What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5388705?

The tribunal order states: Matilda Pai must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agents For Deidre Spooner

How much money was awarded in case 5388705?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5388705?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5388705?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13036234-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5388705?

The tribunal order states: Matilda Pai must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agents For Deidre Spooner

How much money was awarded in case 5388705?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5388705?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5388705?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13036234-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat a, 88 Racecourse Rd, Waipkurau 4200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5388705 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5388705 — net $2,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 October 2025	$2,100.00	Rent arrears to 21 October 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,128.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,128.00

Order

Matilda Pai must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agents For Deidre Spooner $2,128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing took place via telephone on 27 January 2026. Representatives of Property Brokers Limited attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Attempts were made to contact the tenant via telephone at the start of the hearing, but they were unsuccessful. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why she would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much is owed for rent?

How much the landlord is owed for rent depends on the date the tenancy ended.
Written correspondence provided by the landlord shows that the tenant believes she sent an email to the landlord on 16 September 2025 giving notice to end the tenancy and stating that the last day would be 30 September 2025.
The landlord said that they only became aware that the tenant wished to end the tenancy on 30 September 2025, when the tenant returned the keys.
The landlord made enquiries, including obtaining a copy of the 16 September email from the tenant, and ascertained that the tenant had sent the email to an email address connected with the landlord’s software provider. The landlord enquired with the software provider who said they could not find any record of the email being received by them and that it was “highly likely” that the tenant would have received a failure email response.
The landlord says that as the email address used by the tenant for the 16 September email had not been provided to the tenant as an email address for service it should be disregarded and that the 21 days’ notice was given on 30 September 2025.
For periodic tenancies, section 51(2A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides a tenant may end the tenancy by giving no less than 21 days’ notice. Section 51(3) of the RTA sets out what must be included in a notice to terminate a tenancy. Having reviewed the notice which the tenant sent by email, I am satisfied that it met the requirements of section 51(3).
However, there are two issues with the notice: the tenant only gave 14 days’ notice instead of the required 21 days; and the landlord advises that they did not receive the notice.
A notice under section 51 of the RTA must be served on the other party. The rules for service are set out at section 136 of the RTA. The methods of service include service by email if the email address has been given to the other party as an email address for service. 1
The tenancy agreement provides an email address for the landlord. The tenancy agreement does not state that it is an address for service. In any event, it was not the email address used by the tenant for the 16 September email.
The landlord says that the email address used by the tenant has not been given to the tenant as an email address for service. The landlord further says that the email address used by the tenant was not one they had used to communicate with the tenancy. As set out above, it appears that the email address may have been used to send automatically generated messages to the tenant from the landlord’s software provider.
The modes of service under section 136 of the RTA 1986 are not mandatory or exhaustive. 2 The purpose of service is merely to bring a document to the attention of the person served. Therefore, it is possible for a party to effectively serve the other party by means other than those provided for in section 136 of the RTA. However, apart from in limited circumstances such as where the mode of service has been directed by the Tribunal, there must be proof that the other party received the notice.
The landlord says they did not receive the notice. The tenant did not attend the hearing to argue that point. I accept that the landlord did not receive the notice. 1 See section 136(1)(d) of the RTA. 2 See Franicevic v KGH Trust [2016] NZDC 10582 at [16] and Schmidt v Hair HC Auckland CIV-2010- 404-6804, 3 May 2011 at [65].
I find that the notice of 16 September 2025 was not effective until 30 September 2025. Therefore, the tenant could not end the tenancy under the tenancy agreement or the RTA until 21 October 2025.
By ending the tenancy on 30 September 2025, the tenant breached the tenancy agreement. Section 49 of the RTA provides that where a party to a tenancy agreement breaches that agreement or a provision of the RTA, the other party must take reasonable steps to mitigate their losses.
The landlord says that they put the premises on the market one week after 30 September 2025, when the notice was brought to their attention and that the premises was not relet until after 21 October 2025. The landlord says there was a delay in putting the premises on the market because there was some work on the premises for which the tenant was responsible that had to be done before the premises could be placed on the market.
The Bond Refund Form signed by both parties and send to the Bond Centre shows that the tenant agreed to the bond being refunded to the landlord for the purpose of cleaning and repairs. I accept that the delay in placing the premises on the market was caused by the tenant damage to the premises. I am satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their losses.
I award the rent up to and including 21 October 2025. The filing fee:
The landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5388705 — net $2,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 October 2025	$2,100.00	Rent arrears to 21 October 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,128.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,128.00

Order

Matilda Pai must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agents For Deidre Spooner $2,128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing took place via telephone on 27 January 2026. Representatives of Property Brokers Limited attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Attempts were made to contact the tenant via telephone at the start of the hearing, but they were unsuccessful. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why she would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much is owed for rent?

How much the landlord is owed for rent depends on the date the tenancy ended.
Written correspondence provided by the landlord shows that the tenant believes she sent an email to the landlord on 16 September 2025 giving notice to end the tenancy and stating that the last day would be 30 September 2025.
The landlord said that they only became aware that the tenant wished to end the tenancy on 30 September 2025, when the tenant returned the keys.
The landlord made enquiries, including obtaining a copy of the 16 September email from the tenant, and ascertained that the tenant had sent the email to an email address connected with the landlord’s software provider. The landlord enquired with the software provider who said they could not find any record of the email being received by them and that it was “highly likely” that the tenant would have received a failure email response.
The landlord says that as the email address used by the tenant for the 16 September email had not been provided to the tenant as an email address for service it should be disregarded and that the 21 days’ notice was given on 30 September 2025.
For periodic tenancies, section 51(2A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides a tenant may end the tenancy by giving no less than 21 days’ notice. Section 51(3) of the RTA sets out what must be included in a notice to terminate a tenancy. Having reviewed the notice which the tenant sent by email, I am satisfied that it met the requirements of section 51(3).
However, there are two issues with the notice: the tenant only gave 14 days’ notice instead of the required 21 days; and the landlord advises that they did not receive the notice.
A notice under section 51 of the RTA must be served on the other party. The rules for service are set out at section 136 of the RTA. The methods of service include service by email if the email address has been given to the other party as an email address for service. 1
The tenancy agreement provides an email address for the landlord. The tenancy agreement does not state that it is an address for service. In any event, it was not the email address used by the tenant for the 16 September email.
The landlord says that the email address used by the tenant has not been given to the tenant as an email address for service. The landlord further says that the email address used by the tenant was not one they had used to communicate with the tenancy. As set out above, it appears that the email address may have been used to send automatically generated messages to the tenant from the landlord’s software provider.
The modes of service under section 136 of the RTA 1986 are not mandatory or exhaustive. 2 The purpose of service is merely to bring a document to the attention of the person served. Therefore, it is possible for a party to effectively serve the other party by means other than those provided for in section 136 of the RTA. However, apart from in limited circumstances such as where the mode of service has been directed by the Tribunal, there must be proof that the other party received the notice.
The landlord says they did not receive the notice. The tenant did not attend the hearing to argue that point. I accept that the landlord did not receive the notice. 1 See section 136(1)(d) of the RTA. 2 See Franicevic v KGH Trust [2016] NZDC 10582 at [16] and Schmidt v Hair HC Auckland CIV-2010- 404-6804, 3 May 2011 at [65].
I find that the notice of 16 September 2025 was not effective until 30 September 2025. Therefore, the tenant could not end the tenancy under the tenancy agreement or the RTA until 21 October 2025.
By ending the tenancy on 30 September 2025, the tenant breached the tenancy agreement. Section 49 of the RTA provides that where a party to a tenancy agreement breaches that agreement or a provision of the RTA, the other party must take reasonable steps to mitigate their losses.
The landlord says that they put the premises on the market one week after 30 September 2025, when the notice was brought to their attention and that the premises was not relet until after 21 October 2025. The landlord says there was a delay in putting the premises on the market because there was some work on the premises for which the tenant was responsible that had to be done before the premises could be placed on the market.
The Bond Refund Form signed by both parties and send to the Bond Centre shows that the tenant agreed to the bond being refunded to the landlord for the purpose of cleaning and repairs. I accept that the delay in placing the premises on the market was caused by the tenant damage to the premises. I am satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their losses.
I award the rent up to and including 21 October 2025. The filing fee:
The landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5388705 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat a, 88 Racecourse Rd, Waipkurau 4200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5388705 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat a, 88 Racecourse Rd, Waipkurau 4200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions