What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340124 about?

The tribunal order states: Herculaas Johannes Venter must pay Home Rental Services 2022 Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5340124?

Previous Order Application 4763717 D…: $8,382.43 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,480.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340124?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340124?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12397866-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340124 about?

The tribunal order states: Herculaas Johannes Venter must pay Home Rental Services 2022 Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5340124?

Previous Order Application 4763717 D…: $8,382.43 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,480.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340124?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340124?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12397866-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2053 Wharerata Road, Muriwai, RD 2, Manutuke 4072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340124 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5340124 — net $902.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 23.1.2025	$7,480.00		Rent arrears to 23.1.2025
Previous order application 4763717 dated 19/07/2024		$8,382.43	Previous order application 4763717 dated 19/07/2024
Total award	$7,480.00	$8,382.43
Net award		$902.43
Bond		$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$902.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5340124 — net $902.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 23.1.2025	$7,480.00		Rent arrears to 23.1.2025
Previous order application 4763717 dated 19/07/2024		$8,382.43	Previous order application 4763717 dated 19/07/2024
Total award	$7,480.00	$8,382.43
Net award		$902.43
Bond		$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$902.43

Order

Herculaas Johannes Venter must pay Home Rental Services 2022 Limited As Agent For D J Hyland Family Trust $7,480.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 23 January 2025, offset by the Tribunal order dated 19 July 2025 in application 4763717, as per the table below, by consent.
Home Rental Services 2022 Limited As Agent For D J Hyland Family Trust must pay Herculaas Johannes Venter $902.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (#6301465-003) to Herculaas Johannes Venter, immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Wauchop, Mr Kohere and Mr Hyland, representing the landlord, and Mr Venter, the tenant, along with his wife, Mrs Venter as support person, all attended the video conference hearing.
The tenant initially filed an application for refund of the bond, which was scheduled for hearing on 11 September 2025. The landlord filed a cross- application, then the tenant withdrew their application. As such, it was only the landlord’s application that was heard by video conference on Thursday 11 September 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, outgoings, refund of the bond and refund of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the ‘burden of proof’.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” Background
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 23 January 2025.
The parties, and this tenancy, are the subject of several earlier Tribunal applications. The most relevant series of applications, which were applications 4813304, 4763717, 4781478 and 4819087 (application number 4763717 will be used for ease of reference to refer to all these applications), to these claims were all heard together and were the subject of Tribunal orders dated 12 June 2024 and 19 July 2024. These earlier Tribunal orders will be referred to in this decision.
The Tribunal order dated 19 July 2024 in application 4763717 ordered the landlord to pay the tenant $8,382.43 (referred to here as “the award order”).
The Tribunal order dated 12 June 2024 in application 4763717 reflected a consent order (referred to here as the “consent order”) made between the parties as to the process for calculating power bills of the tenant from June 2024 onwards. The issue of the calculation of power bills has been very contentious between the parties for the period of the tenancy and is the subject of other Tribunal orders also.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, which is $7,480.00.
The award order dated 19 July 2024 indicated that there might be an offset of rent arrears owing against the award the Tribunal made against the landlord on 19 July 2024. The parties said there had been some correspondence and discussion about this, but no agreement was reached.
Notwithstanding the issue of whether the parties reached any agreement to offset rent arrears against the award order on a weekly basis over the remainder of the tenancy after the award order was made on 19 July 2025, the tenant acknowledged that the rent arrears amount claimed by the landlord of $7,480.00 to the end of the tenancy was likely correct.
The parties agreed in the hearing to offset the rent arrears of $7,480.00 owed by the tenant against the award order made against the landlord on 19 July 2024 in application 4763717 that the landlord was to pay the tenant $8,382.43, by consent. Thus, the balance owing by the landlord to the tenant after this offset is that, by consent, the landlord owes the tenant $902.43.
The parties could not agree about the landlord’s remaining claims for compensation, outgoings and refund of the bond and so there was a hearing to determine these remaining claims, which are dealt with below. Outgoings – power bills
The landlord claimed a total of $1,657.31 in power bills from June 2024 to the end of the tenancy in January 2025.
The tenancy here was the main house on the property. There are two other dwellings on the property, unrelated to the tenancy, which are a cottage and a cabin. The tenant has taken issue with the power set up as between the three dwellings on the property and what he says is the difficulty in determining the precise usage of power that is attributable solely to his tenancy at the main house. This has been dealt with in previous Tribunal applications.
I set out here the process outlined in order 9 of the consent order dated 12 June 2024 in application 4763717, which amended clause 16.1 of the tenancy agreement in relation to how the parties are to deal with the power situation and power calculations: “9. The following agreement is made by consent to amend clause 16.1 of the tenancy agreement: a. The landlord is to ensure the continuous supply of electricity to the premise. b. The cabin’s hot water and electricity supply from the premise is to be disconnected immediately. c. Mr Venter is to take a photo of the check meter readings for the premise every month at the time of Mercury’s intended next approximate read date and send that immediately to the landlord. With the photo Mr Venter is to provide a written tally of the previous month’s amount and then the current amount showing the difference in energy used. d. The landlord is then to provide Mr Venter with the supplier’s invoice and associated calculations as to his usage for that month within 5 working days of receiving the invoice. To be clear, the amount Mr Venter will be liable for will be the ‘24-hour charges’, plus the ‘controlled charges’ plus the ‘electricity market fee’ plus GST minus the ‘friends extra discount’ allocated directly to his usage which is calculated from the meter readings (the amount). e. Mr Venter is to advise the landlord within 3 working days of receipt of the invoice and calculations if he disagrees with the calculation and if so what his own calculations total. f. If there is a discrepancy in the parties’ calculations within $10, the lower amount is to be billed. If it is greater than $10, either party may apply under urgency to the Tribunal (directed to me) for a decision. The latter option is to only be exercised in extreme need. g. When the amount is clarified, Mr Venter is to pay the amount within14 days of receiving the invoice. He may pay the landlord, or he may pay the supplier directly, however if he does the latter, he must provide simultaneous confirmation of his payment to the landlord. h. This arrangement is to commence with the June invoice. Therefore, Mr Venter is to take a meter reading in the last week of June and the calculations are to be based on the meter readings taken by the landlord in May and the meter readings Mr Venter takes.”
The tenant said the landlord did not comply with order 9b of the consent order dated 12 June 2024, that the cabin’s hot water and electricity supply from the premises was to be disconnected immediately. He said there was no proof provided by the landlord that this was the case, by way of photographs or otherwise. He said the electrical evidence provided by the landlord did not say anywhere that the house and cabin were on separate supplies. The tenant said the cabling needed to be disconnected between them and this had not been shown. The tenant provided and pointed to another copy of the electrician’s letter dated 6 December 2024, where one line had been deleted from a copy of the same letter he had, from the landlord’s version that was provided. He said the electrical evidence provided by the landlord is not reliable as a result.
The landlord said the cabin’s hot water has been off since October 2022, and the cabin’s water was disconnected before June 2024. The landlord said the water pump supply, which they believed was the issue, was removed in September 2024 and had been shown to only use a minimal amount of electricity, around $6.00 per month approximately. They indicated the check meter for the main house has been consistent within 1% with the Mercury power invoices. The landlord said the check meter readings that the tenant had been invoiced were attributable only to the tenant’s consumption of power and were accurate. The landlord indicated they sent power invoices to the tenant, with which he had not disagreed.
The tenant said the main sticking point for him was that the landlord had not shown definitively that the cabling between the main house and cabin had been disconnected, to show the main house supply was indeed separate from the cabin. He also pointed to a copy of a Work Order provided by the landlord in support of their application where the landlord asked an electrician to ascertain why the water pump continues to turn on and off. The names of the new tenants in the main house (not this tenant) were on the work order so, though the work order was dated 15 July 2024, the tenant believed the date on the Work Order should have read 15 July 2025, and said that this was evidence the landlord has not disconnected the pump.
The tenant said he had taken photographs of the check meter reading each month and had sent these photographs to the landlord, and that he had requested information from the landlord about the electrical work at the property and whether the cabling had been disconnected but had very little definitive information back from the landlord.
Notwithstanding the parties’ arguments about the landlord not complying with order 9b of the consent order dated 12 June 2024, or the landlord’s electrical evidence about the check meters at the property, even if the landlord had complied with the terms of the consent order dated 12 June 2024 in order 9, which was disputed by the tenant, the landlord did not provide any of the invoices from the power company or any of the invoices they sent to the tenant for power or any formal ledger of invoices for power sent out and payments made to support their claim for power bills. The landlord only provided a typewritten list of power charges for each month from June 2024 to January 2025, without any other evidence supporting the amounts the landlord claimed for each month.
Given the lack of additional supporting evidence provided by the landlord by way of invoices from the power company, invoices they sent to the tenant for power, or any formal ledger of power invoices and transactions, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their power claim and so dismiss this claim.

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)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, as there were two professional flea treatments required after the new tenants moved in. The landlord said they chose not to pursue a cleaning claim, despite contesting the tenant’s cleanliness at the end of the tenancy. However, the landlord claimed $829.36 for ripcord spray and a professional pest controller to attend the property twice, to treat a significant flea infestation, as required. The landlord said the tenant had pets at the property, including cats and dogs. The landlord provided emails from the new tenants saying they had been bitten significantly by fleas after they moved into the property.
The tenant said his two dogs had died in November 2024 but acknowledged he had cats. However, he said he hates fleas and would not have them in his house so he would have treated his pets with flea treatments if this had been an issue at all. The tenant denied that his pets had fleas.
The landlord pointed to clause 11.2 of the Tenancy Agreement which indicated the tenant had to fumigate the property when they left the property if they had pets. The tenant pointed out that the Tribunal Order dated 19 July 2024 (“the award order”) had declared clause 11.2 of the Tenancy Agreement of no effect. Despite this, the landlord can bring such a compensation claim if they can show the tenant caused the flea infestation that required treatment and they incurred costs in this regard.
The tenant said the new tenants’ complaints about being bitten by fleas had come well after he left the property on 22 January 2025 (a day before the formal end of the tenancy), that the other tenant in the cottage on the property also had a cat and that this property was in a rural area. The tenant noted that there was no comment about any fleas in the handwritten comments made by the property manager at his final inspection on 24 January 2025 (which was written on the copy of the Entry Inspection Report and was not the subject of a separate Exit Inspection Report provided). The property manager said he was not at the property long enough to be bitten by fleas at the final inspection. The tenant said his tenancy had finished by the time the new tenants complained of being bitten by fleas and questioned how long his liability lasted past the end of his tenancy.
The landlord did not provide any evidence that fleas were an issue during the tenancy or prior to the new tenants moving in, such as any routine inspection or other issues in this regard during the tenancy. The landlord was clearly aware of the tenant’s pets during the tenancy and could have focused on any pest concerns as part of their final and other inspection processes, especially after clause 11.2 in the tenancy agreement, which dealt with mandatory fumigation by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, had been declared of no effect in the Tribunal order dated 19 July 2024 in application 4763717. The handwritten final inspection notes of the property manager did not note any concern regarding fleas. The tenant denied his pets had fleas, said another tenant on the property also had a cat and that it was a rural property. It is for the landlord to prove the fleas were likely caused by the tenant, not for the tenant to disprove this, however.
I find, given the evidence and in the circumstances, the landlord has provided insufficient evidence that the flea infestation was likely caused by this tenant, and so also dismiss this claim. Refund of the bond
As the landlord has not proved their compensation and outgoings claims, the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (#6301465-003) to Herculaas Johannes Venter, immediately. Filing fee
As the landlord has only been partly successful, with the claim regarding rent arrears only, which are to be offset against what the landlord owes the tenant pursuant to the award order dated 19 July 2024 in application 4763717, whereas the landlord’s other claims have been dismissed, I do not award the landlord the filing fee. See section 102(4)(b) RTA. Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. The parties are the subjects of Tribunal orders made earlier, where name suppression was not granted. Further, the parties have not provided evidence as to why their own interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression to either party. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340124 — Rent arrears at 2053 Wharerata Road, Muriwai, RD 2, Manutuke 4072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340124 — Rent arrears at 2053 Wharerata Road, Muriwai, RD 2, Manutuke 4072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions