Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5309248 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 90 Rosier Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602
Decided 23 Dec 2025 · Published 23 Dec 2025 · Application 5309248
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Order
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Andrew Van Ross And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $8,272.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 (3070933-003) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Andrew Van Ross And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- This is a cross application.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant has applied for breaches of the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) relating to breaches of the Healthy Homes standards (HHS) and failing to maintain the premises. The landlord’s claims
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The tenancy began on 15 July 2024. The tenancy was terminated and the tenant removed from the premises by a bailiff on 17 July 2025. The tenant left behind his belongings. The landlord removed the tenant’s belongings on 28 July 2025 and is seeking rent arrears until this date.
- The tenant says because he wasn't living at the premises after 17 July 2026, he shouldn't have to pay rent beyond this date.
- This tenancy was initially terminated in the Tribunal on 12 June 2025. A rehearing with a stay of proceedings on the termination was granted, conditional on the tenant paying his rent. The tenant did not keep to the terms of the stay proceedings.
- The tenant was aware that if he didn’t pay his rent over this time, his tenancy would likely be terminated immediately. Because of this the tenant effectively had notice of the tenancy being terminated, and he had an opportunity to prepare for it.
- I determine it is reasonable of the landlord to claim rent arrears until 28 July 2025, the date the tenant’s belongings were removed from the premises.
- The landlord is seeking $167.20 in unpaid water rates. The tenant does not dispute this amount.
- The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA.
- The tenants did not return keys at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is seeking $404.00 to re-key and re-barrel the locks and to replace a padlock for the garage. An invoice was provided in support of the claim. The tenant does not dispute the claim. This claim and the amount ordered are proved.
- At the end of the tenancy, the tenant left a significant amount of belongings behind. The landlord put the belongings in storage end engaged cleaners to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Storage costs amounted to $361.50 and cleaning costs totalled $517.50. Invoices in support were provided by the landlord. The tenant does not dispute these claims. These claims and the amounts ordered are proved.
- The landlord is seeking compensation for two bailiff booking fees, one relating to an application made on 16 June 2025 and the second relating to an application made on 10 July 2025. Invoices for $258.00 for the first application and $267.00 for the second application have been provided to the Tribunal.
- The Tribunal terminated the tenancy at a hearing on 12 June 2025. On 13 June 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing and a stay of proceedings. On 7 August 2025 a rehearing was granted.
- The landlord’s application for the services of a bailiff on 16 June 2025, was made three days after the tenant’s application for a rehearing and a stay of proceedings.
- I consider the landlord’s application for a bailiff was made prematurely. Although the landlord’s urgency can be understood, due process is required. Because of the tenant’s application for a rehearing and stay off proceedings, the landlord’s application to the bailiff was not given effect.
- I determine it is not reasonable for the landlord to be reimbursed for this first application for a bailiff.
- Once the tenant had breached the terms of the stay of proceedings, it was inevitable that the tenancy would end. The landlord anticipated the tenant would not voluntarily vacate the premises, and they were correct in this prediction. The landlord again engaged the services of a bailiff. The tenant must reimburse the landlord for this bailiff’s fee. An invoice for $267.00 was provided to the Tribunal.
- This claim and amount ordered is proved
- A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the RTA. Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Andrew Van Ross And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] are seeking exemplary for the tenant not vacating the premises on 12 June 2025 and 17 July 2025, the dates the tenancy ended.
- I have determined the tenancy did not end following the first Tribunal Order, dated 12 June 2025. However, it did end on following the tenant’s breach of the conditional stay of proceedings, and the tenant did not meet his obligation of a tenant to vacate the premises.
- I find the tenant committed an unlawful act.
- In refusing to quit the premises the tenant continued to accrue rent arrears. The tenant said that he did not have another place to move into.
- The tenant has presumably faced difficulties during this tenancy which may be the cause of his inability or refusal to pay rent. The landlord however, is not responsible for the tenant’s difficulties and should not bear the burden of them. The tenant now owes considerable rent arrears. The RTA makes it clear that once the tenancy is terminated, the tenant must quit the premises. The tenant did not do this.
- In the circumstances I consider it just to make a modest award of exemplary damages against the tenant. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The claim and amount ordered is proved.
- Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Andrew Van Ross And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] claimed the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement. The maximum number was (1).
- The landlord said that they were told by a tradesperson that the tenant had an extra person living at the premises and paying rent.
- The tenant said there had been discussions about getting another person in, and also about his wife and child joining him when they arrived in the country. The tenant said that there was nobody extra living with him at the premises during the tenancy, although he did have guests stay occasionally.
- On the basis of the evidence before me today I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant exceeded the amount of people living at the premises as allowed by the tenancy agreement. This claim is not proved. The tenant’s claims
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The parties agree there was a leak in the ceiling of the master bedroom on 6 December 2024. The tenant reported it to the landlord and on the next working day, 9 December 2024 the property manager passed this information on to the owner. A short-term fix was made in December 2024, and then after the Christmas period had passed a more permanent fix was made on 4 February 2025.
- The tenant said there were several more incidents of leaks but no specific incidents were raised with the Tribunal today.
- I consider the timeframe in repairing the roof slightly drawn out, but when I take into consideration the Christmas period, I do not consider it goes so far as to breach to HHS moisture ingress standard.
- The tenant said that following the leak being fixed he requested the ceiling be repaired as it had become soggy and parts of it were crumbling away. The tenant produced an e-mail in which he makes this request to the landlord.
- The landlord said they considered repairing the ceiling of the bedroom would have caused more inconvenience to the tenant than letting him stay with a hole in the ceiling. It appears they did not engage with the tenant as to whether this presumption was correct or not.
- I determine it is reasonable expectation of the tenant, for the landlord to repair holes in the ceiling. In not doing so I consider the landlord has breached a section 45 of the RTA. I consider the breach to be minor. However I consider that exemplary damages are warranted on a small scale for this breach.
- The claim and the amount ordered is proved.
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA by failing to provide smoke alarms in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
- The tenant said that one of the two smoke alarms had a tendency to fall from the ceiling. The landlord said that on one occasion they attended and re- attached the smoke alarm to the ceiling. On another occasion the landlord engaged a Smoke Alarms Testing Systems report and had one of the alarms replaced. This report was ordered on 28th of March 2025 and invoiced on 29 April 2025. A copy of the invoice was provided by the landlord.
- The tenant has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was in breach of their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA.
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
- The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
- The tenant says the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom both worked but were largely ineffective. The landlord says they engaged an electrician to assess the two fans and the electrician stated that both fans worked as they were expected to.
- I have not been presented with any information that proves to me on the balance of probabilities that the two fans in question were not compliant with the HHS.
- This claim is not proved.
- Both the landlord and the tenant are seeking name suppression under section 95A of the RTA. 95ASuppression orders (1) 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.
- The tenant said he is seeking name suppression on the basis that his wife and child have now joined him in the country and he is concerned he may find it difficult to get another residential tenancy given the amount of rent arrears that has accumulated in the course of this tenancy, if his name is publicly available.
- The tenant also said adverse order could affect his get his application for permanent residency.
- Because the landlord has been substantially successful and their application, I must grant name suppression to them.
- The tenant has not been substantially successful in his application. I have considered the tenant’s submissions and I determined they are outweighed by the public interest in allowing landlords to assist the credentials of potential tenants. In this case a large amount of rent arrears has been allowed to accumulate and I have not seen anything from the tenant that shows he has endeavoured to mitigate this accumulation. The tenant’s actions has caused harm to the landlord, and there is an argument that future landlords should have access to this information. On balance I consider it would be contrary to the interests of justice to prevent this information being freely available. The tenant’s request for name suppression is declined.
- Because both parties have been at least partially successful in their claims I have not ordered reimbursement of the filing fee. These costs may lie where they fall.