What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5512869 about?

The tribunal order states: The applicants name is suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5512869?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,640.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $377.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5512869?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5512869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14058085-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5512869 about?

The tribunal order states: The applicants name is suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5512869?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,640.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $377.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5512869?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5512869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14058085-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

18 McDonald Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5512869 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5512869 — net $4,525.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 07/07/2026	$6,640.00	Rent arrears to 07/07/2026
Water rates to 04/08/2026	$377.60	Water rates to 04/08/2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,525.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,525.60

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not.

The applicant tells me that the landlord gave 90 days’ notice, which expired on 30 June 2026. After that date, the tenant did not return the keys, and there were discussions with the tenant about their return.

I asked the landlord when the tenant actually vacated the premises. The landlord said they did not know because the tenant had not communicated this to them. The landlord was also uncertain as to when the keys were ultimately returned. They said they did not realise the keys had been returned until 14 August, but were satisfied that they had been returned by at least 4 August, having apparently been dropped off at the office without notification.

From 8 July, the landlord was in discussion with the tenant about returning the keys. It is clear to me that, even if the landlord was not sure on 1 or 2 July whether the tenant had vacated, by 8 July they were aware that possession had been returned, even though the keys had not.

The applicant is a professional property manager. The issue of tenants vacating without returning keys is not uncommon, and landlords have an obligation under section 49 to mitigate their losses.

The landlord claims rent arrears through to 4 August on the basis that the keys had not been returned. In my view, however, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to take possession earlier, have the locks or keys replaced as necessary, and seek the reasonable cost of doing so from the tenant. It is inexplicable why the matter was left for a further period of approximately 35 days.

The landlord tells me that the tenant had dogs and that this was the reason they did not take possession earlier. However, the tenant had indicated in the text messages between her and the landlord that the outstanding issue was simply the return of the keys.

For all of these reasons, I find the landlord's claim for rent arrears through to 4 August 2026 unreasonable. The rent arrears through to 7 July 2026 are $6,640. This represents one week's rent following the termination of the tenancy by the landlord's notice. I find that the landlord did not sufficiently mitigate their losses after that date, and an award of rent arrears through to 4 August is therefore unjustified. I award rent arrears of $6,640.

The landlord has provided water records showing an amount owing through to 4 August of $377.60. Although I have found that rent arrears are awardable only through to 7 July, I accept the landlord's evidence that nobody else occupied the property during the intervening period. I am therefore satisfied that the water charges are the responsibility of the tenant, and I award $377.60.

I note, however, that there are inconsistencies in the landlord's evidence. In the landlord's water summary, they indicate that an inspection of the property was carried out on 4 August. However, the landlord told me at the hearing that they had not taken possession of, or returned to, the property until 14 August. These inconsistencies in the presentation of the evidence have caused me to treat the landlord's evidence with caution.

It is the landlord's responsibility, as the applicant, to establish its claim on the balance of probabilities. The amounts awarded represent those amounts that I am satisfied, on the evidence before me and on the balance of probabilities, are actually owing.

As the applicant has been substantially successful in the application I have awarded the filing fee and granted their application for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5512869 — net $4,525.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 07/07/2026	$6,640.00	Rent arrears to 07/07/2026
Water rates to 04/08/2026	$377.60	Water rates to 04/08/2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,525.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,525.60

Order

The applicants name is suppressed.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $4,525.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not.
The applicant tells me that the landlord gave 90 days’ notice, which expired on 30 June 2026. After that date, the tenant did not return the keys, and there were discussions with the tenant about their return.
I asked the landlord when the tenant actually vacated the premises. The landlord said they did not know because the tenant had not communicated this to them. The landlord was also uncertain as to when the keys were ultimately returned. They said they did not realise the keys had been returned until 14 August, but were satisfied that they had been returned by at least 4 August, having apparently been dropped off at the office without notification.
From 8 July, the landlord was in discussion with the tenant about returning the keys. It is clear to me that, even if the landlord was not sure on 1 or 2 July whether the tenant had vacated, by 8 July they were aware that possession had been returned, even though the keys had not.
The applicant is a professional property manager. The issue of tenants vacating without returning keys is not uncommon, and landlords have an obligation under section 49 to mitigate their losses.
The landlord claims rent arrears through to 4 August on the basis that the keys had not been returned. In my view, however, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to take possession earlier, have the locks or keys replaced as necessary, and seek the reasonable cost of doing so from the tenant. It is inexplicable why the matter was left for a further period of approximately 35 days.
The landlord tells me that the tenant had dogs and that this was the reason they did not take possession earlier. However, the tenant had indicated in the text messages between her and the landlord that the outstanding issue was simply the return of the keys.
For all of these reasons, I find the landlord's claim for rent arrears through to 4 August 2026 unreasonable. The rent arrears through to 7 July 2026 are $6,640. This represents one week's rent following the termination of the tenancy by the landlord's notice. I find that the landlord did not sufficiently mitigate their losses after that date, and an award of rent arrears through to 4 August is therefore unjustified. I award rent arrears of $6,640.
The landlord has provided water records showing an amount owing through to 4 August of $377.60. Although I have found that rent arrears are awardable only through to 7 July, I accept the landlord's evidence that nobody else occupied the property during the intervening period. I am therefore satisfied that the water charges are the responsibility of the tenant, and I award $377.60.
I note, however, that there are inconsistencies in the landlord's evidence. In the landlord's water summary, they indicate that an inspection of the property was carried out on 4 August. However, the landlord told me at the hearing that they had not taken possession of, or returned to, the property until 14 August. These inconsistencies in the presentation of the evidence have caused me to treat the landlord's evidence with caution.
It is the landlord's responsibility, as the applicant, to establish its claim on the balance of probabilities. The amounts awarded represent those amounts that I am satisfied, on the evidence before me and on the balance of probabilities, are actually owing.
As the applicant has been substantially successful in the application I have awarded the filing fee and granted their application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5512869 — Rent arrears at 18 McDonald Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5512869 — Rent arrears at 18 McDonald Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.