What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366604 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 (BN-00060602) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5366604?

Compensation: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Gas: $491.46 awarded to landlord; House Moving: $540.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $177.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $792.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366604?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366604?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12741573-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366604 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 (BN-00060602) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5366604?

Compensation: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Gas: $491.46 awarded to landlord; House Moving: $540.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $177.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $792.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366604?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366604?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12741573-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Tetekura Street, Takanini, Takanini 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5366604 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366604 — net $1,402.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates arrears to 21/08/2025	$792.72		Water rates arrears to 21/08/2025
House Moving	$540.50		House Moving
Gas	$491.46		Gas
Lock repair	$177.50		Lock repair
Compensation		$600.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,002.18	$600.00
Net award	$1,402.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,402.18

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 (BN-00060602) immediately apportioned in the table below:
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tenancy Tribunal on 29 August 2025.
The applicant seeks the following amounts in vacated costs: a) $792.72 for outstanding water rates to at 21 August 2025; b) $540.50 for house-moving expenses incurred when the applicant arranged and facilitated the tenants’ relocation to an alternative property; c) $491.46 for unpaid gas charges; and d) $177.50 for the repair of a damaged door lock.
I heard the landlord’s application on 5 November 2025. At that hearing, the tenant asserted that the Tribunal’s online system rejected her attempted cross- application, that she did not receive the relevant case file, and that she holds evidence of a $4,800.00 credit owed by the property management company (the applicant).
To allow the tenant the opportunity to file her cross-application and provide supporting evidence for the claims she made, I adjourned the matter. The hearing resumed today.
On each of the claims today the tenant has asked me to reject the landlords claims on technicalities and has not provided any evidence of the claims which were used to justify the adjournment.
The bigger picture here is that the tribunal terminated the tenancy due to anti- social behaviour. The landlord then facilitated a new tenancy to assist the tenants. There have been shortcomings on their part in terms of clarity, record keeping and the management of invoices which I have dealt with in the substance of my decision however, Section 85 RTA states that the Tribunal must act in a way that is fair, just, and make decisions according to the substantial merits of the case, and instructs it not to be bound by technicalities, legal forms, or rules of evidence.
The Tribunal’s role is to resolve disputes in a way that is accessible, informal, and focused on the real issues between the parties. The burden of Proof:
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 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 by the District Court 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.

Is the tenant liable for the water rates arrears?

The applicant has provided water-rates records showing the amounts owing to the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that these records are accurate.
The tenant submits that she was unable to pay the water rates because she was only issued an invoice and not provided the original water-rates bill. At the hearing, the landlord denied this and stated that both the invoice and the original bill had been sent. However, when I directed the landlord to provide screenshots, those screenshots confirmed that only the invoice had been sent.
The tenant also asserts that she requested the original bill on multiple occasions. I asked her several times to provide evidence of those requests, but she provided none. I do not accept that the absence of the original water-rates bill prevented her from paying the amount due, nor do I accept that it absolves her from liability for the water she used and owes. Ultimately she was invoiced and was made aware of what she owed even if the landlord could and should have provided more complete information.
The amount sought for water is therefore awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the gas bill?

The landlord seeks $491.46 for an unpaid gas bill. The tenant argues that she should not be liable for this charge because she made upfront payments for utilities and these should have applied those payments to the gas account.
However, the evidence shows that the landlord refunded the tenant for all amounts she paid towards these bills. I see no basis on which the landlord should be penalised for refunding this amount when it was in dispute when it could have reasonably been allocated towards this charge.
The tenants are liable for the gas they used, and the amount sought is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the lock repairs?

The landlord seeks $177.50 for damage allegedly caused to the door lock. The tenants deny causing any damage and say the lock simply required a battery replacement. However, the locksmith’s invoice records that the lock had been damaged and required realignment.
I accept the contents of the invoice and find that the lock was damaged in a manner requiring repair. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the tenants carelessly or intentionally caused this damage.
The amount sought is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the Moving costs?

The claim for house-moving charges relates to the end of the tenancy. The landlord had obtained a Tribunal order terminating the tenancy for antisocial behaviour. Despite this, the landlord, out of sympathy for the tenants situation, offered them an alternative property. That property was not available for approximately one week because the outgoing tenant in that property had delayed their move.
The tenants say they incurred loss because they had hired a moving truck and were unable to relocate when planned. The landlord submits that they were simply trying to assist the tenants in difficult circumstances.
The delay in the new property becoming available was not caused by the property manager, and any arrangement relating to that new tenancy constitutes a separate contractual matter. For that reason, I cannot award costs in relation to the tenants’ losses arising from the delayed availability of the new property. Ultimately it was their responsibility to comply with the tribunal order terminating the tenancy and to remove their belongings from the property when the tenancy ended.
I accept, and the tenants do not deny, that there was an agreement that the landlord would assist with transporting the tenants’ belongings to the new property at the tenants’ cost, and that the landlord facilitated this move.

Is any compensation due to the tenant?

When the tenancy commenced, the parties agreed that the tenant would make payments, in addition to her rent, to cover utilities and gas charges, and that the landlord would pay those bills on her behalf. The intention appears to have been to ensure that these costs were kept up to date. However, this arrangement did not eventuate because the tenant opened the utility accounts in her own name and the landlord has a policy to only pay invoices made out to them or the owner they work for.
At the end of the tenancy, all payments the tenant made were recorded in the rent summary. The tenant disputes this, but she has provided me with no evidence to the contrary. She has asserted it is incorrect and provided explanations of why she thinks so. These explanations reflect a lack of understanding about how a rent summary is presented and calculated rather than inaccuracies in its content. The tenant has asked me to manually recalculate all amounts in the rent summary however there is no evidence that this is required and it is not for the tribunal to investigate claims, it is the responsibility of the applicant to present and prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.
At the conclusion of the tenancy, the rent summary shows a rent credit of $2,722.86, which was refunded to the tenants. There is no dispute that this refund was made.
There is one payment on the rent summary in dispute. On 1 April 2025, a deduction of $900.00 was made from the rent account, followed by a credit of $600.00. The landlord informed that $900.00 was deducted from the rent summary, and credited as follows: $300.00 to the invoice summary (which is reflected there), and the remaining $600.00 was then credited back to the rent summary. While there is indeed a $600.00 credit shown on the rent summary, it is very messy and I cannot be confident that the $600.00 here was a re credit rather than an additional tenant payment.
The landlord has acted transparently and in good faith. They have, however, let themselves down in relation to the payment and management of the utility bills. Although this was not done intentionally, the bills were not handled proactively and were mismanaged. Ultimately that has been a significant contributor to this dispute.
This reflects poorly on the landlord’s administration. In addition, the records show a discrepancy concerning the $900.00 deduction and how much was credited to the invoice summary. For these

Reasons

, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord’s explanation regarding the deduction of $900.00 and the subsequent crediting of $600.00 back to the rent summary is reliable.

To bring these matters to a fair conclusion the landlord must bear the cost of this lack of clarity. I award $600.00 in compensation to the tenant, set off against the awards made above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366604 — net $1,402.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates arrears to 21/08/2025	$792.72		Water rates arrears to 21/08/2025
House Moving	$540.50		House Moving
Gas	$491.46		Gas
Lock repair	$177.50		Lock repair
Compensation		$600.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,002.18	$600.00
Net award	$1,402.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,402.18

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 (BN-00060602) immediately apportioned in the table below:
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tenancy Tribunal on 29 August 2025.
The applicant seeks the following amounts in vacated costs: a) $792.72 for outstanding water rates to at 21 August 2025; b) $540.50 for house-moving expenses incurred when the applicant arranged and facilitated the tenants’ relocation to an alternative property; c) $491.46 for unpaid gas charges; and d) $177.50 for the repair of a damaged door lock.
I heard the landlord’s application on 5 November 2025. At that hearing, the tenant asserted that the Tribunal’s online system rejected her attempted cross- application, that she did not receive the relevant case file, and that she holds evidence of a $4,800.00 credit owed by the property management company (the applicant).
To allow the tenant the opportunity to file her cross-application and provide supporting evidence for the claims she made, I adjourned the matter. The hearing resumed today.
On each of the claims today the tenant has asked me to reject the landlords claims on technicalities and has not provided any evidence of the claims which were used to justify the adjournment.
The bigger picture here is that the tribunal terminated the tenancy due to anti- social behaviour. The landlord then facilitated a new tenancy to assist the tenants. There have been shortcomings on their part in terms of clarity, record keeping and the management of invoices which I have dealt with in the substance of my decision however, Section 85 RTA states that the Tribunal must act in a way that is fair, just, and make decisions according to the substantial merits of the case, and instructs it not to be bound by technicalities, legal forms, or rules of evidence.
The Tribunal’s role is to resolve disputes in a way that is accessible, informal, and focused on the real issues between the parties. The burden of Proof:
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 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 by the District Court 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.

Is the tenant liable for the water rates arrears?

The applicant has provided water-rates records showing the amounts owing to the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that these records are accurate.
The tenant submits that she was unable to pay the water rates because she was only issued an invoice and not provided the original water-rates bill. At the hearing, the landlord denied this and stated that both the invoice and the original bill had been sent. However, when I directed the landlord to provide screenshots, those screenshots confirmed that only the invoice had been sent.
The tenant also asserts that she requested the original bill on multiple occasions. I asked her several times to provide evidence of those requests, but she provided none. I do not accept that the absence of the original water-rates bill prevented her from paying the amount due, nor do I accept that it absolves her from liability for the water she used and owes. Ultimately she was invoiced and was made aware of what she owed even if the landlord could and should have provided more complete information.
The amount sought for water is therefore awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the gas bill?

The landlord seeks $491.46 for an unpaid gas bill. The tenant argues that she should not be liable for this charge because she made upfront payments for utilities and these should have applied those payments to the gas account.
However, the evidence shows that the landlord refunded the tenant for all amounts she paid towards these bills. I see no basis on which the landlord should be penalised for refunding this amount when it was in dispute when it could have reasonably been allocated towards this charge.
The tenants are liable for the gas they used, and the amount sought is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the lock repairs?

The landlord seeks $177.50 for damage allegedly caused to the door lock. The tenants deny causing any damage and say the lock simply required a battery replacement. However, the locksmith’s invoice records that the lock had been damaged and required realignment.
I accept the contents of the invoice and find that the lock was damaged in a manner requiring repair. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the tenants carelessly or intentionally caused this damage.
The amount sought is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the Moving costs?

The claim for house-moving charges relates to the end of the tenancy. The landlord had obtained a Tribunal order terminating the tenancy for antisocial behaviour. Despite this, the landlord, out of sympathy for the tenants situation, offered them an alternative property. That property was not available for approximately one week because the outgoing tenant in that property had delayed their move.
The tenants say they incurred loss because they had hired a moving truck and were unable to relocate when planned. The landlord submits that they were simply trying to assist the tenants in difficult circumstances.
The delay in the new property becoming available was not caused by the property manager, and any arrangement relating to that new tenancy constitutes a separate contractual matter. For that reason, I cannot award costs in relation to the tenants’ losses arising from the delayed availability of the new property. Ultimately it was their responsibility to comply with the tribunal order terminating the tenancy and to remove their belongings from the property when the tenancy ended.
I accept, and the tenants do not deny, that there was an agreement that the landlord would assist with transporting the tenants’ belongings to the new property at the tenants’ cost, and that the landlord facilitated this move.

Is any compensation due to the tenant?

When the tenancy commenced, the parties agreed that the tenant would make payments, in addition to her rent, to cover utilities and gas charges, and that the landlord would pay those bills on her behalf. The intention appears to have been to ensure that these costs were kept up to date. However, this arrangement did not eventuate because the tenant opened the utility accounts in her own name and the landlord has a policy to only pay invoices made out to them or the owner they work for.
At the end of the tenancy, all payments the tenant made were recorded in the rent summary. The tenant disputes this, but she has provided me with no evidence to the contrary. She has asserted it is incorrect and provided explanations of why she thinks so. These explanations reflect a lack of understanding about how a rent summary is presented and calculated rather than inaccuracies in its content. The tenant has asked me to manually recalculate all amounts in the rent summary however there is no evidence that this is required and it is not for the tribunal to investigate claims, it is the responsibility of the applicant to present and prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.
At the conclusion of the tenancy, the rent summary shows a rent credit of $2,722.86, which was refunded to the tenants. There is no dispute that this refund was made.
There is one payment on the rent summary in dispute. On 1 April 2025, a deduction of $900.00 was made from the rent account, followed by a credit of $600.00. The landlord informed that $900.00 was deducted from the rent summary, and credited as follows: $300.00 to the invoice summary (which is reflected there), and the remaining $600.00 was then credited back to the rent summary. While there is indeed a $600.00 credit shown on the rent summary, it is very messy and I cannot be confident that the $600.00 here was a re credit rather than an additional tenant payment.
The landlord has acted transparently and in good faith. They have, however, let themselves down in relation to the payment and management of the utility bills. Although this was not done intentionally, the bills were not handled proactively and were mismanaged. Ultimately that has been a significant contributor to this dispute.
This reflects poorly on the landlord’s administration. In addition, the records show a discrepancy concerning the $900.00 deduction and how much was credited to the invoice summary. For these

Reasons

, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord’s explanation regarding the deduction of $900.00 and the subsequent crediting of $600.00 back to the rent summary is reliable.

To bring these matters to a fair conclusion the landlord must bear the cost of this lack of clarity. I award $600.00 in compensation to the tenant, set off against the awards made above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366604 — Property damage at 14 Tetekura Street, Takanini, Takanini 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366604 — Property damage at 14 Tetekura Street, Takanini, Takanini 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the tenant liable for the water rates arrears?

Is the tenant liable for the gas bill?

Is the tenant liable for the lock repairs?

Is the tenant liable for the Moving costs?

Is any compensation due to the tenant?

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the tenant liable for the water rates arrears?

Is the tenant liable for the gas bill?

Is the tenant liable for the lock repairs?

Is the tenant liable for the Moving costs?

Is any compensation due to the tenant?

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.