What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455262 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Hoverd & Co Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5455262?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,175.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455262?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13761254-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455262 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Hoverd & Co Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5455262?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,175.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455262?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13761254-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

338A Redoubt Road, Totara Park, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5455262 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5455262 — net $1,203.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 November 2025	$1,175.00	Rent arrears to 25 November 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,203.00
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,203.00

[The tenant/s] must pay Hoverd & Co Property Management Limited as agent for Shayron Beadle $1,203.00 immediately from the bond, as calculated below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6346929-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Hoverd & Co Property Management Limited as agent for Shayron Beadle: $1,203.00 [The tenant/s]: $597.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by video/phone.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing.

The tenant accepts the mathematical calculation of the rent but believes he should not be liable to pay it all because a door at the premises was damaged following a break-in. There was a delay in the door being repaired and he decided to leave the tenancy. The door was repaired during the final week he was a tenant. Jurisdiction

The tenancy is probably regarded as a commercial tenancy; the tenant did not reside at the premises but used them for a non-residential purpose. The tenancy lasted just over 6 years.

Commercial tenancies are excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That said only the Tenancy Tribunal can make a bond order when, as in this case, the bond is held at the Bond Centre.

I explained to the parties that I could retain jurisdiction by consent, otherwise the applications would need to be heard in the Disputes Tribunal.

The parties elected to remain within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal which was a pragmatic decision given the issues in dispute. I have retained jurisdiction with the parties’ agreement. Discussion

A claim for rent arrears is separate from a claim for the bond by the tenant. Rent arrears are proved by the rent records produced in evidence. There is no dispute that the landlord’s rent records are correct.

Rather, the tenant believes he should receive some rent relief because the premises were insecure following the break-in and it took a few weeks for the door repair to be completed. The repair was completed in the final week of the tenancy, the tenant having decided to vacate the premises.

The tenant has only applied for the refund of his bond, not for any compensation from the landlord for the premises being insecure.

Compensation usually follows a breach by the landlord. Here, there was no breach of any statutory duty by the landlord. The premises became insecure not due to any action or inaction by the landlord. The premises were rendered insecure by the actions of a burglar.

Nor did the landlord fail act on the repair issue. The landlord sent a repair contractor to assess the damage immediately. The delay of a couple of weeks for the repair to the door to be completed is not objectively unreasonable. During that time, nothing adverse happened; the tenant suffered no loss. Rather, he was concerned about what might happen. In that sense, there is nothing to compensate. Result

I find that the tenant is liable for the rent claimed by the landlord. He remained in possession of the premises and retained the use of them. That he was concerned that something might happen due to the damaged door making the premises insecure does not mean that the rent should abate. It was the tenant’s considered decision to end the tenancy. While understandable, that did not relieve him of his responsibility to pay rent until the date he vacated the premises.

The landlord’s claim for rent is therefore proved. The bond will be split between the parties - $1,203.00 to the landlord (which includes reimbursement of the filing fee on the successful application) and $597.00 to the tenant. Name suppression

When asked, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5455262 — net $1,203.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 November 2025	$1,175.00	Rent arrears to 25 November 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,203.00
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,203.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Hoverd & Co Property Management Limited as agent for Shayron Beadle $1,203.00 immediately from the bond, as calculated below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6346929-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Hoverd & Co Property Management Limited as agent for Shayron Beadle: $1,203.00 [The tenant/s]: $597.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by video/phone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing.
The tenant accepts the mathematical calculation of the rent but believes he should not be liable to pay it all because a door at the premises was damaged following a break-in. There was a delay in the door being repaired and he decided to leave the tenancy. The door was repaired during the final week he was a tenant. Jurisdiction
The tenancy is probably regarded as a commercial tenancy; the tenant did not reside at the premises but used them for a non-residential purpose. The tenancy lasted just over 6 years.
Commercial tenancies are excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That said only the Tenancy Tribunal can make a bond order when, as in this case, the bond is held at the Bond Centre.
I explained to the parties that I could retain jurisdiction by consent, otherwise the applications would need to be heard in the Disputes Tribunal.
The parties elected to remain within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal which was a pragmatic decision given the issues in dispute. I have retained jurisdiction with the parties’ agreement. Discussion
A claim for rent arrears is separate from a claim for the bond by the tenant. Rent arrears are proved by the rent records produced in evidence. There is no dispute that the landlord’s rent records are correct.
Rather, the tenant believes he should receive some rent relief because the premises were insecure following the break-in and it took a few weeks for the door repair to be completed. The repair was completed in the final week of the tenancy, the tenant having decided to vacate the premises.
The tenant has only applied for the refund of his bond, not for any compensation from the landlord for the premises being insecure.
Compensation usually follows a breach by the landlord. Here, there was no breach of any statutory duty by the landlord. The premises became insecure not due to any action or inaction by the landlord. The premises were rendered insecure by the actions of a burglar.
Nor did the landlord fail act on the repair issue. The landlord sent a repair contractor to assess the damage immediately. The delay of a couple of weeks for the repair to the door to be completed is not objectively unreasonable. During that time, nothing adverse happened; the tenant suffered no loss. Rather, he was concerned about what might happen. In that sense, there is nothing to compensate. Result
I find that the tenant is liable for the rent claimed by the landlord. He remained in possession of the premises and retained the use of them. That he was concerned that something might happen due to the damaged door making the premises insecure does not mean that the rent should abate. It was the tenant’s considered decision to end the tenancy. While understandable, that did not relieve him of his responsibility to pay rent until the date he vacated the premises.
The landlord’s claim for rent is therefore proved. The bond will be split between the parties - $1,203.00 to the landlord (which includes reimbursement of the filing fee on the successful application) and $597.00 to the tenant. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455262 — Rent arrears at 338A Redoubt Road, Totara Park, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455262 — Rent arrears at 338A Redoubt Road, Totara Park, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions