What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5268659?

The tribunal order states: Rahul George must pay Umamah (Samreen) Ansari $1,407.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5268659?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268659?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12168228-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5268659?

The tribunal order states: Rahul George must pay Umamah (Samreen) Ansari $1,407.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5268659?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268659?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12168228-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Stephen Lysnar Place, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5268659 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5268659 — net $1,407.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,760.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,407.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,407.00

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend the video hearing. He was telephoned twice but did not answer and two messages were left. Jurisdiction: discussion and decision

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides in section 2(1) that landlord means “the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement”.

“Residential premises” is defined in section 2(1) RTA as: “any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place or residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.”

“Premises” is defined in section 2(1) RTA as including “any part of any premises”.

The High Court in Kahi v Lucas HC Auckland HC81/96, 23 September 1996. and Harding v Schellevis & Ors [2021] NZHC 1265 determined that part of the premises may be a separate premise.

The landlord gave evidence as follows: a. She rents the premises from the owner, her father, under a periodic residential tenancy agreement. b. She is responsible to the owner for the rent for the whole of the premises. c. She advertised for a tenant of part of the premises which are a self- contained, residential, one bedroom apartment (“the unit”) underneath the self-contained part of the premises which she occupies. d. The unit is completely self-contained having its own bathroom, cooking facilities and entrance for which the tenant held the key. e. There are no shared facilities. f. She was the person responsible for contacting the owner regarding repairs or any issues with the premises, including the unit. g. The parties entered into an agreement called a “Flat/house sharing Agreement” (“the agreement”) in which she is named the Head Tenant and the Tenant is named as Flatmate.

The name given to the agreement by the parties is not determinative of the legal relationship between them. On these facts, the landlord granted a subtenancy of self-contained, residential accommodation to the tenant and the RTA applies to this arrangement.

The tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the landlord’s claims rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.

The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. In particular, landlord gave evidence that the carpet smelled of animal urine and the kitchen required cleaning. She was unable to produce photographic or other evidence in support of the claim such as an invoice that would have quantified the claim from an independent source.

The Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has provided sufficient evidential basis for this claim. It is therefore dismissed.

Because Umamah (Samreen) Ansari has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5268659 — net $1,407.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,760.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,407.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,407.00

Order

Rahul George must pay Umamah (Samreen) Ansari $1,407.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$2,760.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,787.00 Bond$1,380.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,407.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the video hearing. He was telephoned twice but did not answer and two messages were left. Jurisdiction: discussion and decision
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides in section 2(1) that landlord means “the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement”.
“Residential premises” is defined in section 2(1) RTA as: “any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place or residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.”
“Premises” is defined in section 2(1) RTA as including “any part of any premises”.
The High Court in Kahi v Lucas HC Auckland HC81/96, 23 September 1996. and Harding v Schellevis & Ors [2021] NZHC 1265 determined that part of the premises may be a separate premise.
The landlord gave evidence as follows: a. She rents the premises from the owner, her father, under a periodic residential tenancy agreement. b. She is responsible to the owner for the rent for the whole of the premises. c. She advertised for a tenant of part of the premises which are a self- contained, residential, one bedroom apartment (“the unit”) underneath the self-contained part of the premises which she occupies. d. The unit is completely self-contained having its own bathroom, cooking facilities and entrance for which the tenant held the key. e. There are no shared facilities. f. She was the person responsible for contacting the owner regarding repairs or any issues with the premises, including the unit. g. The parties entered into an agreement called a “Flat/house sharing Agreement” (“the agreement”) in which she is named the Head Tenant and the Tenant is named as Flatmate.
The name given to the agreement by the parties is not determinative of the legal relationship between them. On these facts, the landlord granted a subtenancy of self-contained, residential accommodation to the tenant and the RTA applies to this arrangement.
The tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the landlord’s claims rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. In particular, landlord gave evidence that the carpet smelled of animal urine and the kitchen required cleaning. She was unable to produce photographic or other evidence in support of the claim such as an invoice that would have quantified the claim from an independent source.
The Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has provided sufficient evidential basis for this claim. It is therefore dismissed.
Because Umamah (Samreen) Ansari has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268659 — Rent arrears at 34 Stephen Lysnar Place, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268659 — Rent arrears at 34 Stephen Lysnar Place, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions