What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5214252 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 5214252?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $488.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5214252?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5214252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11694333-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5214252 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 5214252?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $488.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5214252?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5214252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11694333-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5214252 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5214252 — net $515.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8.4.25	$488.00	Rent arrears to 8.4.25
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$515.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$515.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $515.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
For the

Reasons

set out below, the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed. Reasons:

This hearing, which was conducted by teleconference, was attended by [the landlord/s], on behalf of the landlord, and one of the tenants, [Tenant 1]. The other tenant was unable to be contacted.
This periodic tenancy began on 29 January 2025.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and rent arrears. The landlord advises that no bond was paid.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. See section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). 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 establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, 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 RTA.
In this case, the landlord has provided a 14-day notice concerning rent arrears issued on 21 March 2025. At the hearing, the landlord also referred to notices issued on 12 February and 28 February 2025, although these notices were not produced. The landlord states the arrears were not remedied within the required time frame, and the current rent arrears was $488.00.
At the hearing, the Tribunal had relied on the landlord’s application form when noting the weekly rent for the premises. In the application form, the rent is noted to be $88.00 per week. This is the amount the tenant has stated she was regularly paying. If that was the weekly rent, then, at the date of the hearing, rent would be over 21 days in arrears, and the Tribunal is required to terminate the tenancy. This is what had been advised to the parties.
However, it has since come to the Tribunal’s notice that the weekly rent due is recorded to be $176.00 per week in the landlord’s rent summary, and the tenancy agreement. This means that, at the date of the hearing, rent was not 21 days in arrears. Therefore, termination of the tenancy under sections 55 and 56(2) would not be appropriate.
Despite this finding, the next step is to consider whether the requirements for termination of the tenancy under section 56 of the RTA are met. The question is whether, due to the nature and extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy. The ending of a tenancy has significant implications for a tenant and is a measure that is not taken lightly. There are many factors to consider when determining whether a breach is serious enough to terminate. This is noted by the District Court decision in Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation. 1 These factors include whether the breach is accidental or intentional, any immoral or illegal use, whether a breach is made good by the 1 DC Porirua CIV-2010-091-110, 28 June 2010 tenant, the landlord’s conduct, the tenant’s personal qualifications and financial position, the position of third parties, the gravity of the breach, lasting damage and proportionality.
While the landlord’s concerns are understandable, applying the relevant factors in this case, and noting the evidence provided is limited to one 14-day notice that was not remedied, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that termination of the tenancy is warranted at the present time. Consequently, the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
The tenant has explained that the other tenant no longer lives at the premises. However, as a tenant, she will remain liable for the full rent, and not just her portion of it. The tenant should be aware that a repeated failure to pay rent on time may result in a different outcome were the landlord to apply again.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the rent arrears sought. This is awarded above. Filing fee and name suppression
In this case the Tribunal considers it appropriate for the landlord to be reimbursed the filing fee.
Having had regard to the interests of the parties, and the public interest, name suppression for both parties is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5214252 — net $515.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8.4.25	$488.00	Rent arrears to 8.4.25
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$515.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$515.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $515.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
For the

Reasons

set out below, the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed. Reasons:

This hearing, which was conducted by teleconference, was attended by [the landlord/s], on behalf of the landlord, and one of the tenants, [Tenant 1]. The other tenant was unable to be contacted.
This periodic tenancy began on 29 January 2025.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and rent arrears. The landlord advises that no bond was paid.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. See section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). 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 establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, 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 RTA.
In this case, the landlord has provided a 14-day notice concerning rent arrears issued on 21 March 2025. At the hearing, the landlord also referred to notices issued on 12 February and 28 February 2025, although these notices were not produced. The landlord states the arrears were not remedied within the required time frame, and the current rent arrears was $488.00.
At the hearing, the Tribunal had relied on the landlord’s application form when noting the weekly rent for the premises. In the application form, the rent is noted to be $88.00 per week. This is the amount the tenant has stated she was regularly paying. If that was the weekly rent, then, at the date of the hearing, rent would be over 21 days in arrears, and the Tribunal is required to terminate the tenancy. This is what had been advised to the parties.
However, it has since come to the Tribunal’s notice that the weekly rent due is recorded to be $176.00 per week in the landlord’s rent summary, and the tenancy agreement. This means that, at the date of the hearing, rent was not 21 days in arrears. Therefore, termination of the tenancy under sections 55 and 56(2) would not be appropriate.
Despite this finding, the next step is to consider whether the requirements for termination of the tenancy under section 56 of the RTA are met. The question is whether, due to the nature and extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy. The ending of a tenancy has significant implications for a tenant and is a measure that is not taken lightly. There are many factors to consider when determining whether a breach is serious enough to terminate. This is noted by the District Court decision in Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation. 1 These factors include whether the breach is accidental or intentional, any immoral or illegal use, whether a breach is made good by the 1 DC Porirua CIV-2010-091-110, 28 June 2010 tenant, the landlord’s conduct, the tenant’s personal qualifications and financial position, the position of third parties, the gravity of the breach, lasting damage and proportionality.
While the landlord’s concerns are understandable, applying the relevant factors in this case, and noting the evidence provided is limited to one 14-day notice that was not remedied, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that termination of the tenancy is warranted at the present time. Consequently, the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
The tenant has explained that the other tenant no longer lives at the premises. However, as a tenant, she will remain liable for the full rent, and not just her portion of it. The tenant should be aware that a repeated failure to pay rent on time may result in a different outcome were the landlord to apply again.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the rent arrears sought. This is awarded above. Filing fee and name suppression
In this case the Tribunal considers it appropriate for the landlord to be reimbursed the filing fee.
Having had regard to the interests of the parties, and the public interest, name suppression for both parties is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5214252 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5214252 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions