What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245637 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 5245637?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245637?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245637?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12511631-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245637 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 5245637?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245637?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245637?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12511631-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245637 — Rent arrears

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 tenant’s request that the Tribunal declare the termination notice retaliatory is dismissed.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm, Saturday 31 January 2026. The tenant may end the tenancy earlier by giving the landlord 21 days’ notice in accordance with section 51(2A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The applicant/s] must pay [The respondent/s] $27.00 immediately for the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [the landlord] who is the property manager.
The tenancy began on 18 May 2024 and was initially for a fixed term ending on 17 May 2025. Both parties agree that the tenancy was varied by consent sometime in July 2024 to a periodic tenancy. On 24 March 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory. The landlord denies this is the case.
As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence and submissions were submitted in advance of and during the hearing. Whilst this decision might not refer to all of it, the parties can be assured that I have considered it as part of my decision.

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

The law

When determining whether a notice to end the tenancy is retaliatory, the Tribunal must consider the following matters: 1 a. Whether the notice to end the tenancy complies with section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U); b. Whether the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenancy by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy; and 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54. c. Whether the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the termination notice was sent after they complained about water rates invoices being sent to them all at once, instead of monthly. The tenant also claims the termination notice was sent after they complained about the landlord’s attitude during an inspection on 10 February 2025.
The tenant accepts that they were behind in paying their water rates invoices but claims they had organised a payment plan with Watercare to pay the debt. The tenant has now paid the debt and does not owe any rent arrears. The tenant claims the issuing of a termination notice by the landlord is a disproportionate response.
The landlord denies that the termination notice is retaliatory. The landlord accepts a termination notice would not usually be issued for relatively low – moderate water arrears, but claims they experienced difficulties with the tenant accepting responsibility for paying water arrears at all. The landlord also claims that the tenant was in rent arrears at the time the termination notice was issued, which was concerning. Further, the landlord claims the owner has decided that they would like to sell the property. Background and summary of relevant emails
On 29 May 2024, the landlord sent the tenant the first water rates invoice for the tenancy. The invoice was based on an estimated reading and the landlord states: “Your next invoice will be an actual read so you could always delay making payment to Watercare till next month when the amount due will be exact.”
The tenant replied advising that they would wait until the following month for an actual water reading.
On 20 June 2024, the landlord sent the tenant the second water rates invoice for the tenancy, which was another estimate. The tenant replied advising that it was not appropriate that they pay for water that was consumed prior to the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant asked for confirmation of the amount that was consumed before the tenancy began. The landlord replied that they would explain the process about the final water meter having been completed before the tenancy began at the next inspection.
On 29 July 2024, the landlord sent the third water rates invoice, which included the annual fixed wastewater fee for $310.00. The landlord advised the tenant that the tenant’s liability was only $80.35. The invoice was another estimate.
On 21 August 2024, the landlord sent the fourth water rates invoice, which was another estimate. The landlord advised that they had spoken with Watercare who said an actual reading would be completed in September. The landlord warned the tenant of the following: ... You have not paid any portion of your water usage since you moved in so your total cumulative invoice is now approaching $105.67. So, you might want to consider paying at least a portion of this cumulative invoice rather than having to pay one lump sum when you finally get the actual read you are waiting for. It is obviously your choice.
On 22 September 2024, the landlord sent the fifth water rates invoice, which was an actual reading. The total amount due was $125.94 for the period 18 May 2024 – 17 September 2024.
On 15 October 2024, the tenant sent the landlord an email advising that they were unable to pay the outstanding water rates invoice. The tenant stated: ... I also made a point of reading a copy of the Trademe advertisement for this property, which I have kept and it does not state that the water rates needed to be paid on top of the rent. The water rates were sprung on me by yourself, when I had no choice but to sign the Tenancy agreement. ... Other properties of this standard have a washing machine provided or a space built big enough to accommodate other washing machines. Also Water rates and property maintenance such as lawns etc are subsidized by the rent paid. ... Please tell the [the landlord] that I am unable to pay for the Water Rates as I am paying over $50 per week to go to the Belmont Laundrette.
On 17 October 2024, the landlord sent the tenant a 14-day notice regarding the outstanding water rates invoice for $125.94.
Further emails were exchanged between the parties following the 14-day notice. On 17 and 29 October 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord accusing them of hoarding water rates invoices and sending them to the tenant to pay all at once on 23 September 2024.
The tenant liaised with Watercare to pay the debt by way of a payment plan. Future invoices were paid in full and the plan was for the debt to be paid off over time.
Water rates invoices dated 16 December 2024, 21 January 2025 and 18 February 2025 were submitted. Nothing is mentioned in these invoices about an overdue account however, on 19 March 2025, another overdue water rates invoice was sent by Watercare. The landlord sent the tenant a copy of this invoice on 24 March 2025 at 8:35am advising that the amount the tenant was paying under the payment plan was not sufficient to reduce the debt, which was increasing. The tenant replied at 11:35am advising that Watercare were happy with the repayments, which had been calculated by themselves. The tenant stated: ... I reiterate, as I have done from the beginning when you turned up with months of Watercare accounts that were not shown to me by you until months after they were due to be paid. In fact I remember your exact words to me when I first arrived at Wicklow Road. You said “I don’t care if you don’t pay the Water Bill.” I took this statement as meaning that I didn’t have to pay any water bills. Then out of the blue, months later, you turn up with outstanding water bills to pay. ... You cannot force me to pay anymore than what Watercare has stipulated to be paid by me. Remember this is your fault. ...I will continue to pay an amount which is affordable until I can clear the Water bill completely. Which will happen before I leave Wicklow Road.
Later that same day at 4:51pm, the landlord sent the tenant a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy.
Around the time that the termination notice was sent, the tenant was also in rent arrears of around $700.00. The parties reached an agreement about how the tenant would pay off the rent arrears an on 29 April 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord advising that they were happy the landlord was willing to negotiate the rent arrears until the end of the tenancy. The tenant expressed that they were perplexed as to why the landlord was not prepared to accept their fortnightly payments to Watercare and gave them a 90-day termination notice instead.
On 30 April 2025, the landlord replied: Hi Anne Just to clarify: we gave you notice that your current tenancy will end on 24 June 2025, as a consequence of the ongoing water arrears. Your subsequent mounting rent arrears is now a further cause of concern for the owner who relies on this rental income. ... Analysis
The termination notice complies with the requirements of section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord completed an inspection of the premises on 10 February 2025. The tenant complained about the landlord’s attitude during this inspection in an email sent on 24 March 2025 at 5:34pm. This email was sent after receiving the termination notice, which was sent at 4:51pm. Therefore, the termination notice could not have been sent in retaliation to this complaint by the tenant.
I turn now to consider the water rates issue. The tenant first complained about the landlord hoarding water rates invoices and sending them to the tenant in bulk on 17 and 29 October 2024. The termination notice was sent on 24 March 2025, which is approximately five months later. This delay suggests that the termination notice was not motivated by the tenant’s complaint. The tenant made the same complaint on 24 March 2025 at 11:35am and the termination notice was sent at 4:51pm however, the fact that the tenant made the complaint twice previously and no termination notice was sent, tends to suggest that the termination notice was not wholly or partly motivated by this complaint.
I am further convinced that this this because the complaint is actually false. The landlord did not hoard water rates invoices and send them to the tenant to pay in one lump sum. They sent the tenant water rates invoices monthly on 29 May 2024, 20 June 2024, 29 July 2024 and 21 August 2024. Emails confirming the same were submitted. It is unlikely that the landlord would have terminated the tenancy in response to a complaint that was not true.
The landlord claims that they want to sell the premises, and this factored into their decision to end the tenancy. I have some doubts about this. Whilst the idea of selling the premises might have been within the landlord’s purview as one of many options at the time, I consider it more likely than not that this idea took root after the termination notice was sent. This is because the sale of the premises is not mentioned in the 90-day termination notice or any of the landlord’s emails to the tenant. Further, in their email sent to the tenant sent on 30 April 2025, the landlord explicitly states that the reason for ending the tenancy is due to the ongoing water arrears.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord decided to end the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The landlord received a water rates invoice dated 18 September 2024 for $125.94. The invoice notes “overdue account – please pay immediately to avoid further action.” b. On 16 October 2024, the landlord received another water rates invoice with the words “overdue account – please pay immediately to avoid further action” recorded. The receipt of two overdue water rates invoices must have been concerning to the landlord. c. On 17 October 2024, the tenant sent the landlord an email blaming the landlord for the high water rates invoice and declining to pay any water rates invoices moving forward. This must have been concerning to the landlord, because if the tenant did not pay water rates invoices, the amount outstanding would increase. d. The tenant implemented a payment plan with Watercare to pay the debt. The invoices received on 16 December 2024, 21 January 2025 and 11 February 2025 do not note the account as being overdue however, on 19 March 2025, the landlord received another overdue account invoice for $212.70. The message “overdue account – please pay immediately to avoid further action” is recorded. Receipt of a third overdue invoice must have been concerning to the landlord. e. On the invoice dated 19 March 2025, the amount outstanding is $167.11. This is higher than the original amount of $125.94. From this, the landlord concluded that the debt was increasing, rather than decreasing, which was concerning to them. f. The landlord emailed the tenant on 24 March 2025 advising that the tenant’s repayments were too small and the debt with Watercare was increasing. In response, the tenant blamed the landlord for the debt and declined to increase their repayments.
These facts establish that the tenant was unable to clear the debt contained in the water rates invoice dated 18 September 2024 in full. Whilst the landlord was agreeable to the tenant paying off the debt by way of a payment plan, the landlord became concerned when they received a third overdue water rates invoice on 19 March 2024. They advised the tenant that the repayments were too small, and the tenant declined to increase their repayments. All of this convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the landlord decided to end the tenancy because the tenant was behind in their payment of water rates invoices and the landlord was worried about the debt increasing.
To be declared retaliatory, a termination notice must be sent in response to the exercise of any right, power, authority or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or RTA, or by any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. In this case, the termination notice was sent in response to the tenant’s failure to pay their water rates invoices. A termination notice that is sent in response to a tenant’s failure to perform their obligations does not meet the definition of being retaliatory.
Most of the tenant’s submissions and evidence were about the unreasonableness of the landlord’s actions and how termination was a disproportionate response to the tenant’s breach. The tenant is now up to date with all of their rent and water. They claim, and the landlord accepts, that they are a good tenant who looks after the premises. They are also settled and feel part of the local community. The tenant submits ending the tenancy is not a wise financial decision for the landlord.
If I were dealing with an application by the landlord to end the tenancy under section 56 RTA, I would be empowered to consider whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach 2 however, where a termination notice is validly issued and not retaliatory, I do not have any such discretion.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the termination notice was motivated by the tenant’s failure to perform their obligations, rather than any complaint against the landlord about the tenancy. For this reason, I do not find the termination notice to be retaliatory.

When should possession of the premises be returned to the landlord?

At the hearing, the parties agreed that if I found the termination notice was not retaliatory, then any order terminating the tenancy and returning possession to the landlord should take effect at the end of January 2026. This is to give the tenant more time than would ordinarily be the case to find a new tenancy, considering the fact that we are approaching the end of the year. Therefore, the tenancy will terminate at 11:59pm, Saturday 31 January 2026.
It remains open to the tenant to end the tenancy earlier by giving the landlord 21 days’ notice under section 51(2A) RTA. 2 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their application and therefore, I do not order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has been substantially successful with their application. Therefore, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee and grant the landlord’s request for name suppression.
I have a residual discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public.
This decision discusses a failure by the tenant to pay a water rates invoice in full. The amount outstanding was relatively low and has since been paid off. Therefore, I consider the public interest in publication to be low.
Publication of the tenant’s name might deter prospective landlords from renting premises to the tenant. We are also approaching the end of the year, which is likely to make it more difficult for the tenant to find a new tenancy.
I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public’s interest in this case and order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245637 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245637 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

When should possession of the premises be returned to the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

When should possession of the premises be returned to the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions