What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328277 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 5328277?

Property Damage: $228.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Of Rent: $900.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328277?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328277?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13040792-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328277 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 5328277?

Property Damage: $228.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Of Rent: $900.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328277?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328277?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13040792-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

148 Bridge Street, Opotiki, Opotiki 3122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328277 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328277 — net $2,506.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond held by landlord	$1,350.00	Bond held by landlord
Compensation: Key replacement	$228.00	Key replacement
Refund of rent	$900.00	Refund of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,506.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,506.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Erina Joan Williams must pay [The tenant/s] $2,506.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The balance of the tenant’s claims were withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond, compensation for purchasing keys at the commencement of the tenancy and reimbursement of rent paid following an unlawful rent increase.
The tenancy commenced on 1 March 2025 and ended on 5 August 2025.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 1 , 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 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.

ADJOURNMENT

The landlord sought an adjournment to file a cross-application. I declined to grant an adjournment as the landlord had two months to file a cross application from the previous hearing and the tenancy ended in August 2025. I consider the landlord had sufficient time to file a cross application.

REFUND OF THE BOND

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. 2
The bond is held by the landlord and therefore I make an order that the landlord reimburse the tenant the bond of $1,350. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
I note that both parties agreed that $1,350 is the amount of bond the tenant paid. I therefore consider it is more likely than not that this is the amount the tenant paid for the bond.

REFUND FOR KEY REPLACEMENT

The tenant seeks reimbursement for lock replacement of $228.
The tenant says the landlord did not provide keys to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy and he had to purchase keys. The tenant provided a screen shot of the of the bank transaction to prove the payment made to the locksmith. The landlord agreed she did not provide keys at the commencement of the tenancy, but the tenant agreed to pay for the keys as he was getting a low market rent in anticipation of him purchasing the property.
The landlord is required to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. 3 Failure to comply with this obligation without reasonable excuse, is an unlawful act.
Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which the RTA applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the RTA, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless otherwise permitted by the RTA or permitted in certain circumstances by the Tribunal. 4 The landlords request to the tenant to pay for the keys to the premises (and the tenants agreement to do so) is an arrangement contrary to the obligation on the landlord to provide a reasonably secure premises.
Accordingly, a landlord should be liable for the cost to provide keys at the commencement of the tenancy, and I therefore order the landlord to pay for the cost of the key replacement of $228. .

RENT INCREASE

The tenant says the landlord increased the rent unlawfully.
The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided the landlord give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and that notice specifies the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and the day upon which the increased 3 See s 46 RTA 4 See s 11 RTA rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days after the date on which that notice is given. 5
Rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect. 6
On 22 May 2025 the landlord has emailed the tenant 14 days’ notice of a $100 rent increase.
The landlord accepted that for a period of 9 weeks following the rent increase the tenant paid an additional $100 rent. She says this was agree by the tenant but provided no documentary evidence of this. The landlord says that the tenant was paying below market rent as they had agreed he would purchase the home when he was able to.
I find that the landlord did not give the required notice in writing to the tenant of the increase and increased the rent within 12 months of the commencement of the tenancy. I therefore find that the rent remained at $450 per week until the end of the tenancy. The tenant did not provide bank statements as evidence of the increased rent payments he made but the landlord agreed that the increased rent payments were made for a period of 9 weeks from 5 June 2025. I therefore consider it is more likely than not that the tenant paid the additional $100 rent.
I find the tenant is to be refunded $900 being the amount claimed.

FILING FEE

Because the tenant has been partly successful in their claim, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee of $28 paid for the application. 7

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 8
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, 5 See s 24 RTA 6 See section 24 RTA. 7 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA. 8 See section 95A (1) RTA. order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 9
The tenant sought name suppression and as he has been substantially successful with the claim, I have granted the tenant’s name suppression
The landlord applied for name suppression for concern for the privacy of her family. I consider the public interest in publishing the landlord’s name in this case outweighs the landlord’s interest and name suppression is declined for the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328277 — net $2,506.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond held by landlord	$1,350.00	Bond held by landlord
Compensation: Key replacement	$228.00	Key replacement
Refund of rent	$900.00	Refund of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,506.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,506.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Erina Joan Williams must pay [The tenant/s] $2,506.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The balance of the tenant’s claims were withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond, compensation for purchasing keys at the commencement of the tenancy and reimbursement of rent paid following an unlawful rent increase.
The tenancy commenced on 1 March 2025 and ended on 5 August 2025.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 1 , 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 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.

ADJOURNMENT

The landlord sought an adjournment to file a cross-application. I declined to grant an adjournment as the landlord had two months to file a cross application from the previous hearing and the tenancy ended in August 2025. I consider the landlord had sufficient time to file a cross application.

REFUND OF THE BOND

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. 2
The bond is held by the landlord and therefore I make an order that the landlord reimburse the tenant the bond of $1,350. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
I note that both parties agreed that $1,350 is the amount of bond the tenant paid. I therefore consider it is more likely than not that this is the amount the tenant paid for the bond.

REFUND FOR KEY REPLACEMENT

The tenant seeks reimbursement for lock replacement of $228.
The tenant says the landlord did not provide keys to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy and he had to purchase keys. The tenant provided a screen shot of the of the bank transaction to prove the payment made to the locksmith. The landlord agreed she did not provide keys at the commencement of the tenancy, but the tenant agreed to pay for the keys as he was getting a low market rent in anticipation of him purchasing the property.
The landlord is required to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. 3 Failure to comply with this obligation without reasonable excuse, is an unlawful act.
Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which the RTA applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the RTA, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless otherwise permitted by the RTA or permitted in certain circumstances by the Tribunal. 4 The landlords request to the tenant to pay for the keys to the premises (and the tenants agreement to do so) is an arrangement contrary to the obligation on the landlord to provide a reasonably secure premises.
Accordingly, a landlord should be liable for the cost to provide keys at the commencement of the tenancy, and I therefore order the landlord to pay for the cost of the key replacement of $228. .

RENT INCREASE

The tenant says the landlord increased the rent unlawfully.
The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided the landlord give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and that notice specifies the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and the day upon which the increased 3 See s 46 RTA 4 See s 11 RTA rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days after the date on which that notice is given. 5
Rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect. 6
On 22 May 2025 the landlord has emailed the tenant 14 days’ notice of a $100 rent increase.
The landlord accepted that for a period of 9 weeks following the rent increase the tenant paid an additional $100 rent. She says this was agree by the tenant but provided no documentary evidence of this. The landlord says that the tenant was paying below market rent as they had agreed he would purchase the home when he was able to.
I find that the landlord did not give the required notice in writing to the tenant of the increase and increased the rent within 12 months of the commencement of the tenancy. I therefore find that the rent remained at $450 per week until the end of the tenancy. The tenant did not provide bank statements as evidence of the increased rent payments he made but the landlord agreed that the increased rent payments were made for a period of 9 weeks from 5 June 2025. I therefore consider it is more likely than not that the tenant paid the additional $100 rent.
I find the tenant is to be refunded $900 being the amount claimed.

FILING FEE

Because the tenant has been partly successful in their claim, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee of $28 paid for the application. 7

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 8
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, 5 See s 24 RTA 6 See section 24 RTA. 7 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA. 8 See section 95A (1) RTA. order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 9
The tenant sought name suppression and as he has been substantially successful with the claim, I have granted the tenant’s name suppression
The landlord applied for name suppression for concern for the privacy of her family. I consider the public interest in publishing the landlord’s name in this case outweighs the landlord’s interest and name suppression is declined for the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328277 — Property damage at 148 Bridge Street, Opotiki, Opotiki 3122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328277 — Property damage at 148 Bridge Street, Opotiki, Opotiki 3122

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ADJOURNMENT

REFUND OF THE BOND

REFUND FOR KEY REPLACEMENT

RENT INCREASE

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ADJOURNMENT

REFUND OF THE BOND

REFUND FOR KEY REPLACEMENT

RENT INCREASE

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions