What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5164712 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5164712?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164712?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164712?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11632020-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5164712 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5164712?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164712?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164712?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11632020-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5164712 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164712 — net $827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 March 2025	$2,400.00	Rent arrears to 31 March 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$827.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$827.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164712 — net $827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 March 2025	$2,400.00	Rent arrears to 31 March 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$827.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$827.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at midnight on Monday 31 March 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The property management company] as Agent for [The landlord/s] $827.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

On 13 February 2025, the landlord filed a claim under section 55A (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”), seeking termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour.
The matter was listed for a telephone hearing on 28 February 2025. [The property manager] appeared for the landlord. [Tenant 1] appeared and advised that [Tenant 2] was in hospital and unable to appear. [Tenant 1] then became frustrated and left the hearing, which continued in his absence.
The tenancy commenced on 29 October 2024 and is for a fixed term ending on 29 October 2025.
The property is a two-bedroom unit in a multi-level complex managed by a Body Corporate.
Section 55A (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) states: A landlord under a periodic tenancy [my emphasis] may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on grounds of anti-social behaviour.
As the tenancy is for a fixed term, the landlord is unable to rely on section 55A (1) of the Act to terminate the tenancy.
[The property manager] referred to other sections of the Act enabling a landlord to terminate any tenancy for interference with a neighbour’s reasonable peace comfort and privacy, as well as those provisions relating to assault. However, these were not contained in the application.
The matter was adjourned for the landlord to amend the application, which was subsequently rescheduled for another telephone hearing on 24 March 2025.
On 07 March 2025, the landlord amended the application to include termination for assault on a neighbour in the same apartment complex, under section 55(1)(c) (v), and for failing to remedy a 14-day breach notice issued for rent arrears on 28 February 2025 under section 56(1).
In addition to termination and rent arrears, the landlord seeks reimbursement for fines totalling $805.00, levied by the Body Corporate against the property’s owner for breaches allegedly committed by the tenant, namely interfering with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the other occupants.
[The property manager] has appeared. [Tenant 1] has appeared and advised that [Tenant 2] remains in hospital and unable to attend. Termination for rent arrears.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach for failing to remedy a 14-day notice issued for rent arrears under section 56(1), and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) of the Act.
The rent summary shows that the tenant failed to remedy the 14-day notice. Furthermore, as of 24 March 2025, the arrears owing are at least 21 days. The last rent payment was made by the tenant on 04 February 2025.
[Tenant 1] argues that the tenancy agreement had been entered under duress and should have been periodic, the tenancy agreement produced by the landlord is not the one the tenant had signed, the tenant had not been provided with a copy of the agreement, and that the tenant had been issued invoices for water rates, when water should have been included in the rent. [Tenant 1] states the tenant will not pay rent until these issues are addressed.
[The property manager] states that no invoices or demands for water have been issued by the landlord or the Body Corporate, that the tenancy agreement clearly states that the tenant is liable for water, and it is not included in the rent, and that the tenants both freely signed the tenancy agreement for a fixed term.
Usually, a landlord pays the water rates and then seeks reimbursement from the tenant. If a tenant failed to reimburse the landlord, the landlord may issue a breach notice warning that failure to comply may lead to an application to the Tribunal. In this case, the evidence appears to be that the tenant is encouraged at the commencement of the tenancy to enter into an agreement with a sub provider. This involves paying a bond. This has not occurred. While the tenant has been provided water, they appear not to be liable under the tenancy agreement to the landlord or to a sub provider. I am satisfied that water is not included in the rent. [Tenant 1] has not produced any of the invoices referred to.
The agreement produced is signed by both parties and is for a fixed term. I am satisfied that the tenant was provided a copy. There is insufficient evidence to find that the agreement was entered into under duress.
The tenancy is terminated, and possession granted to the landlord at midnight on Monday 31 March 2025. I award rent arrears to that date of $2,400.00. Termination for assault
Under section 55(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy is it is satisfied that the tenant assaulted or threatened to assault an occupier of the building of which the premises form a part or any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
The allegation is that on 08 February 2025 [Tenant 2] assaulted another tenant and a pizza delivery driver outside the complex.
During the hearing [The property manager] suggested the claim could not be sustained as the assault had occurred outside the complex. In any event there is insufficient evidence. The matter has been reported to a third party and then to the landlord. There are no statements, or any other evidence provided. Reimbursement for fines levied.
The tenancy agreement contains a clause that the tenant must abide by Body Corporate rules.
The landlord states that on 05 February 2025, they received an email from the Body Corporate manager stating that [Tenant 2] had been seen exiting a fire door in breach of the Body Corporate rules, and that a fine was being levied against the owner. [The property manager] has produced a CCTV still showing what he claims is [Tenant 2] exiting through a fire door, followed by [Tenant 1]
In the same email, the manager reported that [Tenant 2] had been seen knocking and kicking on other doors on the same floor. [The property manager] stated that he had not provided the CCTV footage of this incident due to privacy concerns but could provide it if required.
Another incident involves [Tenant 2] climbing over the property’s balcony onto the neighbour’s balcony. This was captured on CCTV. The landlord has then produced another CCTV still showing what they claim is [Tenant 2] the unit concerned which was occupied at the time by a young female. The landlord states the young woman was traumatised. The incident is under police investigation. [The property manager] states in the circumstances, the Body Corporate decided not to levy a fine against the owner.
[The property manager] states that the owner had received other complaints sent by the Body Corporate concerning [Tenant 2]’s behaviour.
[Tenant 1] argues that there is insufficient evidence to prove the claims for reimbursement of the fines levied against the owner. [Tenant 1] states the door concerned is not labelled as a fire door and has no warning against use. Furthermore, [Tenant 1] states that the tenant was not provided with a copy of the Body Corporate rules.
[Tenant 1] appears to accept that the incident in which [Tenant 2] allegedly climbed over the balcony occurred but was more concerned that the balconies were not safe, claiming that the building was dangerous and should be condemned. He also stated there was no internal insulation to dampen sound and that tenants could easily hear what was happening in the unit next door.
[Tenant 1] states that [Tenant 2] had been mentally unwell at the relevant time and was now undergoing treatment. [Tenant 1] also feels that the landlord had breached his right to privacy by capturing him on CCTV. No counterclaim has been made by the tenant. Decision
A party who suffers a breach of an agreement may claim for losses within reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of entering the agreement. While the tenancy agreement contains a clause that the tenant must abide by the Body Corporate rules, [The property manager] could not provide any evidence that rules had been provided to the tenant.
Concerning the allegation that [Tenant 2] interfered with the neighbour’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, by kicking and knocking on doors, accepting late disclosure without prejudicing the tenant would require an adjournment for the tenant to consider the material. Under the circumstances, I am not prepared to adjourn the matter. This is the second hearing, and all evidence relied on should have already been disclosed.
There are no statements from the affected tenants. The complaints are second or third hand reports.
While there is arguably sufficient evidence to be satisfied that [Tenant 2] interfered with the neighbour’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy by climbing onto their balcony, the matter was not the subject of a fine.
There is insufficient evidence to order reimbursement of the fines levied against the landlord for the breaches allegedly committed by [Tenant 2].
The claims are dismissed. Costs
The landlord has been substantially successful, and I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The tenant has not been substantially successful defending the claims made against them for termination. [Tenant 1] states that [Tenant 2] remains mentally unwell and is presently undergoing treatment in hospital. While the facts and reasoning are in the public interest, in the circumstances, I do not consider that the interest extends to the publication of the tenants’ names. I am satisfied there are sufficient grounds to grant name suppression, and accordingly, the tenants’ names are also suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164712 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164712 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions