What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379944 about?

The tribunal order states: Direct Property Management Limited is granted possession of the premises at

How much money was awarded in case 5379944?

Rent: $1,160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379944?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379944?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13004090-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379944 about?

The tribunal order states: Direct Property Management Limited is granted possession of the premises at

How much money was awarded in case 5379944?

Rent: $1,160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379944?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379944?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13004090-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

422 Great South Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379944 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379944 — net $1,160.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 5 January 2026	$1,160.00	Rent to 5 January 2026
Net award	$1,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,160.00

Order

Direct Property Management Limited is granted possession of the premises at 422 Great South Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113 as from midnight on Thursday 22 January 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,160.00 from the bond of $3,120.00 (BN- 00030305) to Direct Property Management Limited immediately.
The balance of the bond of $1,960.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

On 26 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order for payment of rent arrears. The Tribunal declined to make a conditional termination order but granted the landlord liberty to request a further hearing to reconsider termination if the rent arrears were not paid.
The landlord requested a further hearing on 10 December 2025 and sought to introduce several further claims, including “mesne profits” at twice the daily rate, loss of rent due to delay in commencement of the subsequent tenancy, water charges and cleaning costs. The original application was for rent arrears and access for inspections.
The landlord’s liberty to apply had a limited purpose. It did not permit the landlord to add to the application.
The issues which remain to be determined are the landlord’s application for termination/possession (an amendment permitted at the hearing on 26 November 2025) and the tenant’s liability for rent. The Tribunal heard from both parties by telephone on 22 January 2026. The hearing ended because the parties started arguing. Possession Order
The tenant has vacated, and the landlord has signed a tenancy agreement with a new tenant. It is evident that the tenancy has ended. The landlord is entitled to possession (or recognition that they have possession).
I make a possession order in favour of the landlord pursuant to section 64 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) backdated to midnight on 22 January 2026. Return of Keys
The landlord and tenant agreed to a fixed-term tenancy from 7 January 2025 to 7 January 2026 at a weekly rent of $780.00. The tenant gave notice to terminate the tenancy on 14 December 2025. She said their last day would be 4 January 2026. The tenant said that she left on that day and told the landlord’s colleague that the key had been left in the letterbox. The landlord says the keys were not there.
The tenant’s notice was not effective to terminate the tenancy but meant that the fixed-term tenancy did not become a periodic tenancy on expiry (section 60A of the Act).
The landlord claims rent to 22 January 2026 in the sum of $3,054.29. The landlord submits that the tenant was unlawfully in occupation of the premises from 4 January to 12 January 2026. The landlord says that rent arrears continue to accrue at twice the daily rate ($222.86) until the keys are returned. The landlord also claims loss of rent because the incoming tenancy (at $850.00 per week) could not start without possession.
The landlord has provided a copy of the tenancy agreement with the new tenant. It started on 6 January 2026 at $780.00 per week. The agreement was signed on 6 January 2026.
Tenants are under an obligation to return the keys to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. Tenants run the risk that the keys go missing if not returned directly to the landlord. The tenant may then be liable for the cost of changing the locks.
There seems to be a heightened level of disagreement between the tenant and the landlord. In the landlord’s request for a further hearing, for example, the landlord accused the tenant of not being honest and of lying to Work & Income. This creates difficulty when the Tribunal is essentially faced with conflicting claims from the parties about the return of the keys.
The landlord confirmed that the locks have not been changed. The landlord said they have not taken possession of the property, as the keys have not been returned and possession has not been clearly surrendered by the tenant. The landlord pointed out that entering the premises without a possession order would be unlawful. Accordingly, the landlord has not entered the property to prepare it for the incoming tenant.
The landlord explained that the new tenancy agreement was signed with a commencement date of 6 January 2026 because this was the date the property was expected to be returned by the outgoing tenant. The agreement was signed to enable Work & Income to process and pay the new tenant’s move-in costs and to mitigate potential rent loss. The landlord says the signing of a tenancy agreement prior to physical handover of keys is common practice and does not itself grant possession where vacant possession has not been provided.
It is, in my view, a little strange that the landlord signed a new tenancy agreement if they did not have possession of the premises at that point. Usually, the re-letting of premises is a good indication that the landlord has accepted a surrender of possession by the tenant.
The landlord would have known on 6 January 2026 - the date of signature - that the keys had not been returned. The tenancy was to start immediately, so it is unclear how the landlord was going to ensure the new tenant could move in. The landlord was under an obligation to provide vacant possession to the ingoing tenant from 6 January 2026 (Section 37 of the Act). Signing the tenancy agreement meant the landlord was immediately in breach of that requirement.
In an email to the Tribunal dated 10 December 2025, the landlord stated that they had used their “business income” to pay rent to the landlord. Screenshots of transactions were provided which show the following payments from “NZISS” with the details given as “K Puna” who is the incoming tenant: • $1,560.00 on 9 January 2026. • $780.00 on 9 January 2026. • $780.00 on 12 January 2026.
The landlord confirmed that the screenshots show payments made by Work & Income for the ingoing tenant’s move-in costs. The tenancy agreement specified move-in costs of $1,560.00 for advance rent and $3,120.00 for bond.
The available evidence does not support the landlord’s contention that they had to pay the rent to the owner themselves. Rather, it seems to show payments towards the advanced rent on behalf of the new tenants. It is difficult to see what loss the landlord has suffered if WINZ paid for the ingoing tenant’s rent from 6 January 2026.
Given these concerns, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord did not have possession of the premises from 5 January 2026. There are however rent arrears to 5 January 2026 in the sum of $1,060.00 according to the landlord’s rent summary, which are awarded. Filing Fee and Suppression
The filing fee has already been awarded to the landlord.
The landlord requested name suppression. The landlord has had some success but has not been “wholly or substantially” successful in the proceeding.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379944 — net $1,160.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 5 January 2026	$1,160.00	Rent to 5 January 2026
Net award	$1,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,160.00

Order

Direct Property Management Limited is granted possession of the premises at 422 Great South Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113 as from midnight on Thursday 22 January 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,160.00 from the bond of $3,120.00 (BN- 00030305) to Direct Property Management Limited immediately.
The balance of the bond of $1,960.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

On 26 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order for payment of rent arrears. The Tribunal declined to make a conditional termination order but granted the landlord liberty to request a further hearing to reconsider termination if the rent arrears were not paid.
The landlord requested a further hearing on 10 December 2025 and sought to introduce several further claims, including “mesne profits” at twice the daily rate, loss of rent due to delay in commencement of the subsequent tenancy, water charges and cleaning costs. The original application was for rent arrears and access for inspections.
The landlord’s liberty to apply had a limited purpose. It did not permit the landlord to add to the application.
The issues which remain to be determined are the landlord’s application for termination/possession (an amendment permitted at the hearing on 26 November 2025) and the tenant’s liability for rent. The Tribunal heard from both parties by telephone on 22 January 2026. The hearing ended because the parties started arguing. Possession Order
The tenant has vacated, and the landlord has signed a tenancy agreement with a new tenant. It is evident that the tenancy has ended. The landlord is entitled to possession (or recognition that they have possession).
I make a possession order in favour of the landlord pursuant to section 64 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) backdated to midnight on 22 January 2026. Return of Keys
The landlord and tenant agreed to a fixed-term tenancy from 7 January 2025 to 7 January 2026 at a weekly rent of $780.00. The tenant gave notice to terminate the tenancy on 14 December 2025. She said their last day would be 4 January 2026. The tenant said that she left on that day and told the landlord’s colleague that the key had been left in the letterbox. The landlord says the keys were not there.
The tenant’s notice was not effective to terminate the tenancy but meant that the fixed-term tenancy did not become a periodic tenancy on expiry (section 60A of the Act).
The landlord claims rent to 22 January 2026 in the sum of $3,054.29. The landlord submits that the tenant was unlawfully in occupation of the premises from 4 January to 12 January 2026. The landlord says that rent arrears continue to accrue at twice the daily rate ($222.86) until the keys are returned. The landlord also claims loss of rent because the incoming tenancy (at $850.00 per week) could not start without possession.
The landlord has provided a copy of the tenancy agreement with the new tenant. It started on 6 January 2026 at $780.00 per week. The agreement was signed on 6 January 2026.
Tenants are under an obligation to return the keys to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. Tenants run the risk that the keys go missing if not returned directly to the landlord. The tenant may then be liable for the cost of changing the locks.
There seems to be a heightened level of disagreement between the tenant and the landlord. In the landlord’s request for a further hearing, for example, the landlord accused the tenant of not being honest and of lying to Work & Income. This creates difficulty when the Tribunal is essentially faced with conflicting claims from the parties about the return of the keys.
The landlord confirmed that the locks have not been changed. The landlord said they have not taken possession of the property, as the keys have not been returned and possession has not been clearly surrendered by the tenant. The landlord pointed out that entering the premises without a possession order would be unlawful. Accordingly, the landlord has not entered the property to prepare it for the incoming tenant.
The landlord explained that the new tenancy agreement was signed with a commencement date of 6 January 2026 because this was the date the property was expected to be returned by the outgoing tenant. The agreement was signed to enable Work & Income to process and pay the new tenant’s move-in costs and to mitigate potential rent loss. The landlord says the signing of a tenancy agreement prior to physical handover of keys is common practice and does not itself grant possession where vacant possession has not been provided.
It is, in my view, a little strange that the landlord signed a new tenancy agreement if they did not have possession of the premises at that point. Usually, the re-letting of premises is a good indication that the landlord has accepted a surrender of possession by the tenant.
The landlord would have known on 6 January 2026 - the date of signature - that the keys had not been returned. The tenancy was to start immediately, so it is unclear how the landlord was going to ensure the new tenant could move in. The landlord was under an obligation to provide vacant possession to the ingoing tenant from 6 January 2026 (Section 37 of the Act). Signing the tenancy agreement meant the landlord was immediately in breach of that requirement.
In an email to the Tribunal dated 10 December 2025, the landlord stated that they had used their “business income” to pay rent to the landlord. Screenshots of transactions were provided which show the following payments from “NZISS” with the details given as “K Puna” who is the incoming tenant: • $1,560.00 on 9 January 2026. • $780.00 on 9 January 2026. • $780.00 on 12 January 2026.
The landlord confirmed that the screenshots show payments made by Work & Income for the ingoing tenant’s move-in costs. The tenancy agreement specified move-in costs of $1,560.00 for advance rent and $3,120.00 for bond.
The available evidence does not support the landlord’s contention that they had to pay the rent to the owner themselves. Rather, it seems to show payments towards the advanced rent on behalf of the new tenants. It is difficult to see what loss the landlord has suffered if WINZ paid for the ingoing tenant’s rent from 6 January 2026.
Given these concerns, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord did not have possession of the premises from 5 January 2026. There are however rent arrears to 5 January 2026 in the sum of $1,060.00 according to the landlord’s rent summary, which are awarded. Filing Fee and Suppression
The filing fee has already been awarded to the landlord.
The landlord requested name suppression. The landlord has had some success but has not been “wholly or substantially” successful in the proceeding.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379944 — Tenancy dispute at 422 Great South Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379944 — Tenancy dispute at 422 Great South Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions