What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340643 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 5340643?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340643?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12610016-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340643 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 5340643?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340643?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12610016-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

309C Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340643 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to refund the Bond to Kusal Agampodi Mendis, Prabuddika Hettiarachchi immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
The tenants answered an advertisement in Trade Me by Harcourts Property Management Limited, for a property to rent. The tenants entered into a tenancy agreement with Ann Yiin, from Infinite Real Estate Company Ltd, on 30 July 2025 who purported to be the landlord. The commencement date of the tenancy was 29 August 2025.
On 28 July 2025, the actual owner of the property was at the property with the Court Bailiff and Police to remove the people who had claimed to be the landlord. The actual owner of the property is Rising Links Property Management Limited (“RLPM”).
RLPM purchased the property in 2024 through a mortgagee sale. RLPM have had to embark of considerable litigation through the High Court to obtain legal title and possession of their property.
The previous owners were the persons purporting to be the landlord when they entered into a tenancy agreement with these tenants.
The tenants were provided with the Auckland High Court judgement and notification of the correct landlord and bank accounts for rent money to be paid into.
By order of the Auckland High Court RLPM is the lawful owner of this property and not Ee kuoh Lau, Ann Yiin nor Jian Tan or Infinite Property Management .
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. Standard of proof:
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted 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 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.
The landlord and tenants have discussed the prospect of staying in the tenancy and starting a new tenancy agreement. However, the tenants do not wish to stay in the property as the landlord is seeking to increase the rent to an appropriate market rent. Consent agreement between RLPM and tenants:
The tenants and landlord have reached an agreement which I record as follows: a) The tenants will vacate the property and do not wish to start a new tenancy agreement with RLPM. b) The tenants will pay $600.00 per week rent for two weeks starting the next rent period on 24 October 2025. For completeness, the rent period 24 th October to 30 October and 3 1st October to 6 November 2025 will be $600.00 per week. c) The rent period that falls due on 7 th November 2025 will be $650.00 per week for the next 4 weeks. d) The tenants are actively seeking new tenancies now and have agreed to give a minimum 14 days’ notice to the landlord for the end date of the tenancy. e) The landlord has agreed that the tenants may stay up until 5 th December 2025. f) The parties have agreed that there is a tenancy between them for the purposes of this agreement. Bond:
The bond centre is holding the tenant’s bond. However, the RLPM are not the landlord on record at the bond centre. Therefore, the bond will have to be refunded directly to the tenants Filing Fee/Suppression:
I am suppressing the names and details of all parties in this claim due to the circumstances of the situation they found themselves in through no fault of their own. I am not awarding either party the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to refund the Bond to Kusal Agampodi Mendis, Prabuddika Hettiarachchi immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
The tenants answered an advertisement in Trade Me by Harcourts Property Management Limited, for a property to rent. The tenants entered into a tenancy agreement with Ann Yiin, from Infinite Real Estate Company Ltd, on 30 July 2025 who purported to be the landlord. The commencement date of the tenancy was 29 August 2025.
On 28 July 2025, the actual owner of the property was at the property with the Court Bailiff and Police to remove the people who had claimed to be the landlord. The actual owner of the property is Rising Links Property Management Limited (“RLPM”).
RLPM purchased the property in 2024 through a mortgagee sale. RLPM have had to embark of considerable litigation through the High Court to obtain legal title and possession of their property.
The previous owners were the persons purporting to be the landlord when they entered into a tenancy agreement with these tenants.
The tenants were provided with the Auckland High Court judgement and notification of the correct landlord and bank accounts for rent money to be paid into.
By order of the Auckland High Court RLPM is the lawful owner of this property and not Ee kuoh Lau, Ann Yiin nor Jian Tan or Infinite Property Management .
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. Standard of proof:
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted 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 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.
The landlord and tenants have discussed the prospect of staying in the tenancy and starting a new tenancy agreement. However, the tenants do not wish to stay in the property as the landlord is seeking to increase the rent to an appropriate market rent. Consent agreement between RLPM and tenants:
The tenants and landlord have reached an agreement which I record as follows: a) The tenants will vacate the property and do not wish to start a new tenancy agreement with RLPM. b) The tenants will pay $600.00 per week rent for two weeks starting the next rent period on 24 October 2025. For completeness, the rent period 24 th October to 30 October and 3 1st October to 6 November 2025 will be $600.00 per week. c) The rent period that falls due on 7 th November 2025 will be $650.00 per week for the next 4 weeks. d) The tenants are actively seeking new tenancies now and have agreed to give a minimum 14 days’ notice to the landlord for the end date of the tenancy. e) The landlord has agreed that the tenants may stay up until 5 th December 2025. f) The parties have agreed that there is a tenancy between them for the purposes of this agreement. Bond:
The bond centre is holding the tenant’s bond. However, the RLPM are not the landlord on record at the bond centre. Therefore, the bond will have to be refunded directly to the tenants Filing Fee/Suppression:
I am suppressing the names and details of all parties in this claim due to the circumstances of the situation they found themselves in through no fault of their own. I am not awarding either party the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340643 — 14-day notice at 309C Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340643 — 14-day notice at 309C 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