What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4675171?

The tribunal order states: Alexcia Thorogood and Christian Alden must pay Peter Walters $7,341.48

How much money was awarded in case 4675171?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,321.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675171?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11585730-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4675171?

The tribunal order states: Alexcia Thorogood and Christian Alden must pay Peter Walters $7,341.48

How much money was awarded in case 4675171?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,321.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675171?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11585730-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Matapan Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4675171 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4675171 — net $7,341.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 August 2023	$7,321.04	Rent arrears to 16 August 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,341.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,341.48

Order

Alexcia Thorogood and Christian Alden must pay Peter Walters $7,341.48 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Alexcia Thorogood and Christian Alden’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

This dispute concerns a six-year tenancy that began on 7 October 2017 and ended in August 2023. The hearing was held by teleconference on 8 January 2025, with Mr and Mrs Walters attending for the landlord and Ms Thorogood attending for the tenants. The Tribunal acknowledges the delay in issuing this decision and apologises for any inconvenience caused.
Both parties bear the onus of proving their claims. The landlord must provide sufficient evidence to establish the existence of rent arrears and water charges, while the tenants must demonstrate their entitlement to compensation and the return of their bond. The Tribunal will assess each claim based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal framework under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Landlord’s Claims
The landlord seeks to recover: $7,321.04 in rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee
The landlord has already received the full bond refund of $2,080, which was applied first to the unpaid water charges of $1,722.47 and the remaining $357.53 was credited towards rent arrears. This left a balance of $7,321.04 in outstanding rent arrears. Rent Arrears
The key issue is whether the landlord is entitled to rent from 12 August 2023 to 16 August 2023, given that the tenants originally provided notice that their tenancy would end on 11 August 2023.
The tenants claim that after removing their furniture and belongings, they discovered extensive mould, which required additional cleaning. They also needed extra time to mow the lawns and remove rubbish using a flexi bin. The landlord says Mr Alden requested additional time, which was verbally agreed to, and explained that he did not want to concern his wife, as she was heavily pregnant and in a vulnerable state. However, the landlord claims the tenants failed to keep them properly informed and that they were prevented from accessing the property until the tenants physically vacated and returned the keys on 16 August 2023.
Under the RTA, tenants are obligated to return the property in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy. While the landlord agreed to an extension, this does not mean they waived the right to charge rent for the additional days. As the tenants remained in possession until 16 August 2023, preventing the landlord from re-letting or accessing the property, the Tribunal finds that the landlord is entitled to rent up to and including 16 August 2023.
Given that the total rent arrears were $7,678.57, and the landlord applied $357.53 from the bond to rent, the remaining balance of $7,321.04 in rent arrears is payable by the tenants. Water Charges
The landlord has already applied the full bond to the outstanding water charges of $1,722.47. However, the tenants disputed their responsibility for paying the full amount, arguing that a leaking shower pipe from May 2019 and a dripping overflow pipe from November 2019 caused excessive water use. The tenants stated that despite informing the landlord of these issues, they were never repaired.
The Tribunal acknowledges the tenants’ concerns but must assess whether: a. The tenant provided sufficient evidence of reporting the leaks. b. The landlord failed to act on reasonable notice. c. The tenants formally followed the process required under the RTA to compel the landlord to act.
The tenants did not issue a formal 14-day notice to remedy the leaks under section 56 RTA, which is the statutory process required to escalate maintenance disputes. While emails may have been exchanged regarding these issues, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the leaks were of such severity that they directly and significantly contributed to excessive water charges. In the absence of clear documentation supporting the tenant’s claim, the Tribunal finds that the landlord is entitled to recover the full water charges and has already done so via the bond refund. The Tenants’ Claims
The tenants sought: compensation of $5,983.86, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee
Their claims were based on allegations that the landlord failed to comply with maintenance obligations, citing: leaks and water damage, mould throughout the house, a non-functioning ceiling fan, an unusable oven for six months and no working heating or cooling system Failure to Meet Healthy Homes Standards
The Healthy Homes Standards do not apply to this tenancy, as they took effect for new or renewed tenancies from 1 July 2021. This tenancy began in 2017 and was never renewed, meaning the landlord had no legal obligation to meet those standards. This claim is therefore dismissed. Alleged Maintenance and Habitability Issues
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with health and safety requirements.
The tenants claim they endured persistent leaks, excessive mould, and inadequate heating and cooling. Additionally, the tenant at the hearing stated that they were unable to use the oven for six months while awaiting repairs.
The Tribunal must assess whether: a. The tenants formally notified the landlord of these issues. b. The landlord failed to act within a reasonable timeframe. c. The tenants took reasonable steps to mitigate their loss.
While the tenants reference emails dating back to 2019, they never issued a 14- day notice under section 56 RTA, which is the formal legal requirement for requesting repairs. The landlord argues that while some issues were reported, they were either attended to promptly or the tenants failed to allow access for repairs. The landlord also disputes the severity of the problems described, stating that inspections showed no significant issue.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the tenants raised concerns during their tenancy. However, they failed to escalate their claims in accordance with legal procedures, nor did they provide sufficient corroborating evidence (e.g., expert reports or formal maintenance requests). In addition, the landlord was often unable to access the property, which further limited their ability to carry out repairs.
With respect to the six-month delay in oven repairs, the Tribunal notes that no formal complaint process was followed under section 45 RTA. While a delay of this length would generally entitle a tenant to compensation, the Tribunal is unable to make such an order without clear evidence that the landlord was at fault and that the tenant took appropriate steps to resolve the issue.
Given the lack of formal notice and the conflicting evidence, the Tribunal finds that the tenants have not established their claim for compensation. Refund of the Bond, Filing Fee and Suppression Order
Since the bond was fully applied to outstanding charges, there is no remaining balance to refund.
As the tenants’ claims have not been upheld, their request for reimbursement of the filing fee and a suppression order are dismissed. Tribunal Findings
The Tribunal finds in favour of the landlord and makes the following orders: a. The tenants must pay the landlord rent arrears of $7,321.04. b. The landlord is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. c. The tenants’ claims for compensation, a bond refund, and reimbursement of their filing fee are dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence and failure to issue a formal 14-day notice to remedy.
The Tribunal acknowledges the tenants’ concerns, particularly regarding maintenance and their personal circumstances. However, under the RTA, tenants must formally notify landlords of maintenance issues and provide reasonable access for repairs. In this case, the tenants did not follow the correct legal process, meaning their claims cannot be upheld. The landlord has proven their entitlement to rent arrears and filing costs, and the Tribunal rules accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4675171 — net $7,341.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 August 2023	$7,321.04	Rent arrears to 16 August 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,341.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,341.48

Order

Alexcia Thorogood and Christian Alden must pay Peter Walters $7,341.48 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Alexcia Thorogood and Christian Alden’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

This dispute concerns a six-year tenancy that began on 7 October 2017 and ended in August 2023. The hearing was held by teleconference on 8 January 2025, with Mr and Mrs Walters attending for the landlord and Ms Thorogood attending for the tenants. The Tribunal acknowledges the delay in issuing this decision and apologises for any inconvenience caused.
Both parties bear the onus of proving their claims. The landlord must provide sufficient evidence to establish the existence of rent arrears and water charges, while the tenants must demonstrate their entitlement to compensation and the return of their bond. The Tribunal will assess each claim based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal framework under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Landlord’s Claims
The landlord seeks to recover: $7,321.04 in rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee
The landlord has already received the full bond refund of $2,080, which was applied first to the unpaid water charges of $1,722.47 and the remaining $357.53 was credited towards rent arrears. This left a balance of $7,321.04 in outstanding rent arrears. Rent Arrears
The key issue is whether the landlord is entitled to rent from 12 August 2023 to 16 August 2023, given that the tenants originally provided notice that their tenancy would end on 11 August 2023.
The tenants claim that after removing their furniture and belongings, they discovered extensive mould, which required additional cleaning. They also needed extra time to mow the lawns and remove rubbish using a flexi bin. The landlord says Mr Alden requested additional time, which was verbally agreed to, and explained that he did not want to concern his wife, as she was heavily pregnant and in a vulnerable state. However, the landlord claims the tenants failed to keep them properly informed and that they were prevented from accessing the property until the tenants physically vacated and returned the keys on 16 August 2023.
Under the RTA, tenants are obligated to return the property in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy. While the landlord agreed to an extension, this does not mean they waived the right to charge rent for the additional days. As the tenants remained in possession until 16 August 2023, preventing the landlord from re-letting or accessing the property, the Tribunal finds that the landlord is entitled to rent up to and including 16 August 2023.
Given that the total rent arrears were $7,678.57, and the landlord applied $357.53 from the bond to rent, the remaining balance of $7,321.04 in rent arrears is payable by the tenants. Water Charges
The landlord has already applied the full bond to the outstanding water charges of $1,722.47. However, the tenants disputed their responsibility for paying the full amount, arguing that a leaking shower pipe from May 2019 and a dripping overflow pipe from November 2019 caused excessive water use. The tenants stated that despite informing the landlord of these issues, they were never repaired.
The Tribunal acknowledges the tenants’ concerns but must assess whether: a. The tenant provided sufficient evidence of reporting the leaks. b. The landlord failed to act on reasonable notice. c. The tenants formally followed the process required under the RTA to compel the landlord to act.
The tenants did not issue a formal 14-day notice to remedy the leaks under section 56 RTA, which is the statutory process required to escalate maintenance disputes. While emails may have been exchanged regarding these issues, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the leaks were of such severity that they directly and significantly contributed to excessive water charges. In the absence of clear documentation supporting the tenant’s claim, the Tribunal finds that the landlord is entitled to recover the full water charges and has already done so via the bond refund. The Tenants’ Claims
The tenants sought: compensation of $5,983.86, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee
Their claims were based on allegations that the landlord failed to comply with maintenance obligations, citing: leaks and water damage, mould throughout the house, a non-functioning ceiling fan, an unusable oven for six months and no working heating or cooling system Failure to Meet Healthy Homes Standards
The Healthy Homes Standards do not apply to this tenancy, as they took effect for new or renewed tenancies from 1 July 2021. This tenancy began in 2017 and was never renewed, meaning the landlord had no legal obligation to meet those standards. This claim is therefore dismissed. Alleged Maintenance and Habitability Issues
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with health and safety requirements.
The tenants claim they endured persistent leaks, excessive mould, and inadequate heating and cooling. Additionally, the tenant at the hearing stated that they were unable to use the oven for six months while awaiting repairs.
The Tribunal must assess whether: a. The tenants formally notified the landlord of these issues. b. The landlord failed to act within a reasonable timeframe. c. The tenants took reasonable steps to mitigate their loss.
While the tenants reference emails dating back to 2019, they never issued a 14- day notice under section 56 RTA, which is the formal legal requirement for requesting repairs. The landlord argues that while some issues were reported, they were either attended to promptly or the tenants failed to allow access for repairs. The landlord also disputes the severity of the problems described, stating that inspections showed no significant issue.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the tenants raised concerns during their tenancy. However, they failed to escalate their claims in accordance with legal procedures, nor did they provide sufficient corroborating evidence (e.g., expert reports or formal maintenance requests). In addition, the landlord was often unable to access the property, which further limited their ability to carry out repairs.
With respect to the six-month delay in oven repairs, the Tribunal notes that no formal complaint process was followed under section 45 RTA. While a delay of this length would generally entitle a tenant to compensation, the Tribunal is unable to make such an order without clear evidence that the landlord was at fault and that the tenant took appropriate steps to resolve the issue.
Given the lack of formal notice and the conflicting evidence, the Tribunal finds that the tenants have not established their claim for compensation. Refund of the Bond, Filing Fee and Suppression Order
Since the bond was fully applied to outstanding charges, there is no remaining balance to refund.
As the tenants’ claims have not been upheld, their request for reimbursement of the filing fee and a suppression order are dismissed. Tribunal Findings
The Tribunal finds in favour of the landlord and makes the following orders: a. The tenants must pay the landlord rent arrears of $7,321.04. b. The landlord is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. c. The tenants’ claims for compensation, a bond refund, and reimbursement of their filing fee are dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence and failure to issue a formal 14-day notice to remedy.
The Tribunal acknowledges the tenants’ concerns, particularly regarding maintenance and their personal circumstances. However, under the RTA, tenants must formally notify landlords of maintenance issues and provide reasonable access for repairs. In this case, the tenants did not follow the correct legal process, meaning their claims cannot be upheld. The landlord has proven their entitlement to rent arrears and filing costs, and the Tribunal rules accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675171 — Rent arrears at 10 Matapan Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675171 — Rent arrears at 10 Matapan Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions