What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310504 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5310504?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310504?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310504?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12506735-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310504 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5310504?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310504?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310504?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12506735-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

102 Lincoln Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310504 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

This tenancy commenced in November 2023. At commencement, there were two tenants, a father and his daughter. The applicant tells me that the father passed away in June.

During the course of the tenancy, the applicant’s agent (who was present at the hearing) advised that the ownership of the property had changed three times. The most recent change of ownership occurred on the 19 th of February 2025, when the current owner, Qiji Investments Limited, acquired the property.

At the hearing, the owner was represented by Pro Management Limited. They have applied for an order for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy.

At the hearing, the agent stated that the tenants vacated the premises one day prior to the hearing and that possession had already been taken. Accordingly, they now seek only an order for rent arrears.

Pro Management Limited provided a rent summary commencing on 19 February 2025, which they stated was the date on which the new owner took possession of the property, and ending on Thursday, 2 October 2025 (yesterday).

According to that summary, nine payments of $250.00 were made between 1 June and 2 July 2025. Other than these, no further payments were recorded. The rent arrears therefore increased steadily from $500.00 on the 19 th of February to $13,892.86 as of Thursday 2 October 2025, being the date the tenancy ended. This represents a period of 194.5 days, of unpaid rent.

At the hearing, I asked Pro Management Limited what steps they had taken under Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act and in relation to their obligation to mitigate losses. They were unable to provide any written evidence of correspondence with the tenants. The agent explained that they had recently assumed responsibility from a colleague who had relocated to Australia, and that this colleague had undertaken “many follow-ups.” The agent further suggested that the tenants might have been making payments to a previous owner.

This confusion was compounded when, under further questioning, the agent disclosed that Pro Management Limited had also acted as property manager for the previous owner. Additionally, they stated that Qiji Investments Limited, the current owner, was a co-owner of the property prior to the 19 th of February 2025. In effect, both property management and ownership have continued in substantially the same form, despite the ownership changes.

The oral evidence is contradictory and raises questions that undermine the reliability of the rent statement. It also contains assertions that are illogical, specifically, the property manager suggested that payments may have been made to a “previous owner,” when in fact the current owner, Qiji Investment Limited, was a partial owner under the prior ownership structure. Further, the same property manager acted for both the current and former ownership arrangements.

On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the rent records provided by the landlord can be relied upon. It is the landlord’s responsibility to establish their claim on the balance of probabilities. As they have failed to do so, the claim must be dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
This tenancy commenced in November 2023. At commencement, there were two tenants, a father and his daughter. The applicant tells me that the father passed away in June.
During the course of the tenancy, the applicant’s agent (who was present at the hearing) advised that the ownership of the property had changed three times. The most recent change of ownership occurred on the 19 th of February 2025, when the current owner, Qiji Investments Limited, acquired the property.
At the hearing, the owner was represented by Pro Management Limited. They have applied for an order for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the agent stated that the tenants vacated the premises one day prior to the hearing and that possession had already been taken. Accordingly, they now seek only an order for rent arrears.
Pro Management Limited provided a rent summary commencing on 19 February 2025, which they stated was the date on which the new owner took possession of the property, and ending on Thursday, 2 October 2025 (yesterday).
According to that summary, nine payments of $250.00 were made between 1 June and 2 July 2025. Other than these, no further payments were recorded. The rent arrears therefore increased steadily from $500.00 on the 19 th of February to $13,892.86 as of Thursday 2 October 2025, being the date the tenancy ended. This represents a period of 194.5 days, of unpaid rent.
At the hearing, I asked Pro Management Limited what steps they had taken under Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act and in relation to their obligation to mitigate losses. They were unable to provide any written evidence of correspondence with the tenants. The agent explained that they had recently assumed responsibility from a colleague who had relocated to Australia, and that this colleague had undertaken “many follow-ups.” The agent further suggested that the tenants might have been making payments to a previous owner.
This confusion was compounded when, under further questioning, the agent disclosed that Pro Management Limited had also acted as property manager for the previous owner. Additionally, they stated that Qiji Investments Limited, the current owner, was a co-owner of the property prior to the 19 th of February 2025. In effect, both property management and ownership have continued in substantially the same form, despite the ownership changes.
The oral evidence is contradictory and raises questions that undermine the reliability of the rent statement. It also contains assertions that are illogical, specifically, the property manager suggested that payments may have been made to a “previous owner,” when in fact the current owner, Qiji Investment Limited, was a partial owner under the prior ownership structure. Further, the same property manager acted for both the current and former ownership arrangements.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the rent records provided by the landlord can be relied upon. It is the landlord’s responsibility to establish their claim on the balance of probabilities. As they have failed to do so, the claim must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310504 — Rent arrears at 102 Lincoln Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310504 — Rent arrears at 102 Lincoln Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions