Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5432354 — Rent arrears at 66 South Kensington Way, Henderson, Auckland 0612
Decided 3 March 2026 · Published 3 March 2026 · Application 5432354
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Feist
Dispute themes
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears | $3,714.29 | Rent arrears | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement |
Claims and awards for application 5432354. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears
- Amount
- $3,714.29
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The tenancy of Nam Van Le at 66 South Kensington Way, Henderson, Auckland 0612 is terminated, and immediate possession is granted to Kai Yu.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,742.29 (BN-00066708) to Kai Yu immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $257.71 (BN-00066708) to Nam Van Le immediately.
Reasons
- On 27 January 2026, the landlord filed an application for expedited abandonment.
- On 10 February 2026, the Tribunal declined to terminate the tenancy under the expedited abandonment process. The Tribunal could not be satisfied, on the evidence available, that the conditions for expedited abandonment had been met and the matter was set down for hearing.
- The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. The landlord appeared. The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
- At the hearing the Tribunal confirmed the landlords claims to be termination of the tenancy for abandonment, rent arrears, water rates and refund of the bond Relevant legal considerations
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
- 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.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
- The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrears at the hearing date. See section 61 of the Act. A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
- On 27 December 2025, the landlord became aware (or ought to have been aware) that the tenant had abandoned the premises.
- The landlord gave viva voce evidence saying on 26 December 2025 he discovered the tenant had failed to pay the rent which had been due on 23 December 2025. The landlord said that he tried several times to contact the tenant by telephone but that the went unanswered. The landlord said that on 27 December 2025 he went to the property to discuss the missed rent payment with the tenant but on arrival discovered the keys were in the lock on the front door. The landlord said he tried knocking but when this went unanswered, he entered the property through the unlocked door. The landlord said the blinds in the property were down and that it was completely empty of the tenants clothing, food, and furniture except for a dusty kitchen table.
- The landlord said the property smelt strongly of rotting plant material, and he noticed a vehicle was parked in the garage with black sacks, fertiliser and dried plant material inside. The landlord said he has reported his findings to the Police, but they told him this did not meet the evidential threshold for an investigation.
- The landlord said that he spoke to the neighbours who told him the tenant had moved out prior to Christmas.
- Having heard from the landlord and finding his evidence credible the Tribunal determined the premises have been abandoned, and rent is in arrear, the tenancy is terminated immediately.
How much does the tenant owe?
- The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The amount ordered includes rent in lieu of notice.
Is the tenant liable to pay water rates?
- The landlord seeks outstanding water rates in the amount of $70.63. An invoice from Watercare was provided. The bill shows an outstanding balance of $32.59 for previous water usage plus water rates charges for the period 18 December 2025 to 21 January 2026 totalling $38.04. The amounts claimed include fixed charges which the tenant is not liable for. The water rates also fall outside the tenancy end date.
- There was no evidence provided proving the tenants were properly invoice for the amount claimed. Landlords are expected to provide water bills to tenants as and when they fall due. It would be unfair for the Tribunal to award water rates when there is no evidence to prove the amounts sought have been properly demanded from the tenant and on that basis the claim is dismissed. Other matters
- Because Kai Yu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s19, s5, s61
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5432354?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Nam Van Le at 66 South Kensington Way, Henderson, Auckland
How much money was awarded in case 5432354?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,714.29 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432354?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432354?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13222769-Tribunal_Order.pdf.