What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327059 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in the application and cross

How much money was awarded in case 5327059?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $885.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327059?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12974601-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327059 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in the application and cross

How much money was awarded in case 5327059?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $885.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327059?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12974601-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327059 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327059 — net $913.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 September 2025	$885.00	Rent arrears to 4 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$913.00
Bond	$1,060.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$913.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in the application and cross application. The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Yuri Michael Divine must pay the landlord $913.00 from the bond, being rent arrears and the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,060.00 [Bond number suppressed] immediately apportioned as follows: The landlord: $913.00 Yuri Michael Divine: $147.00
The amount to pay is calculated as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 29 August the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee from the bond; however, the tenancy ended on 9 September before the Tribunal hearing. Therefore, the request for termination no longer applies.
The tenant applied for a stay of the landlord’s termination notice, and claimed compensation for a breach of quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry to his room, the appointment of a site manager to be a breach of House Rules. He has claimed that the landlord’s 28-day termination notice was retaliatory. As mentioned above, the tenancy terminated prior to the hearing and therefore that matter is moot. A. The Landlord’s Application

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord has provided records which prove the amount of rent owing to the end of the tenancy is $885.00. That is the only matter in the landlord’s application that requires a decision. The tenant agreed that he stopped paying rent for reasons that are encompassed in his application, which is discussed below. B. The Tenant’s Application Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant has applied for compensation for a breach of quiet enjoyment. His application is based on section 38, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenancy was in a boarding house and therefore only the sections of the RTA relating to boarding house tenancies apply. Section 38 RTA does not apply to boarding house tenancies. That is because section 66A RTA provides that: The following provisions do not apply to boarding house tenancies unless otherwise specifically applied: (a) section 7 (relating to short fixed-term tenancies): (b) section 9(1) and (2) (relating to transitional provisions): (c) sections 36 to 42, 42C to 42G, 43A to 45A, and 46 to 49 (relating to the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants) (my bold)
Therefore the breach of quiet enjoyment claim must be dismissed. Unlawful entry
The tenant has claimed that the landlord entered his room on two occasions in breach of his privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premises.
A landlord may enter a tenant's room with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, if there is a serious risk to life or property, where entry is necessary to provide services, with an order from the Tribunal, or by giving notice of entry. The landlord must enter in a reasonable manner, not stay longer than necessary, and not interfere with the tenant's goods unless necessary for the purpose of entry. See section 66R Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has claimed that the landlord entered his room unlawfully on two occasions. The landlord stated that the room was entered following the tenant’s consent at all times.
From the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord had the tenant’s consent of both occasions. On 25 July the room was entered after the tenant requested a Wi-Fi speed test. He carried out the test for the tenant in his room with the tenant’s approval and after the tenant’s request for assistance connecting to the Wi-Fi. On 6 August the landlord followed up the tenant’s complaint about another tenant. The landlord discussed the complaint with the tenant in his room. I do not accept that the landlord was discussing a complaint with the tenant in the tenant’s room without the tenant letting the landlord into the room. On both occasions the tenant said that he felt pressured to let the landlord in. I do not accept that pressure, if any, was to an extent that consent to entry was not given.
The claim for unlawful entry is dismissed. Is the appointment of a site manager a breach of House Rules
The tenant has claimed that the landlord breached House Rules by the appointment of a house manager. The landlord submitted that the tenant knew there was a site manager when he agreed to the tenancy and was introduced to the site manager at the time. The tenant disputed the landlord’s claim.
The RTA does not forbid a manager to be appointed in a boarding house. The reason for appointing a manager in a boarding house is to coordinate the tasks that need to be carried out where individuals are living as a group. It is a sensible decision. I have looked at the Rules for the boarding house and do not find the site manager’s appointment to be in conflict with the Rules.
The claim that a site manager’s presence was a landlord breach is dismissed. Was the landlord’s 28-day termination notice retaliatory?
On 7 August 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 25 September 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no doubt that the tenant had made a complaint in writing to the landlord the day before the landlord issued the termination notice. A first impression could conclude that the complaint and the termination were connected, and the notice was retaliatory. However, a fuller examination of the events at the tenancy involving the tenant and other tenants leads to a different view. I am satisfied that the landlord gave notice because of genuine concerns held, (rightly or wrongly) that the tenant’s behaviour towards other tenants and the disruption it caused to the enjoyment of everyone in the house. I appreciate that the tenant will not see it that way; however, it is clear from the content of the emails provided in evidence that the tenant’s complaint to the landlord was not the reason for the landlord’s decision to terminate, but the wider relationships and dynamics that questioned the long-term feasibility of the tenancy. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Suppression
The landlord and tenant both applied for name suppression.
Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that 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 with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.
The tenant has not substantially succeeded with his claim and therefore name suppression is not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327059 — net $913.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 September 2025	$885.00	Rent arrears to 4 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$913.00
Bond	$1,060.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$913.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in the application and cross application. The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Yuri Michael Divine must pay the landlord $913.00 from the bond, being rent arrears and the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,060.00 [Bond number suppressed] immediately apportioned as follows: The landlord: $913.00 Yuri Michael Divine: $147.00
The amount to pay is calculated as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 29 August the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee from the bond; however, the tenancy ended on 9 September before the Tribunal hearing. Therefore, the request for termination no longer applies.
The tenant applied for a stay of the landlord’s termination notice, and claimed compensation for a breach of quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry to his room, the appointment of a site manager to be a breach of House Rules. He has claimed that the landlord’s 28-day termination notice was retaliatory. As mentioned above, the tenancy terminated prior to the hearing and therefore that matter is moot. A. The Landlord’s Application

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord has provided records which prove the amount of rent owing to the end of the tenancy is $885.00. That is the only matter in the landlord’s application that requires a decision. The tenant agreed that he stopped paying rent for reasons that are encompassed in his application, which is discussed below. B. The Tenant’s Application Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant has applied for compensation for a breach of quiet enjoyment. His application is based on section 38, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenancy was in a boarding house and therefore only the sections of the RTA relating to boarding house tenancies apply. Section 38 RTA does not apply to boarding house tenancies. That is because section 66A RTA provides that: The following provisions do not apply to boarding house tenancies unless otherwise specifically applied: (a) section 7 (relating to short fixed-term tenancies): (b) section 9(1) and (2) (relating to transitional provisions): (c) sections 36 to 42, 42C to 42G, 43A to 45A, and 46 to 49 (relating to the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants) (my bold)
Therefore the breach of quiet enjoyment claim must be dismissed. Unlawful entry
The tenant has claimed that the landlord entered his room on two occasions in breach of his privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premises.
A landlord may enter a tenant's room with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, if there is a serious risk to life or property, where entry is necessary to provide services, with an order from the Tribunal, or by giving notice of entry. The landlord must enter in a reasonable manner, not stay longer than necessary, and not interfere with the tenant's goods unless necessary for the purpose of entry. See section 66R Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has claimed that the landlord entered his room unlawfully on two occasions. The landlord stated that the room was entered following the tenant’s consent at all times.
From the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord had the tenant’s consent of both occasions. On 25 July the room was entered after the tenant requested a Wi-Fi speed test. He carried out the test for the tenant in his room with the tenant’s approval and after the tenant’s request for assistance connecting to the Wi-Fi. On 6 August the landlord followed up the tenant’s complaint about another tenant. The landlord discussed the complaint with the tenant in his room. I do not accept that the landlord was discussing a complaint with the tenant in the tenant’s room without the tenant letting the landlord into the room. On both occasions the tenant said that he felt pressured to let the landlord in. I do not accept that pressure, if any, was to an extent that consent to entry was not given.
The claim for unlawful entry is dismissed. Is the appointment of a site manager a breach of House Rules
The tenant has claimed that the landlord breached House Rules by the appointment of a house manager. The landlord submitted that the tenant knew there was a site manager when he agreed to the tenancy and was introduced to the site manager at the time. The tenant disputed the landlord’s claim.
The RTA does not forbid a manager to be appointed in a boarding house. The reason for appointing a manager in a boarding house is to coordinate the tasks that need to be carried out where individuals are living as a group. It is a sensible decision. I have looked at the Rules for the boarding house and do not find the site manager’s appointment to be in conflict with the Rules.
The claim that a site manager’s presence was a landlord breach is dismissed. Was the landlord’s 28-day termination notice retaliatory?
On 7 August 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 25 September 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no doubt that the tenant had made a complaint in writing to the landlord the day before the landlord issued the termination notice. A first impression could conclude that the complaint and the termination were connected, and the notice was retaliatory. However, a fuller examination of the events at the tenancy involving the tenant and other tenants leads to a different view. I am satisfied that the landlord gave notice because of genuine concerns held, (rightly or wrongly) that the tenant’s behaviour towards other tenants and the disruption it caused to the enjoyment of everyone in the house. I appreciate that the tenant will not see it that way; however, it is clear from the content of the emails provided in evidence that the tenant’s complaint to the landlord was not the reason for the landlord’s decision to terminate, but the wider relationships and dynamics that questioned the long-term feasibility of the tenancy. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Suppression
The landlord and tenant both applied for name suppression.
Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that 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 with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.
The tenant has not substantially succeeded with his claim and therefore name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327059 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327059 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions