What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315047 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the Bond Centre is directed to release the full bond of $600.00 to

How much money was awarded in case 5315047?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315047?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315047?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12500844-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315047 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the Bond Centre is directed to release the full bond of $600.00 to

How much money was awarded in case 5315047?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315047?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315047?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12500844-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

143 Everglade Drive, Totara Heights, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315047 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315047. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
1. By consent, the Bond Centre is directed to release the full bond of	$600.00		1. By consent, the Bond Centre is directed to release the full bond of

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315047. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
1. By consent, the Bond Centre is directed to release the full bond of	$600.00		1. By consent, the Bond Centre is directed to release the full bond of

Order

By consent, the Bond Centre is directed to release the full bond of $600.00 to the landlord upon receipt of the appropriate forms, accompanied by a copy of this order, which is to be filed by [The landlord/s].
The Tribunal dismisses the remainder of the claims in the landlord’s application for rent arrears in excess of the bond, reimbursement of the filing fee, and suppression orders.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing: the tenant by phone and the landlord in person, assisted by an independent, court-appointed interpreter as requested.
The landlord applied for: a. Rent arrears; b. Refund of the bond; c. Reimbursement of the filing fee; and d. Suppression orders.
The tenant did not oppose release of the bond but disputed the claimed rent arrears due to: a. Cash payments allegedly made to a nominee while the landlord was overseas; b. Lack of hot water for two weeks due to a broken hot water cylinder. Refund of the bond
The tenant consented to the landlord receiving the bond in settlement of outstanding rent that he believed to be $600.00.
The landlord initially believed the bond amount was $400.00, but the tenant stated it was $600.00. The landlord did not dispute this, and the Tribunal proceeds on the basis that the bond is $600.00.
The Tribunal notes with concern that the landlord was unaware of the bond amount and appears not to have retained appropriate documentation, contrary to good practice.

How much outstanding rent is owed?

The tenant commenced his tenancy on 6 June 2025, paying rent of $200.00 per week.
The first three weeks of rent were paid.
The landlord claimed six weeks of unpaid rent, asserting at the Tribunal hearing that the last rent payment was made on 27 June 2025.
The tenant denied owing the full amount, disputing the arrears, and asserting a reduction due to the lack of hot water.
The tenant claimed to have paid rent in cash to another tenant, as agreed with the landlord while she was overseas. However, neither party called the alleged payee as a witness, and the amount (if any) paid through him remains unclear.
The landlord was directed at the hearing to provide clear dates for her submitted messages but failed to do so, despite the interpreter being available to assist. A message dated 24 July 2025 refers to an "eviction letter" being sent, which was later clarified by the landlord as a misunderstanding; she had been advised by her child to issue a proper 14-day notice to remedy instead.
That notice, dated 24 July, referenced $400.00 in arrears, but did not align with the rent summary submitted, which used different dates and figures.
The landlord and her supporting witness (another tenant and family friend) said they met with the tenant on 26 July 2025 (the witness interpreting for the landlord), during which the tenant allegedly agreed to move out within two weeks and pay all outstanding rent. No notes or follow-up communications were provided to substantiate what if any amounts were discussed at this meeting.
The witness presented copies of surveillance photographs of the meeting, though undated and lacking timestamps. The witness’ recollection included a general claim of “about $1,000” owing, which was hearsay based on conversations in Vietnamese with the landlord – not on anything recalled as being explicitly stated by the tenant.
In her application dated 28 July 2025, the landlord claimed $800.00 in arrears, but her supporting documents varied, stating rent was last paid on 5 July 2025, suggesting three weeks and two days’ rent ($657.14) was owed. The rent summary stated no payments since 3 July, and during the hearing, the landlord claimed no payments since 27 June.
A rent summary filed with the application estimated $1,000.00 would be owed by 1 August 2025.
At the hearing on 25 September, the landlord updated her claim to $1,200.00, covering rent to 8 August, but a message from her to the tenant dated 7 August suggested the tenant was moving out that day.
The tenant disputed being at the premises long enough to accrue $1,200.00 in arrears. Neither party gave a clear final date for the end of tenancy.
Due to numerous inconsistencies in the timeline and amounts across documents and testimony, the Tribunal could not reliably determine the rent arrears.
The burden of proof lies with the landlord as the applicant, on the balance of probabilities.
The evidence did not satisfy the Tribunal to this standard. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for additional rent beyond the bond amount is dismissed. The hot water cylinder issues
Although the tenant did not file a formal counterclaim, the broken hot water cylinder was addressed in evidence and considered as part of this determination.
It was undisputed that the hot water cylinder broke while the landlord was overseas and that the tenant was without hot water for two weeks. The tenant offered to arrange a repair, but the landlord chose to wait until her return. The tenant mentioned paying an $80 call-out fee, which does not appear to have been reimbursed, or is sought today.
The Tribunal asked if the landlord considered a two-week delay reasonable. She responded affirmatively, citing the tenant’s electricity usage as a concern.
When questioned about the rental agreement including water provision, the landlord initially was unaware of this, but later agreed when guided to the relevant clause.
Communications between the parties showed cross-purposes. The landlord insisted that rent arrears be resolved before addressing the hot water issue. The tenant sought a temporary rent reduction during the repair delay, but no agreement was reached, and he appears to have paid rent at his own discretion accordingly.
No further findings on this issue are necessary, as the matter has been considered as part of the hearing and determined accordingly. No further orders
The Tribunal notes concerns regarding some communications by the landlord that may have breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, including improper notice to terminate. However, no further action is required as these matters are now resolved within the context of this decision.
As the landlord has not succeeded in her claims beyond the bond (which was always consented to), she does not meet the threshold for orders reimbursing the application filing fee or suppression of her name or identifying details. The Tribunal therefore dismissed those claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315047 — Rent arrears at 143 Everglade Drive, Totara Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315047 — Rent arrears at 143 Everglade Drive, Totara Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much outstanding rent is owed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much outstanding rent is owed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions