What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5310398?

The tribunal order states: Kerry Ann Leslie Taurerewa owes Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5310398?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $757.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310398?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12411067-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5310398?

The tribunal order states: Kerry Ann Leslie Taurerewa owes Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5310398?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $757.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310398?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12411067-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 26 Kipling Street, Addington, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310398 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310398 — net $785.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 07 September 2025	$757.00	Rent arrears to 07 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$785.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$785.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310398 — net $785.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 07 September 2025	$757.00	Rent arrears to 07 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$785.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$785.00

Order

(This decision was amended and reissued on 15 September 2025.)

Kerry Ann Leslie Taurerewa owes Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $785.00 (the “debt”) calculated as shown in the table below:
Kerry Ann Leslie Taurerewa must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. By 78 weekly payments of $106.00, being $96.00 for rent and $10.00 for the debt; b. A final payment of $101.00, being $96.00 for rent and $5.00 for the debt; c. Payments will be every Wednesday, with the first payment on 10/09/2025 and continuing until 10/03/2027.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, rent arrears, and the filing fee.
If the tenant fails to pay rent and rent arrears within 5 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 26 Kipling Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
If the tenant fails to pay the filing fee within 5 working days of the due date, the filing fee will be payable immediately.
The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 10 October 2025: a. Strip, reseal and polish the vinyl in the kitchen and the bathroom; b. Have the carpet commercially cleaned; c. Clean the stove, the kitchen cupboards, the rangehood, and the whole house; d. Remove all rubbish from the interior and the exterior of the premises; e. Wash the curtains; and f. Repair the damage to the door.
If the tenant fails to comply with any of Orders 6a to f above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to: $227.45For failure to comply with Order 6a; $207.98For failure to comply with Order 6b; $842.01For failure to comply with Order 6c; $1,480.88For failure to comply with Order 6d; $478.65For failure to comply with Order 6e; and $490.00For failure to comply with Order 6f.
If the tenant fails to comply with any of Orders 6a to f above and the landlord undertakes any of the work, it may also charge $94.00 for a needles sweep to be carried out in advance of the work being performed.
The costs referred to in Orders 7 and 8 may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing was conducted on 08 September 2025 by telephone. Alex Temu, Senior Advisor Tribunal, attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Attempts were made to contact the tenant by telephone. However, those calls were to answerphone.
I am satisfied that the tenant has been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, a works order and suppression of the tenant’s name.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Sections 55(1)(a) and (1A) of the RTA provide that 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.
The landlord has provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger showing the amount of rent arrears and that the tenant has been in arrears for 21 days on the date the application was filed.
The landlord indicated on the application form and in the hearing that it was willing to agree to a conditional termination order. Conditional termination orders are not usually issued when the tenant fails to attend the hearing. However, in this case, the landlord has said that it is willing for the tenant to pay the rent arrears by additional payments of $10.00 per week. I can see on the rent ledger that, apart from a short period in June and early July this year, the tenant has been regularly making additional payments of $10.00 per week.
I am satisfied the tenant will pay the debt within the period specified in the Order and is unlikely to commit any further relevant breach. I have granted a conditional termination 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) of the RTA.)

Should a works order be issued?

The landlord claims that the tenant has breached her obligations under the RTA by failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and by causing damage to a door in the premises.
The landlord wants the problem fixed.
Under section 40(1)(a)-(e) of the RTA, a tenant has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises.
Where the Tribunal finds the tenant has failed to comply with any of these obligations, where appropriate it may make an order for the tenant to carry out the work. (See section 78(1)(e) of the RTA.)
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms. (See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) of the RTA.)
A work order may also authorise the landlord to undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of doing the work, if the tenant should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. (See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) of the RTA.)

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Section 40(1)(c) of the RTA provides that tenants are required to “keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy”. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that if a landlord proves that damage to the premises was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant will be liable unless they provide that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
The landlord has provided photographs showing the state of the premises. To say that the premises is not being kept reasonably clean and tidy is an understatement. There is a large amount of belongings and rubbish stored inside and outside of the premises. The landlord asserts and I accept that the premises requires significant cleaning.
In addition, the landlord has provided photographs showing that a door has been damaged during the tenancy. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was caused intentionally.
The landlord has provided estimates to have the work in Order 7a to f carried out. I have used these estimates as the limit of charges for the landlord to do the work if appropriate.

Should the tenant be granted suppression?

The landlord has asked for the tenant’s name and identifying details to be suppressed.
There is a statutory expectation in the RTA that decisions of the Tribunal are published as soon as practicable, unless there is good reason not to publish. 1
In 2020 Parliament introduced changes to the RTA to provide an ability for the Tribunal to order name suppression, with the new suppression provision introduced at section 95A of the RTA. In summary, this section: a. Creates a statutory expectation that the successful party will have available name suppression if they apply for it, unless the Tribunal considers that parties name should be published; and b. Creates a statutory discretion for the Tribunal to order name suppression to any party (such as the unsuccessful party), after taking into consideration the parties and public interest.
The usual situation in law is that judicial proceedings are open, unless the circumstances are exceptional. 2 Section 95A does not create a mandatory expectation of suppression, rather this provision provides the Tribunal with a discretion as to whether suppression should be granted. That requires the Tribunal in all cases where there has been an application for suppression, to evaluate the facts of the individual case, against the relevant law that applies – both statute and case law.
As far as case law is concerned, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that when considering applications for suppression, the starting point must be on the principle of open justice, and approved the approach taken by the High Court, which stated: 3 ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case, ‘except in very special circumstances.
The tenant in this case has not been the successful party. Therefore, section 95A(4) applies. That provision allows the landlord to request that the name and identifying details of the tenant are suppressed. However, in order to grant name suppression, the Tribunal must “have regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”. Applying those considerations requires a balancing exercise of two potentially competing considerations.
In this case, my understanding is that the landlord believes there is an interest for the tenant in receiving name suppression, as publication of her name may negatively impact the tenant if she was needing to find an alternate tenancy. It is well recognised that landlords will commonly search published Tenancy 1 See section 115B of the RTA. 2 Read v Police HC Tauranga CRI-2011-470-3, 29 September 2011 at [20]. 3 Victim X v Television New Zealand Ltd 73 NZLR 220. Tribunal decisions, when deciding whether to offer a tenancy to a prospective tenant. I accept it is strongly in the tenant’s interest that the decision not be published.
The landlord also submits that the condition of the premises may have resulted due to healthy conditions experienced by the tenant. I am minded that I have not heard from the tenant, and she has not presented reasons that could have gone some way to explain the condition of the premises.
I must weigh the public interest with the tenant’s interest. The Dictionary of New Zealand Law defines public interest as “[a]n interest common to the public at large or a significant portion of the public”. 4 The Office of the Ombudsman broadly equates public interest “to the concept of public good”, which the best interests of society”. 5
Generally, the open reporting of justice is in the public interest. 6 However, the High Court has drawn attention ... ... to the distinction between matters properly within the public interest, in the sense of being of legitimate concern to the public, and those which are merely interesting to the public on a human level — between what is interesting to the public and what it is in the public interest to be made known. 7
I consider there is a significant public interest in publication of the tenant’s name. As indicated above, the lack of cleanliness and tidiness of the premises is significant. It is rare for the Tribunal to see premises in this condition. It would be in the public interest to be aware of the tenant’s history and that is a particularly legitimate interest for potential future landlords.
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, I find the public interest considerations outweigh the tenant’s considerations. Therefore, I decline the application for tenant name suppression. Reimbursement of the filing fee:
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has been wholly successful with its claim. Therefore, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee. 8 4 P Spiller New Zealand Law Dictionary (9th ed, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2019). 5 Ombudsman’s Office “Guide: Public Interest” (August 2019 https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/sites/default/files/2020- 07/Public_interest_August_2019.pdf at [4]. 6 R v Liddell [1995] NZLR 538 [1994] 12 CRNZ 458 (CA) at [464]. 7 TV3 Network Services Ltd v Broadcasting Standards Authority [1995] 2 NZLR 720 at 733. 8 See section 102(4)(a) of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310398 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 26 Kipling Street, Addington, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310398 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 26 Kipling Street, Addington, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Should a works order be issued?

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Should the tenant be granted suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Should a works order be issued?

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Should the tenant be granted suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions