What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5169761 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5169761?

Rent Arrears: $1,321.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5169761?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5169761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11781598-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5169761 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5169761?

Rent Arrears: $1,321.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5169761?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5169761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11781598-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5169761 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5169761 — net $1,321.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 01 May 2025	$1,321.43	9. However, I will award the landlord rent arrears to 01 May
Net award	$1,321.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,321.43

The tenancy commenced on 21 September 2025 and is periodic. The parties to the agreement are Saarah and Sher Gul, and the tenant. On 18 February 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy for rent arrears of at least 21 days at the time of filing, and on the basis that the tenant had failed to remedy a 14-day notice issued for rent arrears on 04 February 2025. The landlord also claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the property that is more than fair wear and tear, as well as for outstanding water rates. In addition, the landlord claims the tenant has used the property for an unlawful purpose.

On the eve of the hearing, the tenant advised that they were unable to attend, and had, on 02 April 2025, engaged a Property Manager, who they wished to represent them. Ms Millar, the Property Manager, has appeared for the landlord. There has been no appearance by the tenant.

Section 55(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) provides that if the rent is more than 21 days in arrears at the time the application is filed, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy.

Under section 56(1), the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days, and the tenant must have failed to do so.

In cases where an application has been made under section 56(1), and the rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application is heard, the Tribunal must, under section 56(2), treat the application as if it had been made under section 55(1) of the Act.

The landlord has produced an up to date rent summary. The rent was not at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. Two handwritten notes concerning rent payments appear to have been left at the property on 04 February 2025 and 07 February 2025, with the latter note tucked under a dog bowl. Neither note is in the form of a 14-day breach notice.

There are no grounds to terminate the tenancy under section 55(1), 56(1) or 55(2) of the Act.

However, I will award the landlord rent arrears to 01 May 2025.

Concerning the other claims, the application was completed by the landlord, and Ms Millar was engaged after the fact. There are evidential deficiencies. Ms Millar has sought leave to withdraw these claims but has indicated that they may be refiled in a fresh application. Accordingly, the landlord is granted leave to withdraw the claims for damage, water rates, and unlawful use. 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.

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 landlord has not been sufficiently successful to warrant name suppression. Although, the tenant has not appeared, they have been substantially successful avoiding termination. On that basis, I order suppression of their name and address of the property.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5169761 — net $1,321.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 01 May 2025	$1,321.43	9. However, I will award the landlord rent arrears to 01 May
Net award	$1,321.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,321.43

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Saarah Gul $1,321.43 immediately, being rent arrears to 01 May 2025
The application for termination is dismissed.
All of the other claims are withdrawn.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 21 September 2025 and is periodic. The parties to the agreement are Saarah and Sher Gul, and the tenant. On 18 February 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy for rent arrears of at least 21 days at the time of filing, and on the basis that the tenant had failed to remedy a 14-day notice issued for rent arrears on 04 February 2025. The landlord also claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the property that is more than fair wear and tear, as well as for outstanding water rates. In addition, the landlord claims the tenant has used the property for an unlawful purpose.
On the eve of the hearing, the tenant advised that they were unable to attend, and had, on 02 April 2025, engaged a Property Manager, who they wished to represent them. Ms Millar, the Property Manager, has appeared for the landlord. There has been no appearance by the tenant.
Section 55(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) provides that if the rent is more than 21 days in arrears at the time the application is filed, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy.
Under section 56(1), the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days, and the tenant must have failed to do so.
In cases where an application has been made under section 56(1), and the rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application is heard, the Tribunal must, under section 56(2), treat the application as if it had been made under section 55(1) of the Act.
The landlord has produced an up to date rent summary. The rent was not at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. Two handwritten notes concerning rent payments appear to have been left at the property on 04 February 2025 and 07 February 2025, with the latter note tucked under a dog bowl. Neither note is in the form of a 14-day breach notice.
There are no grounds to terminate the tenancy under section 55(1), 56(1) or 55(2) of the Act.
However, I will award the landlord rent arrears to 01 May 2025.
Concerning the other claims, the application was completed by the landlord, and Ms Millar was engaged after the fact. There are evidential deficiencies. Ms Millar has sought leave to withdraw these claims but has indicated that they may be refiled in a fresh application. Accordingly, the landlord is granted leave to withdraw the claims for damage, water rates, and unlawful use. 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.
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 landlord has not been sufficiently successful to warrant name suppression. Although, the tenant has not appeared, they have been substantially successful avoiding termination. On that basis, I order suppression of their name and address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5169761 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5169761 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions