What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328941 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders the suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5328941?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328941?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12512101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328941 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders the suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5328941?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328941?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12512101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

331 Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328941 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders the suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed..

Reasons

Both parties were present at the hearing. The landlord’s claim
As the applicant, the landlord bears the burden of proof and must establish its claim on the balance of probabilities.
On 19 August 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal, seeking $33.63 in alleged arrears for water usage based on: a. May tenant invoice no. 7599: $20.00 b. July tenant invoice no. 8036: $13.63
At the hearing on 2 October 2025, the landlord stated that the outstanding amount was $19.21 after accounting for various payments and rebates.
The landlord explained that administrative errors in data entry led to tenant payments for water being incorrectly allocated to her rental arrears account. Once these errors were reversed, the landlord claimed the water arrears became apparent. However, explanations offered at the hearing (e.g., references to possible additional bills to address differing amounts sought) were inconsistent and failed to clarify the issue. A comprehensive payment summary – akin to a standard rent summary – would have been helpful but was not provided. Consequently, the Tribunal found it difficult to follow the landlord’s reasoning, and the explanations did not align clearly with the documents submitted. It is equally plausible the amount claimed resulted from unresolved administrative errors.
The tenant raised concerns that it is the landlord creating false arrears. The landlord stated they had no control over balances beyond processing payments and reversals. However, errors in recording these transactions did occur, which could be creating incorrect arrears, mistakenly rather than deliberately so.
The tenant has cleared her rent arrears and expressed concern that the mere fact of those arrears would be used to wrongly support the landlord’s current claim for water costs arrears. The Tribunal notes that any reference to previous rent arrears is only relevant to the extent that they were the context in which the administrative mistakes occurred, and are not in of themselves evidence of water arrears. The tenant was upset and highlighted inconsistencies, such as receiving an email (copy seen by the Tribunal) indicating $11.75 was due for the May water bill (which she promptly paid), while the landlord later claimed $20, without a clear explanation of how this amount was calculated and differed from the email.
Given the ongoing nature of the tenancy and the importance of maintaining trust, the Tribunal offered the parties an opportunity to refer the matter for mediation to resolve not just this claim but broader issues mentioned around administrative and communication issues. The landlord declined mediation.
The Tribunal therefore proceeds to determine the claim.
The landlord submitted a tenant payment history, water invoices, and various correspondence, including section 14 notices that may have been issued in error due to incorrect records.
Regardless of the administrative errors, without clear source documentation tracing each payment, invoice, and reversal – including a detailed running balance – the Tribunal is not satisfied that the claim has been reliably substantiated.
The landlord has not proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant owes the water arrears claimed.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed. Costs
Under sections 102(2) and (3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal may order costs if the claim is frivolous or vexatious, legal representation is involved, the matter ought to have been resolved at mediation, or a party fails to attend without reasonable excuse.
No costs are awarded in this case despite the low amount sought (less than the filing fee), the landlord’s own unclear records, and the tenant’s understandable frustration. While the decision not to order costs was borderline, the Tribunal is mindful that this situation arose, at least partially, due to genuine and innocent human error that would be unfair to punish. Suppression
Considering the outcome, suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details is appropriate under section 95A of the Act.

Order

The Tribunal orders the suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed..

Reasons

Both parties were present at the hearing. The landlord’s claim
As the applicant, the landlord bears the burden of proof and must establish its claim on the balance of probabilities.
On 19 August 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal, seeking $33.63 in alleged arrears for water usage based on: a. May tenant invoice no. 7599: $20.00 b. July tenant invoice no. 8036: $13.63
At the hearing on 2 October 2025, the landlord stated that the outstanding amount was $19.21 after accounting for various payments and rebates.
The landlord explained that administrative errors in data entry led to tenant payments for water being incorrectly allocated to her rental arrears account. Once these errors were reversed, the landlord claimed the water arrears became apparent. However, explanations offered at the hearing (e.g., references to possible additional bills to address differing amounts sought) were inconsistent and failed to clarify the issue. A comprehensive payment summary – akin to a standard rent summary – would have been helpful but was not provided. Consequently, the Tribunal found it difficult to follow the landlord’s reasoning, and the explanations did not align clearly with the documents submitted. It is equally plausible the amount claimed resulted from unresolved administrative errors.
The tenant raised concerns that it is the landlord creating false arrears. The landlord stated they had no control over balances beyond processing payments and reversals. However, errors in recording these transactions did occur, which could be creating incorrect arrears, mistakenly rather than deliberately so.
The tenant has cleared her rent arrears and expressed concern that the mere fact of those arrears would be used to wrongly support the landlord’s current claim for water costs arrears. The Tribunal notes that any reference to previous rent arrears is only relevant to the extent that they were the context in which the administrative mistakes occurred, and are not in of themselves evidence of water arrears. The tenant was upset and highlighted inconsistencies, such as receiving an email (copy seen by the Tribunal) indicating $11.75 was due for the May water bill (which she promptly paid), while the landlord later claimed $20, without a clear explanation of how this amount was calculated and differed from the email.
Given the ongoing nature of the tenancy and the importance of maintaining trust, the Tribunal offered the parties an opportunity to refer the matter for mediation to resolve not just this claim but broader issues mentioned around administrative and communication issues. The landlord declined mediation.
The Tribunal therefore proceeds to determine the claim.
The landlord submitted a tenant payment history, water invoices, and various correspondence, including section 14 notices that may have been issued in error due to incorrect records.
Regardless of the administrative errors, without clear source documentation tracing each payment, invoice, and reversal – including a detailed running balance – the Tribunal is not satisfied that the claim has been reliably substantiated.
The landlord has not proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant owes the water arrears claimed.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed. Costs
Under sections 102(2) and (3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal may order costs if the claim is frivolous or vexatious, legal representation is involved, the matter ought to have been resolved at mediation, or a party fails to attend without reasonable excuse.
No costs are awarded in this case despite the low amount sought (less than the filing fee), the landlord’s own unclear records, and the tenant’s understandable frustration. While the decision not to order costs was borderline, the Tribunal is mindful that this situation arose, at least partially, due to genuine and innocent human error that would be unfair to punish. Suppression
Considering the outcome, suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details is appropriate under section 95A of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328941 — Rent arrears at 331 Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328941 — Rent arrears at 331 Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions