What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409772 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5409772?

Of The Tenants Names And Identifying…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409772?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13752579-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409772 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5409772?

Of The Tenants Names And Identifying…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409772?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13752579-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5409772 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5409772. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
of the Tenants names and identifying details. 2. The application by the Landlord is dismissed. 3. The Landlord shall pay	$28.00		of the Tenants names and identifying details. 2. The application by the Landlord is dismissed. 3. The Landlord shall pay

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5409772. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
of the Tenants names and identifying details. 2. The application by the Landlord is dismissed. 3. The Landlord shall pay	$28.00		of the Tenants names and identifying details. 2. The application by the Landlord is dismissed. 3. The Landlord shall pay

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
The application by the Landlord is dismissed.
The Landlord shall pay the Tenants $28.00 for their filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Landlord attended with his son as a support person.
The Landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, a declaration as to the rent payable during the tenancy, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenancy had terminated on 10 December 2025 so the application for termination was withdrawn.
The Tenants sought compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
No written tenancy agreement was ever provided, despite the Tenants residing at the property since December 2022 and repeatedly requesting one. The absence of a written agreement contributed significantly to the disputes that arose throughout the tenancy.
Before this tenancy commenced, the property was rented to the tenants relative who subsequently allowed Mr Prasad to reside at the property as a boarder. That relative vacated. Mr Prasad remained in occupation and his wife and child later joined him. The rental arrangements were informal and frequently altered. The Landlord repeatedly negotiated rent reductions in exchange for maintenance work being undertaken and later sought to withdraw or vary those arrangements when the work was not completed.
The Tenants paid rent in cash at the Landlord’s request and were issued receipts. The Landlord explained that he preferred cash payments partly because he was involved in a dispute with Inland Revenue. Landlord's Claim
The Landlord claimed rent arrears of $19,990.00 and relied on a rent summary in support. He submitted that the tenancy commenced on 3 December 2022 and that the agreed rent was $580.00 per week. He said the arrears arose because the Tenants paid only $500.00 per week for much of the tenancy.
The Landlord accepted that the rent changed on numerous occasions. He said the rent was reduced to $500.00 per week in exchange for the Tenants painting the property and later reverted to $580.00 when that work was not completed. He also acknowledged granting further rent reductions due to disturbing the Tenants privacy, the absence of a heat pump, stained carpets, and other maintenance issues.
The Landlord submitted that he made more rent concessions throughout the tenancy in exchange for maintenance work or as compensation for repairs. He stated that he regularly raised concerns about the Tenants rent arrears, but the Tenants refused to pay until maintenance issues were addressed.
Although the Landlord alleged that arrears accumulated over an extended period, he did not commence proceedings until after the tenancy. ended He relied on a chronology of events, supporting documents, and a letter dated 22 November 2025 demanding payment of historical rent arrears.
The Tenants disputed the claim. They maintained that the agreed rent was always $500.00 per week, which the Landlord consistently accepted without objection. They also noted that no written tenancy agreement was given despite their repeated requests for one.
In considering all the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Landlord has established their claim for rent arrears.
There was no written tenancy agreement specifying the rent payable, despite the Landlord having ample opportunity and a statutory obligation to provide one. The evidence demonstrates that the rent was varied on numerous occasions throughout the tenancy due to maintenance issues, informal concessions, and agreements relating to work to be performed by the Tenants.
Those variations make it impossible to determine with any confidence what rent was payable at any particular point in time. The Landlord's own evidence was that the rent repeatedly changed depending on circumstances and agreements reached between the parties.
The rent summary does not adequately reflect the numerous rent reductions and informal arrangements acknowledged by the Landlord. Nor was there persuasive evidence demonstrating that the Tenants were consistently advised they were underpaying rent by $80.00 per week or that a fixed rent of $580.00 remained payable despite the various concessions granted.
The Landlord as the Applicant must prove their claim. Given the absence of a written tenancy agreement, the acknowledged fluctuations in rent, and the lack of reliable evidence establishing the amount properly payable throughout the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the claimed arrears have been proven.
I have also considered the broader circumstances of the tenancy. The Landlord is an experienced property owner who has been a landlord for many years and owns multiple rental properties. Despite this experience, he failed to provide a written tenancy agreement at any stage of the tenancy, notwithstanding repeated requests from the Tenants and his clear statutory obligation to do so. His explanation was that he wished to first address maintenance issues at the property before formalising the tenancy arrangement. I do not find that explanation persuasive. The requirement to provide a written tenancy agreement is a fundamental obligation and is not contingent upon repairs or improvements being completed.
I also note that the Landlord required rent to be paid exclusively in cash and stated at the hearing that he preferred this arrangement because of issues he was experiencing with Inland Revenue. While I make no findings regarding the Landlord's taxation affairs, the absence of a written tenancy agreement and the informal and frequently changing rental arrangements, and the cash-only payment structure significantly undermines the reliability of the Landlord's evidence concerning the rent said to be payable throughout the tenancy. Further, despite alleging that the Tenants had underpaid rent by $80.00 per week over a lengthy period, the Landlord took no steps to commence proceedings until after the tenancy had ended, by which time the claimed arrears had reached almost $20,000.00. This delay is difficult to reconcile with the landlords argument that a fixed rent of $580.00 per week was always payable and that substantial arrears were continuously accruing.
In these circumstances, I am not prepared to accept the Landlord's rent summary or make the declaration sought as to the rent payable during the tenancy. The uncertainty surrounding the rental arrangements was largely due to the Landlord's failure to document the tenancy and maintain clear and reliable records. As an experienced landlord with multiple rental properties, he ought to have been aware of his obligation to provide a written tenancy agreement. I also note that, despite repeatedly refusing to provide an agreement during the tenancy, the Landlord later offered the Tenants a tenancy agreement only if it was backdated by three years and recorded the higher rent he now claims was payable. This demonstrates that the Landlord was capable of preparing a tenancy agreement when it suited his purposes. In these circumstances, the evidential challenges arising from the absence of a written tenancy agreement falls on the Landlord as the party bearing the burden of proof.
The claims for rent arrears and rent payable is therefore dismissed. Tenants claims Written Tenancy Agreement
The Tenants claim the Landlord failed to provide a written tenancy agreement despite repeated requests. They advised that they required a written agreement to support an immigration application but none was ever supplied. It was only in November 2025 when the Landlord attempted to claim backdated rent did the Landlord provide tenancy agreement.
Section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires a landlord to ensure that every tenancy agreement is in writing, signed, and provided to the tenant before the tenancy commences.
The Landlord acknowledged that no formal tenancy agreement was ever e He entered into by the parties. He stated that the tenancy terms were recorded on the first rent receipt and that personal circumstances, including health issues and family bereavements, prevented him from preparing a full agreement. He also said that delaying a formal agreement allowed flexibility while repairs were being undertaken.
I find the Landlord breached section 13 and therefore committed an unlawful act. The Tribunal finds that there was a tenancy agreement between the Tenants and Landlord to rent this property from December 2022 to 10 December 2025. As the Tenants have not sought exemplary damages or compensation for this breach, no monetary award is made. Healthy Homes Standards
The Tenants claim the Landlord breached section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, specifically the heating standard.
As this tenancy commenced in December 2022, the property was required to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards within 120 days of the tenancy commencing.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more qualifying heaters capable of adequately heating the main living area.
The evidence establishes that a qualifying heater was not installed until June 2023, despite the Tenants raising the issue considerably earlier. This was well outside the statutory compliance period. I therefore find that the Landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and committed an unlawful act.
While the breach is established, the Tenants have not sought compensation or exemplary damages. Maintenance and Repairs
The Tenants claim the Landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The alleged defects included cockroach infestations, a leaking water meter, damaged kitchen cupboards, broken cupboard fittings, missing window latches, and mould in the bathroom and toilet.
The evidence shows that the Tenants reported cockroaches in early 2023. In response, the Landlord supplied cockroach bait, arranged pest treatment, and undertook further spraying. The Tenants also complained of a leaking shower mixer, which was subsequently attended to by a plumber.
The Tenants further alleged that the kitchen cupboards were in poor condition, with broken doors, loose hinges, damaged cabinetry, missing knobs, and faulty catches. Text messages produced at the hearing show that the Tenants notified the Landlord about certain issues, including a missing kitchen door knob and a faulty door catcher but the evidence was not clear as to when the Landlord attended to repair them.
The Landlord denied receiving complaints about some of the alleged defects and disputed the existence of ongoing mould. He stated that the bathroom had been repainted and that repairs were carried out when issues were brought to his attention. He also maintained that the shower mixer and missing door knob were repaired after notification.
While there is evidence that some defects arose during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the Landlord failed to meet his maintenance obligations based on the evidence provided by the parties. The Tenants evidence indicates when issues were brought to the Landlords attention but it was unclear when the Landlord took steps to remedy them. Further, the Tenants provided limited independent evidence, such as inspection reports, invoice for repair to establish the nature, extent, or duration of the alleged defects.
In considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that a breach of section 45(1)(b) has been established.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Cleanliness of the Premises
The Tenants claim the premises were not provided in a clean and sanitary condition. They alleged that the carpets were stained and dirty and that the kitchen was unclean when they moved in.
No photographs, inspection reports, or other evidence were provided by the Tenants to establish the condition of the entire property at the start of the tenancy. In the absence of this evidence, I am unable to make the findings sought.
This claim is dismissed. Compensation for Loss of Use and Inconvenience
The Tenants seek compensation for loss of use of the premises and inconvenience. No evidence was provided to quantify any loss or establish an entitlement to compensation.
This claim is dismissed.
As the Tenants have been substantially successful in defending the Landlords claims, name suppression is granted to the Tenants and the Landlord shall pay their filling fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409772 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409772 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions