Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5396202 — Rent arrears at 5 Urlich Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612
Decided 30 March 2026 · Published 30 March 2026 · Application 5396202
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Lamdin
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,400.06
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,372.06
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to end of tenancy | $1,950.00 | Rent arrears to end of tenancy | |
| Repairs: door handle | $100.00 | Repairs: door handle | |
| Water rates | $336.06 | Water rates | |
| Compensation (half of filing fee | $14.00 | Compensation (half of filing fee | |
| Total award | $2,386.06 | $14.00 | |
| Net award | $2,372.06 | ||
| Bond | $2,600.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,372.06 |
Claims and awards for application 5396202 — net $2,372.06 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to end of tenancy
- Amount
- $1,950.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Repairs: door handle
- Amount
- $100.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: door handle
Water rates
- Amount
- $336.06
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates
Compensation (half of filing fee
- Amount
- $14.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Compensation (half of filing fee
Total award
Landlord $2,386.06 · Tenant $14.00
Net award
Landlord $2,372.06
Bond
Landlord $2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,372.06
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Tia-Louis Shirley Eleanor Wilkie to pay Esha Lingam, Kailash Lingam and Lalita Lingam $2,372.06 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (BN-00041880) immediately apportioned as follows: Esha Lingam, Kailash Lingam and Lalita Lingam: $2372.06 Tia-Louis Shirley Eleanor Wilkie: $227.94
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Esha Lingam.
- The Tribunal was contacted this morning by Tenancy Services saying Esha Lingam had contacted them requesting an adjournment because she had not received any documents for the hearing other than a notice of hearing sent to her email.
- The tenant has applied for refund of her bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- The landlord said her father (also the landlord) has made an application to Tenancy Services regarding unpaid water rates and damage. She did not have an application number for reference and a search of the Ministry database did not disclose any other current application for this property.
- The landlord telephoned and spoke to her father. He was not able to provide the application number either.
- On the information before me today I determine there is currently no landlord application regarding this tenancy.
- Because this is a simple application by the tenant for the bond to be refunded, I declined the landlord’s request for an adjournment unless any reason arose during the hearing that indicated proceeding today could cause the landlord prejudice.
- Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant.
- However, the landlord raised three claims she said she has against the bond, being rent arrears, water rates and damages to a door handle and the smoke alarms. The landlord confirmed that other than these claims she has no other claims against the tenant.
- The tenant agreed to address these claims today.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The parties signed a tenancy agreement for a fixed term-tenancy ending on 18 November 2025. The tenant moved out on this day.
- Although the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy in August 2025, (which she subsequently didn’t act on), she accepts that no notice was given for the November 2025 date.
- The Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 section 60A says that a fixed term tenancy of more than 90 days becomes periodic on the expiry of the fixed term, unless contrary notice is given.
- Section 51(2A) of the Act sets out that a tenant may give 21 days’ notice to end a periodic tenancy at any time.
- Because the fixed term tenancy period had ended, and no contrary notice was given, the tenancy automatically became a periodic tenancy. The tenant was then required to give 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy, which she did not do.
- I determine the tenant must pay 21 days’ rent arrears in lieu of the notice period to end the tenancy. This claim is proved.
- The landlord said the tenant owed $336.06 for unpaid water rates at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepted this amount as correct.
- This claim is proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- The landlord said that door-knobs and smoke alarms were removed at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant said that only one door-knob came off during the tenancy. She believed her daughter may have caused that to happen because the door-knob didn’t work well.
- The landlord produced an invoice for $292.72 to replace the door-knob. This included $31.33 plus GST ($36.00) for the door-knob, and the balance labour.
- The claim is proved. I determine however that $256.72 is an excessive amount to charge for replacing a door handle and I make a lesser award based on what I consider to be reasonable.
- The claim and amount ordered is proved.
- The tenant denied removing the smoke alarms. The landlord was not able to provide any other information in support of this claim.
- This claim is not proved.
- Both parties have legitimate claims at the end of the tenancy and both have been partly successful. I note that in not filing an application the landlord has not incurred a filing fee. The tenant generously allowed the landlord to present her claims today. This has brought finality to the tenancy at the earliest opportunity.
- I determine it is reasonable that each party make a contribution to the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s22B(2), s40(2), s51(2A), s60A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396202?
The tribunal order states: Tia-Louis Shirley Eleanor Wilkie to pay Esha Lingam, Kailash Lingam and Lalita
How much money was awarded in case 5396202?
Filing Fee: $14.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; Door Handle: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $336.06 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396202?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396202?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13368156-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.