What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5350629 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 5350629?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $22,660.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350629?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13325327-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5350629 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 5350629?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $22,660.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350629?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13325327-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

449A Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5350629 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5350629 — net $22,688.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23.1.26	$22,660.00	Rent arrears to 23.1.26
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$22,688.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$22,688.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
Davy(Dave) Zivengwa Tomu must pay [The landlord/s] $22,688.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was assisted by the court appointed Mandarin interpreter.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy started on or about 1 April 2023.
The tenant vacated the premises on 24 January 2026.
The landlord no longer seeks a termination order in respect of this tenancy.
The landlord says she has known the tenant for approximately 10 years. She says that she called the tenant with a request for help finding a tenant for the downstairs and upstairs flat.
The landlord says that the tenant then stated that he could move in himself. The landlord says that initially she did not charge him rent.
The landlord states that she then asked the tenant to start paying rent. There was no written tenancy agreement. The landlord stated that she did not prepare a written agreement as she knew him.
I held a hearing with both parties present. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decide are these: a. Was there a binding agreement between the parties which would amount to a valid landlord - tenant relationship? b. Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? Statutory provisions
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.

Was there an implied tenancy agreement between the parties?

A tenancy agreement is a contract. The law of contract applies to tenancy agreements, together with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
It is possible for a tenancy agreement to have been reached even when a written tenancy agreement has not been signed. Although Section 13 of the RTA states that all tenancy agreements must be in writing and signed, Section 13C provides that no tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
In order to determine whether a contract (residential tenancy agreement) existed the following matters need to be considered: a. the making of an offer; b. the fact of acceptance of an offer so that an agreement has been reached; c. consideration; d. Intention to create legal relations; e. The requirement of certainty – whether the terms are sufficiently certain for the parties to be legally bound.
What matters is if the contract was sufficiently formed during the period of the tenancy. I need to be satisfied that the terms were sufficiently formed to create a binding contract.
The landlord confirms that they are now only seeking an order for payment of rent arrears of $22,660.00. The landlord provided a detailed rent ledger confirming rent payments made by the tenant along with the total outstanding rent debt. According to the rent ledger the rent obligation started on 1 January 2024. The rent payable was $350.00 per week. An email from the landlord to the Tribunal dated 3 November 2025 confirmed that this amount included water and power.
The tenant does not accept this claim.
He says that he does not owe any money to the landlord. He says the rent obligation is offset by the rent-free period for 6 months.
The tenant accepted that there were no set dates for the rent-free period.
The tenant maintains that he had a rent-free arrangement with the landlord but has not provided any written evidence of such an arrangement.
He says that the landlord would sometimes collect cash for rent which is not recorded on the rent ledger. He says that he also sourced tenants for the downstairs shop and that commission was offset against rent.
The tenant says that he received $8740.00 in commission. The landlord says that the tenant deducted 2 months’ rent from the amount owing for finding a tenant. This was done without the knowledge of the landlord.
The landlord says that rent and commission are two separate matters. The landlord served a 14-day breach notice on the tenant for unpaid rent dated 24 August 2025. The rent arrears were $22,950.00.
The landlord says that each week the rent was paid by bank transfer. The landlord also provided a handwritten note allegedly from the tenant dated 16 February 2025 with the following:
“From 1 March 2025 I pay normal rent plus $100.00 per week. When my situation improved I will increase the payments”.
Having carefully reviewed all the evidence in detail, including the landlord’s detailed rent ledger, and having heard the parties’ submissions at the hearing, I consider that there was a binding agreement.
I also find that the fact the tenant made rent payments amounts to an implied tenancy arrangement between the parties. The tenant has also failed to provide any evidence which confirms that there was an arrangement between the parties whereby any commission payable would be offset against an obligation to pay rent. In the absence of evidence confirming otherwise I find that the tenant’s submissions in respect of the rent obligation simply not plausible.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is established.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5350629 — net $22,688.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23.1.26	$22,660.00	Rent arrears to 23.1.26
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$22,688.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$22,688.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
Davy(Dave) Zivengwa Tomu must pay [The landlord/s] $22,688.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was assisted by the court appointed Mandarin interpreter.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy started on or about 1 April 2023.
The tenant vacated the premises on 24 January 2026.
The landlord no longer seeks a termination order in respect of this tenancy.
The landlord says she has known the tenant for approximately 10 years. She says that she called the tenant with a request for help finding a tenant for the downstairs and upstairs flat.
The landlord says that the tenant then stated that he could move in himself. The landlord says that initially she did not charge him rent.
The landlord states that she then asked the tenant to start paying rent. There was no written tenancy agreement. The landlord stated that she did not prepare a written agreement as she knew him.
I held a hearing with both parties present. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decide are these: a. Was there a binding agreement between the parties which would amount to a valid landlord - tenant relationship? b. Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? Statutory provisions
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.

Was there an implied tenancy agreement between the parties?

A tenancy agreement is a contract. The law of contract applies to tenancy agreements, together with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
It is possible for a tenancy agreement to have been reached even when a written tenancy agreement has not been signed. Although Section 13 of the RTA states that all tenancy agreements must be in writing and signed, Section 13C provides that no tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
In order to determine whether a contract (residential tenancy agreement) existed the following matters need to be considered: a. the making of an offer; b. the fact of acceptance of an offer so that an agreement has been reached; c. consideration; d. Intention to create legal relations; e. The requirement of certainty – whether the terms are sufficiently certain for the parties to be legally bound.
What matters is if the contract was sufficiently formed during the period of the tenancy. I need to be satisfied that the terms were sufficiently formed to create a binding contract.
The landlord confirms that they are now only seeking an order for payment of rent arrears of $22,660.00. The landlord provided a detailed rent ledger confirming rent payments made by the tenant along with the total outstanding rent debt. According to the rent ledger the rent obligation started on 1 January 2024. The rent payable was $350.00 per week. An email from the landlord to the Tribunal dated 3 November 2025 confirmed that this amount included water and power.
The tenant does not accept this claim.
He says that he does not owe any money to the landlord. He says the rent obligation is offset by the rent-free period for 6 months.
The tenant accepted that there were no set dates for the rent-free period.
The tenant maintains that he had a rent-free arrangement with the landlord but has not provided any written evidence of such an arrangement.
He says that the landlord would sometimes collect cash for rent which is not recorded on the rent ledger. He says that he also sourced tenants for the downstairs shop and that commission was offset against rent.
The tenant says that he received $8740.00 in commission. The landlord says that the tenant deducted 2 months’ rent from the amount owing for finding a tenant. This was done without the knowledge of the landlord.
The landlord says that rent and commission are two separate matters. The landlord served a 14-day breach notice on the tenant for unpaid rent dated 24 August 2025. The rent arrears were $22,950.00.
The landlord says that each week the rent was paid by bank transfer. The landlord also provided a handwritten note allegedly from the tenant dated 16 February 2025 with the following:
“From 1 March 2025 I pay normal rent plus $100.00 per week. When my situation improved I will increase the payments”.
Having carefully reviewed all the evidence in detail, including the landlord’s detailed rent ledger, and having heard the parties’ submissions at the hearing, I consider that there was a binding agreement.
I also find that the fact the tenant made rent payments amounts to an implied tenancy arrangement between the parties. The tenant has also failed to provide any evidence which confirms that there was an arrangement between the parties whereby any commission payable would be offset against an obligation to pay rent. In the absence of evidence confirming otherwise I find that the tenant’s submissions in respect of the rent obligation simply not plausible.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is established.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5350629 — Rent arrears at 449A Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5350629 — Rent arrears at 449A Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an implied tenancy agreement between the parties?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an implied tenancy agreement between the parties?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions