How much money was awarded in case 5286839?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $138.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $828.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286839?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12913427-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5286839?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $138.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $828.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286839?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12913427-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5B, 15 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5286839 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5286839?

The tribunal order states: Jorge Luis Guerrero Daza owes Auckland City-Living Management Limited as

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286839. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 July 2025	$828.57	Rent arrears to 3 July 2025
power	$138.86	power
Lock/key replacement	$150.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Jorge Luis Guerrero Daza owes Auckland City-Living Management Limited as agent for Nesoi Ltd (Fraser Dawson) the sum of $1,144.43, set out in the table below. This sum is to be paid by way of the Bond, as set out in paragraph 2 below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (BN-00092256) immediately apportioned as follows: Auckland City-Living Management Limited as agent for Nesoi Ltd (Fraser Dawson): $1,144.43 Jorge Luis Guerrero Daza: $455.57

Reasons

The landlord is claiming rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant says he is not liable because the tenancy was brought to an immediate end, due to breaches by the landlord of the tenancy agreement arising out of serious concerns about security. Burden of proof

Before I go on to deal with the claims that have been made, I first comment on the relevant burden of proof.

I begin by noting that in regard to the burden of proof, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application and making the allegations to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. They must establish that what they are claiming is more probable than not.

Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and reports and photographs can be an important part of discharging this burden.

Likewise, any party who asserts a positive defence or allegations has the obligation to supply information corroborating that position.

The parties must collect the relevant evidence they rely on and produce that evidence to the tribunal at the hearing. It is not for the Tribunal to extract or locate the evidence, or to hunt down and call witnesses itself.

Ultimately, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, in practical terms this means that: 1 ...[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. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy DC Waitakere 233/02, 12 April 2002, at [7]. Background

The tenant had the services of an interpreter throughout the hearing. From time to time, he said he could not hear very well, but I ensured the hearing then stopped to ensure the tenant could make arrangements to hear better.

The background to this matter is that the tenant had general security concerns when living at the apartment.

On 8 June 2025, he arrived home to find that the front door lock seemed to have been tampered with. He became very frightened. He was on the phone to a friend at the time and she supplied a statement verifying that this was his reaction.

The tenant then entered the premises and considered there was evidence that someone had been in the apartment.

He supplied no photographic evidence corroborating the detail of any of this.

The tenant sent an email to the landlord on 8 June 2025, purporting to bring the tenancy to an immediate end. He advised: ......due to serious incidents that have compromised our personal safety, the integrity of our belongings, and our peaceful enjoyment of the property. As was explained to you during your visit to the unit last Thursday, upon returning to the apartment we discovered: Unexplained damage to the carpet, despite the fact that we had not been present in the unit during the previous week. Damage to our computer equipment, raising serious concerns regarding unauthorized access and the security of the apartment. Additionally, we have previously experienced multiple incidents that were not in line with the terms of our tenancy agreement. Furthermore, yesterday, upon attempting to retrieve our personal belongings, we found that the security lock had been forcibly tampered with, leaving us deeply distressed and unable to remain in the apartment due to safety concerns. Although we requested access to the security camera footage, you were unable to provide this, which only deepens our concerns regarding the security and management of the property. In light of the above, it is evident that the landlord has failed to meet the basic obligations of ensuring the security and peaceful enjoyment of the property. This constitutes sufficient grounds for immediate termination of the tenancy agreement in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act of New Zealand. We therefore confirm that, as of today (8 June 2025), we consider the tenancy agreement terminated, with no further weekly payments to be made.

On 13 June, the tenant sent a further email to the landlord alleging there were serious breaches of the landlord’s obligations that had rendered the premises uninhabitable in that there was

Apparent unauthorized access to the apartment security lock.

Damage to my personal belongings, including unexplained damage to the carpet and computer equipment.

Failure to provide access to the requested security camera footage necessary to clarify the serious incidents that occurred.

Lack of adequate security and safe living conditions, which ultimately forced me to evacuate New Zealand urgently for my personal safety.

The tenant sent details of the whereabouts of the keys and swipe with that email.

The tenant did not consider he needed to give any notice to the landlord.

The tenant felt so concerned he immediately fled the country. He left the keys in the security box at the airport and considered he had brought that to the attention of the landlord.

The landlord says the tenant’s obligation was to return the keys and swipe to the landlord.

It denies any breaches of its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

It claims rent and power up until the date the Tribunal initially ordered it possession of the premises (3 July 2025).

In regard to the rent, the tenant says he is not liable to pay because he was discharged from any liability as soon as the security incident with his front door took place.

In regard to power, he says he accepted the sum claimed and ordered above but that he thought it should have been sent in one invoice, not three.

How much is owed for rent and power?

The landlord provided evidence which establishes that rent owing up to 3 July 2025 was $828.57. I am satisfied this sum should be paid.

The tenant has failed to prove any breach on the part of the landlord of the RTA. The tenant has not provided a single photo of the tampered lock or the allegedly damaged items within the premises. He has not proven that if these facts took place, they were caused by any breach of the RTA by the landlord.

I am satisfied the power owing as at 3 July 2025 was $138.86 and ought to be paid by the tenant.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices to the landlord. The tenant did not return the swipe card and room keys.

I accept there has been some sort of confusion in this matter, possibility contributed to by the involvement of the tenants flatmate, but I accept the landlord’s position that it is entitled to request the key and swipes to be delivered to it, not left at a security box at the airport.

The claim for the swipe and keys as ordered above is upheld.

Because Auckland City-Living Management Limited as agent for Nesoi Ltd (Fraser Dawson) has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286839. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 July 2025	$828.57	Rent arrears to 3 July 2025
power	$138.86	power
Lock/key replacement	$150.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement