10/01/25 – 09/02/25 for $36.55. d. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 09/02/25 – 11/03/25 for $42.24. e. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 11/03/25 – 10/04/25 for $76.33. f. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 10/04/25 – 10/05/25 for $30.87. g. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 10/05/25 – 28/05/25 for $14.08.
The above invoices total $394.73.
No invoices were provided in support of the charges in the Tenancy Invoices summary for the periods: a. 13/08/24 – 12/09/24 (which I note includes a period prior to the tenancy commencing on 24/08/24); b. 12/09/24 – 12/10/24; and c. 12/10/24 – 11/11/24.
As the landlord did not produce evidence to show those amounts were costs incurred by the landlord, I dismiss those claims.
I order the tenant pay the landlord $394.73 for unpaid water rates for water consumption during the tenancy. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Should the landlord’s identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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.
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord applied for suppression of their name and the tenancy address. As the application was successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.
The tenant sought suppression of their name. I have considered whether I should grant name suppression to the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under section 95A(4) of the RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweighs the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257124 — net $4,330.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23/06/25	$6,695.71	Rent arrears to 23/06/25
Water rates for the period 11/11/24 – 28/05/25	$394.73	Water rates for the period 11/11/24 – 28/05/25
Net award	$4,330.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,330.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application for suppression is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Ebony Iharaia Herewini must pay [The landlord/s] $4,330.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Property manager] attended the remote hearing for the landlord. The tenant attended by phone.
On 13 May 2025, the landlord applied for orders for termination, rent arrears, outgoings and refund of the bond.
However, on 23 June 2025, the tenancy came to an end.
On 2 July 2025, the night before the hearing, the landlord filed a large number of documents in support of further claims seeking compensation for cleaning and damages. As they were filed only the night before the hearing, the tenant had not had an opportunity to review the additional claims and evidence.
If the landlord wishes to pursue the claims for compensation, a new application will need to be filed seeking those orders.
At the hearing today, I considered only the following: a. Rent arrears to 23/06/25, total sought $6,695.71. b. Water rates for period 13/08/24 – 28/05/25, total sought $475.01. c. Refund of the bond. d. Reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 June 2025. The tenant agreed she owes some rent arrears but was unsure of the exact amount.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $6,695.71.
An order is made accordingly.

How much is owed for water consumed during the tenancy?

The landlord provided a summary of Tenancy Invoices which recorded the water charges invoiced to the tenant.
The landlord sought a total of $475.01 for unpaid water charges.
The only invoices from the Body Corporate to the landlord which were filed by the landlord in support of the figures recorded in the Tenancy Invoices summary were the following: a. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 11/11/24 – 11/12/24 for $97.33. b. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 11/12/24 – 10/01/25 for $97.33. c. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 10/01/25 – 09/02/25 for $36.55. d. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 09/02/25 – 11/03/25 for $42.24. e. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 11/03/25 – 10/04/25 for $76.33. f. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 10/04/25 – 10/05/25 for $30.87. g. Invoice from Maple Leaf Trust to landlord for water consumed 10/05/25 – 28/05/25 for $14.08.
The above invoices total $394.73.
No invoices were provided in support of the charges in the Tenancy Invoices summary for the periods: a. 13/08/24 – 12/09/24 (which I note includes a period prior to the tenancy commencing on 24/08/24); b. 12/09/24 – 12/10/24; and c. 12/10/24 – 11/11/24.
As the landlord did not produce evidence to show those amounts were costs incurred by the landlord, I dismiss those claims.
I order the tenant pay the landlord $394.73 for unpaid water rates for water consumption during the tenancy. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Should the landlord’s identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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.
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord applied for suppression of their name and the tenancy address. As the application was successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.
The tenant sought suppression of their name. I have considered whether I should grant name suppression to the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under section 95A(4) of the RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweighs the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257124 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257124 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water consumed during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water consumed during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions