What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5195391?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Pukatowi Pack And Pride Limited at 22 Whangarata Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5195391?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,259.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195391?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11730084-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5195391?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Pukatowi Pack And Pride Limited at 22 Whangarata Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5195391?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,259.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195391?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11730084-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Whangarata Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5195391 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5195391 — net $8,286.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 June 2025	$8,259.63	Rent arrears to 18 June 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,286.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,286.63

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5195391 — net $8,286.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 June 2025	$8,259.63	Rent arrears to 18 June 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,286.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,286.63

Order

The tenancy of Pukatowi Pack And Pride Limited at 22 Whangarata Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 is terminated, and possession is granted to Jan Maree Family Trust (Trustees: Jan Maree Vodanovich And Malcolm Vodanovich), at
59pm on the 18 June 2025.
Pukatowi Pack And Pride Limited must pay Jan Maree Family Trust (Trustees: Jan Maree Vodanovich And Malcolm Vodanovich) $8,286.63 immediately, being rent arrears and filing fee as calculated below.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing. Both Mr and Mrs McArthur attended to begin with but after the morning adjournment only Mrs McArthur attended.
This dispute concerns a rural property in Tuakau. The property has a large home with a sleepout, garaging, stables and approximately 3 acres of land.
The tenant operates a dog day care business and kennels. The tenant anticipated that it would run its business from the property and the owners Mr and Mrs McArthur would live onsite in the house.
The parties have signed a Deed of Lease for the property on the 28 October 2024.
The parties to the lease are Jan Maree Vodanovich And Malcolm Charles Vodanovich as trustees of the Jan Maree Family Trust as the landlord, Pukatowi Pack And Pride Limited (company number 8300244) as the tenant and Scott Ian McArthur and Moniek Anne McArthur as the guarantor.
The first schedule of the Deed of Lease sets out the premises as “22 Whangarata Road Tuakau with the main house available to use for residential purposes and the rest of the property for commercial purposes.”
The first schedule of the Deed of Lease sets out that the annual rent will be “Commercial $55,000.00” and “Residential $23,000.00”.
The business use is described as: Main house- residential; The remainder of property: Dog daycare and training business. Background
At the heart of this dispute is that the tenant’s claim that the landlord has prevented and obfuscated their attempts to operate the business from the premises, because the landlord has refused to give consent to the business and provide them with documents that would allow them to run their business form the property.
I have advised the parties that the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the commercial premises. Disputes about commercial premises can be resolved in the Disputes Tribunal or the District Court, not the Tenancy Tribunal. The Deed of Lease clearly separates out the two tenancies, into the residential and the commercial, whilst they are under the one document, they are in effect two distinct tenancies. The landlord’s claims.
The landlord originally (12 March 2025) applied for rent arrears, and orders. a. confirming the number of dogs that could live in the house, and b. orders allowing her to inspect the property. c. The filing fee.
The landlord wanted to ensure that the tenants paid the rent and kept the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and to ensure that the property was not being damaged.
On 16 April 2025, the landlord advised the Tribunal and gave notice to the tenant that they had amended their claim so that they were now seeking termination of the tenancy on two grounds. a) the amount of rent owed. b) that the tenant had failed to allow access to property so that the landlord could check as to whether the tenant had complied with a 14 day notice given on the 18 March 2025.
There was a case conference hearing on the 17 April where the landlord confirmed that she was now seeking termination.
The Adjudicator who heard the matter on the 17 April determined that this was a residential premises to which the Residential Tenancies Act applied and ordered the tenants to pay $1000 per week to the landlord (which the tenants agreed to pay) until the matter could be resolved.
Despite those orders being made, and the agreement by the tenants to pay this amount at that hearing, the tenant has not paid $1000.00 per week. There has only been $2740 paid by the tenants since the 17 April, despite there being 8 weeks between that hearing and today’s hearing.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The tribunal can terminate a tenancy if the tenant is more than 21 days in arrears at the date of application for termination s55(1)(a) RTA or, if the landlord has given a breach notice under s56 the rent is in 21 days at the date of hearing- see s56(2) RTA.
The deed of lease helpfully apportions the rent- the residential tenancy is $23,000 per year and the commercial premises $55,000 per year. Making a total of $78,000 per year.
When the tenants paid rent to the landlord they did not differentiate between what was being paid for the residential rent and what was for the commercial rent, therefore I have apportioned the rent pro rata, 29.5% to the residential premises and 70.5% to the commercial premises. (These amounts are calculated by 23,000/78,000 and 55,000/78,000).
The landlord provided ledgers which set out the total amounts paid by the tenant and when the amounts were paid.
The weekly rent for the residential tenancy was $23,000 divided by 52 weeks = $442.31 per week.
The landlord applied for termination on the 16 April. As at that date the tenant had paid a total of $12,110.00 for both the residential and commercial tenancies. If we apportion 29.5% for the residential tenancy, then we can attribute $3,572.45 as rent paid by the tenants for the residential premises and $8,537.55 for the commercial premises.
The amount of rent owed for the period 1 December 2024 to 16 April 2025 for the residential premises is 19 weeks and 4 days x $442.31 = $8,656.66
As the tenant paid $3,572.45 then, as at the 16 April 2025, they owed $5,084.21 in rent for the residential premises, well in excess of 21 days.
The tenant has now (as at today’s date) paid $14,840 in total rent for the residential and commercial tenancies.
The total rent owed for the residential premises to today’s date is $442.31 x 28 weeks and 4 days = $12,637.43, the tenant has only paid 29.5% of $14,840 =$4377.80. Meaning that the tenant currently owes $8259.63 in rent on the residential tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenant is in significant rent arrears, well over 21 days and therefore I terminate the tenancy.
The tenants have raised that they should not pay the full amount of the residential rent because they claim that the landlord’s conduct has meant that they have not been able to run their commercial business. As I mentioned above, I have no jurisdiction to determine a commercial lease dispute. The tenants agreed to pay $23,000 for the residential tenancy, they have had the amenity of living in the property. They have not yet filed proceedings against the landlord in the civil jurisdiction, they cannot expect to remain living at the premises rent free or at a very low rent until that matter is determined.
The tenants told me today that they are wanting to move from the tenancy but currently do not have anywhere to go to. They sought a longer time to move out. However I am not satisfied that the tenant should be given any longer to move out because they failed to pay rent ordered in the intervening period between the hearings and have not allowed an inspection of the property, and I am concerned about the current condition of the property.
I have calculated the rent arrears owed on the residential premises as $8,259.63.
I am also satisfied that the tenant has obstructed the landlord in conducting an inspection of the property, this is because when the landlord gave notice of an impending inspection on the 26 April and 8 June the tenant’s blocked both attempts and made it clear that they would not allow access. I can infer from their unwillingness to allow the allow the landlord or her agent to attend the premises, that they have not complied with the breach notice given on the 18 March 2025.
I am satisfied that the tenants have been obstructive to the landlord’s attempts to inspect the property and ensure that her property is not being damaged. If I had not terminated for rent arrears today, it is likely that that I would have terminated pursuant to s56 for failure to remedy a breach notice given on the 18 March 2025. The tenant’s claims
The tenants claim the following: a. The landlord has breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment by opening cupboards during a tenancy inspection, b. The landlord has not provided an adequate means for the collection and storage of water, c. The landlord has not supplied records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request, d. The landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises, e. The landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standards, moisture ingress and drainage standard due to a leaking gutter, f. The landlord has failed to maintain the property in so much as the shower leaks.
The tenant has the obligation of proving these claims on the balance of probabilities.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) their claim. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by opening cupboard at an inspection?
S38(2) RTA provides: The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
At the inspection on the 8 March, the landlord says that Mr McArthur objected to her opening a cupboard under the bench to check for leaks. She says he became argumentative with her. Mrs McArthur was present, and she says that Ms Vodanovich and Mr McArthur became argumentative with each other. She says that Mrs Vodanovich explained that she wanted to check for leaks and Mrs McArthur opened the cupboard for her.
I am not satisfied that Ms Vodanovich breached s38 by opening a cupboard, the landlord had a legitimate excuse to open the cupboard to check for leaks under the sink. The tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide Healthy Homes Statements when requested?

Section 45(1AC) RTA provides:
If the tenant requests the landlord to provide information described in section 123A(1)(e) (relating to the healthy homes standards) to the tenant, the landlord must, within 21 days after the date of receiving the request, provide the information to the tenant.
I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to provide Healthy Homes Statements when requested as the landlord provided evidence of her email of the 12 March 2025, which attached the Healthy Homes Report she had completed. The tenant acknowledged that email.
The tenant has not proven this claim and it is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to meet the Healthy Homes Standards.
As this tenancy began on the 1 December 2024 the landlord was required to meet the Healthy Homes Standards.(s45(1) (bb) RTA). The tenants say that the house did not meet the standards because: a. Gutters overflowed. b. The angle of the cover over the deck on the sleepout meant that water came inside the sleepout when it rained. c. There was ponding around the property. d. It was cold.
The tenants evidence consisted of photographs of the problem areas, videos taken of the gutters overflowing in the heavy rain and an email sent to the landlord with the subject line Gutters and the attachment of the video of the gutters overflowing. The tenant has not had a healthy home report completed nor was there any evidence from any tradesperson.
The landlord advertised the home as being Healthy Home compliant, the property was substantially renovated after the last tenancy and the landlord said she had installed as part of those renovations, a new wood burner, kitchen and rangehood. The house had also been painted.
The landlord conducted the Healthy Homes assessment herself. There is no requirement for a landlord to have the property assessed independently. The landlord says that she measured the rooms and went through the flow charts on the tenancy website, to ascertain compliance or not. She has recorded that compliance on a Healthy Homes statement which was sent to the tenant on the 12 March.
The tenant’s evidence does not meet the evidential standard to satisfy me that the landlord failed to meet the healthy homes standards for the following reasons: a. The gutters did overflow on at least one occasion, but there is no contextual evidence about what caused that, it appears from the photographs of the property that the gutters are in good repair and if there was any overflow it may be because of the intensity of the rain, rather than a problem with the gutters. b. The photographs of the ponding at the property, are not evidence in of themselves of a problem with drainage. It is unclear where the photographs are taken (there is a creek that runs not far from the house) and how long after a rain event they were taken. c. The landlord says that the reason the water came in from the sleepout deck over is because the tenant left the ranch slider open. Did the landlord fail to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water?
The property is on town supply. The tenants say that the water pipe is a black alkathene pipe that runs from the main supply to the house. They say that this is in breach of the law, which requires a blue pipe that is buried. The tenants further say there is no water filter where the pipe comes into the house and the water tastes “woody” and foul and is sometimes discoloured. They say that the landlord told them she brought water when she lived there.
The landlord says that the pipe was installed by a plumber 8-9 years ago after a leak. It is not buried but she was unaware of any law that required it to be of a certain colour or buried. The landlord says she prefers the taste of collected rain water to town supply and that is why she told the tenants that she brought bottled water. She says that if she was at the property and had no bottled water she would drink the town supply.
I am not satisfied that the tenants have proven that the landlord failed to provide adequate means for collection and storage of water because: a. The property is on town supply. The town supply is potable. b. The tenants could not direct me to any laws which required the pipe that brought the water into the home to be a certain colour and buried. c. The tenants could not direct me to any legal requirement to have a water filter where the pipes met the house. d. The tenants have not had the water tested.

Did the landlord fail to provide insurance details?

The Deed of Lease notes that the landlord is insured with an excess of $10,000.00. The landlord provided a copy of her insurance policy to the tenant on the 21 November (before the tenancy began) by email. A copy of the email was produced in evidence today and the tenant accepted that it had been received.
I am satisfied the landlord met her legal requirements to advise the tenants that she was insured, the company name and the excess amount. The tenants have not proven this claim and it is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to maintain the tenancy by failing to fix the taps.
The tenant acknowledged at today’s hearing that the tenant fixed the taps after the landlord gave notice to come to the property to repair the taps. The tenant did not want the landlord coming to the property, and as they could fix the taps themselves did so. They did not incur any cost.
Early in the tenancy the tenants complained about the DVS system, I am satisfied after hearing the evidence of the emails between the parties that the landlord fixed this problem within a reasonable time.
The tenant has failed to prove that the landlord failed to maintain the property and the claims are dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has been successful in its claims, and I award the landlord the filing fee.
Neither party requested name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195391 — Rent arrears at 22 Whangarata Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195391 — Rent arrears at 22 Whangarata Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Did the landlord fail to provide Healthy Homes Statements when requested?

Did the landlord fail to provide insurance details?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Did the landlord fail to provide Healthy Homes Statements when requested?

Did the landlord fail to provide insurance details?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions