What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5486711 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5486711?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $874.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486711?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13778942-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5486711 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5486711?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $874.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486711?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13778942-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Gladfield Lane, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5486711 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5486711 — net $902.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: to 30/03/2026	$874.39	Water rates: to 30/03/2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$902.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$902.39

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not attend.

The tenancy commenced on 19 July 2018. The landlord applied for orders for payment of rent arrears, water arrears, the filing fee, and exemplary damages for an alleged failure to allow access to the premises.

The applicant advised that the rent arrears have now been paid. The applicant provided water records showing the amounts owing, and I am satisfied those records are accurate. The claim for water charges arrears are therefore awarded.

The applicant stated that he has been unable to enter the property since the commencement of the tenancy because the tenants have not allowed him access. When questioned about this, he said that he had given notice of entry but, when attending the property, nobody was present and his telephone calls were not answered.

I sought clarification from the applicant, noting that a landlord does not require the tenant's consent to enter the premises where valid notice of entry has been given in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant then stated that there was a locked gate and a dog within the fenced area, which prevented him from entering the property. However, no corroborating evidence was provided in support of those assertions and the landlords submissions were light on details. The burden of proof was therefore not met and the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The applicant also produced correspondence from the local council alleging that unconsented building work had been carried out at the property, namely an extension of approximately 17 square metres on the eastern side of the garage and a further extension of approximately 6.4 square metres on the northern side of the garage. The applicant submits that these allegations, together with the difficulties he has experienced in accessing the property, have caused him serious concern.

I accept that the landlord has genuine concerns. However, the Residential Tenancies Act provides landlords with mechanisms for enforcing their rights and protecting their interests in relation to rental properties. It is not the role of the Tribunal to investigate matters on a party's behalf or to satisfy that party's burden of proof. The applicant may seek independent legal advice or the advice of Tenancy Services to that end.

The applicant also submitted that the tenants had failed to comply with a previous Tribunal order and requested that I incorporate that order into the present proceedings. The previous order was made in 2024. Other than the applicant's assertions, no evidence or records were provided regarding compliance with that order. In particular, no records or other evidence were produced that would enable me to assess what progress, if any, has been made since the order was issued.

Although the applicant stated that the tenant had not complied with that order, he also advised that there were no longer any rent arrears outstanding. These two claims are contradictory given that the orders included an award of rent arrears. In the absence of sufficient evidence, I am cannot incorporate the earlier order.

I nevertheless consider that the landlord has been substantially successful in this application. Accordingly, the filing fee is awarded.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5486711 — net $902.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: to 30/03/2026	$874.39	Water rates: to 30/03/2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$902.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$902.39

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $902.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not attend.
The tenancy commenced on 19 July 2018. The landlord applied for orders for payment of rent arrears, water arrears, the filing fee, and exemplary damages for an alleged failure to allow access to the premises.
The applicant advised that the rent arrears have now been paid. The applicant provided water records showing the amounts owing, and I am satisfied those records are accurate. The claim for water charges arrears are therefore awarded.
The applicant stated that he has been unable to enter the property since the commencement of the tenancy because the tenants have not allowed him access. When questioned about this, he said that he had given notice of entry but, when attending the property, nobody was present and his telephone calls were not answered.
I sought clarification from the applicant, noting that a landlord does not require the tenant's consent to enter the premises where valid notice of entry has been given in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant then stated that there was a locked gate and a dog within the fenced area, which prevented him from entering the property. However, no corroborating evidence was provided in support of those assertions and the landlords submissions were light on details. The burden of proof was therefore not met and the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The applicant also produced correspondence from the local council alleging that unconsented building work had been carried out at the property, namely an extension of approximately 17 square metres on the eastern side of the garage and a further extension of approximately 6.4 square metres on the northern side of the garage. The applicant submits that these allegations, together with the difficulties he has experienced in accessing the property, have caused him serious concern.
I accept that the landlord has genuine concerns. However, the Residential Tenancies Act provides landlords with mechanisms for enforcing their rights and protecting their interests in relation to rental properties. It is not the role of the Tribunal to investigate matters on a party's behalf or to satisfy that party's burden of proof. The applicant may seek independent legal advice or the advice of Tenancy Services to that end.
The applicant also submitted that the tenants had failed to comply with a previous Tribunal order and requested that I incorporate that order into the present proceedings. The previous order was made in 2024. Other than the applicant's assertions, no evidence or records were provided regarding compliance with that order. In particular, no records or other evidence were produced that would enable me to assess what progress, if any, has been made since the order was issued.
Although the applicant stated that the tenant had not complied with that order, he also advised that there were no longer any rent arrears outstanding. These two claims are contradictory given that the orders included an award of rent arrears. In the absence of sufficient evidence, I am cannot incorporate the earlier order.
I nevertheless consider that the landlord has been substantially successful in this application. Accordingly, the filing fee is awarded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486711 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Gladfield Lane, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486711 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Gladfield Lane, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions