What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5296342?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,912.86 (BN-00059747) to TBT

How much money was awarded in case 5296342?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ba…: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Further loss arising f…: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,862.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296342?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12372044-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5296342?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,912.86 (BN-00059747) to TBT

How much money was awarded in case 5296342?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ba…: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Further loss arising f…: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,862.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296342?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12372044-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14E Jenkins Place, Manurewa East, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5296342 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5296342 — net $2,912.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,862.86		Rent arrears
Compensation: Failure to maintain back door lock		$1,300.00	Failure to maintain back door lock
Compensation: Further loss arising from landlord's failure		$650.00	Further loss arising from landlord's failure
Total award	$4,862.86	$1,950.00
Net award	$2,912.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,912.86

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5296342 — net $2,912.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,862.86		Rent arrears
Compensation: Failure to maintain back door lock		$1,300.00	Failure to maintain back door lock
Compensation: Further loss arising from landlord's failure		$650.00	Further loss arising from landlord's failure
Total award	$4,862.86	$1,950.00
Net award	$2,912.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,912.86

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,912.86 (BN-00059747) to TBT Property Management Limited As Agent For Mahadeep Ahaluwalia immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $47.14 (BN-00059747) to Pardeep Kumar, Amandeep Amandeep and Vivek Vivek immediately.
The tenancy agreement is varied to record the end of the fixed-term as being 17 March 2026.
The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 August 2025.
The tenancy began on 16 March 2025. There is a disagreement about whether it was a fixed-term tenancy or periodic. The tenant claims the landlord did not repair the lock on the back door in a timely manner, which resulted in a burglary. The landlord denies the back door lock was broken and claims the tenant owes rent arrears. The issues I must determine are: a. Was the back door lock broken? b. If so, did the landlord fail to repair it within a reasonable timeframe? c. Should the tenant be compensated for financial loss arising from the burglary? d. Should exemplary damages be ordered? e. Was this a fixed-term or periodic tenancy? f. If it was a fixed-term tenancy, should the tenant’s application for a reduction of the fixed-term be granted? g. How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?
A lot of evidence and submissions were made during the hearing. Whilst this decision might not refer to it all, the parties can be assured I have considered it as part of my decision. Standard 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 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.

Was the back door lock broken?

Evidence and submissions of the parties

The tenant claims the back door lock was broken. The landlord denies it was broken and claims the tenant was not using it properly.
The tenant submitted videos of the lock taken on 25 March 2025 and 27 June 2025.
The landlord claims the property manager visited the tenant shortly after receiving the video sent on 25 March 2025. The property manager claims the lock was not broken and the tenant was not using it properly. They claim the tenant needed to turn the lock twice but were only turning it once. The property manager claims they showed the tenant how to use the lock properly and took a video of this.
The landlord claims the tenant has fabricated the complaint that the lock was broken in an attempt to end the fixed-term tenancy early. Analysis
The tenant played the video sent by them to the property manager on 25 March 2025. The video shows the tenant closing the back door from inside the premises and turning the lock to the left. The lock appears to get stuck and is unable to complete a full rotation to finish locking.
The tenant also played the video taken by them on 27 June 2025. The video is taken from inside the premises. It shows the tenant trying to turn the lock to the left, but the lock is unable to complete a full rotation and gets stuck. It also shows the tenant closing the door and the door opening without any assistance.
The property manager claims they took a video of the lock during their visit shortly after 25 March 2025, which shows the lock working. I gave the property manager an opportunity to locate the video, which they were unable to do. The tenant denies the property manager ever showed them how to use the lock properly.
The landlord claims the premises were newly built and received a Code of Compliance Certificate (CCC) from the Auckland Council shortly before the tenancy began. Therefore, the landlord claims it is unlikely the lock would have been broken.
The purpose of CCC is to confirm that building work has been completed pursuant to the terms of a building consent and complies with the Building Code. It is a thorough process that checks all building work. A door lock is a minor issue that could easily have been missed at the time of inspection. The fact that newly built premises might have defects despite having a CCC is recognised within the building industry. It is for this reason that newly built premises often come with guarantees such as, a Master Build guarantee. These cover a range of things, including workmanship defects that arise after settlement. For these reasons, I disagree with the landlord’s submission that it is unlikely the lock would have been broken because a CCC had recently been issued.
The landlord also claims the tenant’s complaint about the lock is a ruse to try to end the fixed-term tenancy early. In support of this, the landlord points to the fact that the tenant only raised the broken lock once in their message to the property manager on 25 March 2025. This is despite the fact that the landlord and tenant communicated a lot via email after this date from 24 April 2025 – 9 June 2025. The landlord claims if the lock was broken, it would have been mentioned by the tenant in these emails.
The landlord submitted copies of the emails. The content involves a disagreement about parking and whether the tenant can end the tenancy by giving notice. The context of the emails is not repairs. The parties are deeply engaged in a debate about the interpretation of the tenancy agreement. I do not think an adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that the tenant does not mention the broken lock. It would have been odd to bring up a repair issue given the context of these communications.
The tenant’s videos quite clearly show there is a problem with the lock. The videos are strong evidence in support of their claim that the lock was broken. The landlord needs to submit something equally strong to counter it, which they have not done.
For this reason, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the back door lock was broken. Did the landlord fail to repair the back door lock within a reasonable timeframe? The law
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character or the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
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 reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy the problem. 1
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA 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. 2 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims nothing was done about the lock after they sent the landlord a video of it not working on 25 March 2025.
The landlord claims the property manager visited the premises shortly after 25 March 2025 and fixed the problem by showing the tenant how to use the lock properly.
The tenant accepts the property manager visited the premises on one occasion but claims this was in respect of the curtains being too short. The tenant denies the property manager ever did anything with the lock during their visit.
The tenant claims the lock remained broken until the date they left the premises on 27 June 2025. Analysis
The tenant first raised the broken lock with the landlord on 25 March 2025 when they sent the property manager a video of it not working. No words accompanied the tenant’s message, but the video itself is self-explanatory.
The video taken by the tenant on 27 June 2025 shows the lock is unable to complete a full rotation and opens without any assistance when closed. It is strong evidence in support of their claim that the lock was broken up to this date.
The landlord did not submit any corroborating evidence to support their claim that the property manager visited the premises shortly after 25 March 2025 and fixed the problem by showing the tenant how to use the lock properly. The tenant denies this occurred and in the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities it did.
Based upon the video evidence submitted by the tenant, I find the lock was first brought to the landlord’s attention on 25 March 2025 and remained an issue up to 27 June 2025, which is a period of 13 weeks. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4].
A broken door lock is a serious safety concern that should be prioritised. It is not a complex repair job and can be completed relatively quickly. Considering these factors, I find a delay of 13 weeks unreasonable.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to maintain the back door lock in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I consider $100.00 per week to be reasonable. This is a relatively high, but I consider it fairly reflects the significant security risk posed by not having a back door that locks properly.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,300.00. Should the tenant be compensated for financial loss arising from the burglary? The law
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not permit compensation for damage that is considered to be too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the delay by the landlord in repairing the lock resulted in a burglary on 17 June 2025. The tenant claims $9,000.00 - $10,000.00 worth of items were taken, including a set of power tools, two smart watches, $2,500.00 in cash and a gold chain.
The landlord questions whether the burglary actually occurred. The landlord also claims the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the tenant has suffered a loss equivalent to $9,000.00 - $10,000.00. Further, the landlord claims the tenant should have had contents insurance. Analysis
The tenant submitted a copy of a Police Acknowledgement Form regarding their complaint about a burglary. Noone has been charged or convicted however this does not mean that a burglary did not occur. It is not uncommon for burglaries to go unresolved. The fact that the tenant took the formal step of reporting the incident to the Police, convinces me on the balance of probabilities that a burglary occurred. It is an offence to make a false statement. 3 I consider it unlikely the tenant risk prosecution by telling the Police a burglary occurred when it did not.
Front and back doors provide main points of entry into a premises. If they are locked, entry inside the premises by a burglar is more difficult. If they are not locked, entry inside the premises is easy. For this reason, I find it reasonably foreseeable that the premises were at an increased risk of burglary if the backdoor lock was not fixed in a timely manner. There is a sufficiently proximate and causal nexus between the landlord’s failure to fix the backdoor lock within a reasonable timeframe and the burglary.
The difficulty for the tenant is that they have not proven a financial loss equivalent to $9,000.00 - $10,000.00. Statements provided by the tenant to the Police were not submitted. No receipts for the purchase of any items, except an Apple Watch, were submitted. No advertisements for the same or similar products the tenant claims were taken were submitted. No evidence of a withdrawal of $2,500.00 in cash was submitted. No photographs of the items allegedly taken, except for a box of power tools, was submitted.
The only receipt the tenant submitted was for an Apple Watch Series 10 dated 15 October 2024. The watch was purchased for $1,009.00.
The tenant submitted a photograph of a cardboard box with AEG tools advertised on it in the garage. The tenant claims the tools are worth around $550.00 however, no evidence supporting this valuation was submitted.
In these circumstances, I can only order an amount of compensation I think fairly and reasonably reflects the loss the tenant has proven. Compensation can also reflect the distress suffered by the tenant from the burglary, albeit to a lesser degree.
The tenant has only proven the value of the Apple Watch Series 10, which was purchased $1,009.00. A deduction needs to be made for depreciation, as the burglary occurred 8 months later and the value of the watch would have decreased over this time.
In all the circumstances, I consider $650.00 to be fair and reasonable.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $650.00. 3 Crimes Act 1961, section 111.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

The law

Failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 4
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal finds an unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, Judge Neave agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 5 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. Analysis
I have found that the property manager became aware of the broken lock on 25 March 2025. The property manager claims they attended the premises shortly after this date and fixed the problem, but I have found this was most likely not the case. What I consider to be more likely, is that the property manager was busy trying to onboard tenants into the other four premises at the address. They most likely forgot about the tenant’s message about the lock because they were pre-occupied with showing the other properties to prospective tenants and getting new tenancies ready to begin. The property manager knew about the 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(b) and Scheduled 1A. 5 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 problem and failed to act. For this reason, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that they acted intentionally.
I do not find it just to make an order for exemplary damages in this case. This is not a case where a landlord has failed to repair multiple maintenance issues at the premises. Further, I have already ordered the landlord to pay a substantial amount in compensation. This sufficiently addresses the punitive purpose of exemplary damages. It also promotes the purpose of deterring other landlords from delaying maintenance.
For these reasons, I decline to order exemplary damages.

Was this a fixed-term or periodic tenancy?

The law

Where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, the Tribunal may make an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part). 6 Evidence and submissions of the parties
Two tenancy agreements were signed. The first tenancy agreement was signed on 14 March 2025 and records the tenancy as beginning on 16 March 2025 and ending on 16 March 2026. The tenancy address is “14 Jenkins Place, Manurewa, Auckland.” The second tenancy agreement was signed between 18 - 20 March 2025. It records the tenancy as beginning on 17 March 2025 and ended on 17 March 2025. It also records the tenancy address as “14E Jenkins Place, Manurewa, Manukau City, Auckland 2021.”
The tenant claims that the reason a second tenancy agreement was signed was because they told the landlord they did not want a fixed-term tenancy and wanted a periodic tenancy. The landlord denies this and claims the reason a second tenancy agreement was signed was to specify the lot the tenancy relates to, namely 14E Jenkins Place. Analysis
The landlord submitted a copy of the tenant’s written application for the tenancy. In it, the tenant states “longer than 12 month tenancy desired.” The tenant claims they did not complete the application form however, the application form 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 78(f). notes it has been submitted from each tenant’s individual email address. Therefore, I consider it more likely than not that the tenant completed the application form personally.
The fact that the tenant specified a desire for a long term tenancy in their application goes against their claim that they wanted a periodic tenancy. No written evidence confirming this as the reason for the second tenancy agreement was submitted and I consider it unlikely. The landlord is an experienced property management company. If the purpose for signing a second tenancy agreement was to convert the tenancy from a fixed-term to periodic, I find it more likely than not that the landlord would have recorded the tenancy as being periodic instead of for a fixed-term of one day, which is unusual.
The landlord gave evidence that they have a policy of only permitting one year fixed-term tenancies for the first year of a new tenancy. This is standard practice amongst property management companies and further supports the landlord’s claim that the second tenancy agreement was meant to be for a fixed-term expiring on 17 March 2026.
For these reasons, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the parties intended to enter into a fixed-term tenancy for one year and the second tenancy agreement mistakenly records the end of the fixed-term as “17 March 2025” instead of “17 March 2026.”
The second tenancy agreement is varied to record the end of the fixed-term as being 17 March 2026. Should the tenant’s application for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy be granted? The law
A tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order reducing the period of a fixed- term tenancy under section 66 RTA. This section permits the Tribunal to reduce a fixed-term tenancy where: a. There has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. There would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term were not reduced; and c. The applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term were reduced.
Examples of situations where the Tribunal has found there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances include: 7 a. Unexpected loss of income through becoming unemployed; b. Where the tenant must leave the locality for employment purposes; c. Where the tenant’s partner leaves and the remaining tenant can no longer afford to pay the rent; d. Where the tenant has a child and needs larger or cheaper premises; e. Where the tenant suffers a disability and must move to premises that can accommodate the disability (for example, wheelchair accessible); and f. Where the landlord having previously lived in the premises has to return to the area sooner than expected and resume occupation of the premises. Analysis
The tenant relies on the burglary to support their application to reduce the fixed- term tenancy. They claim they did not feel safe continuing to live in the premises.
I am not satisfied that the burglary was an “unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances.” Every property in New Zealand faces a risk of burglary. I also find it difficult to view the burglary as a change in the tenant’s circumstances. This suggests something with a level of permanence, which the examples at paragraph [66] demonstrate. In contrast, this was a single, sudden adverse event the tenant suffered.
In the case of Chitra Tiwari v Annabelle Samson, John Samson [2025] NZTT 5162371, the Tribunal declined to reduce a fixed-term tenancy in circumstances where the premises were burgled. Notwithstanding the Tribunal’s acknowledgement that this must have been an upsetting experience for the tenants, the Tribunal found it did not constitute an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances. The facts in Chitra Tiwari v Annabelle Samson, John Samson are very similar to the facts in the present case. Both involved instances where the premises were burgled once. I cannot see any reason why I should not follow the decision in Chitra Tiwari v Annabelle Samson, John Samson. 7 See for example Hippolite v J P Morgan Real Estate Tenancy Tribunal Palmerston North TT 431/96, 9 May 1996; Petrache v Higgins and Shearer Tenancy Tribunal Christchurch TT 2222/96, 8 October 1996; Kim v Watson District Court Wellington CIV-2009-085-946, 17 September 2009.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the burglary constitutes an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances. For this reason, the application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

I have found the tenancy was for a fixed-term ending on 17 March 2026. I have also declined the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term. This means the tenant is liable to pay rent up to the date a new tenancy began. The landlord submitted a copy of the new tenancy agreement, which records a start date of 1 August 2025. The landlord’s rent summary goes up to 31 July 2025 and records rent arrears as being $4,862.86.
I accept the landlord’s rent summary as accurate and find the tenant owes $4,862.86 in rent arrears. Filing fee
Both parties have been substantially successful with their claims. Therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296342 — Rent arrears at 14E Jenkins Place, Manurewa East, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296342 — Rent arrears at 14E Jenkins Place, Manurewa East, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the back door lock broken?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Was this a fixed-term or periodic tenancy?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the back door lock broken?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Was this a fixed-term or periodic tenancy?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions