What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5301541?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5301541?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301541?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301541?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12396303-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5301541?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5301541?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301541?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301541?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12396303-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

55 Berkshire Drive, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301541 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Neilson, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenants appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 30 October 2017 and is periodic.
On 9 January 2025, management of the property was transferred to Homewood Real Estate Limited.
On 8 July 2025 the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”), rent arrears and refund of the bond.
At the hearing the landlord amended their claim seeking termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 55(1)(aa) of the Act. The claims for rent arrears and refund of the bond were withdrawn as the tenant was in rent credit. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55(1)(aa)

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) of the Act.
The landlord served the notices on 27 June 2025, 7 July 2025, and 17 July 2025. The application was filed with the Tribunal on 8 July 2025, before the service of the third notice. The landlord has not complied with the requirements of section 55(1)(aa)(iv) and the application for termination in accordance with section 55(1)(aa) is dismissed. Section 56
Under section 56(1) of the Act, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable under section 56(1)(c) to refuse to terminate.
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 and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord told the Tribunal they had served nine 14-day breach notices for rent arrears on the tenant since they took over the management of the property in January 2025. The landlord stated that five of the breach notices were remedied within the required 14-day period. However, the remaining four notices were remedied outside of the 14-day period.
The landlord produced one 14-day breach notice as evidence. That notice was served on the tenants on 23 June 2025 advising them that they were $725.00 in rent arrears and required the breach to be remedied by 7 July 2025. The breach was remedied on 9 July 2025, two days after the notice expired.
The landlord produced up to date rent records. The records show that the tenant paid $2,175.00 into their rent account on 9 July 2025 clearing the arrears and placing the account in credit. The rent records further show that the tenant paid rent monthly in advance on 30 July 2025 and 28 August 2025. At the date of hearing the tenant’s rent account is $1,847.03 in credit.
The tenants acknowledged receipt of all the rent arrears breach notices and accepted that some of their rent payments had been late. They told the Tribunal that since becoming self-employed they no longer receive weekly income which has contributed to the late payment of their rent. They said they now prefer to pay rent monthly in advance as it had the additional benefit of preventing the landlord from issuing any further rent arrears breach notices which they find distressing.
On 28 July 2025, following mediation, the parties agreed to the tenants paying rent monthly in advance (the offer was made by the tenants and accepted by the landlord). The Tribunal notes there is nothing in the Act preventing the tenants from paying rent monthly in advance, however section 23 of the Act prevents the landlord from requiring rent to be paid more than two weeks in advance.
In determining the exercise of the discretion in section 56(1)(c) of the Act, the Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC 19229, stated at [61]: Factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy include: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The Tribunal has heard that nine 14-day breach notices and three section 55(1)(aa) breach notices for rent arrears have been issued since management of the tenancy passed to Holmwood Real Estate Limited. All the notices were remedied, albeit four were outside of the required 14-day period. The tenant is now paying rent monthly in advance to better align with their finances to ensure compliance with their rent obligations. Considering these factors and the factors in Vincent Dean Huff, in the circumstance, the Tribunal does not consider that it would be inequitable to refuse termination for failing to remedy the breach notice.
The claim for termination for failing to remedy the breach notice is dismissed.
The Tribunal reminds the tenants of their obligation to pay rent as and when it falls due. Failure to do so could result in a breach notice being issued and further application to the Tribunal.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Neilson, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenants appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 30 October 2017 and is periodic.
On 9 January 2025, management of the property was transferred to Homewood Real Estate Limited.
On 8 July 2025 the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”), rent arrears and refund of the bond.
At the hearing the landlord amended their claim seeking termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 55(1)(aa) of the Act. The claims for rent arrears and refund of the bond were withdrawn as the tenant was in rent credit. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55(1)(aa)

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) of the Act.
The landlord served the notices on 27 June 2025, 7 July 2025, and 17 July 2025. The application was filed with the Tribunal on 8 July 2025, before the service of the third notice. The landlord has not complied with the requirements of section 55(1)(aa)(iv) and the application for termination in accordance with section 55(1)(aa) is dismissed. Section 56
Under section 56(1) of the Act, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable under section 56(1)(c) to refuse to terminate.
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 and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord told the Tribunal they had served nine 14-day breach notices for rent arrears on the tenant since they took over the management of the property in January 2025. The landlord stated that five of the breach notices were remedied within the required 14-day period. However, the remaining four notices were remedied outside of the 14-day period.
The landlord produced one 14-day breach notice as evidence. That notice was served on the tenants on 23 June 2025 advising them that they were $725.00 in rent arrears and required the breach to be remedied by 7 July 2025. The breach was remedied on 9 July 2025, two days after the notice expired.
The landlord produced up to date rent records. The records show that the tenant paid $2,175.00 into their rent account on 9 July 2025 clearing the arrears and placing the account in credit. The rent records further show that the tenant paid rent monthly in advance on 30 July 2025 and 28 August 2025. At the date of hearing the tenant’s rent account is $1,847.03 in credit.
The tenants acknowledged receipt of all the rent arrears breach notices and accepted that some of their rent payments had been late. They told the Tribunal that since becoming self-employed they no longer receive weekly income which has contributed to the late payment of their rent. They said they now prefer to pay rent monthly in advance as it had the additional benefit of preventing the landlord from issuing any further rent arrears breach notices which they find distressing.
On 28 July 2025, following mediation, the parties agreed to the tenants paying rent monthly in advance (the offer was made by the tenants and accepted by the landlord). The Tribunal notes there is nothing in the Act preventing the tenants from paying rent monthly in advance, however section 23 of the Act prevents the landlord from requiring rent to be paid more than two weeks in advance.
In determining the exercise of the discretion in section 56(1)(c) of the Act, the Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC 19229, stated at [61]: Factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy include: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The Tribunal has heard that nine 14-day breach notices and three section 55(1)(aa) breach notices for rent arrears have been issued since management of the tenancy passed to Holmwood Real Estate Limited. All the notices were remedied, albeit four were outside of the required 14-day period. The tenant is now paying rent monthly in advance to better align with their finances to ensure compliance with their rent obligations. Considering these factors and the factors in Vincent Dean Huff, in the circumstance, the Tribunal does not consider that it would be inequitable to refuse termination for failing to remedy the breach notice.
The claim for termination for failing to remedy the breach notice is dismissed.
The Tribunal reminds the tenants of their obligation to pay rent as and when it falls due. Failure to do so could result in a breach notice being issued and further application to the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301541 — Rent arrears at 55 Berkshire Drive, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301541 — Rent arrears at 55 Berkshire Drive, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions