What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310033 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5310033?

Compensation: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,401.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310033?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12655375-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310033 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5310033?

Compensation: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,401.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310033?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12655375-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17A Hewlett Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310033 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310033 — net $1,001.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 July 2025	$2,401.43		Rent arrears to 18 July 2025
Compensation		$1,400.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,401.43	$1,400.00
Net award	$1,001.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,001.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Aleksandar Gorgiovski and Barfoot And Thompson Limited (Mission Bay Branch) As Agent For Aleks Gorgiovski: $1,001.43 [The tenant/s]: $498.57

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord was represented by a different Property Management company than the one that had submitted the landlord’s application.
The tenant, [the tenant], was previously known as [the previous name for the tenant].
The tenants applied for refund of the bond, a claim that the bond was not lodged, a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards, to be released from a fixed term tenancy and for compensation.
The landlord applied for rent arrears. Background
The tenancy began on 17 February 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 15 February 2026.
A tenancy agreement was signed on 22 February 2025 recording that the rent was $660.00 per week and the bond was $1,500.00.
The tenants initially paid $2,200.00 (four weeks rent) for bond but the landlord returned $700.00 to the tenants because the tenancy agreement only records a bond of $1,500.00.
The bond was lodged with the Bond Centre on 26 March 2025.
The tenancy agreement includes a term stating that the tenancy is inclusive of utilities (power, water, internet). It also states, “allowance 25% more than usual usage. The split meter for the water and power will be checked every 3 months”. It is not clear what this condition means or how it would work.
From 10 April 2025 the landlord appointed a property management company, and a new tenancy agreement was drafted. The copy of that agreement submitted to the Tribunal is unsigned. The tenancy agreement states that the tenancy commences on 9 April 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 25 February 2026.
The second tenancy agreement records rent of $540.00 per week and it is not inclusive of utilities but only records that the tenant is responsible for water.
The parties agreed for the fixed term tenancy to end early on 18 July 2025. Tenant’s application
The tenant said that the landlord advertised the premises for $540.00 per week but increased the rent to $660.00 including the utilities because there were no split meters at the premises. The extra $220.00 per week for utilities appears excessive given that this is only a two-bedroom flat with a limit of two occupants.
The tenant did not produce the advertisement for the premises however there is correspondence between the parties before the tenancy began where the landlord states it is $550.00 for rent. According to the tenancy agreement the parties agreed to the higher rent which was to be inclusive of utilities.
The tenant said that at the beginning of the tenancy there were a few things that needed to be fixed by the landlord and he had agreed to do so. She said that the carpet was covered in dog faeces, and it smelt to the extent that visitors sometimes didn’t want to come inside.
The tenant said that the landlord told her to buy a carpet cleaner and he would refund her for it. Then she said that the landlord said he would replace the carpet in one room if the tenants stopped complaining.
The tenant said that there was a cockroach infestation at the beginning of the tenancy. On 10 March 2025 the landlord agreed to rent relief of one weeks rent ($660.00) for the tenants to pay for the pest control treatment.
The tenants served a 14-day breach notice on the landlord on 28 March 2025. The remedy sought included fixing the fence, changing the carpet, repairing the bathroom window, which was screwed shut, removing the rubbish in the front yard, removing the trampoline, fixing the clothesline and compensating for the lawns being mowed.
There is communication from the landlord in relation to carrying out work (cockroaches, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs) after the tenancy commenced. This is acknowledgement from the landlord that he did not comply with the Act in relation to providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 and providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair 2 .
The tenants are entitled to compensation for any loss suffered as a result of this breach. In their application the tenants sought compensation for emotional distress, poor living conditions and being forced to downgrade and relocate.
I consider that the tenants should be compensated $1,400.00 which is the total of the rent relief offered by the landlord (for pest control, carpet cleaning and lawn mowing) but as no rent summary was provided for that period it could not be proved that rent relief was given. 1 Section 40(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 40(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenants claimed that the bond was not lodged but as stated above it was lodged within the statutory timeframe 3 . That claim is dismissed.
The tenants claimed that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards. While the relevant part of the tenancy agreement was not completed in relation to the Healthy Homes standards the landlord produced a Healthy Homes report dated 11 February 2025.
The report proves that the premises does comply with the Healthy Homes standards. The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The tenants applied to be released from the fixed term tenancy. As stated above the parties agreed to end the fixed term tenancy early and it ended on 18 July 2025. That claim is dismissed. Landlord’s application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had some success with the application I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants also sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as they have substantially succeeded with their application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310033 — net $1,001.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 July 2025	$2,401.43		Rent arrears to 18 July 2025
Compensation		$1,400.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,401.43	$1,400.00
Net award	$1,001.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,001.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Aleksandar Gorgiovski and Barfoot And Thompson Limited (Mission Bay Branch) As Agent For Aleks Gorgiovski: $1,001.43 [The tenant/s]: $498.57

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord was represented by a different Property Management company than the one that had submitted the landlord’s application.
The tenant, [the tenant], was previously known as [the previous name for the tenant].
The tenants applied for refund of the bond, a claim that the bond was not lodged, a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards, to be released from a fixed term tenancy and for compensation.
The landlord applied for rent arrears. Background
The tenancy began on 17 February 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 15 February 2026.
A tenancy agreement was signed on 22 February 2025 recording that the rent was $660.00 per week and the bond was $1,500.00.
The tenants initially paid $2,200.00 (four weeks rent) for bond but the landlord returned $700.00 to the tenants because the tenancy agreement only records a bond of $1,500.00.
The bond was lodged with the Bond Centre on 26 March 2025.
The tenancy agreement includes a term stating that the tenancy is inclusive of utilities (power, water, internet). It also states, “allowance 25% more than usual usage. The split meter for the water and power will be checked every 3 months”. It is not clear what this condition means or how it would work.
From 10 April 2025 the landlord appointed a property management company, and a new tenancy agreement was drafted. The copy of that agreement submitted to the Tribunal is unsigned. The tenancy agreement states that the tenancy commences on 9 April 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 25 February 2026.
The second tenancy agreement records rent of $540.00 per week and it is not inclusive of utilities but only records that the tenant is responsible for water.
The parties agreed for the fixed term tenancy to end early on 18 July 2025. Tenant’s application
The tenant said that the landlord advertised the premises for $540.00 per week but increased the rent to $660.00 including the utilities because there were no split meters at the premises. The extra $220.00 per week for utilities appears excessive given that this is only a two-bedroom flat with a limit of two occupants.
The tenant did not produce the advertisement for the premises however there is correspondence between the parties before the tenancy began where the landlord states it is $550.00 for rent. According to the tenancy agreement the parties agreed to the higher rent which was to be inclusive of utilities.
The tenant said that at the beginning of the tenancy there were a few things that needed to be fixed by the landlord and he had agreed to do so. She said that the carpet was covered in dog faeces, and it smelt to the extent that visitors sometimes didn’t want to come inside.
The tenant said that the landlord told her to buy a carpet cleaner and he would refund her for it. Then she said that the landlord said he would replace the carpet in one room if the tenants stopped complaining.
The tenant said that there was a cockroach infestation at the beginning of the tenancy. On 10 March 2025 the landlord agreed to rent relief of one weeks rent ($660.00) for the tenants to pay for the pest control treatment.
The tenants served a 14-day breach notice on the landlord on 28 March 2025. The remedy sought included fixing the fence, changing the carpet, repairing the bathroom window, which was screwed shut, removing the rubbish in the front yard, removing the trampoline, fixing the clothesline and compensating for the lawns being mowed.
There is communication from the landlord in relation to carrying out work (cockroaches, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs) after the tenancy commenced. This is acknowledgement from the landlord that he did not comply with the Act in relation to providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 and providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair 2 .
The tenants are entitled to compensation for any loss suffered as a result of this breach. In their application the tenants sought compensation for emotional distress, poor living conditions and being forced to downgrade and relocate.
I consider that the tenants should be compensated $1,400.00 which is the total of the rent relief offered by the landlord (for pest control, carpet cleaning and lawn mowing) but as no rent summary was provided for that period it could not be proved that rent relief was given. 1 Section 40(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 40(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenants claimed that the bond was not lodged but as stated above it was lodged within the statutory timeframe 3 . That claim is dismissed.
The tenants claimed that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards. While the relevant part of the tenancy agreement was not completed in relation to the Healthy Homes standards the landlord produced a Healthy Homes report dated 11 February 2025.
The report proves that the premises does comply with the Healthy Homes standards. The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The tenants applied to be released from the fixed term tenancy. As stated above the parties agreed to end the fixed term tenancy early and it ended on 18 July 2025. That claim is dismissed. Landlord’s application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had some success with the application I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants also sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as they have substantially succeeded with their application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310033 — Rent arrears at 17A Hewlett Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310033 — Rent arrears at 17A Hewlett Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions