What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5380842?

The tribunal order states: Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh must pay Ryan Kaito Semmens and Patricia

How much money was awarded in case 5380842?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,107.50 awarded to landlord; Trade Me Listing Fee: $279.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380842?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380842?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13636557-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5380842?

The tribunal order states: Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh must pay Ryan Kaito Semmens and Patricia

How much money was awarded in case 5380842?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,107.50 awarded to landlord; Trade Me Listing Fee: $279.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380842?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380842?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13636557-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

107A Furness Road, RD 3, Kerikeri 0293 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380842 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380842 — net $94.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 November 2025	$2,107.50	The claim for rent arrears is proven. Cleaning and rubbish removal
Trade Me listing fee	$279.00	Trade Me listing fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$94.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$94.50

Order

Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh must pay Ryan Kaito Semmens and Patricia Daniells $94.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (BN-00158820) to Patricia Daniells immediately.

Reasons

Background

Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh entered into a 6-month fixed term tenancy for the premises at 107A Furness Road, commending on 4 October 2025.
They paid the bond and one week’s rent in advance.
Immediately after moving in, there was an issue with water supply to the property, which is discussed in more detail below.
The tenants did not make any more rent payments.
The landlord filed this application on 4 November 2025 seeking termination of the tenancy.
A Tenancy Tribunal hearing took place by phone on 30 January 2026. The hearing was adjourned so that an interpreter could be arranged for the tenants and so that the landlord could clarify what she is seeking in her claim.
On 5 February Ms Daniells sent a written statement to the Tribunal stating that she is seeking rent arrears to 7 November 2025 ($2,107.50), cleaning and rubbish removal (costs to be confirmed) and the cost of Trade Me advertising to re-let the premises ($279.00).
The second hearing took place in Kaikohe on 22 May 2026. Both parties participated in the hearing. Water The issue
The property is on tank water, not mains supply.
Ms Daniells said that she checked the water tank level immediately before the start of the tenancy and it was three-quarters full.
The day after the tenants moved in, she was informed (by the neighbouring tenant, who shares the same water source) that there was no water. She investigated and found that the input pipe had been removed and the pump was switched off.
She reinstated the tank and immediately provided the tenants with a 2,000 litre container of water.
She then ‘topped’ the tank, using water from other tanks that she has around the property. She also arranged for a tanker delivery of water.
Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh said that: a. There was no water supply when they moved in. b. Ms Daniells provided a 2000 litre container, but that did not last long. c. The only other water that Ms Daniells supplied was a tanker delivery. They also arranged for a tanker delivery themselves. d. Ms Daniells did not tell them that the property was not on mains water supply. The law
Tenanted premises do not have to be on a mains water supply. It is very common for rural properties in New Zealand to be on tank supply.
If a property is on tank supply, the landlord must ensure that the property has adequate means for the collection and storage of water. This means that: a. The rainwater collection system (guttering, downpipes, etc) must be in good working order. b. The tank must be sufficient size to hold enough water to supply the household. c. The system must have filtration that ensures that the water is safe to drink. My findings
The evidence available to me does not show that the property didn’t have adequate means for the collection and storage of water. The property has a large roof area for harvesting rainwater. The tank is large enough to service the two properties that it supplies. There is a pump and filtration, including UV filtration.
The loss of water soon after the tenants moved in was not due to the tank running dry because of normal use of household water. Something happened to the tank that caused all of the water to drain out. Ms Daniells suggested that the tank was intentionally sabotaged. There is no evidence to prove or disprove that allegation.
Ms Daniells responded by providing 2000 litre container for the tenants to use.
Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh deny Ms Daniells’ statement that she also provided water from other tanks around the property. There is no evidence to show whether these top ups did, or did not, happen.
Ms Daniells paid for a tanker delivery of water.
Ms Daniells said that the tenants did not want to use the tank water.
Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh said that they sent Ms Daniells many text messages about being completely out of water during the tenancy. However, no such messages were provided to the Tribunal.
My finding is that it is not proven that the landlord failed to meet any legal duty. The sudden loss of water in the first or second day of this tenancy was not due to any failure by the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, or a failure to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water. Ms Daniells responded to the sudden loss of water promptly and appropriately. There is no evidence that Ms Daniells failed or refused to provide water during the tenancy. Rent
Ms Daniells agreed to release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy. There was a lack of clarity around when the tenants actually vacated.
In a fixed term tenancy, the tenants remain liable for rent to the end of the fixed term or to the date that a new tenancy is entered into.
I am satisfied Ms Daniells got back possession of the premises on or after 7 November 2025, which is the date that she is seeking rent arrears to.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Cleaning and rubbish removal
Ms Daniells provided a handful of photographs, taken several weeks after the end of the tenancy.
Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh said that the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy was similar to the condition at the start, and that the rubbish shown in Ms Daniells’ photographs was not theirs.
There is no entry inspection report.
The claim for cleaning and rubbish removal is not proven. Trade Me listing cost
As noted above, this was a 6-month fixed term tenancy. The landlord released the tenants after six weeks.
The landlord then sought to re-let the premises.
I agree that this was an appropriate and necessary step by the landlord to mitigate the loss. The landlord is entitled to recover the Trade Me listing cost. The cost was a direct consequence of the tenants’ failure to remain in the fixed term tenancy.
Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh did not dispute this cost, but they asked the Tribunal to take into account “harassment” that they say that they received from Ms Daniells.
I acknowledge that this short tenancy was difficult and stressful for both parties. However, I can only determine disputes on the basis of evidence that his available to me. There is no evidence in support of the allegation that Ms Daniells harassed the tenants. Bond, filing fee
The landlord has been partially successful in this application, and I will award the landlord the filing fee. 1
The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380842 — net $94.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 November 2025	$2,107.50	The claim for rent arrears is proven. Cleaning and rubbish removal
Trade Me listing fee	$279.00	Trade Me listing fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$94.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$94.50

Order

Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh must pay Ryan Kaito Semmens and Patricia Daniells $94.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (BN-00158820) to Patricia Daniells immediately.

Reasons

Background

Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh entered into a 6-month fixed term tenancy for the premises at 107A Furness Road, commending on 4 October 2025.
They paid the bond and one week’s rent in advance.
Immediately after moving in, there was an issue with water supply to the property, which is discussed in more detail below.
The tenants did not make any more rent payments.
The landlord filed this application on 4 November 2025 seeking termination of the tenancy.
A Tenancy Tribunal hearing took place by phone on 30 January 2026. The hearing was adjourned so that an interpreter could be arranged for the tenants and so that the landlord could clarify what she is seeking in her claim.
On 5 February Ms Daniells sent a written statement to the Tribunal stating that she is seeking rent arrears to 7 November 2025 ($2,107.50), cleaning and rubbish removal (costs to be confirmed) and the cost of Trade Me advertising to re-let the premises ($279.00).
The second hearing took place in Kaikohe on 22 May 2026. Both parties participated in the hearing. Water The issue
The property is on tank water, not mains supply.
Ms Daniells said that she checked the water tank level immediately before the start of the tenancy and it was three-quarters full.
The day after the tenants moved in, she was informed (by the neighbouring tenant, who shares the same water source) that there was no water. She investigated and found that the input pipe had been removed and the pump was switched off.
She reinstated the tank and immediately provided the tenants with a 2,000 litre container of water.
She then ‘topped’ the tank, using water from other tanks that she has around the property. She also arranged for a tanker delivery of water.
Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh said that: a. There was no water supply when they moved in. b. Ms Daniells provided a 2000 litre container, but that did not last long. c. The only other water that Ms Daniells supplied was a tanker delivery. They also arranged for a tanker delivery themselves. d. Ms Daniells did not tell them that the property was not on mains water supply. The law
Tenanted premises do not have to be on a mains water supply. It is very common for rural properties in New Zealand to be on tank supply.
If a property is on tank supply, the landlord must ensure that the property has adequate means for the collection and storage of water. This means that: a. The rainwater collection system (guttering, downpipes, etc) must be in good working order. b. The tank must be sufficient size to hold enough water to supply the household. c. The system must have filtration that ensures that the water is safe to drink. My findings
The evidence available to me does not show that the property didn’t have adequate means for the collection and storage of water. The property has a large roof area for harvesting rainwater. The tank is large enough to service the two properties that it supplies. There is a pump and filtration, including UV filtration.
The loss of water soon after the tenants moved in was not due to the tank running dry because of normal use of household water. Something happened to the tank that caused all of the water to drain out. Ms Daniells suggested that the tank was intentionally sabotaged. There is no evidence to prove or disprove that allegation.
Ms Daniells responded by providing 2000 litre container for the tenants to use.
Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh deny Ms Daniells’ statement that she also provided water from other tanks around the property. There is no evidence to show whether these top ups did, or did not, happen.
Ms Daniells paid for a tanker delivery of water.
Ms Daniells said that the tenants did not want to use the tank water.
Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh said that they sent Ms Daniells many text messages about being completely out of water during the tenancy. However, no such messages were provided to the Tribunal.
My finding is that it is not proven that the landlord failed to meet any legal duty. The sudden loss of water in the first or second day of this tenancy was not due to any failure by the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, or a failure to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water. Ms Daniells responded to the sudden loss of water promptly and appropriately. There is no evidence that Ms Daniells failed or refused to provide water during the tenancy. Rent
Ms Daniells agreed to release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy. There was a lack of clarity around when the tenants actually vacated.
In a fixed term tenancy, the tenants remain liable for rent to the end of the fixed term or to the date that a new tenancy is entered into.
I am satisfied Ms Daniells got back possession of the premises on or after 7 November 2025, which is the date that she is seeking rent arrears to.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Cleaning and rubbish removal
Ms Daniells provided a handful of photographs, taken several weeks after the end of the tenancy.
Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh said that the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy was similar to the condition at the start, and that the rubbish shown in Ms Daniells’ photographs was not theirs.
There is no entry inspection report.
The claim for cleaning and rubbish removal is not proven. Trade Me listing cost
As noted above, this was a 6-month fixed term tenancy. The landlord released the tenants after six weeks.
The landlord then sought to re-let the premises.
I agree that this was an appropriate and necessary step by the landlord to mitigate the loss. The landlord is entitled to recover the Trade Me listing cost. The cost was a direct consequence of the tenants’ failure to remain in the fixed term tenancy.
Rajat Singh and Sukhjeet Singh did not dispute this cost, but they asked the Tribunal to take into account “harassment” that they say that they received from Ms Daniells.
I acknowledge that this short tenancy was difficult and stressful for both parties. However, I can only determine disputes on the basis of evidence that his available to me. There is no evidence in support of the allegation that Ms Daniells harassed the tenants. Bond, filing fee
The landlord has been partially successful in this application, and I will award the landlord the filing fee. 1
The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380842 — Rent arrears at 107A Furness Road, RD 3, Kerikeri 0293

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380842 — Rent arrears at 107A Furness Road, RD 3, Kerikeri 0293

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions