What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5378241 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 5378241?

Suppression Of The Landlords And Ten…: $1,017.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5378241?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5378241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13547993-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5378241 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 5378241?

Suppression Of The Landlords And Ten…: $1,017.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5378241?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5378241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13547993-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16 Black Shed Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5378241 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

16 Black Shed Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5378241 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5378241. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
suppression of the Landlords and Tenant’s names and identifying details. 2. [The applicant/s] are entitled to retain the	$1,017.75		suppression of the Landlords and Tenant’s names and identifying details. 2. [The applicant/s] are entitled to retain the

Claims and awards for application 5378241. Verify on MoJ.

suppression of the Landlords and Tenant’s names and identifying details. 2. [The applicant/s] are entitled to retain the

Amount: $1,017.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: suppression of the Landlords and Tenant’s names and identifying details. 2. [The applicant/s] are entitled to retain the

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords and Tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The applicant/s] are entitled to retain the bond of $1017.75.

Reasons

This hearing was scheduled to be held as a video conference. The tenant did not connect to the Teams link provided to her and nor did she ring in to the hearing as directed in the Notice of Hearing sent to her. When I called, the person who answered the phone hung up.
The hearing therefore proceeded in her absence.
This Order ought to be read together with the Tribunal’s Order dated 5 February 2026.
The landlord has made a claim seeking the retention of $1017.75 which was the remaining bond paid by the tenant. The landlords sought to retain this amount because they said that this was the amount paid for repairing the damages caused by the tenant during her tenancy.
At the last hearing, which the tenant attended, the tenant did not dispute that damage was caused during her tenancy and that she ought to pay for its repair. She disputed that the repairs cost $1017.75.
As outlined in the last Order, the tenant correctly pointed out the materials seem to have been bought after the work was done.
At today’s hearing I accepted the landlord’s explanation for this. The consumables/materials were in fact bought on 17 April 2025 but because it was Easter the payments did not show up on his bank account until 22 April 2025. The work was done on 18 April 2025.
Further, at today’s hearing we went through the purchases made and it was established that the landlord paid $122.37 for consumables/materials.
I also accepted that the $900.00 the landlord paid to Esconnect Ltd included not only payment for the work done ($718.75) but also an amount for consumables/materials that Esconnect Ltd also bought.
Having heard these explanations for the claim made, I am satisfied that the landlord is entitled to retain the $1017.75 retained in bond money and I have made that order accordingly.
Further to this, the landlords have applied for suppression of their names. I am allowing that application because they have been wholly successful with their claim against the tenant – see s95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
On my own initiative, and pursuant to s95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I am also ordering suppression of the tenant’s name. This is because the tenant correctly queried the amount being claimed for the repair of damage to the premises. The landlord’s claim was not at all clear and this hearing could have been avoided had the landlord provided the correct information. Even though the landlord was successful, I consider that the tenant should not be penalised for querying the amount, by having her name published. C ter Haar 05 May 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5378241. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
suppression of the Landlords and Tenant’s names and identifying details. 2. [The applicant/s] are entitled to retain the	$1,017.75		suppression of the Landlords and Tenant’s names and identifying details. 2. [The applicant/s] are entitled to retain the

Claims and awards for application 5378241. Verify on MoJ.

suppression of the Landlords and Tenant’s names and identifying details. 2. [The applicant/s] are entitled to retain the

Amount: $1,017.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: suppression of the Landlords and Tenant’s names and identifying details. 2. [The applicant/s] are entitled to retain the

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords and Tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The applicant/s] are entitled to retain the bond of $1017.75.

Reasons

This hearing was scheduled to be held as a video conference. The tenant did not connect to the Teams link provided to her and nor did she ring in to the hearing as directed in the Notice of Hearing sent to her. When I called, the person who answered the phone hung up.
The hearing therefore proceeded in her absence.
This Order ought to be read together with the Tribunal’s Order dated 5 February 2026.
The landlord has made a claim seeking the retention of $1017.75 which was the remaining bond paid by the tenant. The landlords sought to retain this amount because they said that this was the amount paid for repairing the damages caused by the tenant during her tenancy.
At the last hearing, which the tenant attended, the tenant did not dispute that damage was caused during her tenancy and that she ought to pay for its repair. She disputed that the repairs cost $1017.75.
As outlined in the last Order, the tenant correctly pointed out the materials seem to have been bought after the work was done.
At today’s hearing I accepted the landlord’s explanation for this. The consumables/materials were in fact bought on 17 April 2025 but because it was Easter the payments did not show up on his bank account until 22 April 2025. The work was done on 18 April 2025.
Further, at today’s hearing we went through the purchases made and it was established that the landlord paid $122.37 for consumables/materials.
I also accepted that the $900.00 the landlord paid to Esconnect Ltd included not only payment for the work done ($718.75) but also an amount for consumables/materials that Esconnect Ltd also bought.
Having heard these explanations for the claim made, I am satisfied that the landlord is entitled to retain the $1017.75 retained in bond money and I have made that order accordingly.
Further to this, the landlords have applied for suppression of their names. I am allowing that application because they have been wholly successful with their claim against the tenant – see s95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
On my own initiative, and pursuant to s95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I am also ordering suppression of the tenant’s name. This is because the tenant correctly queried the amount being claimed for the repair of damage to the premises. The landlord’s claim was not at all clear and this hearing could have been avoided had the landlord provided the correct information. Even though the landlord was successful, I consider that the tenant should not be penalised for querying the amount, by having her name published. C ter Haar 05 May 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5378241 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Black Shed Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5378241 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Black Shed Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions