Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5266340 — Rent arrears at 19 Sonia Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 1050
Decided 9 March 2026 · Published 9 March 2026 · Application 5266340
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Lamdin
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,491.70
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,491.70
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 9 March 2026 | $1,303.43 | Rent arrears to 9 March 2026 | |
| Water rates | $161.27 | Water rates | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $27.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,491.70 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,491.70 |
Claims and awards for application 5266340 — net $1,491.70 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 9 March 2026
- Amount
- $1,303.43
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 9 March 2026
Water rates
- Amount
- $161.27
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $27.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,491.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,491.70
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The tenancy of Jah Creole Tana and Nicholas Ofosu at 19 Sonia Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 1050 is terminated, and possession is granted to Cirone Limited T/A: Onecall Property Services Limited As Agent For Dennis Cham, at
- 59 pm on Monday 16 March 2026 pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 section 51(1) and section 55(1)(c)(v).
- Jah Creole Tana and Nicholas Ofosu must pay Cirone Limited T/A: Onecall Property Services Limited As Agent For Dennis Cham $1,491.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The tenants’ claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- This was a rehearing of tenant applications 5240271 (filed on 17 April 2025), 5228474 (filed on 07 April 2025), and landlord application 5266340 (filed on 16 May 2025).
- These claims were heard at a Tenancy Tribunal Hearing on 8 October 2025.
- Added to these applications was tenant application 5396084 (filed on 24 November 2025).
- On 5 March 2026 the registry received an email from Jah Tana saying “the application/s for the hearing will need to be withdrawn due to tenancy conflict resolutions being implemented.”
- The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Shi and Mr Cheng. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The landlord confirmed they were still pursuing the claims made in their original application: enforcement order for termination of the tenancy for 90 days’ notice to end tenancy, termination due to a tenant assaulting a neighbour, rent arrears, unpaid water rates invoices and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- The tenancy agreement was signed by tenants Jah Creole Tana, Nicholas Ofosu and Nathan Meehan on 11 October 2022.
- On 4 February 2026 Jah Tana advised the landlord by email that the current tenants are Jah Tana, Nicholas Ofosu, Topaz Honetana, Kyle Banovich, Duncan Edmonds and Blake Waters. Termination of the tenancy, 90-day notices and RTA section 55(1)(a)
- On 7 April 2025 the landlord served a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy on the tenants (the first notice). The notice complied with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 51(3). The notice also gave a reason for the termination. Giving a reason for the termination is not required under section 51(1) and I simply put this reason to one side.
- The end date stated in the first notice was 8 July 2025.
- On 26 May 2025, the landlord served another 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy (the second notice). This notice did not give an end date for the tenancy, and so did not comply with the RTA section 51(3)(c).
- Strict compliance with section 51(3)(c) is not required as is set out in section 51(4) of the RTA “as long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non-compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient.”
- 90 days calculated from 26 May 2025 is 19 August 2025.
- I determine that the requirements of section 51(4) of the RTA are met.
- I therefore determine that both the first and second 90-day notices to terminate the tenancy served on the tenants are valid.
- This claim is proved.
- The landlord filed for an eviction warrant on 23 October 2025. The landlord says their application was not enforced because they did not have a Tenancy Tribunal order in support.
- In the meantime, the three applications had gone to a Tenancy Tribunal hearing on 8 October 2025. This resulted in orders for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, refund of the bond and name suppression for the tenant.
- The tenant then requested a rehearing, and on 25 November 2025 the tenant was granted a rehearing.
- Because a rehearing was granted, the landlord was now without an order enforcing termination pursuant to the 90-day notices of April and May 2025.
- Furthermore, because the bond was refunded, the rent arrears was cleared. This meant the tenant continued to live at the address without a bond against their name.
- I note that if the bond had not been refunded, the tenants would potentially be in arrears by more than 21 days, and if so the tenancy could be terminated today under the RTA section 51(1)(a). Termination for assault on a neighbour
- The landlord is also seeking termination of the tenancy due to a tenant assaulting a neighbour, in contravention of the RTA section 55(1)(c)(v).
- Because I have dealt with termination under section 51 of the RTA, I will address this claim under section 55(1)(c)(v) only briefly.
- The RTA section 55(1)(c)(v) allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where a tenant has assaulted any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
- The landlord said that at approximately 5.10 am on 11 April 2025 one of the tenants, Kyle Banovich was intoxicated on a shared driveway. He attempted to break into a neighbour’s house. Mr Wong confronted him. Mr Banovich pushed Mr Wong. Mr Banovich then went to the number 5 Sonia Avenue and assaulted the owner there. Other neighbours called the police and Mr Banovich was taken away. The landlord named three witnesses to this incident.
- On the balance of probabilities I find Mr Banovich assaulted Mr Wong and the tenant at number 5 Sonia Avenue.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at today’s date is $1,303.43 for rent arrears and $161.27 for unpaid water rates invoices.
- Because Cirone Limited T/A: Onecall Property Services Limited As Agent For Dennis Cham has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s19, s51, s51(1), s51(3), s51(4), s5240271, s55(1), s8
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5266340?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jah Creole Tana and Nicholas Ofosu at 19 Sonia Avenue,
How much money was awarded in case 5266340?
Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,303.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $161.27 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266340?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266340?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13247717-Tribunal_Order.pdf.