What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425397?

The tribunal order states: Praneel Kumar and Sailina Daman must pay Klas Investments Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5425397?

Rent Arrears: $3,194.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425397?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13229084-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425397?

The tribunal order states: Praneel Kumar and Sailina Daman must pay Klas Investments Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5425397?

Rent Arrears: $3,194.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425397?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13229084-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 70A Jellicoe Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5425397 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425397 — net $3,194.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 January 2026	$3,194.29	Rent arrears to 15 January 2026
Net award	$3,194.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,194.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425397 — net $3,194.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 January 2026	$3,194.29	Rent arrears to 15 January 2026
Net award	$3,194.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,194.29

Order

Praneel Kumar and Sailina Daman must pay Klas Investments Limited $3,194.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for compensation, general damages and exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
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 unlikely, 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.
In summary, 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was for a fixed term period of twelve months commencing on 25 March 2025 and ending on 24 March 2026.
The tenants sought to end the fixed term tenancy early, because they considered the premise to be cold, mouldy, damp, lacking in ventilation and an unsafe environment as people were fighting all the time.
The tenants gave written notice to the landlord on 30 September 2025. This notice confirmed their last day of the tenancy would be 28 October 2025. They also tried to find a tenant to take over the reminder of their lease, but were unsuccessful at finding a tenant the landlord found suitable.
The landlord confirmed that the tenants were liable for the rent until a new tenant moved in and took over the remainder of the fixed term lease. It also confirmed that the break lease costs would be $200.00 to cover advertising costs, credit checks and reference checks and other letting related administration costs.
The landlord advertised the premise on 3 October 2025, but the rental market has slowed, and it was unable to secure a new tenant until 16 January 2026.
The tenancy ended on 15 January 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. TENANTS’CLAIMS Smoke alarms- breach of TA and breach of regulations
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenants claim the rental premise had no working smoke alarms when the tenants moved in, and one was installed during the tenancy, on 16 October 2025. The tenants raised this issue with the landlord o 10 October 2025 and once it confirmed the working of the smoke alarm it has installed the year prior was gone, it remedied the issue. It states that it does not know when the workings were removed or by whom and confirmed both parties signed off the checklist at the start of the tenancy confirming a compliant smoke alarm was in the lounge.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
The tenants’ photograph of the damaged smoke alarm was not dated, and they have not proven when the alarm was damaged, by whom and if it occurred before or after their tenancy commenced. They confirmed they had signed the checklist at the start of the tenancy and that they had viewed the unit when they signed to say the smoke alarm was present. They also stated they did not sign the checklist inside the unit, but from another unit in the complex.
I am not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premise was fitted with working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA for the reasons set out above. The claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord breached its healthy homes obligations to the tenants?

Praneel Kumar and Sailina Daman claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 25 March 2025. Therefore, the premise was required to comply with the healthy homes standards by 1 July 2025.
The tenants have not identified the specific healthy homes standards they say have been breached but claim: a. The house is damp and mouldy and causing health issues and that this was evidenced by mouldy curtains, bathroom, bedroom and lounge area ceilings being affected by visible mould; b. The shower was blocked and filled up with water in the shower tray when they used it; c. Toilet pan not being stable and shaking.
None of these issues are healthy homes standards related because: a. The tenants have failed to prove the house had a dampness issue caused by leaks or the like that led to the house being damp and mouldy. The evidence provided by the parties show that the mould is in fact surface mildew and that the mildew was not present in the house at the start of the tenancy. It developed because the tenants did not regularly ventilate the house. They confirmed they did not open windows and doors to ventilate the premise because they found the place cold and unsafe so only opened windows occasionally during the day when it was sunny. I am satisfied the mildew issue was addressed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances, as proven by the landlord’s evidence. The tenants stated that they could not confirm the date they raised this issue with the landlord but both parties confirmed the mildew was cleaned with one to two weeks of the issue being raised; b. The toilet pan is not a healthy homes compliance issue, it is a repair and maintenance issue. The tenants and the landlord confirmed the tenants had never raised this issue with the landlord during the tenancy. Therefore, the landlord had no opportunity to address the issue; c. The shower filling up with water is not a breach of the moisture and drainage standard, or any other healthy homes standard. This was the result of the tenants not regularly clearing out the build-up of hair in the shower drain. This is the obligation of the tenants. Regardless, the landlord confirmed that if you had raised this issue it would have come and shown you how to address it. Again, the landlord proved that you did not give it that opportunity; and d. The open plan kitchen/dining and lounge resulting in food smells moving throughout the house is not a breach of the ventilation standard. The landlord has proven the kitchen is externally vented with a small extractor fan that is designed to ventilate a space of this size.
The landlord states it has a healthy homes assessment report that is approximately two years old that proves the premise complies with the healthy homes standards. It was unable to provide this in evidence today. It confirms the home is compliant in the healthy homes information contained in the tenancy agreement that it says is based on the HHS assessment report it has on its files.
For all the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to meet any of the healthy homes standards. The claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to lodge bond in the statutorily required timeframe?

The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
Section 19(1)(b) of the RTA requires the landlord to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching these obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants have proven they paid their bond on 25 March 20205 and that the Bond Centre did not confirm lodgement until 10 October 2025. Prima facie, this is a breach of s19(1)(b) of the RTA.
The landlord confirmed that once the tenant raised the issue it asked the Bond Centre to investigate why it had taken so long for the Bond Centre to confirm lodgement. The landlord was told that there had been a technical issue, due to the bond system being updated to accommodate the change in the law to allow landlords to require pet bonds. The landlord proved Tenancy Services acknowledged the technical issues and undertook an audit of the landlord’s bond lodgements in this period. This audit found that three separate bonds had been affected and delayed in being acknowledged as lodged by the Bond Centre.
I am satisfied that while a breach of s19(1)(b) of the RTA had occurred, it was outside of the landlord’s control and was not intentional. Therefore, the tenants claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

The law related to reduction of fixed term tenancy

Parties enter into a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
If a tenant wishes to default on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord can stipulate the terms of early surrender, provided they are reasonable. Such reasonable terms can be to ensure the aggrieved party (here the landlord) be placed in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement.
If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to that party to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) RTA.
The Tribunal can reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.
The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: a. Foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform themselves of the circumstances; b. An outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”; c. The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”. Application of the law to the facts
The tenants based this claim on the following: a. The house was unhealthy due to dampness and mildew and the chemicals used to treat the mildew (claims they have failed to prove on the balance of probabilities at today’s hearing); b. The house was unsafe due to insufficient external lighting in the entrance way and fighting in the area all the time (the landlord is not obligated to install more external lighting than what was there when the tenants took on the tenancy and are not responsible for controlling whoever was fighting in the area. I note that no evidence of who was fighting, where and when was produced by the tenants nor did they raise specific instances of fighting/anti-social behaviour with the landlord during the tenancy.
Further, the hardship test is what ultimately makes the s66 a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies as the Tribunal is tasked with balancing of the two parties competing interests. The foreseeability test is but one part of the overall test the Tribunal must apply. It is the part of the test that gets an applicant to the starting gate but is no guarantee that it will win them the race.
After considering whether the tenants have proven that there were unforeseen circumstances that justify the reduction of the fixed term tenancy, I find that the tenants have not proven that the landlord has breached any of its obligations to the tenants leading to them living in an unhealthy and unsafe environment. Even if they had, these are repair and maintenance issues for which the RTA provides other mechanisms to the tenants to address.
I find that the tenants have not met the unforeseen circumstance threshold and dismiss this claim accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have not wholly or substantially successful with their claim I must dismiss their application for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425397 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 70A Jellicoe Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425397 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 70A Jellicoe Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

Has the landlord breached its healthy homes obligations to the tenants?

Did the landlord fail to lodge bond in the statutorily required timeframe?

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

Has the landlord breached its healthy homes obligations to the tenants?

Did the landlord fail to lodge bond in the statutorily required timeframe?

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions