What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5087388?

The tribunal order states: Hope Ann Marie Smith Johnson and Khabain Peter-Lee Rook must pay Reagan

How much money was awarded in case 5087388?

Power: $782.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,720.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5087388?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5087388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12014528-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5087388?

The tribunal order states: Hope Ann Marie Smith Johnson and Khabain Peter-Lee Rook must pay Reagan

How much money was awarded in case 5087388?

Power: $782.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,720.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5087388?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5087388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12014528-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 196 Fred Taylor Drive, Whenuapai, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5087388 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5087388 — net $3,622.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 November 2024	$5,720.00	Rent arrears to 13 November 2024
Power	$782.00	Power
Net award	$3,622.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,622.00

Order

Hope Ann Marie Smith Johnson and Khabain Peter-Lee Rook must pay Reagan Wu $3,622.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (5813924-001) to Reagan Wu immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outstanding power rates, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has made a cross application seeking a refund of the bond based on a failure to maintain by the landlord and disputing the outstanding power rates. Landlord’s claims
The tenancy ended on 13 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records and outstanding power records which show amounts owing of $5,720.00 for rent and $782.00 for power at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord advises that the tenants left the property without notice on around 11 November 2024 and he was advised by neighbouring properties on 13 November 2024. Although the landlord was entitled to seek additional rent for abandonment, he did not. See section 61(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord instead was only seeking the bond to put towards the rent arrears and the outstanding power. Tenants’ claims
The tenant seeks the bond to instead be refunded to them, on the basis that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
Under section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants say that during the tenancy, several items were not repaired within a reasonable amount of time. Specifically, they say there were major issues to the septic/sewage and pipes resulting in bad smells, pooling water, and excessive mud. The tenant advises that between July and August 2024 there were issues with the septic tank and/or pipes, and although the issue was eventually resolved it took “some time”. The tenants have provided photographs and correspondence with the landlord. They say it was caused by the landlord’s failure to maintain the septic and pipe systems.
The tenants say that the neighbours were using their power and water without consent.
The tenants also raised issues about being harassed by the neighbour and there had been ongoing disputes about cameras being put up at properties. The tenants felt harassed and were contacting the landlord about these issues, and there were also mentions of an assault, however, no application has been made in respect of these and I have not considered this further.
The landlord disputes any issues raised by the tenant and advises that the septic tank was maintained every year by a registered company and that he had been advised by the contractor that the pipes/septic issues in July 2024 were caused by flushed baby wipes. The landlord says he repaired it at the time, and the cost was $4,003.44 and although originally the landlord sought to recover these costs from the tenant, they were eventually waived due to the tenants’ inability to pay.
The landlord says that when the tenants only started paying half the rent, he was not aware of why. The tenants did not tell him that outstanding maintenance items were the reason and he was instead advised it was potentially an issue with WINZ. The maintenance issues were only raised as the reason once the landlord sought rent arrears.
The landlord says that the water and power were calculated carefully and there is no reason to believe that the neighbouring properties were using this. He also says that the neighbours were also complaining of harassment by the tenants. Summary
There is insufficient evidence to show that the neighbouring properties were using the power, and so this amount is proved.
Although I have sympathy with the tenants about the septic/sewage and pipes issues, this was over a relatively short time and the evidence shows that the landlord did seek to repair this within a reasonable time frame. During this time the premises were not uninhabitable.
Issues won’t always been immediately evident, and more than one contractor may be required to determine the issue, and then repair it. In addition, the evidence shows that it was more likely than not caused by the flushing of baby pipes by the tenants. In any event, the landlord did not ultimately seek these costs from the tenant.
I am also satisfied that the tenants did not advise the landlord at the time on why they had reduced the amount of rent they were paying. It was reasonable for him to believe that this was an issue with WINZ and there was no information that would have led him to believe it was due to a failure to maintain. In addition, even if there had been issues with the time taken to repair the septic tank, I am not convinced that it would have justified a 50% reduction or abatement in the rent. The rental summary also shows that rent payments were being missed even after the septic/pipe issues were resolved.
Therefore, I have awarded rent to 13 November 2024 and outstanding power to the landlord, together with a refund of the bond towards these costs. Although the landlord only sought the bond to pay towards the rent arrears and power, I have awarded the full amount. Any decision around whether the landlord seeks to enforce the additional amount is left to the landlord.
The tenants’ claims are dismissed.
Because Reagan Wu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 24 June 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5087388 — net $3,622.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 November 2024	$5,720.00	Rent arrears to 13 November 2024
Power	$782.00	Power
Net award	$3,622.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,622.00

Order

Hope Ann Marie Smith Johnson and Khabain Peter-Lee Rook must pay Reagan Wu $3,622.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (5813924-001) to Reagan Wu immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outstanding power rates, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has made a cross application seeking a refund of the bond based on a failure to maintain by the landlord and disputing the outstanding power rates. Landlord’s claims
The tenancy ended on 13 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records and outstanding power records which show amounts owing of $5,720.00 for rent and $782.00 for power at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord advises that the tenants left the property without notice on around 11 November 2024 and he was advised by neighbouring properties on 13 November 2024. Although the landlord was entitled to seek additional rent for abandonment, he did not. See section 61(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord instead was only seeking the bond to put towards the rent arrears and the outstanding power. Tenants’ claims
The tenant seeks the bond to instead be refunded to them, on the basis that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
Under section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants say that during the tenancy, several items were not repaired within a reasonable amount of time. Specifically, they say there were major issues to the septic/sewage and pipes resulting in bad smells, pooling water, and excessive mud. The tenant advises that between July and August 2024 there were issues with the septic tank and/or pipes, and although the issue was eventually resolved it took “some time”. The tenants have provided photographs and correspondence with the landlord. They say it was caused by the landlord’s failure to maintain the septic and pipe systems.
The tenants say that the neighbours were using their power and water without consent.
The tenants also raised issues about being harassed by the neighbour and there had been ongoing disputes about cameras being put up at properties. The tenants felt harassed and were contacting the landlord about these issues, and there were also mentions of an assault, however, no application has been made in respect of these and I have not considered this further.
The landlord disputes any issues raised by the tenant and advises that the septic tank was maintained every year by a registered company and that he had been advised by the contractor that the pipes/septic issues in July 2024 were caused by flushed baby wipes. The landlord says he repaired it at the time, and the cost was $4,003.44 and although originally the landlord sought to recover these costs from the tenant, they were eventually waived due to the tenants’ inability to pay.
The landlord says that when the tenants only started paying half the rent, he was not aware of why. The tenants did not tell him that outstanding maintenance items were the reason and he was instead advised it was potentially an issue with WINZ. The maintenance issues were only raised as the reason once the landlord sought rent arrears.
The landlord says that the water and power were calculated carefully and there is no reason to believe that the neighbouring properties were using this. He also says that the neighbours were also complaining of harassment by the tenants. Summary
There is insufficient evidence to show that the neighbouring properties were using the power, and so this amount is proved.
Although I have sympathy with the tenants about the septic/sewage and pipes issues, this was over a relatively short time and the evidence shows that the landlord did seek to repair this within a reasonable time frame. During this time the premises were not uninhabitable.
Issues won’t always been immediately evident, and more than one contractor may be required to determine the issue, and then repair it. In addition, the evidence shows that it was more likely than not caused by the flushing of baby pipes by the tenants. In any event, the landlord did not ultimately seek these costs from the tenant.
I am also satisfied that the tenants did not advise the landlord at the time on why they had reduced the amount of rent they were paying. It was reasonable for him to believe that this was an issue with WINZ and there was no information that would have led him to believe it was due to a failure to maintain. In addition, even if there had been issues with the time taken to repair the septic tank, I am not convinced that it would have justified a 50% reduction or abatement in the rent. The rental summary also shows that rent payments were being missed even after the septic/pipe issues were resolved.
Therefore, I have awarded rent to 13 November 2024 and outstanding power to the landlord, together with a refund of the bond towards these costs. Although the landlord only sought the bond to pay towards the rent arrears and power, I have awarded the full amount. Any decision around whether the landlord seeks to enforce the additional amount is left to the landlord.
The tenants’ claims are dismissed.
Because Reagan Wu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 24 June 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5087388 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 196 Fred Taylor Drive, Whenuapai, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5087388 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 196 Fred Taylor Drive, Whenuapai, Auckland

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