What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292941 about?

The tribunal order states: Bridgett Linette Smith, Candice Marie Friend and Nikisha Lee Forsythe-Walton

How much money was awarded in case 5292941?

Compensation: Draught Stopping: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,020.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292941?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12192133-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292941 about?

The tribunal order states: Bridgett Linette Smith, Candice Marie Friend and Nikisha Lee Forsythe-Walton

How much money was awarded in case 5292941?

Compensation: Draught Stopping: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,020.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292941?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12192133-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Hooker Avenue, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5292941 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5292941 — net $7,520.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears and rent to 4 August 2025	$8,020.81		Rent arrears and rent to 4 August 2025
Compensation: Draught Stopping		$500.00	Draught Stopping
Total award	$8,020.81	$500.00
Net award	$7,520.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,520.81

Order

Bridgett Linette Smith, Candice Marie Friend and Nikisha Lee Forsythe-Walton owes Wongeoon Vast Limited $8,020.81 (“the debt”) as shown in the table below:
Bridgett Linette Smith, Candice Marie Friend and Nikisha Lee Forsythe-Walton must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. By one payment of $1,430.00, being current fortnightly rent on or before Friday 1 August 2025. b. Two payments of $1,530, being $1,430 for current fortnightly rent and $100 for the debt. The payments are due on or before Wednesday 13 August 2025 and Wednesday 27 August 2025. c. A payment of $7,320.81 for the debt on or before Sunday, 31 August 2025.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: current rent and rent arrears.
If the tenant fails to pay rent and rent arrears within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 15 Hooker Avenue, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
Except as specifically awarded above, both tenant applications (5276280 and 5312119) are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. That is application 5292941. The tenant wants to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.
One of the tenants (Ms Smith) had applied for refund of a portion of the bond on the basis that her tenancy had ended. She claimed that the tenancies were individual, room by room tenancies. That is application 5276280.
The tenants also collectively made an application for alleged breaches of the landlord obligations in relation to the condition of the property and rent paid for a pet. That is application 5312119.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 or 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.” (emphasis added) Type of Tenancy
The first issue for me to consider was whether these were individual room by room tenancies or a single tenancy whereby all tenants were jointly and severally liable for their obligations.
There is a single fixed term tenancy agreement. As discussed with the parties at the hearing, all the tenants are liable to the end of the fixed term, unless the landlord agrees otherwise or there is a successful application under s66 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
Ms Smith said that she had to leave the property but has not made an application under s66 RTA. The other tenants want the tenancy to continue, and Ms Smith did not want immediate termination (one of the other tenants is her daughter).
Ms Smith wanted the Tribunal to order that the landlord had to agree to a replacement tenant. I do not have jurisdiction to make such an order. I consider that the landlord has acted reasonably in response to requests regarding a replacement tenant.
For those reasons, Ms Smith’s application for partial refund of the bond is dismissed.

Landlord Application - Should a conditional termination order be made?

Where rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the Tribunal must make either a final or a conditional termination order. See section 55(1)(a) and (1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The rent arrears are significant. I am concerned that two of the tenants (and a boarder/flatmate) have been paying money into an account for the rent, controlled by Ms Friend, but the rent has not been paid. On the evidence before me, I would not have been satisfied that the tenants would pay the debt within a reasonable timeframe, or that this issue will not happen again.
However, the tenants wanted to stay at the property and the landlord requested a conditional termination order on the terms set out above, so I have made that Order.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Tenant Application - 5312119
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants claim that the property is damp and that there was a leak during a significant recent rain event. The leak did not recur in subsequent rain. The tenants did not discharge the burden of proof in relation to any leak at the property. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.
The tenants also claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). They consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy, the compliance date was 29 January 2025 (120 days after the tenancy started).
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants claimed that there are unreasonable gaps in some of the timber window joinery. They provided photographs and video evidence. The landlord correctly noted that it was difficult to tell from the video whether the windows were properly latched at the time the video was taken but acknowledged the windows do not have seals. He said that he would attend to that.
The tenants did not raise any issue about draughts with the landlord before making this application to the Tribunal. I accept that there is some draught and cold, which could be better sealed. However, the tenants have not established that the issue is as severe as they are now claiming. I award $500 for loss of amenity.
The tenants also claimed that the landlord failed to provide them with a Healthy Homes Statement at the start of the tenancy. The evidence shows that the document was emailed to all of the tenants at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants also sought a rent rebate of $20.00 per week being the amount they had agreed to pay to have a dog at the premises. They say that the landlord could have charged a pet bond and was not allowed to charge increased rent when it agreed to allow a Border Collie at the premises.
This tenancy started on 1 October 2024. Changes to rules for keeping pets, including pet bonds, are not yet in force. Currently, tenants must not be charged a pet bond.
The tenancy was advertised for rent at $695.00 per week. The advertisement had a “tick box” for whether pets were allowed. The box was not ticked, and the landlord preferred not to allow pets. When the tenants enquired about the property, they asked if a dog would be permitted. The landlord indicated that it would, but that the rent would be $715.00 per week. The tenants agreed to that before entering into the tenancy agreement.
The tenants have not satisfied me that the discussions around having a dog and the agreement reached, breach of the landlord’s obligations. This aspect of the claim is dismissed. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.
As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of any application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5292941 — net $7,520.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears and rent to 4 August 2025	$8,020.81		Rent arrears and rent to 4 August 2025
Compensation: Draught Stopping		$500.00	Draught Stopping
Total award	$8,020.81	$500.00
Net award	$7,520.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,520.81

Order

Bridgett Linette Smith, Candice Marie Friend and Nikisha Lee Forsythe-Walton owes Wongeoon Vast Limited $8,020.81 (“the debt”) as shown in the table below:
Bridgett Linette Smith, Candice Marie Friend and Nikisha Lee Forsythe-Walton must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. By one payment of $1,430.00, being current fortnightly rent on or before Friday 1 August 2025. b. Two payments of $1,530, being $1,430 for current fortnightly rent and $100 for the debt. The payments are due on or before Wednesday 13 August 2025 and Wednesday 27 August 2025. c. A payment of $7,320.81 for the debt on or before Sunday, 31 August 2025.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: current rent and rent arrears.
If the tenant fails to pay rent and rent arrears within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 15 Hooker Avenue, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
Except as specifically awarded above, both tenant applications (5276280 and 5312119) are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. That is application 5292941. The tenant wants to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.
One of the tenants (Ms Smith) had applied for refund of a portion of the bond on the basis that her tenancy had ended. She claimed that the tenancies were individual, room by room tenancies. That is application 5276280.
The tenants also collectively made an application for alleged breaches of the landlord obligations in relation to the condition of the property and rent paid for a pet. That is application 5312119.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 or 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.” (emphasis added) Type of Tenancy
The first issue for me to consider was whether these were individual room by room tenancies or a single tenancy whereby all tenants were jointly and severally liable for their obligations.
There is a single fixed term tenancy agreement. As discussed with the parties at the hearing, all the tenants are liable to the end of the fixed term, unless the landlord agrees otherwise or there is a successful application under s66 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
Ms Smith said that she had to leave the property but has not made an application under s66 RTA. The other tenants want the tenancy to continue, and Ms Smith did not want immediate termination (one of the other tenants is her daughter).
Ms Smith wanted the Tribunal to order that the landlord had to agree to a replacement tenant. I do not have jurisdiction to make such an order. I consider that the landlord has acted reasonably in response to requests regarding a replacement tenant.
For those reasons, Ms Smith’s application for partial refund of the bond is dismissed.

Landlord Application - Should a conditional termination order be made?

Where rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the Tribunal must make either a final or a conditional termination order. See section 55(1)(a) and (1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The rent arrears are significant. I am concerned that two of the tenants (and a boarder/flatmate) have been paying money into an account for the rent, controlled by Ms Friend, but the rent has not been paid. On the evidence before me, I would not have been satisfied that the tenants would pay the debt within a reasonable timeframe, or that this issue will not happen again.
However, the tenants wanted to stay at the property and the landlord requested a conditional termination order on the terms set out above, so I have made that Order.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Tenant Application - 5312119
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants claim that the property is damp and that there was a leak during a significant recent rain event. The leak did not recur in subsequent rain. The tenants did not discharge the burden of proof in relation to any leak at the property. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.
The tenants also claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). They consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy, the compliance date was 29 January 2025 (120 days after the tenancy started).
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants claimed that there are unreasonable gaps in some of the timber window joinery. They provided photographs and video evidence. The landlord correctly noted that it was difficult to tell from the video whether the windows were properly latched at the time the video was taken but acknowledged the windows do not have seals. He said that he would attend to that.
The tenants did not raise any issue about draughts with the landlord before making this application to the Tribunal. I accept that there is some draught and cold, which could be better sealed. However, the tenants have not established that the issue is as severe as they are now claiming. I award $500 for loss of amenity.
The tenants also claimed that the landlord failed to provide them with a Healthy Homes Statement at the start of the tenancy. The evidence shows that the document was emailed to all of the tenants at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants also sought a rent rebate of $20.00 per week being the amount they had agreed to pay to have a dog at the premises. They say that the landlord could have charged a pet bond and was not allowed to charge increased rent when it agreed to allow a Border Collie at the premises.
This tenancy started on 1 October 2024. Changes to rules for keeping pets, including pet bonds, are not yet in force. Currently, tenants must not be charged a pet bond.
The tenancy was advertised for rent at $695.00 per week. The advertisement had a “tick box” for whether pets were allowed. The box was not ticked, and the landlord preferred not to allow pets. When the tenants enquired about the property, they asked if a dog would be permitted. The landlord indicated that it would, but that the rent would be $715.00 per week. The tenants agreed to that before entering into the tenancy agreement.
The tenants have not satisfied me that the discussions around having a dog and the agreement reached, breach of the landlord’s obligations. This aspect of the claim is dismissed. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.
As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of any application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5292941 — Rent arrears at 15 Hooker Avenue, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5292941 — Rent arrears at 15 Hooker Avenue, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Landlord Application - Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Landlord Application - Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions