What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272921 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 5272921?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,610.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet and labo…: $180.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272921?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12113107-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272921 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 5272921?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,610.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet and labo…: $180.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272921?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12113107-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5272921 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272921 — net $1,232.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 July 2025	$1,610.00	Rent arrears to 14 July 2025
Replace furnishings: Carpet and labour	$180.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet and labour
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,232.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,232.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Shane Witana at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at midday on Monday 14 July 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $585.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Shane Witana must pay [The landlord/s] $1,232.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The tenant’s claims are not proven and dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for damage to a light fitting, removal of the landlord’s chattels (vacuum cleaner and mattress protector, shower suction mat) are withdrawn by the landlord and may be refiled in a new application

Reasons

The landlord attended today’s hearing.
Shortly after the allocated time for the hearing the tenant sought an adjournment of the hearing by email stating that he could not attend because he was out of the region as a family member had died. He said that he would provide evidence of the death at a later stage.
I declined the adjournment on the basis that I had no corroborating evidence which confirmed the death or Mr Witana’s relationship with the deceased.
I stood the matter down to allow Mr Witana to attend the hearing.
When the matter resumed at 10am Mr Witana did not attend. The landlord’s support person told me that he had seen Mr Witana in Manukau this morning.
I have proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, cost of carpet replacement and refund of the bond.
The tenant filed a cross application on the 2 June, he claims that the tenancy has not terminated, he has not abandoned the tenancy, and he says that the landlord has made him sign documents under duress, forced him to remove his dog from the house, made false allegations to the police and has harassed him and towed his boat away from the property.
As the tenant has not filed any evidence in support of his application and was not present at the hearing to further his application, then his claims are not proven and are dismissed.
As the tenant did not attend, then I cannot deal with new matters that were raised by the landlord. The landlord therefore withdrew her claims for removal of her chattels and compensation for a broken light fitting. The landlord’s claim for termination and possession.
The landlord asks for termination under a number of sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, she claims: a. That she has given notice to end the tenancy on the 11 May ending on the 9 June. b. That the tenant has abandoned his tenancy. c. That the tenant has breached his tenancy agreement and failed to remedy those breaches. d. That the tenant is significantly in rent arrears.
The tenancy is a room-by-room tenancy. This means that the landlord lets out the rooms individually and the tenants share the facilities including the bathroom, kitchen and lounge areas. The tenants have exclusive occupation of their own bedrooms.
The house is only 3 bedrooms, and the occupancy has never been 6 or more therefore the house does not fulfil the definition of a boarding house within s66B RTA or in Karmarker v Pandem and others [2018] NZHC 693 [17 April 2018] at para [38].
Nevertheless, these types of tenancies are covered by the RTA because the RTA allows a landlord to rent areas (bedrooms) with exclusive occupation, with shared facilities.
Such agreements are covered by the usual residential tenancies’ provisions in the RTA not the boarding house tenancy provisions.
When the landlord applied to the Tribunal for termination, she did so under s56 RTA on the basis that Mr Witana did not remedy two breaches, one that he did not remove his dog, and the second was that he was acting rudely and aggressively towards the other tenants living there.
Since the application was filed Mr Witana appears to have moved out. Although he still has items in the property and when the landlord filed a claim for abandonment he denied that he had abandoned the property.
Mr Witana has not paid any rent since the 22 May. He is currently 7 week weeks in rent arrears.
Section 56(2) RTA provides that: Where an application is made by a landlord under this section and the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of determining the matter the landlord could have made an application under section 55, the Tribunal shall determine the matter as if an application had been made under that section.
This means that where the landlord has applied for termination under s56 for a failure to remedy a breach by the tenant, which is as the landlord has done here (failure to remove the dog), (acting in an antisocial manner), then if at the date of hearing the tenant is in more than 3 weeks in rent arrears, then I must deal with termination under that provision (s55).
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The rent record includes two lots of expenses of $90.26 and 38.91. The Tribunal has no evidence on those two amounts and therefore cannot order them. This does not mean that they are not owed, it just means that I cannot make them part of this order.
As the tenant is seven weeks in rent arrears his tenancy is terminated under s55 RTA. The carpet.
The landlord claims that the tenants dog soiled the carpet, in the smaller room, he previously occupied, making it smell so bad that it needed replacement.
The landlord is seeking the cost of carpet (she installed seconds carpet) and provided the invoice for the carpet and the installation costs.
The landlord provided evidence from a former housemate who complained about the smell in the room formerly occupied by the tenant.
I am satisfied that it is likely that the tenant’s dogs caused the carpet to become smelly and that as a result of the smell the carpet needed replacement.
The landlord confirmed that she did not know the age of the carpet, but I consider the costs of cleaning the carpet would have been almost the same as the cost of replacing. I have awarded the landlord the cost of $180, this takes into account depreciation and betterment. A landlord should not be better off (in this case having brand new carpet) than before the breach occurred. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted her name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272921 — net $1,232.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 July 2025	$1,610.00	Rent arrears to 14 July 2025
Replace furnishings: Carpet and labour	$180.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet and labour
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,232.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,232.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Shane Witana at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at midday on Monday 14 July 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $585.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Shane Witana must pay [The landlord/s] $1,232.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The tenant’s claims are not proven and dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for damage to a light fitting, removal of the landlord’s chattels (vacuum cleaner and mattress protector, shower suction mat) are withdrawn by the landlord and may be refiled in a new application

Reasons

The landlord attended today’s hearing.
Shortly after the allocated time for the hearing the tenant sought an adjournment of the hearing by email stating that he could not attend because he was out of the region as a family member had died. He said that he would provide evidence of the death at a later stage.
I declined the adjournment on the basis that I had no corroborating evidence which confirmed the death or Mr Witana’s relationship with the deceased.
I stood the matter down to allow Mr Witana to attend the hearing.
When the matter resumed at 10am Mr Witana did not attend. The landlord’s support person told me that he had seen Mr Witana in Manukau this morning.
I have proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, cost of carpet replacement and refund of the bond.
The tenant filed a cross application on the 2 June, he claims that the tenancy has not terminated, he has not abandoned the tenancy, and he says that the landlord has made him sign documents under duress, forced him to remove his dog from the house, made false allegations to the police and has harassed him and towed his boat away from the property.
As the tenant has not filed any evidence in support of his application and was not present at the hearing to further his application, then his claims are not proven and are dismissed.
As the tenant did not attend, then I cannot deal with new matters that were raised by the landlord. The landlord therefore withdrew her claims for removal of her chattels and compensation for a broken light fitting. The landlord’s claim for termination and possession.
The landlord asks for termination under a number of sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, she claims: a. That she has given notice to end the tenancy on the 11 May ending on the 9 June. b. That the tenant has abandoned his tenancy. c. That the tenant has breached his tenancy agreement and failed to remedy those breaches. d. That the tenant is significantly in rent arrears.
The tenancy is a room-by-room tenancy. This means that the landlord lets out the rooms individually and the tenants share the facilities including the bathroom, kitchen and lounge areas. The tenants have exclusive occupation of their own bedrooms.
The house is only 3 bedrooms, and the occupancy has never been 6 or more therefore the house does not fulfil the definition of a boarding house within s66B RTA or in Karmarker v Pandem and others [2018] NZHC 693 [17 April 2018] at para [38].
Nevertheless, these types of tenancies are covered by the RTA because the RTA allows a landlord to rent areas (bedrooms) with exclusive occupation, with shared facilities.
Such agreements are covered by the usual residential tenancies’ provisions in the RTA not the boarding house tenancy provisions.
When the landlord applied to the Tribunal for termination, she did so under s56 RTA on the basis that Mr Witana did not remedy two breaches, one that he did not remove his dog, and the second was that he was acting rudely and aggressively towards the other tenants living there.
Since the application was filed Mr Witana appears to have moved out. Although he still has items in the property and when the landlord filed a claim for abandonment he denied that he had abandoned the property.
Mr Witana has not paid any rent since the 22 May. He is currently 7 week weeks in rent arrears.
Section 56(2) RTA provides that: Where an application is made by a landlord under this section and the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of determining the matter the landlord could have made an application under section 55, the Tribunal shall determine the matter as if an application had been made under that section.
This means that where the landlord has applied for termination under s56 for a failure to remedy a breach by the tenant, which is as the landlord has done here (failure to remove the dog), (acting in an antisocial manner), then if at the date of hearing the tenant is in more than 3 weeks in rent arrears, then I must deal with termination under that provision (s55).
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The rent record includes two lots of expenses of $90.26 and 38.91. The Tribunal has no evidence on those two amounts and therefore cannot order them. This does not mean that they are not owed, it just means that I cannot make them part of this order.
As the tenant is seven weeks in rent arrears his tenancy is terminated under s55 RTA. The carpet.
The landlord claims that the tenants dog soiled the carpet, in the smaller room, he previously occupied, making it smell so bad that it needed replacement.
The landlord is seeking the cost of carpet (she installed seconds carpet) and provided the invoice for the carpet and the installation costs.
The landlord provided evidence from a former housemate who complained about the smell in the room formerly occupied by the tenant.
I am satisfied that it is likely that the tenant’s dogs caused the carpet to become smelly and that as a result of the smell the carpet needed replacement.
The landlord confirmed that she did not know the age of the carpet, but I consider the costs of cleaning the carpet would have been almost the same as the cost of replacing. I have awarded the landlord the cost of $180, this takes into account depreciation and betterment. A landlord should not be better off (in this case having brand new carpet) than before the breach occurred. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted her name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272921 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272921 — 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