What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5321654 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (BN-00046553) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5321654?

Rent Arrears: $1,954.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $252.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321654?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12864258-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5321654 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (BN-00046553) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5321654?

Rent Arrears: $1,954.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $252.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321654?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12864258-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 2A Mantra Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5321654 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5321654. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 August 2025	$1,954.29		Rent arrears to 25 August 2025
Water rates: (by consent	$252.67		Water rates: (by consent

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5321654. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 August 2025	$1,954.29		Rent arrears to 25 August 2025
Water rates: (by consent	$252.67		Water rates: (by consent

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (BN-00046553) immediately apportioned in accordance with the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Singh and Ms Zheng. Both tenants appeared.
This tenancy began on 13 February 2025. There is a dispute about the end date of the tenancy.
The tenants seek refund of their bond, compensation for unlawful entry by the landlord, compensation for harassment by the landlord over a range of issues and the filing fee.
The landlord seeks rent arrears, water rates, compensation for cleaning and wall repair, refund of the bond, and the filing fee.

How much is owed for water rates?

Both parties agreed that the tenants owed $252.67 for water rates. This order is therefore made by consent.

When did the tenancy end and how much rent is owing?

This was a fixed term tenancy that began on 13 February 2025 and was for a fixed term until 14 August 2025.
There is a dispute about when the tenancy ended and how much rent is owing.
Section 60A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: a. If either party wishes to terminate a fixed term tenancy they must do so by giving notice to the other party between 90 and 21 days prior to the end of the fixed term; b. If neither party gives notice between 90 and 21 days prior to the end of the fixed term, the tenancy automatically becomes a periodic tenancy.
The landlord said that the tenants gave formal notice on 2 August 2025 as follows: “We will move out on or before 14 th Aug. as discussed on WeChat on 20 th Jun. Hot water cylinder has stopped working suddenly tonight. We need a technician to fix this as soon as possible”
The landlord said that notice was sent at 10.14pm, outside usual business hours, and so was not received at their offices until 4 August 2025. They say that as the window for giving notice had already closed the tenancy had become periodic, and so the 21 days ran from 4 August, meaning that the last day of the tenancy would be 25 August 2025.
The landlord wrote to the tenants on 6 August 2025 setting out their position.
The landlord said that rent owing to 25 August 2025 is $1,954.29. The landlord produced a rent summary proving the amount owing to that date.
The tenants say that they gave notice during the 90 and 21 day period by sending a WeChat message to the landlord on 20 June 2025 1 where they stated (submitted in Mandarin together with the following English translation): 1 The tenants also said at the hearing that they gave notice in a letter of complaint sent the same day. In reviewing the evidence however I note that the tenants sent a complaint to the landlord through the portal, but (at least in the portion submitted in evidence) it does not refer to the tenants moving out and “There’s no need for you to worry about it. Our lease expires in August and we will move out then. Arbitrary price hikes like that are not very common, and we won’t disclose it either. We hope that in the future, when we rent we will encounter better and more communicative real estate agents who can understand humans better. We also hope that you will encounter tenants or roommates who more fully understand your communication style. Thank you.
The tenants say that they gave notice well in advance of the 21 day period, left the property on 14 August 2025, and should only be liable for rent up to that date as the tenancy had ended. They accept that they stopped paying rent prior to the end of the tenancy and that rent is owing up to 14 August 2025 in the amount of $822.85 (8 days’ rent).
The landlord says that WeChat communication sent by the tenant was sent during a dispute regarding rubbish disposal. They said that tenants’ comment did not amount to notice for the purposes of section 60A because of that context and because it during an informal chat and the tenants did not advise the date they would be leaving. They say that at most this amounted to an indication from the tenants that they intended to give notice to end the tenancy prior to the end of the fixed term but ultimately the tenants did not do so until after the end of the 21-day period.
The landlord also said that they were doing an inspection at a neighbouring unit on 15 August 2025 and that the tenants were still there. The landlord said that they did not find out that the tenants had actually moved out until 18 August 2025, when they sent the tenants a message asking to show a prospective tenant through the property and were told that the tenants had already left and sent through the keypad code.
The landlord explained that there is a keypad that tenant’s can change when they move in so that the property is secure. They said that the tenant did not send them the correct key code on 18 August 2025, and that when they went to do an inspection on 26 August 2025 they had to send a message to the tenant as they could not enter, who then sent them the correct code.
I have carefully reviewed the correspondence between the parties. I consider that the tenancy ended on 25 August 2025 for the following reasons: a. Parties must give notice to the other party to terminate a tenancy, regardless of whether or not the tenancy is for a fixed term; instead requests to terminate the tenancy early or to assign a different property manager to the tenancy b. It was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the tenant’s comment in the WeChat on 20 June 2025 was at most an indication that they intended to give notice as it was: i. Sent during a heated exchange over rubbish disposal; ii. Appeared intended to close down the discussion; iii. Did not nominate a final date; iv. Was sent on the same date as the tenants sent a complaint to Harcourts asking to either terminate the tenancy before the end of the fixed term or to appoint a different property manager. c. When the landlord contacted the tenants on 18 August 2025 by email to confirm the final date of 25 August 2025 and request access to show prospective tenants through the property, one of the tenants responded by email stating “As the proposed viewing on August 19 has been scheduled with less than 48 hours’ notice, I kindly request that we reschedule the viewing to a later date that complies with this requirement”; d. In response to a WeChat message also sent on 18 August 2025 regarding the proposed viewing, the other tenant replied saying “Any time is fine. We have already moved out. And clean up”. e. On 22 August 2025 the tenants responded to the landlord’s email querying whether they had moved out stating “We are deeply concerned by your claim that someone informed you we had already moved out. Even if such a statement was made, how can you be certain of its authenticity without proper verification or confirmation from us directly? If you believed we had indeed vacated the property, why were no final inspection or formal check- our procedures arranged?” f. The tenants did not give the landlord the correct keypad code until 26 August 2025.
I find that the landlord is entitled to rent until 25 August 2025. This claim is proved.

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.
The landlord said the carpet and floor were not totally clean, there were spiderwebs, drawers not properly wiped out etc. The landlord produced an invoice for a “move out clean” which also included repair of damage (considered below). The portion of the invoice relating to cleaning is $368.00.
The tenants said that they did leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. They produced their own photos taken at the end of the tenancy.
While tenants need to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy they do not need to leave the property spotless and ready for another tenant to move into. It is expected that a landlord will need to do additional cleaning before another tenant moves in.
In my view the photos show that the tenants did leave the property reasonably clean and tidy overall. The areas identified by the landlord are very minor.
The tenants have met the standard required under the RTA.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is not proved and is dismissed.

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.
The landlord said that there were some areas that required repair and paint touch ups. These amounts were included in the same invoice above, in the amount of $172.50.
The landlord produced photos of some very minor scuff marks and paint peeling.
The tenants said that the marks were caused at the start of the tenancy when the staged furniture was removed. They denied causing the marks.
It was not clear to me on the evidence how the marks were caused by in my view they are very minor and regardless of how they were caused they are not more than wear tear.
This claim is therefore not proved and is dismissed.

Did the landlord enter without notice?

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants say that they were at home on 14 May 2025 when there was a loud knock at the door at approximately 10am and the Property Manager told them that she was there to do an inspection. They said that they felt uncomfortable as they had not even met her before and were not entirely sure that she was entitled to be there.
The tenants say that they were not given notice of the inspection.
The landlord said that they gave notice of the inspection and have complied with their obligations. They referred to correspondence produced in evidence as follows: a. they sent a letter to the tenants on 1 May 2025 advising that there would be an inspection on 7 May 2025 between 9am and 5pm; b. On 5 May 2025 the tenant contacted them by WeChat message to say that she was sick and asked if a new date could be arranged; and c. they then sent another letter to the tenants on 6 May 2025 advising that there would be an inspection on 14 May 2025 between 9am and 5pm.
The landlord said that the tenants did not raise any concerns when they arrived and said that they were on their way out as their child had a medical appointment.
Inspections are often a point of contention between landlords and tenants as they can be inconvenient and at times tenants can feel that their privacy has been compromised.
In this instance however I do not consider that there has been a breach by the landlord. The landlord has given more than 48 hours’ notice of the inspection and has reminded the tenant the day before.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

The tenants claim that the landlord 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 said that communications from the landlord were often rude and bullying and they felt unsupported in their tenancy. They said this caused them significant anxiety particularly as they had recently had a baby. They gave the following specific examples: a. When the hot water cylinder stopped working they were accused of damaging it; b. When their bin went missing they were told to sort it out themselves; c. When they put items unwanted items out on the berm/footpath they were told they were told they had left rubbish that had to be removed and were threatened that if they did not do so their tenancy might be affected; d. They felt generally monitored and harassed; e. When they made a complaint to Harcourts the complaint was not dealt with properly; f. The landlord maliciously delayed the termination date in order to charge more rent; and g. They were told, referencing legal terms, that if they did not cooperate with house viewings they might be liable to pay a penalty.
The landlord said that: a. apart from an initial misunderstanding about the bin they have at all times acted appropriately and in accordance with their legal obligations; b. they manage all 7 of the units in this complex and had received complaints about the tenants parking in the wrong spot and leaving rubbish outside, and were required to notify the tenants; c. They simply do not have time to monitor tenants and that there was no evidence that they did so (other than inspecting the property in accordance with their obligations); d. The hot water cylinder broke on the weekend and they had an emergency plumber attend and fix the issue within 2 hours; e. They conducted an internal investigation when the tenants complained and no adverse findings were made; f. Their communication regarding the final date of the tenancy and the conducting of house viewings was to inform the tenants of the legal position.
I have carefully reviewed the correspondence between the parties. While I do agree that at times the communication sent by Ms Zheng was very direct, all correspondence was sent for the purposes of managing the property and informing the tenants of the legal position. None of the correspondence reaches the level of harassment. Filing fee and name suppression
As neither party has been substantially more successful than the other I have not refunded the filing fees and have made no orders for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5321654 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 7, 2A Mantra Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5321654 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 7, 2A Mantra Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

When did the tenancy end and how much rent is owing?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord enter without notice?

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

When did the tenancy end and how much rent is owing?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord enter without notice?

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.