What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5423288?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Hogdahl and Debra Goodin must pay Nzpro Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5423288?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,374.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423288?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13626381-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5423288?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Hogdahl and Debra Goodin must pay Nzpro Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5423288?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,374.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423288?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13626381-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51A Luke Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5423288 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423288 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 05 December 2025	$1,374.29	Rent arrears to 05 December 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

Jonathan Hogdahl and Debra Goodin must pay Nzpro Property Management Limited as Agents for Mj East Tamaki Ltd. $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,374.29 (6165663-001) to Nzpro Property Management Limited as Agents for Mj East Tamaki Ltd. immediately.

Reasons

Ms Wu and Mr Morrow appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Both parties appeared by video link.
There is a dispute between the parties as to when the tenancy ended. The landlord claims that it ended on 05 December 2025 and that the tenant owes rent arrears of $1,374.29. The tenant claims that the tenancy ended on 30 November 2025, and they had been fully paid up to that date. They also claim that the landlord owes them $400.00 compensation for impeded access during the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 08 December 2020. The tenancy was initially for a fixed term but then became periodic. On 26 August 2025, the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy on 30 November 2025. On 07 October 2024, there was a change of landlord. Tenants position
The tenant stated that, at the commencement of the tenancy, they had paid the bond equivalent to four weeks and a week’s rent in advance by cash deposit into the landlord’s account. They state that the week’s rent paid in advance has not been taken into account. They submit that, if the week in advance is factored into the landlord’s rent calculations, they are fully paid up to 30 November 2025.
The tenant states that between 03 October 2025 and 17 October 2025, drainage works were completed on the driveway, which significantly impeded their access. They state that this caused delays in moving their belongings from the address before the end of the tenancy.
They stated that, although they had entered into a tenancy at another property prior to the end of this tenancy, they were unable to fully vacate until 05 December 2025. However, the tenant states there had been no agreement to extend the tenancy, and that while some of their belongings remained in a garage past 30 November 2025, and they retained the keys, the property was unlocked, and the landlord was able to access the property.
The tenant stated that the parties had entered into an agreement whereby the landlord agreed to compensate the tenant $400.00 for the inconvenience caused by the impeded access. Although the parties entered into this agreement, the tenant feels that the compensation was insufficient, however, there is no claim relating to this issue before the Tribunal.
The tenant stated that they had been good tenants, had looked after the property, and paid rent when due. The landlord did not dispute this.
The tenant produced a rent summary provided by the previous landlord for the period 08 December 2020 to 09 May 2022. The tenant also provided a schedule of all payments made from 15 December 2020 to 19 November 2025. They have also provided what they described as a corrected summary of the landlord’s summary, factoring in the week in advance and the $400.00 compensation. Landlords position
The landlord accepts that they entered into an agreement to compensate the tenant for the impeded access. They deny that access was impeded for the full two weeks and submit that there was still more than a month between the completion of the drainage works and the end of the tenancy, which was ample time for the tenant to move out.
They stated that the tenant’s own rent records confirmed that all payments had been accounted for, including the first weekly rent payment made in advance.
They produced a text message to the tenant dated 01 December 2025 confirming that the tenant was in the process of vacating and offering to assist with moving. In the message, the landlord advised the tenant to leave the key and send a photograph of the keys and their location.
The landlord also provided text messages from the tenant dated 04 December 2025 in which the tenant repeatedly stated, “Pls give 1 day more”.
In a text message to the landlord on 05 December 2025, the tenant states “Hi Photos of keys and location sent to your email”. The tenant later advised that their ride on mower was still in the garage, and they will arrange to collect it later that day after work.
The landlord stated that although they had access to the land around the house, they did not have access to the property as the tenant still retained the keys. In any event, the landlord believed that, by accepting the tenant’s request for more time, the parties had agreed to extend the tenancy beyond the original vacant date of 30 November 2025 until the tenant finally vacated and removed their remaining possessions on 05 December 2025.
The landlord states that taking into account the $400.00 compensation and the allegedly missing week’s rent claimed which the tenant claims were unaccounted advance payment, the rent arrears to 05 December 2025 are $1,374.29.
In addition to the text messages the landlord provided a rent summary from 24 October 2023 to 05 December 2025. The summary shows that the tenant failed to make the rent payments due on 11 November 2025, 25 November 2025, and for the period 02 December 2025 to 05 December 2025. Law
Section 40(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) states that at the termination of a tenancy, the tenant must quit the premises and remove all possessions. Until this occurs, the tenant, whether lawfully or not, remains in possession. However, a tenant who quits the premises and removes all possessions does not remain in possession merely because they retain or fail to return the keys.
Although any variation of a tenancy agreement must be in writing and signed by both the landlord and tenant, the fact that it is not in writing does not render it unenforceable. See sections 13B and 13C of the Act. Analysis and decision
The issue in this case is whether the tenant had quit the premises and removed all possessions by the end of the tenancy on 30 November 2025 and, if not, whether the parties had agreed to extend the termination date until the tenant did so.
I accept the landlord’s position. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the tenant requested, and the landlord agreed to an extension of the tenancy to allow additional time to remove the tenant’s belongings from either the house or the garage.
The landlord was therefore entitled to rent until the tenant was deemed under the Act to have quit the premises and removed all possessions. In this case, that date was 05 December 2025.
The rent summaries provided by the tenant show that the week’s rent in advance paid on 08 December 2020 had, in fact, been taken into account.
No photographs of the driveway were provided. In any event, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the drainage works on the driveway were completed by 17 October 2025, leaving sufficient time for the tenant to move out. The tenant was also compensated for the inconvenience.
I am satisfied that the agreed compensation has also been taken into account.
I am satisfied that the tenant owes the rent arrears as claimed. Costs
As the landlord has been wholly successful, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Neither party seek name suppression, and no orders are made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423288 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 05 December 2025	$1,374.29	Rent arrears to 05 December 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

Jonathan Hogdahl and Debra Goodin must pay Nzpro Property Management Limited as Agents for Mj East Tamaki Ltd. $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,374.29 (6165663-001) to Nzpro Property Management Limited as Agents for Mj East Tamaki Ltd. immediately.

Reasons

Ms Wu and Mr Morrow appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Both parties appeared by video link.
There is a dispute between the parties as to when the tenancy ended. The landlord claims that it ended on 05 December 2025 and that the tenant owes rent arrears of $1,374.29. The tenant claims that the tenancy ended on 30 November 2025, and they had been fully paid up to that date. They also claim that the landlord owes them $400.00 compensation for impeded access during the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 08 December 2020. The tenancy was initially for a fixed term but then became periodic. On 26 August 2025, the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy on 30 November 2025. On 07 October 2024, there was a change of landlord. Tenants position
The tenant stated that, at the commencement of the tenancy, they had paid the bond equivalent to four weeks and a week’s rent in advance by cash deposit into the landlord’s account. They state that the week’s rent paid in advance has not been taken into account. They submit that, if the week in advance is factored into the landlord’s rent calculations, they are fully paid up to 30 November 2025.
The tenant states that between 03 October 2025 and 17 October 2025, drainage works were completed on the driveway, which significantly impeded their access. They state that this caused delays in moving their belongings from the address before the end of the tenancy.
They stated that, although they had entered into a tenancy at another property prior to the end of this tenancy, they were unable to fully vacate until 05 December 2025. However, the tenant states there had been no agreement to extend the tenancy, and that while some of their belongings remained in a garage past 30 November 2025, and they retained the keys, the property was unlocked, and the landlord was able to access the property.
The tenant stated that the parties had entered into an agreement whereby the landlord agreed to compensate the tenant $400.00 for the inconvenience caused by the impeded access. Although the parties entered into this agreement, the tenant feels that the compensation was insufficient, however, there is no claim relating to this issue before the Tribunal.
The tenant stated that they had been good tenants, had looked after the property, and paid rent when due. The landlord did not dispute this.
The tenant produced a rent summary provided by the previous landlord for the period 08 December 2020 to 09 May 2022. The tenant also provided a schedule of all payments made from 15 December 2020 to 19 November 2025. They have also provided what they described as a corrected summary of the landlord’s summary, factoring in the week in advance and the $400.00 compensation. Landlords position
The landlord accepts that they entered into an agreement to compensate the tenant for the impeded access. They deny that access was impeded for the full two weeks and submit that there was still more than a month between the completion of the drainage works and the end of the tenancy, which was ample time for the tenant to move out.
They stated that the tenant’s own rent records confirmed that all payments had been accounted for, including the first weekly rent payment made in advance.
They produced a text message to the tenant dated 01 December 2025 confirming that the tenant was in the process of vacating and offering to assist with moving. In the message, the landlord advised the tenant to leave the key and send a photograph of the keys and their location.
The landlord also provided text messages from the tenant dated 04 December 2025 in which the tenant repeatedly stated, “Pls give 1 day more”.
In a text message to the landlord on 05 December 2025, the tenant states “Hi Photos of keys and location sent to your email”. The tenant later advised that their ride on mower was still in the garage, and they will arrange to collect it later that day after work.
The landlord stated that although they had access to the land around the house, they did not have access to the property as the tenant still retained the keys. In any event, the landlord believed that, by accepting the tenant’s request for more time, the parties had agreed to extend the tenancy beyond the original vacant date of 30 November 2025 until the tenant finally vacated and removed their remaining possessions on 05 December 2025.
The landlord states that taking into account the $400.00 compensation and the allegedly missing week’s rent claimed which the tenant claims were unaccounted advance payment, the rent arrears to 05 December 2025 are $1,374.29.
In addition to the text messages the landlord provided a rent summary from 24 October 2023 to 05 December 2025. The summary shows that the tenant failed to make the rent payments due on 11 November 2025, 25 November 2025, and for the period 02 December 2025 to 05 December 2025. Law
Section 40(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) states that at the termination of a tenancy, the tenant must quit the premises and remove all possessions. Until this occurs, the tenant, whether lawfully or not, remains in possession. However, a tenant who quits the premises and removes all possessions does not remain in possession merely because they retain or fail to return the keys.
Although any variation of a tenancy agreement must be in writing and signed by both the landlord and tenant, the fact that it is not in writing does not render it unenforceable. See sections 13B and 13C of the Act. Analysis and decision
The issue in this case is whether the tenant had quit the premises and removed all possessions by the end of the tenancy on 30 November 2025 and, if not, whether the parties had agreed to extend the termination date until the tenant did so.
I accept the landlord’s position. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the tenant requested, and the landlord agreed to an extension of the tenancy to allow additional time to remove the tenant’s belongings from either the house or the garage.
The landlord was therefore entitled to rent until the tenant was deemed under the Act to have quit the premises and removed all possessions. In this case, that date was 05 December 2025.
The rent summaries provided by the tenant show that the week’s rent in advance paid on 08 December 2020 had, in fact, been taken into account.
No photographs of the driveway were provided. In any event, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the drainage works on the driveway were completed by 17 October 2025, leaving sufficient time for the tenant to move out. The tenant was also compensated for the inconvenience.
I am satisfied that the agreed compensation has also been taken into account.
I am satisfied that the tenant owes the rent arrears as claimed. Costs
As the landlord has been wholly successful, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Neither party seek name suppression, and no orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423288 — Rent arrears at 51A Luke Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423288 — Rent arrears at 51A Luke Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions