Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5421968 — Rent arrears at 162 Woodhouse Road, Patumahoe, RD 4, Pukekohe 2679
Published 23 March 2026 · Application 5421968
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Pukekohe
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
K Koller
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,756.57
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,756.57
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 1 December 2025 | $1,728.57 | Rent arrears to 1 December 2025 | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,756.57 | ||
| Bond | $4,400.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,756.57 |
Claims and awards for application 5421968 — net $1,756.57 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 1 December 2025
- Amount
- $1,728.57
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 1 December 2025
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,756.57
Bond
Landlord $4,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,756.57
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Tyrone Maunsell and Mia Wayne must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Liu, Fei $1,756.57 from the bond, as set out in the table.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 (BN-00046298) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Liu, Fei: $1,756.57 Tyrone Maunsell and Mia Wayne: $2,643.43
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The parties had a fixed term tenancy agreement to 2 March 2026. The tenants moved out on 1 December 2025. The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 30 January 2026, which is when they say the owner took possession. The tenants do not agree they owe rent to the end of January.
- The tenants sent a message to the landlord on 3 October 2025 stating that they could not afford to stay in the house and were planning to move out by December. The landlord replied the same day saying Thanks for giving me a heads up. Please let me know once you have found a suitable house. There will be some “break lease” fees involved, but we can take that from the bond so that is not an upfront cost ....
- On 22 November 2025 the tenants sent another message to say they would be moving out on 1 December 2025, earlier than 18 December because they could no longer afford to stay in the house. The landlord replied on 27 November, stating he would not longer be doing a viewing the next day. The next relevant message was sent on 15 December, in response to a query about the bond. The landlord states As it stands you are 4 weeks in arrears, which the bond only just covers. That excludes anything we have to do at the house. I noticed that there is a little wall damage, especially in the stairwells etc. I will have to lodge it with the tribunal for mediation. I know we all agreed already, but we have to do things in writing. A mediated order will also assist with the kiwi saver application ... mentioned.
- The tenants’ submission is that there was an agreement with the landlord they could move out. They said they were never told they would have to pay rent until a new tenant was found.
- This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The property manager dealing with the tenancy at the time did not give evidence. Even though it is usual practice for tenants to pay rent until replacement tenants are found, I can see nothing in the messages that tells the tenants they will have to pay more than “some break lease fees” from the bond. I find the landlord has not proved the claim for rent to 30 January.
- I also consider that estoppel applies here. The Tribunal may make any orders that the High Court or District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts, including equitable remedies such as estoppel. See section 78(1)(h) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- A party claiming an equitable estoppel must establish that: a. A belief or expectation has been created or encouraged through some action, representation, or omission to act by the other party; b. The belief or expectation has been reasonably relied on to their detriment; c. It would be unconscionable for the party against whom the estoppel is alleged to depart from the belief or expectation.
- The underlying principle of equitable estoppel is to prevent the exercise of strict legal rights in circumstances where the exercise of them would be unconscionable. This principle is entirely consistent with the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal (Stella & Carey v Bay of Islands Realty Limited & Kirkman [2016] NZTT Kaikohe 4051975 & 4053657), in particular s 85(2) RTA, provides that: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
- I find the landlord has represented that the tenants only had to pay some break lease fees from the bond to end the tenancy. The tenants have relied on that and moved out. To now claim an additional $10,000 in rent would be very unfair and to their detriment. The landlord is estopped from claiming rent past 1 December 2025. I have calculated rent to that date.
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants owe money at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.
- A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s78(1), s85(2), s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Property management
- BARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITED as agent for Liu, Fei (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421968?
The tribunal order states: Tyrone Maunsell and Mia Wayne must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As
How much money was awarded in case 5421968?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,728.57 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421968?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421968?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13330309-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.