What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287720 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust $2,073.31

How much money was awarded in case 5287720?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn And Maintenance Charge: $897.86 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $73.85 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,074.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287720?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12398017-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287720 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust $2,073.31

How much money was awarded in case 5287720?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn And Maintenance Charge: $897.86 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $73.85 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,074.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287720?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12398017-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 2D Fleming Street, Manurewa East, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287720 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287720 — net $2,073.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as of 11 September 2025	$73.85	Rent arrears as of 11 September 2025
Water rates: to 28 August 2025	$1,074.60	Water rates: to 28 August 2025
Lawn and maintenance charge to 3 July 2025	$897.86	Lawn and maintenance charge to 3 July 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,073.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,073.31

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust $2,073.31 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The balance of the claim is dismissed.
No suppression order relates to this Order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for: a. Rent arrears, b. Water usage charges, c. Lawn and maintenance charges, d. Compensation for damage to a ranch slider, e. Reimbursement of the filing fee, and f. Name suppression. 3 The tenancy commenced on 21 January 2022 and is ongoing.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord claimed rent arrears of $73.85 to 11 September 2024.
The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1 The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing. The rent arrears are ordered by consent of the tenant.

WATER USAGE CHARGES

The party’s respective responsibility for outgoings is as follows: a. The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and are incurred for common facilities. This includes rates, insurance and body corporate fees. 2 b. The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. This includes electricity and gas, telephone and internet and the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. 3
The landlord claimed $1,074.60 for water usage charges from 31 August 2022 to 28 August 2025. The landlord has provided invoices and a statement to prove the amount owing. The water usage charges are ordered by consent.

LAWN AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES

The landlord claimed $897.86 being the weekly $5 lawns and maintenance charge the tenant is liable for from 21 January 2022 to 3 July 2025. The 1 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA. 2 See section 39 (1) and (2) of the RTA. 3 See section 39 (3)-(4) of the RTA. landlord provided a lawns and maintenance charge statement to prove the amount owing.
Where a party to a tenancy agreement breaches any provisions of the agreement or the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. 4
This means that a party must take actions to limit any loss from a breach by the other party. When water rates or other arrears occur (in this case arrears of the lawn and maintenance charged), a reasonable landlord will mitigate that loss by applying to the Tenancy Tribunal to have the debt paid promptly. The landlord did not apply to the Tribunal promptly to rectify the issue. However, the landlord said numerous 14-day notices had been issued against the tenant and the tenant consented to paying the amounts claimed. Therefore, I will make no deduction for the landlord failing to mitigate their loss by not bringing a claim for payment of the water usage charge and lawn and maintenance charges in a timely manner to the Tribunal. The amount claimed is ordered in full. TENANT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE
When considering a claim in respect of damage to the premises the following principles apply: a. A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 5 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. b. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. c. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 6 d. Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 7 e. 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 4 Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides 5 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 7 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 8 f. 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). 9 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 10 g. 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. 11 h. 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. 12 i. In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The insurance excess is $5,000 and rent is currently $129 per week, therefore four weeks rent is $516.00.
As noted above, tenant’s a responsible for the actions of people at their premises with their permission. In respect of the tenant’s responsibility for the actions of others the RTA specifically says: 41Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others (1)The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2)Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly 8 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 11 See section 49B(1) RTA. 12 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises. (emphasis added) IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GLASS DAMAGE TO THE

PREMISES?

The landlord claims $3,277.80 in respect of a broken glass ranch slider. Photographs of the damage and an invoice was provided in support of the claim. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant accepts that the damage was caused during the tenancy.
The tenant provided a reparation notice made by the District Court against an person, A Mohammed, for the full amount claimed by the landlord in respect of the damage. The reparation notice says Mr Mohammed has been ordered to pay the amount to the tenant.
The tenant says Mr Mohammed attended at his property and damaged the glass. The tenant alluded to Mr Mohammed coming to his home regarding a financial dispute between Mr Mohammed and another person that the tenant has introduced Mr Mohammed to. The tenant says Mr Mohammed had phoned him three times before he arrived at the property, but he did not answer. There is no indication that the tenant had any other notice that Mr Mohammed would be coming to his property.
The tenant says Mr Mohammed arrived at his home and damaged the glass while he was in the shower.
It appears the matter went to a defended hearing in the District Court.
The tenant indicated Mr Mohammed had provided an unreliable alibi, and Mr Mohammed was found guilty of damaging the ranch-slider.
I am satisfied the tenant did not give either express or implied permission for Mr Mohammed to be at the premises. I cannot see what further steps the tenant could have taken to prevent Mr Mohammed from entering the premises. Accordingly, I find the tenant is not liable for the damage to the premises.
It will be for the landlord and tenant to arrange for the funds payable under the reparation order to be paid to the landlord. It appears that the landlord’s dispute now lays with Mr Mohammed, which is a dispute that is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The landlord may wish to contact the NZ Police regarding the current terms of the reparation order being potentially amended.
In any event, I find that the tenant has disproved liability for the damage under the RTA and the claim is dismissed.

FILING FEE

If an applicant has been partly successful in their claim, the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application. 13 The landlord has been partly successful in their claim, I will therefore award the filing fee.

REPAYMENT PLAN

At the hearing the landlord requested the Order include a payment arrangement for regular repayment of the debt.
The tenant agreed to pay $10 per week.
The landlord did not accept this.
The Tribunal will generally not make an order for a payment arrangement as sought by the landlord unless it is agreed at the hearing or through the mediation process.
This is because the Ministry of Justice has an enforcement process which requires a debtor to complete a financial statement and the debtor’s financial situation can be properly assessed. That generally cannot be fairly and properly assessed by the Tribunal at a hearing. In the circumstances where there is no agreement to the amount for the regularly payment, I have declined make an order for the tenant to make regular payments towards the debt.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name 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. 14
The Tribunal may, 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. 15
The tenant did not seek name suppression. 13 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA. 14 See Section 95 A (1) of the RTA. 15 See section 95 A (4) of the RTA.
The landlord sought name suppression however the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with the claim, therefore name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287720 — net $2,073.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as of 11 September 2025	$73.85	Rent arrears as of 11 September 2025
Water rates: to 28 August 2025	$1,074.60	Water rates: to 28 August 2025
Lawn and maintenance charge to 3 July 2025	$897.86	Lawn and maintenance charge to 3 July 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,073.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,073.31

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust $2,073.31 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The balance of the claim is dismissed.
No suppression order relates to this Order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for: a. Rent arrears, b. Water usage charges, c. Lawn and maintenance charges, d. Compensation for damage to a ranch slider, e. Reimbursement of the filing fee, and f. Name suppression. 3 The tenancy commenced on 21 January 2022 and is ongoing.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord claimed rent arrears of $73.85 to 11 September 2024.
The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1 The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing. The rent arrears are ordered by consent of the tenant.

WATER USAGE CHARGES

The party’s respective responsibility for outgoings is as follows: a. The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and are incurred for common facilities. This includes rates, insurance and body corporate fees. 2 b. The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. This includes electricity and gas, telephone and internet and the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. 3
The landlord claimed $1,074.60 for water usage charges from 31 August 2022 to 28 August 2025. The landlord has provided invoices and a statement to prove the amount owing. The water usage charges are ordered by consent.

LAWN AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES

The landlord claimed $897.86 being the weekly $5 lawns and maintenance charge the tenant is liable for from 21 January 2022 to 3 July 2025. The 1 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA. 2 See section 39 (1) and (2) of the RTA. 3 See section 39 (3)-(4) of the RTA. landlord provided a lawns and maintenance charge statement to prove the amount owing.
Where a party to a tenancy agreement breaches any provisions of the agreement or the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. 4
This means that a party must take actions to limit any loss from a breach by the other party. When water rates or other arrears occur (in this case arrears of the lawn and maintenance charged), a reasonable landlord will mitigate that loss by applying to the Tenancy Tribunal to have the debt paid promptly. The landlord did not apply to the Tribunal promptly to rectify the issue. However, the landlord said numerous 14-day notices had been issued against the tenant and the tenant consented to paying the amounts claimed. Therefore, I will make no deduction for the landlord failing to mitigate their loss by not bringing a claim for payment of the water usage charge and lawn and maintenance charges in a timely manner to the Tribunal. The amount claimed is ordered in full. TENANT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE
When considering a claim in respect of damage to the premises the following principles apply: a. A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 5 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. b. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. c. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 6 d. Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 7 e. 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 4 Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides 5 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 7 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 8 f. 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). 9 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 10 g. 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. 11 h. 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. 12 i. In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The insurance excess is $5,000 and rent is currently $129 per week, therefore four weeks rent is $516.00.
As noted above, tenant’s a responsible for the actions of people at their premises with their permission. In respect of the tenant’s responsibility for the actions of others the RTA specifically says: 41Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others (1)The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2)Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly 8 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 11 See section 49B(1) RTA. 12 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises. (emphasis added) IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GLASS DAMAGE TO THE

PREMISES?

The landlord claims $3,277.80 in respect of a broken glass ranch slider. Photographs of the damage and an invoice was provided in support of the claim. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant accepts that the damage was caused during the tenancy.
The tenant provided a reparation notice made by the District Court against an person, A Mohammed, for the full amount claimed by the landlord in respect of the damage. The reparation notice says Mr Mohammed has been ordered to pay the amount to the tenant.
The tenant says Mr Mohammed attended at his property and damaged the glass. The tenant alluded to Mr Mohammed coming to his home regarding a financial dispute between Mr Mohammed and another person that the tenant has introduced Mr Mohammed to. The tenant says Mr Mohammed had phoned him three times before he arrived at the property, but he did not answer. There is no indication that the tenant had any other notice that Mr Mohammed would be coming to his property.
The tenant says Mr Mohammed arrived at his home and damaged the glass while he was in the shower.
It appears the matter went to a defended hearing in the District Court.
The tenant indicated Mr Mohammed had provided an unreliable alibi, and Mr Mohammed was found guilty of damaging the ranch-slider.
I am satisfied the tenant did not give either express or implied permission for Mr Mohammed to be at the premises. I cannot see what further steps the tenant could have taken to prevent Mr Mohammed from entering the premises. Accordingly, I find the tenant is not liable for the damage to the premises.
It will be for the landlord and tenant to arrange for the funds payable under the reparation order to be paid to the landlord. It appears that the landlord’s dispute now lays with Mr Mohammed, which is a dispute that is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The landlord may wish to contact the NZ Police regarding the current terms of the reparation order being potentially amended.
In any event, I find that the tenant has disproved liability for the damage under the RTA and the claim is dismissed.

FILING FEE

If an applicant has been partly successful in their claim, the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application. 13 The landlord has been partly successful in their claim, I will therefore award the filing fee.

REPAYMENT PLAN

At the hearing the landlord requested the Order include a payment arrangement for regular repayment of the debt.
The tenant agreed to pay $10 per week.
The landlord did not accept this.
The Tribunal will generally not make an order for a payment arrangement as sought by the landlord unless it is agreed at the hearing or through the mediation process.
This is because the Ministry of Justice has an enforcement process which requires a debtor to complete a financial statement and the debtor’s financial situation can be properly assessed. That generally cannot be fairly and properly assessed by the Tribunal at a hearing. In the circumstances where there is no agreement to the amount for the regularly payment, I have declined make an order for the tenant to make regular payments towards the debt.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name 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. 14
The Tribunal may, 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. 15
The tenant did not seek name suppression. 13 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA. 14 See Section 95 A (1) of the RTA. 15 See section 95 A (4) of the RTA.
The landlord sought name suppression however the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with the claim, therefore name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287720 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 2D Fleming Street, Manurewa East, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287720 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 2D Fleming Street, Manurewa East, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

WATER USAGE CHARGES

LAWN AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES

PREMISES?

FILING FEE

REPAYMENT PLAN

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

WATER USAGE CHARGES

LAWN AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES

PREMISES?

FILING FEE

REPAYMENT PLAN

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions