How much money was awarded in case 5373345?

Rent Arrears: $4,875.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5373345?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5373345?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12969931-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5373345?

Rent Arrears: $4,875.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5373345?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5373345?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12969931-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5373345 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5373345 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5373345 — net $3,875.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,875.00	Rent arrears
Net award	$3,875.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,875.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Anton Matthews and Jessica Matthews $3,875.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Anton Matthews and Jessica Matthews immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended remote hearings over three dates, 7 October 2025, 19 November 2025 and 14 January 2026.

The tenancy commenced on 13 May 2023 and ended on 14 September 2025.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and release of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for release of the bond, exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, a set off for any rent owing due to work carried out by the tenant and reimbursement of the filing fee. The Law

The relevant law applying to this matter is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant (in this case both the landlord and tenant), establish their respective claims on the balance of probabilities. The obligation is on the landlord to prove their claims and on the tenant to prove his claims.

Claims must be proven on the balance of probabilities. The “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely than not. This obligation carried by the tenant 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 (DC) TT 233/02, in practical terms this means that; “Like 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 parties provided extensive documentation to the Tribunal. Further time was given to the tenant to provide supporting evidence of the payments made and the work carried out. Not all of that evidence is referred to in this decision; however, the parties are assured that all evidence has been considered.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy ended on 14 September 2025.

The landlord provided rent records for the period of the tenancy.

The landlord accepts that a payment made by the tenant on 6 August 2025 for $375.00 has been overlooked. The balance claimed by the landlord for rent arrears once that overlooked sum is taken into account, is $4,875.00.

The rent summary includes a cash payment to the landlord of $2,000.00 on 10 October 2024.

The rent summary includes a payment from MSD to the landlord of $1,500.00 on 3 February 2025.

The rent summary includes a payment of $750.00 on 19 August 2025.

The rent summary includes a credit for gardening carried out by the tenant of $1,500.00 in March 2025.The landlord’s evidence was that it was made clear to the tenant that no further gardening work should be carried out by the tenant after that time in the expectation of it being credited against any rent.

The tenant relies in part on bank statement provided to the Tribunal. I have gone through the bank statements in detail. They accord with the landlord’s rent summary, with the exception of the 6 August 2025 payment.

The tenant said that further payments had been made which are not included in the rent summary. In particular, the tenant referred to payments on 13 August 2025 of $600.00 and 25 July 2025 of $750.00. No documentary evidence was provided by the tenant to support this proposition.

The tenant said that further work had been done to the landlord’s premises and that he had not received a credit for that work. The amount claimed for this further work in the tenant’s application is $2,338.00.

I accept that the further work claimed for by the tenant was done. It was in my view done against the express wishes of the landlord.

Had there been uncertainty as to the terms of the contract to carry out further work, I would have considered that the principal of quantum meruit applied. That principal can be used where there is a claim for the reasonable services provided. The tenant would need to show that the landlord expressly or impliedly accepted the services. The principal can be used where the parties have agreed that certain work is to be carried out but may not have agreed upon a price.

The burden of providing the tenant’s claim to a credit is on the tenant. He must prove that it is more likely than not that the landlord agreed to the work being carried out.

In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the landlord. The landlord has made it abundantly clear in correspondence with the tenant and in discussions that no further work was to be carried out. The tenant’s evidence on this issue was vague and unclear. The tenant’s claim for a further credit is dismissed.

The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond was withdrawn during the course of the hearing.

The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the tenant’s application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed,

Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the landlords’ names and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5373345 — net $3,875.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,875.00	Rent arrears
Net award	$3,875.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,875.00