What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371742 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5371742?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371742?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13057166-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371742 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5371742?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371742?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13057166-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Iris Grove, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371742 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by video and the tenant attended by telephone.
The landlord claimed for rent arrears, compensation for window replacement, wall repair, stove replacement and in relation to the installation of insulation.
The tenancy commenced on 20 January 2020. The landlord said that the tenancy ended on 23 September 2025, but the tenant said that it ended on 17 September 2025.
The landlord sold the property in September 2025. The tenant produced a letter received from the landlord’s lawyer dated 17 September 2025 confirming that the property had been sold that day, providing the name of the new owner and advising the tenant to now arrange to pay rent to the new owner. This evidence supports the tenancy ending on 17 September 2025.
The letter from the landlord’s lawyer failed to mention that rent arrears were owed on the date of sale and needed to be paid to the landlord. It was agreed at the hearing that the rent arrears owed at the end of the tenancy (on 17 September 2025) was $2,600.00. Unfortunately, the tenant paid the rent arrears owed to this landlord to the new owner (landlord).
The tenant produced screenshots from his bank account showing five payments of $1,000.00 and one payment of $600.00 between 23 September 2025 and 23 October 2025. The tenant says that the extra payments are to clear the rent arrears. It is not clear whether the extra payment is for rent arrears or the bond for the new tenancy.
The new landlord should account to this landlord for any arrears paid to them that relate to the period before they became landlord. As the new landlord is not a party to these proceedings and claims between landlords is outside the jurisdiction, the Tribunal is unable to make any order requiring the new landlord to pay this landlord.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears against this tenant is dismissed. Stove replacement
The landlord claims $650.00 being the cost of replacing the stove. At the hearing the landlord said that the new landlord complained about the condition of the stove. The landlord said that the stove was less than five years old but did not produce any evidence to confirm this.
The tenant said that the oven was working but the thermostat for some of the elements was not working which meant they were always on maximum temperature. The tenant said that the thermostat needed to be changed.
The landlord said that the stove was not working because of careless use by the tenant. There was no evidence to support this.
The landlord produced a photograph showing that the stove was dirty, but there was no evidence of when the photograph was taken or that the dirty condition contributed to the stove not working.
As there is no evidence that the tenant damaged the stove the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Wall hole
The landlord claims $494.50 for repair of a wall hole in the toilet. While the landlord produced an invoice, he did not produce any photographs of the damage.
At the hearing the tenant said that the wall hole was caused due to the absence of a door stop. The invoice states that “door stop installed to prevent another hole.”
Without a photograph it is not possible to determine the degree of damage. It is not clear the tenant was careless, and it is generally expected that landlords will install door stops where necessary to prevent doors swinging into walls.
Due to the lack of evidence the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Window repair
The landlord claims $350.00 to repair a window. The landlord did not provide any photographs of the broken window but at the hearing he said that the window was cracked.
No evidence was produced in relation to when or how the crack occurred (e.g., accident, vandalism, weather, or unknown cause). If the cause is unknown there is no evidence of tenant fault and therefore the landlord is responsible for the repair.
The landlord’s claim in relation to the window repair is dismissed. Underfloor insulation
The landlord claims $690.00 from the tenant due to issues with the underfloor insulation.
In May or June 2020, the landlord asked the tenant to install underfloor insulation at the premises. The landlord agreed to rent relief of $690.00 in consideration of the tenant carrying out this task.
At the hearing the tenant said that the landlord did not provide any fixings and acknowledged that he is not a professional insulation installer. The landlord said that he did provide the tenant with fixings but did not provide evidence of this to the Tribunal.
Five years after the insulation was installed the landlord says that the insulation was not installed correctly and seeks the return of the rent relief. The landlord produced a photograph of the underfloor insulation showing some gaps and some of the insulation falling out.
The landlord gave rent relief for the tenant to install insulation and accepted the work at the time. Five years later there is no evidence that the tenant failed to do what was agreed or misrepresented the work or that the landlord suffered a loss.
The landlord’s claim for refund of the rent relief in relation to insulation installation is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by video and the tenant attended by telephone.
The landlord claimed for rent arrears, compensation for window replacement, wall repair, stove replacement and in relation to the installation of insulation.
The tenancy commenced on 20 January 2020. The landlord said that the tenancy ended on 23 September 2025, but the tenant said that it ended on 17 September 2025.
The landlord sold the property in September 2025. The tenant produced a letter received from the landlord’s lawyer dated 17 September 2025 confirming that the property had been sold that day, providing the name of the new owner and advising the tenant to now arrange to pay rent to the new owner. This evidence supports the tenancy ending on 17 September 2025.
The letter from the landlord’s lawyer failed to mention that rent arrears were owed on the date of sale and needed to be paid to the landlord. It was agreed at the hearing that the rent arrears owed at the end of the tenancy (on 17 September 2025) was $2,600.00. Unfortunately, the tenant paid the rent arrears owed to this landlord to the new owner (landlord).
The tenant produced screenshots from his bank account showing five payments of $1,000.00 and one payment of $600.00 between 23 September 2025 and 23 October 2025. The tenant says that the extra payments are to clear the rent arrears. It is not clear whether the extra payment is for rent arrears or the bond for the new tenancy.
The new landlord should account to this landlord for any arrears paid to them that relate to the period before they became landlord. As the new landlord is not a party to these proceedings and claims between landlords is outside the jurisdiction, the Tribunal is unable to make any order requiring the new landlord to pay this landlord.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears against this tenant is dismissed. Stove replacement
The landlord claims $650.00 being the cost of replacing the stove. At the hearing the landlord said that the new landlord complained about the condition of the stove. The landlord said that the stove was less than five years old but did not produce any evidence to confirm this.
The tenant said that the oven was working but the thermostat for some of the elements was not working which meant they were always on maximum temperature. The tenant said that the thermostat needed to be changed.
The landlord said that the stove was not working because of careless use by the tenant. There was no evidence to support this.
The landlord produced a photograph showing that the stove was dirty, but there was no evidence of when the photograph was taken or that the dirty condition contributed to the stove not working.
As there is no evidence that the tenant damaged the stove the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Wall hole
The landlord claims $494.50 for repair of a wall hole in the toilet. While the landlord produced an invoice, he did not produce any photographs of the damage.
At the hearing the tenant said that the wall hole was caused due to the absence of a door stop. The invoice states that “door stop installed to prevent another hole.”
Without a photograph it is not possible to determine the degree of damage. It is not clear the tenant was careless, and it is generally expected that landlords will install door stops where necessary to prevent doors swinging into walls.
Due to the lack of evidence the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Window repair
The landlord claims $350.00 to repair a window. The landlord did not provide any photographs of the broken window but at the hearing he said that the window was cracked.
No evidence was produced in relation to when or how the crack occurred (e.g., accident, vandalism, weather, or unknown cause). If the cause is unknown there is no evidence of tenant fault and therefore the landlord is responsible for the repair.
The landlord’s claim in relation to the window repair is dismissed. Underfloor insulation
The landlord claims $690.00 from the tenant due to issues with the underfloor insulation.
In May or June 2020, the landlord asked the tenant to install underfloor insulation at the premises. The landlord agreed to rent relief of $690.00 in consideration of the tenant carrying out this task.
At the hearing the tenant said that the landlord did not provide any fixings and acknowledged that he is not a professional insulation installer. The landlord said that he did provide the tenant with fixings but did not provide evidence of this to the Tribunal.
Five years after the insulation was installed the landlord says that the insulation was not installed correctly and seeks the return of the rent relief. The landlord produced a photograph of the underfloor insulation showing some gaps and some of the insulation falling out.
The landlord gave rent relief for the tenant to install insulation and accepted the work at the time. Five years later there is no evidence that the tenant failed to do what was agreed or misrepresented the work or that the landlord suffered a loss.
The landlord’s claim for refund of the rent relief in relation to insulation installation is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371742 — Rent arrears at 6 Iris Grove, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371742 — Rent arrears at 6 Iris Grove, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions