What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5434648 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 5434648?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5434648?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13472918-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5434648 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 5434648?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5434648?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13472918-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20A Nogat Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5434648 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5434648. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Filing Fee Tenant	$28.00		Filing Fee Tenant

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5434648. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Filing Fee Tenant	$28.00		Filing Fee Tenant

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 20A Nogat Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2024 is reduced and ended at 11.59pm on Sunday 11 th of January 2026.
Velocity 365 Property Management Limited as agent for Kamal Bathla and Sukhjeet Kaur must pay Rahul Singh the sum of $28.00 immediately as calculated and set out below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenants claims that the landlord failed to maintain the property and that the landlord was unreasonable are dismissed.
Given the findings of the end of the fixed term tenancy being on 11 January 2026 the landlord claims for rent arrears and filing fee are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 1 March 2026, and claims that the landlord failed to maintain the property in regard to a flea infestation, closing off the underneath part of the house to prevent stray cats from living under there. Furthermore, that there were issues with the property that the landlord expected the tenant to attend to rather than sending someone else to do the work, such as collecting the new cooktop from the supplier and fixing the broken outdoor blinds. The tenant also claims the property manager was unreasonable and failed to respond to his requests for assistance with tenancy matters, such as the noisy neighbours. Finally, the tenant seeks refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord seeks rent arrears from 11 January 2026 to 1 March 2026, which is $4830.00, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background: Early termination of the fixed term tenancy:
The tenant entered into a periodic tenancy with the owner of the property, Kamal Bathla, in April 2024. On 27 January 2025, the tenant entered into a fixed term tenancy with the owner, to commence on 3 March 2025 and terminate on 1 March 2026. The reason the tenancy went from a periodic tenancy to a fixed term tenancy was the owner, Mr Bathla was moving overseas to live and wanted to secure the tenancy for a year before he left the country.
The tenant said that he discussed the early termination of the fixed term tenancy with the owner at that time, before signing the fixed term tenancy.
The tenant and his family have family and business commitments in their country of origin which meant that they would need to return to their home country for months on end. The tenant said he knew that he would have to return to his home country before the fixed term would end, so sought to confirm with the owner that if he needed to leave early that this was permissible under this tenancy agreement.
The tenant says that Mr Bathla reassured him that he could leave early if he needed to. On that basis the tenant says he signed the fixed term tenancy.
On 28 April 2025, the owner engaged the services of Velocity 365 Property Management Limited to take over the management of the tenancy. The owner now lives overseas.
The tenant needed to return to his home country for three months in early 2026 and so emailed the owner and property manager on 4 July 2025 advising the following,” As per our recent conversation, I would like to formally confirm that I will be moving out of the property on 11 January 2026”. The email asks that this date is marked accordingly and that a reminder will be sent later in the year.
The tenant says that neither the owner nor property manager responded to his email. On 17 th July 2025, the tenant sent an email to the owner and property manager reminding them that he will be moving out on 11 January 2026. The owner replied that he had got his email.
The property manager stated in the hearing that he discussed the tenant’s email with the owner. The owner said to the property manager that the tenant can leave early but that they will have to find a replacement. Despite this the property manager said that he did not communicate this to the tenant.
On 10 December 2025, the tenant emailed the owner and property manager again advising that he would be handing over the keys on the 11 th of January 2026 and asking that the bond refund form be lodged with Tenancy Services.
There was no text or email response from the owner or property manager to the 10 th of December 2025 however, the property manager said he had a conversation with the tenant on the phone.
Before ringing the tenant, the property manager spoke to the owner, who stated that he never agreed to the early termination and that he was only ok with an early termination before 1 March 2026 if they manage to find a replace tenant to move in.
The property manager said he advised the tenant of the process of ending a fixed term tenancy early, which entailed advertising the property and the break lease fee. The property manager said he told the tenant that he would be responsible for the rent until a new tenant was found. The tenant refutes this, but I consider it did happen given that the property was advertised for the first time on 15 December 2025.
The tenant claims that he and the owner discussed the early termination before the fixed term tenancy was signed. Also, he gave the owner and property manager sufficient notice of his intention to leave early. The tenant says there were no objections raised from the time he advised of the early termination on 4 July 2025 until the 11 January 2026.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a fixed term tenancy may only be ended early by mutual agreement, by order of the Tribunal, or under specific statutory grounds.
The tenant and landlord entered into a fixed term tenancy agreement.
The tenant claims that, prior to signing the agreement, there was a verbal understanding with the landlord that the tenant could end the tenancy early if required.
The tenant subsequently gave written notice of their intention to end the tenancy early, first by email six months before the intended early termination date, and again one month prior. Neither the landlord nor the property manager responded in email or text form to dispute or object to the tenant’s stated intention. The landlord claims that there was a phone call between himself and the tenant on 11 December 2025, which is not accepted by the tenant.
The tenant vacated the premises on the early termination date. After the tenant had left, the property manager sent a letter advising the tenant that he would be liable for rent until a new tenant was found or until the original end date of the fixed term.
In this case, the tenant gave clear and repeated written notice of their intention to end the tenancy early. The owner and property manager were given ample opportunity to respond or object but did not do so.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the owners and property managers silence, in the face of clear and repeated notice, amounts to acceptance of the early termination. The property managers subsequent objection, made only after the second notice in December 2025 and after the tenant had vacated, is not persuasive. Had the owner or property manager replied and set out the terms of the early termination after receiving the first notice on 4 July 2025, the Tribunal findings would have been different. However, the lack of any response for over 5 months, the tenant has rightly assumed the expectation that the owner and property manager had agreed to the early termination.
The Tribunal finds that the tenancy ended by mutual agreement on the date the tenant vacated the premises.
The tenancy is declared to have ended by mutual agreement on 11 January 2026.
The tenant is not liable for rent beyond that date.
Any bond held by the Bond Centre is to be refunded to the tenant, less any agreed or proven deductions.
Any further claims by the landlord for rent after11 January 2026 are dismissed. Tenant claims- Failure to Maintain:
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that the property was infested with fleas as a result of the landlord failing to block off the underneath part of the house. The tenant says that stray cats lived under the house and are the reason that there was the flea infestation.
The tenant sought that the landlord block off the under house and provide flea treatments. The tenant provided photos of the dead fleas on his body and welts on his wife’s and child’s bodies from the flea bites.
The landlord did provide flea treatment that the tenant had to apply around the property to eradicate the fleas. Furthermore, the landlord eventually blocked off the under house some months later. The tenant says more should have been done and in a timelier manner.
The landlord claims that they are not responsible for a pest infestation over one year into a tenancy. This was the tenants responsible and not the landlords.
In addition, the landlord says the under house did not require blocking off, but they did it anyway. The stray cats were around the property because the tenant left their food scrapes outside for the cats to get into.
The tenant states that the cook top had failed to work on several occasions during the tenancy. When the landlord decided to replace the cooktop, he asked the tenant to collect the new cooktop from the supplier and arrange a tradesperson to install the cooktop. The tenant says he did not receive any compensation for collecting the cook top and this was the landlord responsibility not him.
Furthermore, the tenant complained that the landlord expected him to do running repairs on the outdoor blind at the property and replace screws holding the blinds to the frame several times.
The tenant has raised several concerns regarding the landlord’s maintenance of the property, including being asked to collect and arrange installation of a new cooktop, securing outdoor blinds, addressing a flea infestation, and blocking access under the house to prevent stray cats from entering.
In each instance, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the issues raised. The landlord provided a new cooktop and left it to the tenant to arrange installation, which is not, in itself, a failure to maintain, particularly where the landlord supplied the necessary item. The landlord also provided flea treatment when notified of an infestation and took steps to block off the area under the house, albeit not immediately.
While there may have been some delay, the landlord did ultimately address the tenant’s concerns. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises in breach of section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The actions taken by the landlord were reasonable in the circumstances and do not amount to a breach of their maintenance obligations. Unreasonable conduct of Property Manager:
The tenant complains that the property manager’s behaviour towards the tenant was unreasonable. The tenant says that the property manager would not reply to him if you asked for information or assistance with things related to the tenancy such as who the tenant should complain to about the noise the neighbours made and the roaming dogs.
The tenant claims that the property manager’s behaviour was unreasonable, particularly due to a lack of response to queries. The tenant states that emails and other communications were often ignored.
The landlord submits that some queries were not within the property manager’s role and that the tenants would often engage directly with the owner. The landlord also states that, on occasion, the property manager responded by telephone rather than in writing.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not impose a general obligation on landlords or property managers to respond to all tenant queries, nor does it prescribe the manner or frequency of communication, except where it relates to a specific statutory duty (such as providing required information, notices, or access).
Unless a lack of communication results in a failure to meet a specific statutory obligation under the Act—such as not responding to repair requests, not providing required information, or not giving proper notice—poor communication alone does not amount to a breach of the RTA.
In this case, while the tenant may have found the property manager’s communication unsatisfactory, there is no evidence that the landlord or property manager failed to meet any specific statutory obligation under the Act. The landlord’s explanation that some queries were outside the property manager’s role, or were handled by phone, is accepted.
The Tribunal finds that the landlord and property manager have not breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in relation to communication with the tenant.
The tenant’s claim in this regard is dismissed. Bond/suppression/reimbursement of the filing fee:
Because Velocity 365 Property Management Limited As Agent For Kamal Bathla And Sukhjeet Kaur has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond to the tenant immediately.
The tenant has sought suppression of his name and details and as he has been successful, I am granting suppression.
The landlord has applied for suppression but has not been successful with their claim, therefore I am not granting suppression nor reimbursing their filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5434648 — Rent arrears at 20A Nogat Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5434648 — Rent arrears at 20A Nogat Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions