What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5254180 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 5254180?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $630.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5254180?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5254180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12104463-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5254180 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 5254180?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $630.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5254180?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5254180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12104463-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5254180 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5254180 — net $657.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 7 July 2025	$630.00	Rent arrears (to 7 July 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$657.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$657.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Stacey Louise Illingworth must pay [The landlord/s] $657.00 immediately, as set out in the table below:

Reasons

[Property Managers], Property Managers, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. I am satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy commenced on 14 April 2025 with the fixed term due to expire on 14 October 2025.
On 5 May 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the commencement of the hearing the landlord stated they were no longer seeking immediate termination of the tenancy but sought an award for rent arrears and a conditional termination order.
At the hearing, the landlord also asked the Tribunal for an order requiring the tenant to pay the outstanding bond amount totalling $2520.00. Rent arrears
Under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for a breach, where, due to the nature and extend of the breach it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
Under section 56(1)(b) of the Act, 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.
Under section 78(k) of the Act, the Tribunal can order a tenant to pay a landlord any sum found to be owing, whether by way of rent arrears or otherwise, pursuant to the tenancy agreement.
The landlord issued a 14-day breach notice on 1 May 2025 advising the tenant they were $630.00 in rent arrears. The notice expired on 15 May 2025. The notice related to a missed rent payment on 28 April 2025. The notice has not been remedied.
Under section 56(1) of the Act the Tribunal must consider, where a 14-breach notice has not been remedied if it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 [23 September 2020], the District Court held that the following factors are relevant to an assessment whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: i. The history of the tenancy. ii. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. iii. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. iv. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. v. The conduct of the landlord. vi. The gravity of the breach. vii. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The Tribunal takes the non-payment of rent seriously. However, on this occasion finds that it would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy commenced slightly less than three months ago. There has been a single missed rent payment for which the tenant remains $630 in rent arrears. Only one breach notice has been issued (which relates to that missed rent payment). The breach is capable of remedy. There have been no other breaches of the tenancy agreement or the Act. Further, at the hearing the landlord did not seek immediate termination of the tenancy but asked for a conditional termination order, explaining they want the rent arrears paid.
This is not a situation where section 56(2) of the Act applies as the tenant is not 21 days in rent arrears. Accordingly, the Tribunal cannot make a conditional termination order under section 55(1A) of the Act.
The Tribunal can make an award for rent arrears. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. The amount claimed is ordered. Bond
At the beginning of the tenancy the tenant made an undertaking to pay the bond. On 15 April 2025, the parties signed an addendum to the agreement whereby the tenant agreed to pay the full amount of bond being $2520.00, within four weeks of the commencement of the tenancy (14 April 2025).
The landlord states that the four-week period expired on 12 May 2025 and the tenant has failed to pay the bond as required.
The landlord now seeks an order requiring the tenant to pay the bond. This claim was not set out in the landlord’s application to the Tribunal and the tenant will not be aware of it.
In the interests of fairness and natural justice the Tribunal declined to deal with this matter today.
The Tribunal encourages the tenant to pay the bond to the landlord as per the addendum. Failure to do so may result in the landlord issuing a breach notice, for breach of the tenant’s obligations under the agreement, and could result in a subsequent application to the Tribunal. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. 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.
In this case the landlord has been substantially successful and name suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5254180 — net $657.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 7 July 2025	$630.00	Rent arrears (to 7 July 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$657.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$657.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Stacey Louise Illingworth must pay [The landlord/s] $657.00 immediately, as set out in the table below:

Reasons

[Property Managers], Property Managers, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. I am satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy commenced on 14 April 2025 with the fixed term due to expire on 14 October 2025.
On 5 May 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the commencement of the hearing the landlord stated they were no longer seeking immediate termination of the tenancy but sought an award for rent arrears and a conditional termination order.
At the hearing, the landlord also asked the Tribunal for an order requiring the tenant to pay the outstanding bond amount totalling $2520.00. Rent arrears
Under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for a breach, where, due to the nature and extend of the breach it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
Under section 56(1)(b) of the Act, 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.
Under section 78(k) of the Act, the Tribunal can order a tenant to pay a landlord any sum found to be owing, whether by way of rent arrears or otherwise, pursuant to the tenancy agreement.
The landlord issued a 14-day breach notice on 1 May 2025 advising the tenant they were $630.00 in rent arrears. The notice expired on 15 May 2025. The notice related to a missed rent payment on 28 April 2025. The notice has not been remedied.
Under section 56(1) of the Act the Tribunal must consider, where a 14-breach notice has not been remedied if it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 [23 September 2020], the District Court held that the following factors are relevant to an assessment whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: i. The history of the tenancy. ii. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. iii. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. iv. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. v. The conduct of the landlord. vi. The gravity of the breach. vii. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The Tribunal takes the non-payment of rent seriously. However, on this occasion finds that it would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy commenced slightly less than three months ago. There has been a single missed rent payment for which the tenant remains $630 in rent arrears. Only one breach notice has been issued (which relates to that missed rent payment). The breach is capable of remedy. There have been no other breaches of the tenancy agreement or the Act. Further, at the hearing the landlord did not seek immediate termination of the tenancy but asked for a conditional termination order, explaining they want the rent arrears paid.
This is not a situation where section 56(2) of the Act applies as the tenant is not 21 days in rent arrears. Accordingly, the Tribunal cannot make a conditional termination order under section 55(1A) of the Act.
The Tribunal can make an award for rent arrears. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. The amount claimed is ordered. Bond
At the beginning of the tenancy the tenant made an undertaking to pay the bond. On 15 April 2025, the parties signed an addendum to the agreement whereby the tenant agreed to pay the full amount of bond being $2520.00, within four weeks of the commencement of the tenancy (14 April 2025).
The landlord states that the four-week period expired on 12 May 2025 and the tenant has failed to pay the bond as required.
The landlord now seeks an order requiring the tenant to pay the bond. This claim was not set out in the landlord’s application to the Tribunal and the tenant will not be aware of it.
In the interests of fairness and natural justice the Tribunal declined to deal with this matter today.
The Tribunal encourages the tenant to pay the bond to the landlord as per the addendum. Failure to do so may result in the landlord issuing a breach notice, for breach of the tenant’s obligations under the agreement, and could result in a subsequent application to the Tribunal. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. 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.
In this case the landlord has been substantially successful and name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5254180 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5254180 — 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