What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5389811?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Nathan Gillan at Unit/Flat Flat 314, 105 Queen Street, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5389811?

Body Corporate Charges: $1,199.63 awarded to landlord; Electricity Charges: $955.53 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $8,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389811?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12958396-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5389811?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Nathan Gillan at Unit/Flat Flat 314, 105 Queen Street, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5389811?

Body Corporate Charges: $1,199.63 awarded to landlord; Electricity Charges: $955.53 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $8,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389811?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12958396-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 314, 105 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389811 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389811 — net $9,423.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
rent to 16 January 2026	$8,500.00	rent to 16 January 2026
Electricity charges to 25 December 2025	$955.53	Electricity charges to 25 December 2025
Body Corporate charges	$1,199.63	Body Corporate charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,423.16
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,423.16

Order

The tenancy of Nathan Gillan at Unit/Flat Flat 314, 105 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Guardian Trust is terminated, and possession is granted to Edward Robert Meili, at midnight on Friday 16 January 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,260.00 (BN-00022700) to Edward Robert Meili immediately.
Nathan Gillan must pay Edward Robert Meili $9,423.16 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

On 14 November 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy for rent arrears, refund of the bond, outstanding electricity charges and compensation for body corporate charges.
The hearing proceeded by way of telephone conference. Both parties appeared. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy.
Under section 55(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must, subject to subsection 55(2) terminate the tenancy, if at the time the application was filed, the rent was at least 21 days in arrears.
At the date the application was filed the rent arrears totalled $4,360.00. Rent was at least 21 days in arrears. The tenancy is terminated.
The tenant seeks 21 days to vacate the property. The tenant said he will need time to secure alternative accommodation and arrange for movers to pack and remove his belongings. The tenant said that he is an amputee and does not want to end up on the street.
The landlord seeks possession of the property at 5pm on Friday 16 January 2026 given the quantum of the rent debt.
Having heard from the parties, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate for the landlord to take possession of the property at midnight on Friday 16 January 2026 – the end of the rent period. This will provide the tenant with an opportunity to arrange alternative accommodation and remove his belongings from the property without significantly increasing the rent debt.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the date of hearing totalled $8,260.00.
The tenant took no issue with the amount claimed. The tenant said he stopped paying rent as he believed the property was not healthy homes compliant. No cross application has been filed. The Tribunal was told the property is heritage listed and exempt from the healthy homes standards.
The amount claimed is ordered.

How much is owed for electricity charges?

The landlord seeks electricity charges totalling $955.53 and provided invoices for the following periods: a. Bill period 29/01/25 – 26/02/25 totalling $69.50 b. Bill period 27/02/25 – 26/03/25 totalling $69.57 c. Bill period 27/03/25 – 24/04/25 totalling $118.78 d. Bill period 25/04/25 – 27/05/25 totalling $96.82 e. Bill period 28/05/25 – 25/06/25 totalling $69.78 f. Bill period 26/06/25 – 25/07/25 totalling $75.40 g. Bill period 26/07/25 – 27/08/25 totalling $105.07 h. Bill period 28/08/25 – 25/09/25 totalling $83.46 i. Bill period 26/09/25 – 29/10/25 totalling $96.21 j. Bill period 30/10/25 – 27/11/25 totalling $95.16 k. Bill period 28/11/25 – 25/12/25 totalling $89.78
The landlord seeks an electricity part charge for the period 10 January 2025 to 29 January 2025 totalling $55.50. No invoice was provided.
The landlord said the tenant made one payment of $69.50 towards his electricity charges on 25 April 2025 and that no further payments have been made. The landlord said the tenant has been forwarded the electricity invoices and payment has been properly demanded.
The tenant took no issue with the amounts claimed. He told the Tribunal he received the monthly electricity invoices from the landlord but, as he was not working and in receipt of a benefit, he had not been in a financial position to pay bill.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the amounts claimed have been properly demanded and the amounts claimed are ordered.

Is the tenant liable for Body Corporate charges?

The landlord provided evidence that it was invoiced by the Body Corporate for multiple calls outs to the property due to the behaviour of the tenant and his guests. The callouts were as follows: a. Saturday 5 July 2025 – guests of the tenant causing a nuisance, intimidating residents, and dragging rubbish into the building. The Police were called. Building managers time - $135.00. b. Tuesday 8 July 2025 – a guest of the tenant was located, intoxicated in the building, intimidating other tenants. No call out fee charged. c. Wednesday 9 July 2025 – guests of the tenant were intoxicated and disruptive in the building. The building manager had to clean up rubbish including spilled and half consumed drinks. Building managers time - $202.50. d. Friday 11 July 2025 – the building manager was required speak to the tenant about noise coming from his apartment throughout the night and then clean up mucus left on a mirror by his guests. After hours call out fee $75.00 for attendance at property + $120.00 for afterhours follow up with neighbours and the property manager. e. Saturday 12 July 2025 – noise complaints from tenant’s neighbours requiring the building manager to make contact with the property manager. After hours call out fee - $75.00 + $60.00 cost for liaising with neighbours over noise complaint. f. Thursday 2 October 2025 – a guest of the tenant was shouting at neighbours and verbally abusive to building manager. After hours call out fee $75.00 + $60.00 for liaising with neighbours and checking the building. g. Sunday 12 October 2025 – tenant hosted a loud gathering where music, offensive language and shouting could be heard. After hours call out fee $75.00 + $120.00 for contacting and waiting for the building’s security guard to arrive on site. h. Guest of the tenant trespassed from commercial premises in the building following an alleged criminal activity. Guest is sometimes verbally abusive inside the lobby and common arears. Charge $350.00.
The tenant accepts that the behaviour of his guests was at times unruly and that as a result the Body Corporate issued a series of breach notice invoices. The tenant accepted liability for the costs. With the exception of the breach outlined in subparagraph [22 - h]. The tenant stated that he did not know his guest had been involved in an incident in the commercial property and that this guest’s behaviour had previously been accounted for in the earlier breaches.
Section 41 of the Act states that tenant is responsible for the actions of people at the premises with their consent. The tenancy agreement states that the tenant agrees to abide by the Body Corporate rules of the building.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to order the amount of $1,199.63. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the person referred to in subparagraph [22 - h] was in the commercial premises within the building as a guest of the tenant at the time the alleged criminal activity occurred. The Tribunal accepts that the tenant was not made aware of this incident until weeks later. The evidence also indicates that this guest’s behaviour was included in previous after hours call out charges. On that basis the claim for compensation for the breach specified in subparagraph [22 – h] is dismissed. Other matters
Because Edward Robert Meili has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and the Tribunal declines to order suppression or his name or identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389811 — net $9,423.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
rent to 16 January 2026	$8,500.00	rent to 16 January 2026
Electricity charges to 25 December 2025	$955.53	Electricity charges to 25 December 2025
Body Corporate charges	$1,199.63	Body Corporate charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,423.16
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,423.16

Order

The tenancy of Nathan Gillan at Unit/Flat Flat 314, 105 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Guardian Trust is terminated, and possession is granted to Edward Robert Meili, at midnight on Friday 16 January 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,260.00 (BN-00022700) to Edward Robert Meili immediately.
Nathan Gillan must pay Edward Robert Meili $9,423.16 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

On 14 November 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy for rent arrears, refund of the bond, outstanding electricity charges and compensation for body corporate charges.
The hearing proceeded by way of telephone conference. Both parties appeared. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy.
Under section 55(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must, subject to subsection 55(2) terminate the tenancy, if at the time the application was filed, the rent was at least 21 days in arrears.
At the date the application was filed the rent arrears totalled $4,360.00. Rent was at least 21 days in arrears. The tenancy is terminated.
The tenant seeks 21 days to vacate the property. The tenant said he will need time to secure alternative accommodation and arrange for movers to pack and remove his belongings. The tenant said that he is an amputee and does not want to end up on the street.
The landlord seeks possession of the property at 5pm on Friday 16 January 2026 given the quantum of the rent debt.
Having heard from the parties, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate for the landlord to take possession of the property at midnight on Friday 16 January 2026 – the end of the rent period. This will provide the tenant with an opportunity to arrange alternative accommodation and remove his belongings from the property without significantly increasing the rent debt.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the date of hearing totalled $8,260.00.
The tenant took no issue with the amount claimed. The tenant said he stopped paying rent as he believed the property was not healthy homes compliant. No cross application has been filed. The Tribunal was told the property is heritage listed and exempt from the healthy homes standards.
The amount claimed is ordered.

How much is owed for electricity charges?

The landlord seeks electricity charges totalling $955.53 and provided invoices for the following periods: a. Bill period 29/01/25 – 26/02/25 totalling $69.50 b. Bill period 27/02/25 – 26/03/25 totalling $69.57 c. Bill period 27/03/25 – 24/04/25 totalling $118.78 d. Bill period 25/04/25 – 27/05/25 totalling $96.82 e. Bill period 28/05/25 – 25/06/25 totalling $69.78 f. Bill period 26/06/25 – 25/07/25 totalling $75.40 g. Bill period 26/07/25 – 27/08/25 totalling $105.07 h. Bill period 28/08/25 – 25/09/25 totalling $83.46 i. Bill period 26/09/25 – 29/10/25 totalling $96.21 j. Bill period 30/10/25 – 27/11/25 totalling $95.16 k. Bill period 28/11/25 – 25/12/25 totalling $89.78
The landlord seeks an electricity part charge for the period 10 January 2025 to 29 January 2025 totalling $55.50. No invoice was provided.
The landlord said the tenant made one payment of $69.50 towards his electricity charges on 25 April 2025 and that no further payments have been made. The landlord said the tenant has been forwarded the electricity invoices and payment has been properly demanded.
The tenant took no issue with the amounts claimed. He told the Tribunal he received the monthly electricity invoices from the landlord but, as he was not working and in receipt of a benefit, he had not been in a financial position to pay bill.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the amounts claimed have been properly demanded and the amounts claimed are ordered.

Is the tenant liable for Body Corporate charges?

The landlord provided evidence that it was invoiced by the Body Corporate for multiple calls outs to the property due to the behaviour of the tenant and his guests. The callouts were as follows: a. Saturday 5 July 2025 – guests of the tenant causing a nuisance, intimidating residents, and dragging rubbish into the building. The Police were called. Building managers time - $135.00. b. Tuesday 8 July 2025 – a guest of the tenant was located, intoxicated in the building, intimidating other tenants. No call out fee charged. c. Wednesday 9 July 2025 – guests of the tenant were intoxicated and disruptive in the building. The building manager had to clean up rubbish including spilled and half consumed drinks. Building managers time - $202.50. d. Friday 11 July 2025 – the building manager was required speak to the tenant about noise coming from his apartment throughout the night and then clean up mucus left on a mirror by his guests. After hours call out fee $75.00 for attendance at property + $120.00 for afterhours follow up with neighbours and the property manager. e. Saturday 12 July 2025 – noise complaints from tenant’s neighbours requiring the building manager to make contact with the property manager. After hours call out fee - $75.00 + $60.00 cost for liaising with neighbours over noise complaint. f. Thursday 2 October 2025 – a guest of the tenant was shouting at neighbours and verbally abusive to building manager. After hours call out fee $75.00 + $60.00 for liaising with neighbours and checking the building. g. Sunday 12 October 2025 – tenant hosted a loud gathering where music, offensive language and shouting could be heard. After hours call out fee $75.00 + $120.00 for contacting and waiting for the building’s security guard to arrive on site. h. Guest of the tenant trespassed from commercial premises in the building following an alleged criminal activity. Guest is sometimes verbally abusive inside the lobby and common arears. Charge $350.00.
The tenant accepts that the behaviour of his guests was at times unruly and that as a result the Body Corporate issued a series of breach notice invoices. The tenant accepted liability for the costs. With the exception of the breach outlined in subparagraph [22 - h]. The tenant stated that he did not know his guest had been involved in an incident in the commercial property and that this guest’s behaviour had previously been accounted for in the earlier breaches.
Section 41 of the Act states that tenant is responsible for the actions of people at the premises with their consent. The tenancy agreement states that the tenant agrees to abide by the Body Corporate rules of the building.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to order the amount of $1,199.63. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the person referred to in subparagraph [22 - h] was in the commercial premises within the building as a guest of the tenant at the time the alleged criminal activity occurred. The Tribunal accepts that the tenant was not made aware of this incident until weeks later. The evidence also indicates that this guest’s behaviour was included in previous after hours call out charges. On that basis the claim for compensation for the breach specified in subparagraph [22 – h] is dismissed. Other matters
Because Edward Robert Meili has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and the Tribunal declines to order suppression or his name or identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389811 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 314, 105 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389811 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 314, 105 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for electricity charges?

Is the tenant liable for Body Corporate charges?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for electricity charges?

Is the tenant liable for Body Corporate charges?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions