What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316037 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 5316037?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,131.43 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,359.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316037?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316037?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13222231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316037 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 5316037?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,131.43 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,359.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316037?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316037?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13222231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

19 Plumley Crescent, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316037 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316037 — net $1,941.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,131.43		Rent arrears
Water rates	$1,359.84		Water rates
Skip Bin	$200.00		Skip Bin
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$750.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$2,691.27	$750.00
Net award	$1,941.27
Bond	$2,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,941.27

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316037 — net $1,941.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,131.43		Rent arrears
Water rates	$1,359.84		Water rates
Skip Bin	$200.00		Skip Bin
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$750.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$2,691.27	$750.00
Net award	$1,941.27
Bond	$2,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,941.27

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Omayra Noor Carolina Liv Ali Muhammad and Thomas Jason Williams to pay [The landlord/s] $1,941.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,941.27 Omayra Noor Carolina Liv Ali Muhammad and Thomas Jason Williams: $618.73
I am dismissing the tenants claims for failure to maintain, retaliatory notice, failure to keep records, harassment, refusal to extend tenancy, compensation for stress and rent reduction.
I am dismissing the landlords claims for damage to the property.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water bills, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have filed a cross application claiming the landlord has failed to lodge bond on time, failed to provide information requested and to keep proper records, overcharged for rent and water bills, discrimination and retaliatory conduct. They seek a rent reduction, compensation and exemplary damages. Background:
This was a tenancy that commenced on 13 October 2022 and terminated on 7 June 2025. Prior to moving into this house, the tenants had rented another property from the landlord for approximately 3 weeks. There were issues with that property and the landlord offered this property as an alternative.
This has been the cause of complaints relating to overpayments of rent and water bills and issues with the lodging of the bond.
The tenants dispute that the bond money transferred from the previous property to this property.
However, the landlord has provided proof to the Tribunal that they refunded a portion of the bond directly to the tenants after they moved to this property. The reason being is that the previous house bond was $2720.00 and this property the bond was $2560.00. On 17 October 2022 the landlord took $97.14 for one days rent arrears at the previous property (Pukeroa Street) and refunded $62.86 directly into the tenant’s bank account.
The remaining bond of $2560.00 was transferred to the new property (Plumley Crescent). The tenants dispute this and claim that they had to obtain a further loan from WINZ for this bond as the previous bond was refunded back to WINZ.
It is clear from the landlord’s records that the earlier bond was transferred to the Plumley Crescent property and not refunded to WINZ. The tenant did not provide adequate proof of receiving a further bond for the Plumley Crescent property. Landlord’s claims:

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 7 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Despite the tenants disputing the water bills and rent arrears, I am satisfied after hearing from the parties and receiving a rent summary, water bills and communication between the parties and WINZ, that the landlord’s records are correct.
I find the tenants owe $1131.43 in rent arrears and $1359.84 in water bills.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord was initially claiming for oven cleaning and rubbish removal. However, these claims were withdrawn at the hearing.
The photos received show me that tenants did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did remove all rubbish.
There was a claim for a skip bin for rubbish removal. The tenants accept that the skip bin was discussed, and they agreed that they were to pay for the cost of the skip bin.
I find the tenants are liable for the cost of $200.00 for the skip bin.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. ( See Guo v Korck 1 ) .
The landlord claims that there were damages at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided a pre let inspection report and photos. The inspection report had absolutely no comments on it highlighting the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. The photos show that this property was not in a good condition at the start of the tenancy. The paintwork throughout the house was old, dated, chipped, scuffed and in poor condition. The kitchen cabinets, doors and frames were battered, chipped and in poor condition.
The walls, ceilings, doors, frames and cabinets were in real need of attention at the start of the tenancy. I do not accept, given the condition at the start of the tenancy, that the tenants are responsible for damages to the property.
I acknowledge that their dog may have caused scratches to the flooring, but the flooring was not in good condition and was in needed of work to be done.
I find this was fair wear and tear, and the tenants have disproved liability for the damage. Tenant’s claims: Failure to maintain:
Omayra Noor Carolina Liv Ali Muhammad and Thomas Jason Williams 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 comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 1 Guo v Korck [2019]NZHC 1541 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim that there was maintenance issues raised with the landlord that were not adequately dealt with during the tenancy.
The landlord provided a timeline of requests on their “tenant portal” for repairs and the work order products as a result. The landlord showed that there were 9 requests from the tenants, two for pest control on 5 December 2022, and 11 November 2023, a broken window on 19 December 2023, shower leaks on 1 June 2023, tree maintenance on 8 June 2023, hot water leaks in 2024 and oven repairs on 22 November 2024. The landlord provided invoices to support their claim that the repairs were carried out if they were notified of issues by the tenants.
The hot water leaking relates to claims made by the tenants that the hot water bills were too high. The landlord sent plumbers on two occasions. On 15 May 2024 the plumber repaired a leaking hose tap and washing machine hose. A second plumber was sent in November 2024, and they found a faulty toilet inlet valve which was replaced. No further leaks were identified.
On 10 December 2024 Water Care confirmed that the water readings were normal and accurate.
When the tree maintenance was raised the landlord sent an arborist who carried out the work within a timely manner according to the landlord.
The landlord said the oven was new and installed in 2017 and when they received notice that the elements were not going on November 2023 they sent a repair person. It would appear that repair did not last. Furthermore, that the range hood and extractors were installed in 2022.
All repair invoices and correspondence were provided to the Tribunal to support the landlord claim that any issues were dealt with appropriately and within a reasonable time frame.
The tenants have mentioned that there were blown power points in the kitchen, that the shower was mouldy, the garage was insecure, the toilet leaky and there was flaking paint in the children’s bedrooms.
The tenants say when the oven blew up, the power points did not work. They say they lodged the complaint with both property managers.
The tenants say that when they complained about the mouldy shower the landlord sent a person who silicone around the area and treated the mould, rather than investigating the cause of the mould/ water leak. I note that the landlord did send a plumber twice to resolve the water leaking issues.
The garage had insecure panels which the landlord sent someone to fix by re- screwing the hardy board panels down.
The tenants say despite the landlord having a plumber come and fix the leaking water valve in the toilet, the place smelt of urine.
The flaking paint in the bedrooms was not raised by the tenants. Standard of proof:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or not because it is up to the applicant 3 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.
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA requires landlords to "provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes." This means that the standard is not perfection or modernisation, but reasonableness, taking into account the age and condition of the house.
If the landlord has attended to necessary repairs and the house is safe and habitable, then the fact that it is old or only "adequate" does not, by itself, amount to a breach of the RTA. The law does not require landlords to upgrade or modernise older homes, only to ensure they are maintained to a reasonable standard for their age and type.
If the landlord has fixed what needed to be fixed and the property is habitable, there is no breach of the RTA simply because the house is not modern or is only adequate.
I accept that the property is older and needs maintenance, however any issues that were raised with the landlord appear on the evidence provided to have been dealt with.
It is the responsibility of the tenants to raise issue with the landlord when they arise. For these reasons I do not consider that the tenants have proven their claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the property and I must dismiss this claim. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment/Harassment:
Omayra Noor Carolina Liv Ali Muhammad and Thomas Jason Williams claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants say that the landlord has been unreasonable with their demands for rent arrears and water bills. Furthermore, that the landlord has used the Tenancy Tribunal as a method of further harassment by filing claims instantly when there are rent arrears without the opportunity to discuss the issues.
The tenants say the landlords use the Tenancy Tribunal as a means to get money from WINZ. The tenants also claim they have been subjected to threats of eviction when they query an invoice or rent arrears.
Furthermore, the tenants say that on one occasion the property manager turned up unannounced for a routine inspection. The landlord says all their inspections notices were sent prior to a routine inspection. The landlord claims that they gave the tenant 7 days’ notice of this inspection.
The tenants allege that the landlord has harassed them by promptly applying to the Tribunal when there were rent arrears and by using the Tribunal process to obtain payment from WINZ. However, it is not harassment for a landlord to exercise their legal right to apply to the Tribunal for rent arrears or to seek payment through lawful means. The RTA provides landlords with the right to apply to the Tribunal when rent is unpaid, and this does not, in itself, amount to harassment.
The tenants also claim that the landlord once turned up at the premises unannounced. Landlords are required to provide appropriate notice before entering the premises, except in cases of emergency. A single instance of turning up unannounced, while not best practice, does not necessarily amount to harassment unless it forms part of a pattern of behaviour or results in significant interference with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment.
In this case, there is insufficient evidence of a pattern of conduct or serious interference with the tenants’ rights that would amount to harassment under the Act. The claims are therefore dismissed. Failure to lodge the bond:
Omayra Noor Carolina Liv Ali Muhammad and Thomas Jason Williams claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepts that they did not lodge the bond within the required time frame. The landlord gives the explanation that they held on to the bond in case the tenants rejected the second property. However, the tenancy commenced on the Plumley Crescent property on 13 October 2022 and the bond was lodged 5 months later in March 2023. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls 2 ).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten or did not realise, they had to do so, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement (Jones v Ying) 3 .
In TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl 4 , the District Court Judge said: “Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law." Para 37.
I award the tenants exemplary damages of $750.00 for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, this takes into account: •That the breach was for over 5 months. •That the tenant was placed in an uncertain position because the landlord did not lodge their bond. •That it is in the public interest to deter landlord’s from failing to lodge bond. Retaliatory Notice:
On 10 March 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a 90 day notice ending the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord increased the rent and after that rise the tenants asked the landlord to do maintenance on the property. The property manager, owner and the tenants had a meeting at the property to discuss issues at the property.
The tenants say that after the meeting they were served with the 90-day notice. The tenants claim that the landlord’s 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory, alleging it was issued in response to issues raised by the tenants. 2 Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92 3 Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01 4 TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182
The landlord denies that the 90-day notice was retaliatory. The landlord states the notice was given for financial reasons, as the property required significant work, and the decision was made to sell the property.
The property was put on the market after the tenancy ended and eventually sold on 13 July 2025.
Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows the Tribunal to declare a termination notice of no effect if it is satisfied the notice was given in retaliation for the tenant exercising their rights under the Act. The Tribunal must consider the timing of the notice, the reasons given by the landlord, and whether there is credible evidence of retaliation.
In Carver v Kiesanowski 5 the court confirms that a landlord’s decision to sell a property, or to terminate a tenancy because it is not economical to maintain the premises, is not in itself retaliatory.
The evidence shows the landlord issued the 90-day notice because the property required substantial work, and it was not financially viable to retain it. The landlord subsequently sold the property. There is no persuasive evidence that the notice was given in retaliation for any action taken by the tenants.
I am not satisfied that the 90-day notice was retaliatory. The landlord has provided a credible and legitimate reason for ending the tenancy, being the financial impracticality of retaining the property and the decision to sell.
The tenants’ claim that the 90-day notice was retaliatory is dismissed. Records:
Omayra Noor Carolina Liv Ali Muhammad and Thomas Jason Williams claims the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenants allege that the landlord has kept poor records and that there have been ongoing disputes about bills throughout the tenancy. The tenants claim that the landlord failed to keep proper records relating to the bond, rent, and water bills. An example given was that the tenants have specifically asked for the actual invoices for the water bills rather than the summary sent from the property manager. 5 Carver v Kiesanowski NZDC 3939
The tenants were working with a budgetary adviser who requested that the tenants provide actual invoices. The landlord was reluctant to provide this information to the tenants.
However, the Tribunal must decide matters based on the evidence provided. The burden of proof is on the party making the claim to provide sufficient evidence to support it.
In this case, there is no independent or documentary evidence before me to substantiate the tenants’ claims of poor record keeping or to show that the landlord’s records are inaccurate or unreliable. Similarly, while there have been disputes about bills, there is insufficient evidence to determine that the landlord has acted improperly or in breach of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where there is a lack of evidence to support either party’s claims, the Tribunal cannot make findings in favour of either side. The claims relating to poor record keeping and disputed bills are therefore dismissed for lack of evidence. Miscellaneous claims:
The tenants complain that the landlord would not agree to extend the tenancy by two days. However, there is no obligation under the RTA for a landlord to agree to extend a tenancy beyond the agreed end date. The landlord is entitled to require the tenancy to end on the date specified in the tenancy agreement or in any valid notice of termination. The landlord’s decision not to agree to a short extension does not amount to a breach of the Act.
The tenants seek compensation for hurt, humiliation, and stress, and/or a rent reduction. The Tribunal may award compensation or a rent reduction where there has been a significant breach of the landlord’s obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, such as a serious breach of quiet enjoyment or a failure to maintain the premises resulting in a loss of amenity. However, compensation for hurt, humiliation, and stress is not generally available unless there is clear evidence of a serious breach and resulting harm.
In this case, I am not satisfied that the evidence supports a finding of a significant breach by the landlord that would justify an award of general damages or a rent reduction. The claim is therefore dismissed.
While the tenants may have genuine concerns, the Tribunal must decide claims based on clear and reliable evidence. In this case, the tenants have provided a large volume of text and email messages that are difficult to follow and do not clearly establish the facts necessary to prove their claims. Mere assertions or the submission of disorganised and unclear documentation are not sufficient to meet the required standard of proof. As a result, I am unable to make findings in the tenant’s favour, and the claims are dismissed for lack of evidence.
This approach is consistent with the Tribunal’s obligation under section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to determine disputes according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, but also according to the general principles of law and the evidence presented.
As both parties have been partially successful, I am not reimbursing either party their filing fee.
The landlord sought suppression of their name and identifying details. As they have been partially successful, I am granting suppression. The tenants were specifically asked by me if they wished to apply for suppression. They both stated that they are not seeking suppression.
The bond centre is to split the bond as set out above in this Order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316037 — Rent arrears at 19 Plumley Crescent, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316037 — Rent arrears at 19 Plumley Crescent, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions