How much money was awarded in case 5274499?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Parking Rule Breach (1) 04/09/24: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Parking Rule Breach (2) 04/09/24: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Parking Rule Breach 16/03/25: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $0.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274499?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12149474-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5274499?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Parking Rule Breach (1) 04/09/24: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Parking Rule Breach (2) 04/09/24: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Parking Rule Breach 16/03/25: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $0.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274499?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12149474-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5274499 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5274499 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5274499 — net $750.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$0.12	3. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, water rates arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement o…
Rubbish removal	$120.00	Rubbish removal
Parking rule breach 16/03/25	$201.25	Parking rule breach 16/03/25
Parking rule breach (1) 04/09/24	$201.25	Parking rule breach 16/03/25
Parking rule breach (2) 04/09/24	$201.25	Parking rule breach 16/03/25
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$750.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$750.87

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 Sharena Watson at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord], at 11:59pm, Tuesday 22 July 2025.

Sharena Watson must pay [The landlord] $750.87 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.

I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. The tenant messaged the landlord to confirm that she knew about the hearing and chose not to attend today.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, water rates arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

The tenant has breached her obligations by storing illegal weapons and ammunition in the premise and not storing them securely in a gun safe.

The breach is not capable of remedy because although the New Zealand Police raided the premise and removed the illegal guns and ammunition, the tenant’s partner has associations that give him ready access to more illegal weapons and ammunition.

Section 40(2) of the RTA states that “the tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose” and to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to a maximum of $1,800.00 may be awarded.

Although the landlord is not seeking exemplary damages, I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has allowed the premise to be used for an unlawful purpose and the risks posed by that unlawful use.

The tenant was also in breach of the term in her tenancy agreement requiring her to “inform the landlord of any occupants who wish to reside at the property who were not declared on the tenancy application form”. The New Zealand Police have confirmed that the tenant’s partner was residing at the premise and was responsible for the storage of the illegal weapons and ammunition at the premise.

The tenancy is terminated from11:59pm tonight.

Pursuant to section 138(1)(a) of the District Court Act 2016, the landlord cannot enforce the eviction order for 48 hours. This gives the tenant time to move any belongings out of the premise that she wants to retain.

How much is owed water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the date of the hearing, being $0.12c.

The landlord says the tenant has paid her water and rent regularly but must have underpaid the water rates at some stage during the tenancy.

Did the tenant breach her obligations during the tenancy?

Pursuant to section 40(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA’) the tenant must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all her rubbish.

The tenant did not keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish during the tenancy and the landlord had to incur the cost of $120.00 for waste removal. I award the landlord compensation for this expense.

Clause 11 of the tenancy agreement expressly states that the tenant’s car must be parked in the space provided and the tenant must ensure all her guests park on the street. In breach of this rule, the tenant breached the complex’s parking rules three times, being once on 16 March 2025 and twice on 4 September 2024. Each time the landlord was fined $201.25. I am satisfied the tenant was responsible for these three breaches during her tenancy and award the landlord compensation for these fines it has had to cover.

The amounts ordered are proved. Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.

Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5274499 — net $750.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$0.12	3. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, water rates arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement o…
Rubbish removal	$120.00	Rubbish removal
Parking rule breach 16/03/25	$201.25	Parking rule breach 16/03/25
Parking rule breach (1) 04/09/24	$201.25	Parking rule breach 16/03/25
Parking rule breach (2) 04/09/24	$201.25	Parking rule breach 16/03/25
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$750.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$750.87

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 Sharena Watson at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord], at 11:59pm, Tuesday 22 July 2025.
Sharena Watson must pay [The landlord] $750.87 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. The tenant messaged the landlord to confirm that she knew about the hearing and chose not to attend today.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, water rates arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The tenant has breached her obligations by storing illegal weapons and ammunition in the premise and not storing them securely in a gun safe.
The breach is not capable of remedy because although the New Zealand Police raided the premise and removed the illegal guns and ammunition, the tenant’s partner has associations that give him ready access to more illegal weapons and ammunition.
Section 40(2) of the RTA states that “the tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose” and to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to a maximum of $1,800.00 may be awarded.
Although the landlord is not seeking exemplary damages, I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has allowed the premise to be used for an unlawful purpose and the risks posed by that unlawful use.
The tenant was also in breach of the term in her tenancy agreement requiring her to “inform the landlord of any occupants who wish to reside at the property who were not declared on the tenancy application form”. The New Zealand Police have confirmed that the tenant’s partner was residing at the premise and was responsible for the storage of the illegal weapons and ammunition at the premise.
The tenancy is terminated from11:59pm tonight.
Pursuant to section 138(1)(a) of the District Court Act 2016, the landlord cannot enforce the eviction order for 48 hours. This gives the tenant time to move any belongings out of the premise that she wants to retain.

How much is owed water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the date of the hearing, being $0.12c.
The landlord says the tenant has paid her water and rent regularly but must have underpaid the water rates at some stage during the tenancy.

Did the tenant breach her obligations during the tenancy?

Pursuant to section 40(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA’) the tenant must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all her rubbish.
The tenant did not keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish during the tenancy and the landlord had to incur the cost of $120.00 for waste removal. I award the landlord compensation for this expense.
Clause 11 of the tenancy agreement expressly states that the tenant’s car must be parked in the space provided and the tenant must ensure all her guests park on the street. In breach of this rule, the tenant breached the complex’s parking rules three times, being once on 16 March 2025 and twice on 4 September 2024. Each time the landlord was fined $201.25. I am satisfied the tenant was responsible for these three breaches during her tenancy and award the landlord compensation for these fines it has had to cover.
The amounts ordered are proved. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274499 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274499 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed water rates?

Did the tenant breach her obligations during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed water rates?

Did the tenant breach her obligations during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions