Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5507133 — Rent arrears at 38C Kelvin Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050
Published 29 May 2026 · Application 5507133
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
N Walker
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $8,547.15
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$5,200.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $3,347.15
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 23 November 2025 | $7,242.86 | Rent arrears to 23 November 2025 | |
| Water rates | $255.29 | Water rates | |
| Garage remote | $101.00 | Garage remote | |
| Repairs | $920.00 | Repairs | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $3,347.15 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $3,347.15 |
Claims and awards for application 5507133 — net $3,347.15 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 23 November 2025
- Amount
- $7,242.86
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 23 November 2025
Water rates
- Amount
- $255.29
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates
Garage remote
- Amount
- $101.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Garage remote
Repairs
- Amount
- $920.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $3,347.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $3,347.15
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Maria Jose Acero Diaz, Luisa Fernanda Diaz Zapata and Mateo Acero Diaz must pay Aurora Ventures Group Limited As Agent For Jun Liu $3,347.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,200.00 (BN-17578840) to Aurora Ventures Group Limited As Agent For Jun Liu immediately.
- The tenant’s claims to be released from the fixed term tenancy and for compensation are dismissed
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing held on 20 May 2026.
- The tenant applied for refund of the bond, to be released from the fixed term tenancy and for compensation.
- The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation for garage remote and repairs due to alterations by the tenant.
- The tenancy began on 23 November 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 23 November 2025.
- The parties had an agreement that the tenant could run her business from the premises, and they agreed that the weekly rent would be $100.00 more than the advertised rent.
- The tenant had understood that this would be a long-term tenancy even though the tenancy agreement was only fixed for one year. I think that the landlord also expected the tenancy to last longer than one year given the clause for the term of tenancy included, “with the option for extension if both parties agree in writing” and the email dated 12 November 2024 where the landlord included, “It’s a fixed term tenancy for a one year period (can be extended after expiry date)...”
- On 9 September 2025 the landlord gave notice 1 that the fixed term tenancy would not extend beyond the end of the fixed term on 23 November 2025. In that email the landlord advised, “In terms of notice period for moving out early: As soon as you secure a new place and have a firm move-in date, please let me know and we’ll do our best to accommodate it. The owner is happy to be flexible around you move-out date.”
- The tenants located a new tenancy and moved out around 10 October 2025. They understood that the landlord had agreed to end the tenancy early, but this is denied by the landlord. At the hearing when asked about what “flexible” meant in the email the landlord said he thought the tenancy would end one to two weeks early (rather than 6 weeks). When asked why the landlord is no longer willing to be flexible, he said it was because of the tenant’s application to the Tribunal and what they were claiming. However, it seems that the landlord decided not to be flexible soon after the tenants signed the new tenancy agreement, rather than when they applied to the Tenancy Tribunal. Reduction of fixed term tenancy 1 Section 60A(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
- The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 23 November 2025.
- The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The end of the fixed term tenancy is not an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The tenancy agreement signed by the tenants was for a fixed term. It is accepted that both parties had expected the tenancy to last longer than one year, but contractually there was only agreement for one fixed year and the landlord was entitled to not continue it beyond the fixed term.
- The tenant’s application for reduction of the fixed term is dismissed. Compensation
- The tenants set up a business at the premises. They had made alterations to the premises (discussed further below) which involved some financial commitment. The tenant seeks compensation given the money that they spent on their business which they expected to last at the premises for longer than one year but ended at the end of the fixed term.
- The decision to invest in the premises was a risk for the tenants given that they only had a tenancy agreement for one year. A commercial premise may have provided them with a longer term but also may have required more for weekly rent.
- There is no link between the end of the tenancy and the tenant’s claim for compensation. The claim is dismissed. Alterations
- The tenants set up a spa business at the premises. As the business progressed the tenant expanded the services.
- The tenant said that the landlord had repeatedly advised that alterations could be made provided that the property was left in the condition that they found it. The parties had specifically discussed a partition wall but there is no record of discussing the other alterations.
- The landlord did not agree to the proposed partition wall but there is no claim for repairs to any damage caused by the installation of a free standing partition wall.
- In an email dated 25 July 2025 the landlord listed the alterations as: -Downstairs lounge: walls erected to separate rooms -Spa put on deck -Shower installed on deck -Cold plunge and sauna added to deck -Water connections for the above
- The email also said, “the vendor is now fully aware of all these alterations and agrees to keep them as they are, provided that when you move out, the home is returned to its original condition.”
- At the hearing the tenant said that the alterations included installing beds for Japanese hair treatment, a portable sauna, a portable spa, an ice bath and an outdoor shower. The spa and the ice bath used tap water to fill and needed power to run. There was drainage pipes installed for the spa and ice bath as well as the shower. Hot and cold water was provided for the shower and the sauna used a power point. The tenant installed a free-standing partition wall.
- It is not completely clear what alterations the tenants carried out because they used a contractor to do the work and then to remove the alterations at the end. The landlord was also not certain what alterations were made other than what a contractor identified after the tenants had vacated. The problem is that there is no evidence of what the area under the deck looked like before the tenant made the alterations.
- I find that some of the issues identified by the landlord’s contractor do not relate to this tenant. One of these is the wiring for the heat pump where there is no evidence that the tenants installed or required a heat pump. Also, there are refrigerant pipes for the heat pump that were loosed and not properly secured which also relate to the heat pump.
- In the invoice the landlord’s contractor states, “need previous electrician to provide ESC to show where the small switchboard connect to.” At the hearing the landlord confirmed that the tenant had provided the ESC from their contractor in August 2025. The landlord did not provide the ESC to his contractor which may have resolved issues identified.
- Due to the uncertainty of what repairs were required due to the alterations by the tenant and because the landlord failed to provide the ESC to the contractor, the award to the landlord is $920.00 ($800 plus GST) for repairs. This amount relates to the plumbing issues and not the electrical issues.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The tenancy ended on 23 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord claimed for replacement of the garage remote which is awarded.
- Because Aurora Ventures Group Limited As Agent For Jun Liu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- While the tenant sought name suppression, an order is not made for suppression given that the tenant has not been successful with their application and no other evidence supports suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s16, s60A(2), s66(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5507133?
The tribunal order states: Maria Jose Acero Diaz, Luisa Fernanda Diaz Zapata and Mateo Acero Diaz
How much money was awarded in case 5507133?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $101.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,242.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $255.29 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5507133?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5507133?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13631390-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.