What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438528 about?

The tribunal order states: The Estate of Veisinia Mateaki must pay Sk Group Limited T/A Aj Stevenson

How much money was awarded in case 5438528?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438528?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13668768-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438528 about?

The tribunal order states: The Estate of Veisinia Mateaki must pay Sk Group Limited T/A Aj Stevenson

How much money was awarded in case 5438528?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438528?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13668768-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Hillside Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438528 — Rent arrears

Order

The Estate of Veisinia Mateaki must pay Sk Group Limited T/A Aj Stevenson $3,901.43 immediately, being rent arrears to 7 January 2026.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Wu, representing the landlord, attended the hearing by teleconference. The tenant’s estate did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing so did not attend the hearing. I called the phone number for Claire Nias, the tenant’s daughter, but there was no response. Service
Mr Wu explained that the tenant passed away on 6 December 2025, that the landlord was made aware of this between 2-4 weeks after the tenant passed away and that the tenant’s daughter, Claire Nias, told them she would be dealing with all matters for her mother after that and that she would be clearing out the property. The landlord said that, after that they were in regular contact with Claire Nias by phone and that she was present on the last day when everything was moved out and that Claire Nias returned the keys to them.
I am satisfied from the landlord’s evidence that Claire Nias told the landlord she would be dealing with matters for her mother’s estate after her mother, the tenant, passed away, and that the landlord understood Claire Nias to be the estate’s representative on that basis.
The landlord said that Claire Nias would only provide them with her phone number, not her email or postal address.
Service of the landlord’s application was effected by sending the application and documents to the tenant’s email address for service in the tenancy agreement, by post to the tenancy address and by SMS to Claire Nias’ phone number.
The landlord said that Claire Nias asked for more time to clear and move out the tenant’s belongings and that the parties agreed the tenancy would end on 7 January 2026. The landlord said the tenancy ended on 7 January 2026, although in practice they gave the tenant’s family a further day for a skip bin to be loaded and removed, so the keys were returned to them on 8 January 2026. The landlord provided copies of texts between them and Claire Nias showing her asking for a one-day extension to move out from 7 January 2026 to finishing moving out on 8 January 2026. Therefore, the landlord’s application was made within 2 months from the end of the tenancy.
Section 91A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that if the landlord files an application within 2 months after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant in connection with the application is deemed to have been properly served on the tenant if sent by post to the tenant at the tenancy address or is transmitted to the email address given by the tenant as an address for service.
As the application and documents, including the Notice of Hearing, were posted to the tenancy address and were emailed to the tenant’s email given as an address for service in the tenancy address, then service has been deemed to be effected pursuant to section 91A of the RTA. Further, the application and documents and Notice of Hearing were also sent by SMS to the phone number for Claire Nias, the tenant’s daughter. As the tenant’s estate was served, the hearing proceeded in their absence. End of the tenancy
The landlord has provided evidence showing they agreed the tenancy was to end on 7 January 2026, to give the tenant’s family time to clear and move out her belongings. The landlord said the tenant’s daughter agreed that rent and other tenancy expenses would be paid for that time, but they were not paid. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

How much is owing for rent and water?

The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 7 January 2026, the end of the tenancy and the date to which the landlord claimed rent arrears, which is $3,901.43.
The landlord also claimed $363.87 for water bills up to 17 January 2026. The landlord provided a water ledger but did not provide any water company invoices for any of the water rates periods since the ledger was last at a zero balance on 5 August 2025. Further, the landlord said that after the last belongings of the tenant’s were removed on 8 January 2026 and the keys were returned that day, they no longer had management of the property, and this was returned to the owner. The property manager said they were not aware of whom, if anybody, had moved into the property after 8 January 2026 up to 17 January 2026, which is the end of the period to which water rates are claimed. Thus, the landlord cannot show exclusive use of the property by the tenant’s estate from 8 January 2026 to 17 January 2026.
As the landlord has not provided any water company invoices for the periods claimed and given the issues with the lack of evidence as to whether anyone else was living at or using water at the property from 8 January 2026 to 17 January 2026, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim.

Order

The Estate of Veisinia Mateaki must pay Sk Group Limited T/A Aj Stevenson $3,901.43 immediately, being rent arrears to 7 January 2026.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Wu, representing the landlord, attended the hearing by teleconference. The tenant’s estate did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing so did not attend the hearing. I called the phone number for Claire Nias, the tenant’s daughter, but there was no response. Service
Mr Wu explained that the tenant passed away on 6 December 2025, that the landlord was made aware of this between 2-4 weeks after the tenant passed away and that the tenant’s daughter, Claire Nias, told them she would be dealing with all matters for her mother after that and that she would be clearing out the property. The landlord said that, after that they were in regular contact with Claire Nias by phone and that she was present on the last day when everything was moved out and that Claire Nias returned the keys to them.
I am satisfied from the landlord’s evidence that Claire Nias told the landlord she would be dealing with matters for her mother’s estate after her mother, the tenant, passed away, and that the landlord understood Claire Nias to be the estate’s representative on that basis.
The landlord said that Claire Nias would only provide them with her phone number, not her email or postal address.
Service of the landlord’s application was effected by sending the application and documents to the tenant’s email address for service in the tenancy agreement, by post to the tenancy address and by SMS to Claire Nias’ phone number.
The landlord said that Claire Nias asked for more time to clear and move out the tenant’s belongings and that the parties agreed the tenancy would end on 7 January 2026. The landlord said the tenancy ended on 7 January 2026, although in practice they gave the tenant’s family a further day for a skip bin to be loaded and removed, so the keys were returned to them on 8 January 2026. The landlord provided copies of texts between them and Claire Nias showing her asking for a one-day extension to move out from 7 January 2026 to finishing moving out on 8 January 2026. Therefore, the landlord’s application was made within 2 months from the end of the tenancy.
Section 91A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that if the landlord files an application within 2 months after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant in connection with the application is deemed to have been properly served on the tenant if sent by post to the tenant at the tenancy address or is transmitted to the email address given by the tenant as an address for service.
As the application and documents, including the Notice of Hearing, were posted to the tenancy address and were emailed to the tenant’s email given as an address for service in the tenancy address, then service has been deemed to be effected pursuant to section 91A of the RTA. Further, the application and documents and Notice of Hearing were also sent by SMS to the phone number for Claire Nias, the tenant’s daughter. As the tenant’s estate was served, the hearing proceeded in their absence. End of the tenancy
The landlord has provided evidence showing they agreed the tenancy was to end on 7 January 2026, to give the tenant’s family time to clear and move out her belongings. The landlord said the tenant’s daughter agreed that rent and other tenancy expenses would be paid for that time, but they were not paid. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

How much is owing for rent and water?

The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 7 January 2026, the end of the tenancy and the date to which the landlord claimed rent arrears, which is $3,901.43.
The landlord also claimed $363.87 for water bills up to 17 January 2026. The landlord provided a water ledger but did not provide any water company invoices for any of the water rates periods since the ledger was last at a zero balance on 5 August 2025. Further, the landlord said that after the last belongings of the tenant’s were removed on 8 January 2026 and the keys were returned that day, they no longer had management of the property, and this was returned to the owner. The property manager said they were not aware of whom, if anybody, had moved into the property after 8 January 2026 up to 17 January 2026, which is the end of the period to which water rates are claimed. Thus, the landlord cannot show exclusive use of the property by the tenant’s estate from 8 January 2026 to 17 January 2026.
As the landlord has not provided any water company invoices for the periods claimed and given the issues with the lack of evidence as to whether anyone else was living at or using water at the property from 8 January 2026 to 17 January 2026, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438528 — Rent arrears at 9 Hillside Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438528 — Rent arrears at 9 Hillside Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owing for rent and water?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owing for rent and water?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions