What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5396372 about?

The tribunal order states: Both applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5396372?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396372?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13193562-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5396372 about?

The tribunal order states: Both applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5396372?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396372?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13193562-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38 Timmer Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5396372 — 14-day notice

Order

Both applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The tenant filed an application on 2 December 2025 seeking the return of $450.00, being bond money withheld by the landlord.
The landlord cross applied on 13 January 2026 seeking the amount of $450.00 being the amount for one extra week’s rent.
The applicants are required to establish their claims to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.
The tenancy was based on a house sharing agreement signed by both parties which started on or about 15 January 2025.
The house sharing agreement appears to have been signed by the landlord on 10 October 2025 (“10/10/2025”) and the tenant on 10 January 2025 (“10/01/25”). I suspect the landlord has recorded the signing date of 10 October 2025 in error.
The house sharing agreement recorded a number of provisions. For the purposes of deciding both applications, the relevant provisions are as follows a. The agreement starts on 13 January 2025. b. Rent is $450.00 per week, to be paid weekly. c. Rent includes water, internet and gas for hot water. d. A bond of $1800.00 (4 weeks rent) and 1 week rent in advance is payable to the head tenant (landlord). e. The agreement can be terminated by a minimum of 14 days’ notice given by either party in writing, except as defined in clause 10. f. ...
The tenant provided a screenshot of the house sharing agreement and a photograph of a rent ledger for the period 15 January 2025 to 25 June 2025.
The tenant says she paid $1800.00 as bond money but only received a refund of 2 weeks of bond from the landlord. The landlord also stated that they had a property manager in the beginning who dealt with the bond.
The rent ledger provided by the tenant is of poor quality. The tenant has photographed a rent ledger on a desk top computer. Part of the rent ledger has not been included in the photograph.
The tenant stated during the hearing that she physically moved out of the premises on 13 November 2025 but provided notice to the landlord on 16 November 2025 by text message. The tenant then stated that she also provided notice to the landlord to vacate on 5 November 2025. She confirmed that this was also by text message. Copies of these text messages were not provided by the tenant with her application.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the tenant text her on WhatsApp providing 14 days’ notice that she was moving out. The landlord also provided what appears to be a BNZ bank transaction history date stamped 18 December 2025.The transaction history confirms that rent of $450.00 was paid on 6 November 2025 and 13 November 2025 by the tenant to the landlord.
The critical issue at the heart of these two applications is the date on which the tenant advised the landlord of her intention to vacate. Put simply, when did the tenant advise the landlord that she would be moving out and not continuing with the tenancy.
The tenant stated during the hearing that she text the landlord on 5 November 2025 stating that she would be moving out. She then sent a further text message on 16 November 2025 when it was brought to her attention that she had only provided one weeks’ notice on 5 November 2025. The tenant had already moved out by the time she sent her second text message on 16 November 2025. Analysis
The evidence provided by both parties is inadequate and unreliable.
The tenant seeks a return of $450.00 bond money paid withheld by the landlord. Therefore, the tenant carries the onus to provide adequate evidence of the date(s) she formally notified that landlord of her intention to move out.
At the very least I would expect copies of relevant text messages from the tenant to the landlord. Although evidence of these text messages may exist the tenant did not provide this evidence prior to the hearing. The tenant says she paid her rent for the two weeks’ notice period.
Similarly, the landlord seeks outstanding rent of $450.00 which they say is owed by the tenant. I would also expect the landlord to file evidence prior to todays’ hearing confirming that the tenant provided inadequate notice.
The landlord was also poorly organised. She stated that she was at work and not ready for the hearing today. She stated that she received notice from the tenant that she was moving out although was unsure of the exact date of the notice, but that she moved out on 19 November 2025.
Based on the inadequate, unreliable and conflicting evidence I cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities of the exact date when the tenant gave notice to move out. As recorded above, I would have expected copies of text messages between the parties which confirm when the notices to vacate were provided.
Both parties have failed to persuade me of their respective claims and accordingly I find that the claims have not been established.
Both applications are therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful.

Order

Both applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The tenant filed an application on 2 December 2025 seeking the return of $450.00, being bond money withheld by the landlord.
The landlord cross applied on 13 January 2026 seeking the amount of $450.00 being the amount for one extra week’s rent.
The applicants are required to establish their claims to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.
The tenancy was based on a house sharing agreement signed by both parties which started on or about 15 January 2025.
The house sharing agreement appears to have been signed by the landlord on 10 October 2025 (“10/10/2025”) and the tenant on 10 January 2025 (“10/01/25”). I suspect the landlord has recorded the signing date of 10 October 2025 in error.
The house sharing agreement recorded a number of provisions. For the purposes of deciding both applications, the relevant provisions are as follows a. The agreement starts on 13 January 2025. b. Rent is $450.00 per week, to be paid weekly. c. Rent includes water, internet and gas for hot water. d. A bond of $1800.00 (4 weeks rent) and 1 week rent in advance is payable to the head tenant (landlord). e. The agreement can be terminated by a minimum of 14 days’ notice given by either party in writing, except as defined in clause 10. f. ...
The tenant provided a screenshot of the house sharing agreement and a photograph of a rent ledger for the period 15 January 2025 to 25 June 2025.
The tenant says she paid $1800.00 as bond money but only received a refund of 2 weeks of bond from the landlord. The landlord also stated that they had a property manager in the beginning who dealt with the bond.
The rent ledger provided by the tenant is of poor quality. The tenant has photographed a rent ledger on a desk top computer. Part of the rent ledger has not been included in the photograph.
The tenant stated during the hearing that she physically moved out of the premises on 13 November 2025 but provided notice to the landlord on 16 November 2025 by text message. The tenant then stated that she also provided notice to the landlord to vacate on 5 November 2025. She confirmed that this was also by text message. Copies of these text messages were not provided by the tenant with her application.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the tenant text her on WhatsApp providing 14 days’ notice that she was moving out. The landlord also provided what appears to be a BNZ bank transaction history date stamped 18 December 2025.The transaction history confirms that rent of $450.00 was paid on 6 November 2025 and 13 November 2025 by the tenant to the landlord.
The critical issue at the heart of these two applications is the date on which the tenant advised the landlord of her intention to vacate. Put simply, when did the tenant advise the landlord that she would be moving out and not continuing with the tenancy.
The tenant stated during the hearing that she text the landlord on 5 November 2025 stating that she would be moving out. She then sent a further text message on 16 November 2025 when it was brought to her attention that she had only provided one weeks’ notice on 5 November 2025. The tenant had already moved out by the time she sent her second text message on 16 November 2025. Analysis
The evidence provided by both parties is inadequate and unreliable.
The tenant seeks a return of $450.00 bond money paid withheld by the landlord. Therefore, the tenant carries the onus to provide adequate evidence of the date(s) she formally notified that landlord of her intention to move out.
At the very least I would expect copies of relevant text messages from the tenant to the landlord. Although evidence of these text messages may exist the tenant did not provide this evidence prior to the hearing. The tenant says she paid her rent for the two weeks’ notice period.
Similarly, the landlord seeks outstanding rent of $450.00 which they say is owed by the tenant. I would also expect the landlord to file evidence prior to todays’ hearing confirming that the tenant provided inadequate notice.
The landlord was also poorly organised. She stated that she was at work and not ready for the hearing today. She stated that she received notice from the tenant that she was moving out although was unsure of the exact date of the notice, but that she moved out on 19 November 2025.
Based on the inadequate, unreliable and conflicting evidence I cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities of the exact date when the tenant gave notice to move out. As recorded above, I would have expected copies of text messages between the parties which confirm when the notices to vacate were provided.
Both parties have failed to persuade me of their respective claims and accordingly I find that the claims have not been established.
Both applications are therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396372 — 14-day notice at 38 Timmer Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396372 — 14-day notice at 38 Timmer Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions