What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465902 about?

The tribunal order states: No non publication orders apply to this decision

How much money was awarded in case 5465902?

Compensation: For Bathroom Light: $25.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: For Door And Window: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: For Heating: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: For Oven: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,471.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465902?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465902?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13755162-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465902 about?

The tribunal order states: No non publication orders apply to this decision

How much money was awarded in case 5465902?

Compensation: For Bathroom Light: $25.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: For Door And Window: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: For Heating: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: For Oven: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,471.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465902?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465902?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13755162-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

137A Brown Road, Brixton, RD 42, Waitara 4382 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465902 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465902 — net $796.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 March 2026	$2,471.42		Rent arrears to 25 March 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: for Oven		$350.00	for Oven
Compensation: for door and window		$100.00	for door and window
Compensation: for bathroom light		$25.00	for bathroom light
Compensation: for heating		$1,200.00	for heating
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,499.42	$1,703.00
Net award	$796.42
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$796.42

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465902 — net $796.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 March 2026	$2,471.42		Rent arrears to 25 March 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: for Oven		$350.00	for Oven
Compensation: for door and window		$100.00	for door and window
Compensation: for bathroom light		$25.00	for bathroom light
Compensation: for heating		$1,200.00	for heating
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,499.42	$1,703.00
Net award	$796.42
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$796.42

Order

No non publication orders apply to this decision
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Edward And [The landlord/s] $796.42 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (BN-16520475) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Eddie And [The landlord/s]: $796.42 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $1,803.58

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
Ms Peters and Ms Maxwell attended for the landlords with Mr Bourke and Ms Bourke. Ms Peters and Ms Maxwell work for Property Brokers and Mr and Mrs Bourke are Trustees of the Trust that owns the property.
There is no dispute that Mr and Ms Bourke are the landlords.
Both tenants also attended the hearing.
I heard from one witness, Mr Whittaker, he attended the hearing on behalf of the landlords. I found him to be clear and straight forward in his evidence. I heard how he is a tradesperson who assists the Bourkes. He is not a tradesperson directly engaged by Property Brokers.

THE CLAIMS

The tenant has a number of claims that are individually listed and considered below. They can be broadly summarised as claims for compensation arising out of maintenance issues. The amount of compensation sought is $4,056.
The landlord has a claim for rent arrears.
All the claims are set out in a case management order of the Tribunal dated 12 May 2026.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
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. It is the applicant that must prove their case.
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.
Not all of the evidence referred to at the hearing is referred to in this decision; however, the parties are assured that all evidence has been considered.

COMPENSATION

The tenants have claimed compensation. Before I consider the specific claims, I will set out some of the general considerations I must apply when it comes to compensation.
In addition to satisfying the civil burden of proof set out above, when the Tribunal considers claims for compensation, any order made will be to compensate the tenants for a loss they have incurred. There could be actual losses where the tenants have paid an amount of money to another person but here the tenants are claiming a refund of rent (and where rent has not been paid a set off to arrears): this is a claim therefore for a loss of amenity. To put this another way, it is a claim for being unable to use the tenancy because some part of it was not useable. In assessing compensation for loss of amenity, the Tribunal is not required to apply a strict formula or percentage of the weekly rent. Rather, the Tribunal may award a global sum that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, having regard to the nature, duration, and impact of the loss suffered by the tenant.
The RTA confirms that landlords are responsible for maintaining the premises (see below for more detail). But there is also an obligation on tenants to advise the landlord when repairs are needed, see section 40(1)(d) which holds: “The tenant shall - ...(d) notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs”.
There is also a duty on a party to mitigate any loss that they have incurred. Section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires: 49 Mitigation of damage or loss Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
What this means, in the context of the tenants’ application, is that when something occurs to cause the tenants a loss, the tenants must take reasonable steps to see that the loss they have incurred is minimised (mitigated).

OVERVIEW OF THE TENANCY

This tenancy has been a relatively long one. It began on 4 November 2019 and ended recently. The tenants moved out on 20 March 2026.
For nearly the entire tenancy the weekly rent was $650 per week. However, in July 2026 the owners asked Property Brokers to become involved with the management of the property. I heard how they manage other properties for the landlords. Property Brokers took over property management duties from September 2025 and the tenants were advised of this. After notice was given on 24 November 2025, rent was increased from 2 February 2026 to $900 per week. The tenants left the property on 20 March 2026.
This is a large lifestyle modern property with a large open plan living/kitchen space and five bedrooms, several bathrooms, a laundry, a garage and garden.
The impression given at the hearing was that until Property Brokers were involved the landlord and the tenant had minimal contact. I heard for example, how the tenants managed some repairs themselves such as fixing potholes in the driveway or trying to fix the bathroom light. When Property Brokers took over the tenancy they highlighted to the tenants the need to report maintenance matters to them and the tenants were clearly keen to do this given this new management and also the increase in rent. It is clear that they felt that their rent should not have been raised while there were outstanding maintenance issues to be addressed. THE TENANTS’ APPLICATION Oven door not closing fully
The tenant says the landlord did not provide and maintain the oven in a reasonable state of repair. They seek compensation. Law – Failure to maintain
I set out the law relating to a landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair here.
Under s 45 RTA the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes and comply with the healthy homes standards (see ss 45(1)(b) and (bb), RTA)
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. The Court noted that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15] the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be. Facts
The tenant says that the oven door did not close properly and that it was not fixed. They had to use a piece of wood to seal it. A photograph was provided.
The tenants say this was reported on 17 October 2025 at a property inspection. It was not fixed during their tenancy. As set out above, they moved out of the property on 20 March 2026. I have determined below that the tenancy ended on 25 March 2026 after written notice was given by the tenants.
The tenants say they couldn’t use the oven properly during this time impacting on what they could cook – they couldn’t cook certain things like a pavlova.
Ms Peters says that a work order was raised on 17 October 2026. The landlord’s personal contractor (rather than a Property Broker’s contractor) was to attend (Mr Whittaker). Evidence was heard from Mr Whittaker. I heard how he did not attend to fix the oven. He did not recall being advised to remedy the oven earlier than when a written note was passed to him on 9 February by the Bourkes. This was a written note that had been provided by the tenant to the landlord at a property inspection that took place on 5 February. In this decision I will call this list the “tenants’ handwritten list”.
Mr Whittaker says when he tried to attend the property to fix the issues on the tenants’ handwritten list he was told by the tenants they were leaving the property and that the issues should wait until after their departure. He told the landlord of this by way of a text message on 12 February. The tenants did not dispute they were frustrated at this point and told Mr Whittaker he should wait until after they moved out although they dispute they were told the extent of what was going to be repaired when Mr Whittaker contacted them. Analysis
I find that there has been a failure to maintain in respect of the oven. This is because the landlord clearly knew there was a problem with the oven and it was not remedied in a reasonable period. Either the initial Property Brokers work order was not passed to Mr Whittaker, or he was not told about it, or he forgot to follow up the issue.
Either way the tenants were left in a property with an oven where the door could not be fully closed for a significant period of time and I accept this impacted their ability to properly cook in the oven and the oven was not in a reasonable condition.
Taking into account when the issue with the oven has been proven as coming to the landlord’s attention, the time that passed before the end of the tenancy (with the oven not being fixed during the tenancy) and the size and nature of the premises and the likely impact of the issue, I consider the sum of $350 to be reasonable compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the oven when considering this as a loss of amenity. I accept that there was a short period of time in which the landlord’s contractor was trying to access the property to undertake or assess this work, as prompted by the tenants’ handwritten list, but where the tenant decided turn him away. I have taken this into account when awarding compensation as the tenant needs to mitigate their loss. Their failure to allow the work to be done contributed to the continuation of the issue. Bathroom light not working
The tenants say the landlord failed to maintain the bathroom light and seek compensation.
I have set out the test in relation to landlord obligations for property maintenance above and so do not repeat the law again here. Facts
The tenant says the bathroom light above the sink did not work for a long time. They say they reported this on 17 October 2025 and followed up in writing in the tenants’ handwritten list (5 February).
The tenants said this was the main bathroom light that did not work but then later clarified that there was a light in the ceiling and that the issue related to a light above a mirror. However, they would have liked more light at the mirror.
The landlord says that the Bourke’s contractor Mr Whittaker fixed the light in the bathroom when he put a new bulb into it. The tenants say the light was never fixed.
I heard evidence from Mr Whittaker who says he did not remedy the light during the tenancy. The landlord’s accepted that their prior position was therefore wrong, and the light was not fixed after the tenant’s reported it as an issue. Analysis
I find that there has been a failure to maintain in respect of the bathroom light. The landlord clearly knew there was a problem in October 2025 as it is recorded in both a property inspection on 17 October 2025 and a work order was raised. It was not remedied in a reasonable period. Again, either the work order was not passed to Mr Whittaker, or he was not told about it, or he forgot to follow up the issue. This meant the tenants did not have a working light above their mirror.
This is a minor defect but the tenants are reasonable in their expectation that this should have been progressed sooner. Taking into account when the issue with the light has been proven as coming to the landlord’s attention, the time that passed before the end of the tenancy and the size and nature of the premises and the impact of the issue, I consider a modest sum of $25 to be reasonable compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the bathroom light when considering this as a loss of amenity.
Again, I accept that there was a short period of time in which the landlord’s contractor was trying to access the property undertake or assess this work, as prompted by the note of 5 February, but where the tenant did not allow for access. I have taken this into account when awarding compensation as the tenant needs to mitigate their loss. Their failure to allow the work to progress contributed to the continuation of the issue. Bi-fold window and sliding door needs maintenance
The tenants say the landlord failed to maintain a bi-fold window and sliding door and seek compensation. I have set out the test in relation to landlord obligations for maintenance above and do not repeat the law again here. Facts
The tenants say a bifold window was stiff and difficult to open in the kitchen. They say that a ranch slider door also had damaged rollers so made it difficult to open.
The tenant’s say that windows were looked at in September 2025 after the landlord had an independent Healthy Homes inspection done. The tenants say on 18 September the Healthy Homes inspector picked up on the fact the window was hard to open. They say that a contractor then came and sprayed the window with CRC on 25 September but that it did not solve the problem. There was an issue with the rollers.
They say that the same contractor also looked at the sliding door which also had a problem with worn rollers. I heard that the door was taken off and the contractor offered to fix the door right there and then but needed the landlord’s approval. The tenant could not get hold of the landlord at that point (she called Ms Bourke) so the door was simply put back into place. The tenants say they were told it was dangerous and the door could collapse but there is no probative evidence to support this.
They say that the two issues were bought to the landlord’s attention on the property inspection on 17 October. This is supported by the property inspection report which notes the need for maintenance of the two areas.
The tenants say it was a struggle to open the window and slider and they stopped using it. I also heard how Mr Crossan would need to open it for Ms Harris. The tenants say nothing was done so the issues were noted again to the landlord on 5 February in the tenants’ handwritten list. It was not fixed at any time during the tenancy.
The landlord says they first noted the issue when a visit was done in July (although the tenant denied a discussion took place on this date). The landlord also says the Healthy Homes inspector identified a problem with a different window so when the relevant contractor was visiting the property to deal with that issue they freed up the other windows. The Healthy Homes report in this regard notes:
There was some confusion about who had put CRC on the window but I find it more likely than not was the window contractors given that their invoice, dated 6 October would corroborate the tenant’s position that work was done to windows on 25 September and because Mr Whittaker’s evidence did not support him doing any work himself on the windows despite a suggestion it may have been him.
Ms Peters says she did not think the issue with the sliding door was serious. She could open it, and she says she is not that strong. When the bi-fold window was identified in July it was stiff. Analysis
I find that there has been a failure to maintain in respect of the window and sliding door. It is well documented that there is a need for maintenance.
The invoice from the window contractors is not entirely clear what work is outstanding concerning the rollers because it says:
However, despite sending a contractor to the property in September, I consider that the landlord would have certainly known that there remained an issue with the window and the door from the inspection on 17 October. Reference to this appears in the property inspection report for that date. This maintenance issue was repeated on 5 February in the tenant’s handwritten note.
Maintenance was required but it was not attended to for a considerable number of months. The tenancy ended before any resolution was reached.
I must consider compensation. There are conflicting views on how serious of an issue the sliding door was. The tenants say they did not open it for fear of it collapsing. The landlord property manager says it was not serious – it could still be opened by Ms Peters.
I do not consider the tenants have sufficiently proven that the matter was dangerous or there was a risk of collapse. I consider that, if it was that dangerous, the property inspection report on 17 October 2025 would have written this as a matter to be urgently addressed at that point (like the light or the oven which are highlighted red). Further, if the window contractors considered this to be a dangerous issue I would expect this to be expressly set out in their brief report in their invoice or reported to Property Brokers (who say they frequently use this contractor and that they would let them know if an issue was urgent).
I do however accept that having neither window or door functioning smoothly and avoiding or having to adapt use of those is slightly more than an inconvenience. The slider door clearly provides access to a deck which would provide indoor-outdoor flow.
Taking into account all of the evidence, when considering a loss of amenity, I award compensation of $100 for the failure relating to the door and the window. Again, I do accept that there was a short period of time in which the landlord’s contractor was trying to undertake or assess the work but where the tenant did not allow the work to progress. I have taken this into account when awarding this compensation as by this action the tenants did not mitigate their loss. Heating system not working Law
The tenant says that the heating, a central heated duct system (which also has air conditioning), has not worked for the tenancy.
The tenant says this is a breach of the landlord’s obligation to maintain the property to a reasonable standard and also a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards for heating.
I have set out the test in relation to landlord obligations for maintenance above and do not repeat the law relating to that part of the application again here. I do however set out further the law relating to the Healthy Homes Standards here as it is relevant to this part of the claim.
Compliance dates for Healthy Homes Standards vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy, as the tenancy began in 2019, on the basis of the evidence before me the healthy homes compliance date is 1 July 2025.
Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS Regulations) provide that a main living room must have a qualifying heater(s) to meet minimum heating capacity. Regulation 8, HHS Regulations provides that the main living room of the premises must be heated by 1 or more qualifying heaters with a total heating capacity of at least the required heating capacity for the main living room (there are alternative pathways that are not relevant here). The HHS Regulations do provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
A qualifying heater is a heater installed as a fixture and is installed in the living room (or must supply heat direct to the living room). It must have a heat capacity of at least 1.5kw and if it is an electric heater or fixed heat pump it must have a thermostat and it must not be an unacceptable heater. There is a required heating capacity. Tenants are to benefit from a living room which can be heated to and maintained at 18ºC on the coldest day of the year.
Importantly in this case, Landlords must meet the requirements set out in HHS Regulations subparts 2 to 5 and ensure that all installed or provided things are appropriate for the purpose for which they are installed or provided; and that all installed or provided things (i) are maintained in good working order; or (ii) if they cannot be maintained in good working order, are replaced within a reasonable time (see Regulation 6, HHS Regulations). Facts
The issue is not the capacity or location or type of the heating but rather that the tenant says that the heater does not work.
The tenancy began in November 2019. The tenant says she called Ms Bourke in either 2020 or 2021 to tell her about the heating. She says someone then came and looked at it, but she could not recall who. That person had told the tenant that they knew of the system causing issues in other properties and had gone in the ceiling to look. This contractor could not resolve the issue.
The tenants say they bought three heaters and didn’t use the heat unit from then onwards. As far as they knew the issue was reported back to the landlord but nothing more happened.
The tenant says the next time this was raised with the landlord was on 24 July 2025 being Property Brokers first visit to the property with the owner.
The tenant explained how the heater would come on at different times and how “it would have a mind of its own”. It needed someone to reset it, and the first contractor couldn’t work it out.
The tenants say they told the landlord in July 2025 that there is no heating because it does not work.
I heard how on 28 July 2025 a contractor came but he did not fix the system. The tenants say he gave the impression fixing it was beyond him.
They say the Healthy Homes inspector who visited in September noted issues with the heating. The tenants also say the issue was discussed on 17 October because putting in a fireplace was discussed, and the issue was also raised in the tenants’ handwritten note (5 February).
The heater was not fixed during the tenancy.
The landlord does not recall the earlier conversation about the heater, and that is now some time ago. They had looked over their property records but found no records of payment or a contractor attending either. Ms Bourke says it was “news to me” when the heater was reported as not working by the tenants on 24 July 2025.
I heard from Mr Whittaker on this issue as a witness, and he said that he had attended the property on 28 July 2025 but that he had not attempted to fix the issue, but he had taken away some information to investigate. Mr Whittaker said he understood the issue had been looked at previously and it might be a manufacturing issue (it was not clear how he knew this information or who had told him). He said the tenants told him not to worry about the unit, there was some resistance and they gave him the impression there was quite a history. He did not follow it up because the tenants did not want him to. He said there was resistance when he tried to look and was assured the house was warm enough.
Mr Whittaker says that the issue was resolved, post tenancy, with the replacement of a circuit board by a specialist. He says that while the interface could operate the unit itself could not operate without the fixed circuit board.
The landlord says the heater is Healthy Homes compliant. They refer to the Healthy Homes report which notes compliance. Namely that: Analysis
There was clearly a problem with the heat source for the property and its operation. The fact that it needed a circuit board replaced at the end of the tenancy and that it needed this fix to be able to operate supports the claims the tenant has made that the heating did not work properly.
I accept that the tenants have proven that there has been a breach in respect of both the HHS Regulations for heating and a failure to maintain the premises in respect of the heating.
The Healthy Homes report records compliance for heating standards but in this report the Healthy Homes inspector is clearly assessing compliance based on the specific HHS regulation requirements concerning for example the type of heater, capacity, any exemption and required heat capacity. However, this alone is not enough for compliance.
As set out above the HHS Regulations set out that a landlord of residential premises must ensure that all installed or provided things (i) are maintained in good working order; or (ii) if they cannot be maintained in good working order, are replaced within a reasonable time (see Regulation 6, HHS).
I find that the heating was not maintained in good working order and this breaches the HHS Regulations.
I find that having this heating system in place which does not work as it should also amounts to a failure to maintain. It has not been remedied within a reasonable timescale.
On the landlord’s own evidence, it has been aware of a maintenance issue with the heating from July 2025. The tenant has not sufficiently proven that they told the landlord of an issue as early as 2020/2021. However, even if this earlier reporting of the issue was proven I would not award the tenant compensation from that date because a tenant has a duty to mitigate their loss. It is the tenants’ own case that after the alleged contact in 2020/2021 it seems that for whatever reason the issue was not actioned further by either party.
As set out above, there is a statutory obligation in the RTA that a party needs to mitigate its losses. To put that another way, if a tenant is incurring a loss for a breach it needs to take reasonable steps to limit the loss that arose. Undoubtedly in the first instance a reasonable tenant would work with the landlord to resolve the problem, but if it continued the next step would be to file an application with the Tribunal to get the issue remedied. The tenant did not do this. Here the tenants should have acted further either by raising the issue again or raising a formal 14 day notice to remedy the issue and/or pursing the matter to the Tribunal at an earlier date - rather than simply leaving the matter unresolved until 2025.
On 24 July 2025 however the tenant clearly alerted the landlord to the issue with the heating. The landlord promptly sent their contractor a few days later. The contractor was sent within a reasonable time here, but he did not resolve the issue and simply left it.
In September 2025 the landlord was alerted (again) to the need to investigate and get the issue resolved (by way of the content of the Healthy Homes report) and the landlord was also clearly aware of the issue and the need to get it resolved at the October inspection as well as in February with the tenants’ handwritten note.
Turning to compensation, considering all the evidence and taking into account matters in the round, I award the tenants $1,200 as compensation in relation to these breaches.
In making this award I have taken into account the fact the tenants did not challenge the evidence that Mr Whittaker gave that they were not worried about the heating due to having alternatives and so I accept his evidence on this point. This means that when considering compensation for this short period, I consider that the tenants failed to mitigate their loss. However, the landlord was clearly aware that the tenant wanted a working heating system by October when alternatives were discussed. The landlord should have also appreciated that, regardless of the tenants’ position, the heating needed to be fixed in order to comply with their statutory obligations. Again, I also accept, when assessing compensation that there was a short period of time in which the landlord’s contractor was trying to progress remedying the issues on the tenant’s handwritten list, but where the tenant turned him away. I have also taken this into account when awarding compensation as this also amounts to the tenants not mitigating their loss.

LANDLORD APPLICATION

Rent arrears Facts

The landlord seeks $5,042.85 in rent arrears to 14 April 2026.
The tenant says they vacated the property on 20 March 2026 and that they handed the keys back to Property Brokers on this day. They did not speak to the person they gave the keys to as they were on the telephone (Beau). The address of the premises was simply written on the keys.
Ms Peters says that in her large office these keys were assumed to be connected to a sale, so they were placed with keys relating to properties being sold by an administrative person. Beau is a sales representative (rather than rentals)/
The tenant says that they gave the landlord the required 21 days written notice and this was the last day in accordance with that notice so they should only be liable to pay rent to 20 March 2026. The tenant says they sent an email giving notice to the property manager on 27 February 2026. Ms Harris says she replied to a 90-day notice emailed to her by the property manager. The landlord says the notice was never received.
The tenant showed me a printed version of the email she says she sent. However, I could not see this being emailed to anyone other than an email address that appears to be connected to the other tenant, Mr Crossan. I asked to see this email in its original format and Ms Harris provided me with her mobile phone to see this email. I also could not identify the email being sent to the landlord on the electronic version of the email. Neither could the tenants or the landlord.
The landlord had an understanding that the tenant was intending to leave so followed up with requests for the tenants to put their notice in writing. There was no response at this stage.
The landlord says they became aware the tenants had left following a routine property inspection on 23 March. The property was found vacant.
The property manager emailed the tenants the next day advising them that if they had vacated the premises they needed to give required 21 days’ notice.
The tenant replied after 9pm on 24 March advising they had vacated on 20 March referring to their emailed notice on 27 February and they said that they had given the keys to Beau at Property Brokers.
The landlord has taken the 25 March 2026 as the date upon which the tenant gave notice and seeks rent for the 21 days that followed as well as arrears. The landlrod took the starting point of the tenants notice to vacate to be 25 March because the tenant’s message was received after 5pm on 24 March. The law and analysis
A tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 21 days’ notice. Every notice to terminate a tenancy shall be in writing (section 51 RTA).
Section 136(8) RTA deals with service of notices and sets out: If any document is transmitted to an electronic address in accordance with this section after 5 pm on any day, it is to be treated, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as having been given or served on the next working day after the date on which it was transmitted.
There is no suggestion this is anything other than a periodic tenancy.
I find that Ms Harris has likely made an error when sending her email giving notice and she has not sent her email giving notice to the correct recipient. While I accept that the tenants intended to give notice the email they relied upon could not have reached the landlord as the landlord was not one of the email recipients.
This means I accept the landlord’s position that on 27 February 2026 they were not given written notice to end the tenancy as the tenants thought. This means the tenants did not give the required written notice to bring the tenancy to an end on 20 March 2026. There is no evidence that the landlords knew of a date the tenant would be leaving prior to their departure.
I accept that the first time the landlord knew the tenants had left the premises was at the inspection when finding the property empty on 23 March and then this was confirmed by an email from the tenant late on 24 March.
I have carefully considered whether the landlord should be able to recover rent arrears to 14 April 2026 to take into account the fact they were not given the required written notice by the tenants to end the tenancy.
While the tenants did not give the required 21 days’ notice the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears on 12 March 2026.
Where a landlord files such an application, they typically want to achieve termination and possession of the tenancy immediately (or at most within a few days). It would be inconsistent for a landlord to demand from the tenant immediate vacant possession (by way of an application to terminate a tenancy) yet also require the tenant to give notice.
By leaving the property the tenant has essentially given the landlord what they wanted in their application (immediate termination and possession).
Put another way, once the landlord sought termination through the Tribunal, they took control of how they wanted the tenancy to end. By the tenant vacating promptly, the landlord was placed in the position they had asked the Tribunal to create, namely, to regain possession as soon as possible. It would make no sense for a landlord to deny a tenant the ability to leave when they are claiming, at the same time, that their tenancy should be terminated. The tenant has essentially acquiesced to the landlord’s application. Demanding a tenant stay when they are accruing rent arrears is also not inline with a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss.
All that considered, I do judge it appropriate for the tenant to be liable to pay rent until 25 March because it was not until after 5pm on 24 March that the tenants advised the landlord that they had actually returned possession of the premises back to the landlord or where the keys could be located. I accept that as the email was not sent until after 9pm on 24 March it is appropriate, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to regard it as served the following day.
I have adjusted the sum sought by the landlord to reflect this date. Arrears are awarded to 25 March 2026. I am satisfied that the rent summaries provided prove the sums payable throughout the tenancy and the sums the tenants have paid. The sum ordered is proven.

BOND

I have made investigations with the Bond Centre as to the Bond lodged for this premises.
A bond of $2,600 has been located at the Bond Centre. I have apportioned this sum between the parties to take into account the outcome of this decision.

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Both parties have had an element of success and so I award both parties the refund of the filing fee.
The landlord seeks suppression of their identifying details but the tenant does not.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See section 95A RTA.
I do not award the landlords name suppression. This is because I do not consider that they have been wholly or substantially successful. I see no other reason to award suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders but that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public and weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465902 — Rent arrears at 137A Brown Road, Brixton, RD 42, Waitara 4382

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465902 — Rent arrears at 137A Brown Road, Brixton, RD 42, Waitara 4382

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

THE CLAIMS

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

COMPENSATION

OVERVIEW OF THE TENANCY

LANDLORD APPLICATION

BOND

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

THE CLAIMS

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

COMPENSATION

OVERVIEW OF THE TENANCY

LANDLORD APPLICATION

BOND

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions