How much money was awarded in case 5358027?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358027?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358027?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12835045-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5358027?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358027?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358027?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12835045-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Freyberg Crescent, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5358027 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358027 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 5358027 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.

The tenancy of Kelly Jordan at 13 Freyberg Crescent, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm Wednesday 10 December 2025.

Kelly Jordan must pay the landlord the amount of $28.00, being the application filing fee as recorded in the table below, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via remote video conference. There was no attendance by the tenant. A telephone call to the phone number provided with the application went unanswered to voicemail. The hearing continued in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 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 tenant has breached their obligations by keeping two dogs on the premises without the consent of the landlord.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 1 October 2025, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach

The landlord’s most recent inspection was on 29 September 2025 where the landlord observed two dogs on the premises. One of the dogs was in the lounge and the other dog in the garage. The tenant and one other were sleeping in the garage at the time. I also note that the Tribunal issued an Order on 19 November 2024 in respect of the same breach.

The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of their application. The evidence was convincing, showing a dog on the couch and dog faeces on the carpet. There was also evidence of carpet staining.

The landlord also provided an inspection summary from Green Carpet Cleaning dated 22 October 2025. The writer noted “a very strong urine odour is present immediately upon entering the property through the front door. The contamination appears extensive and widespread throughout the main living areas”.

I am entirely satisfied that the tenant has failed to remedy the breach within the required timeframe. I am also satisfied that termination is an appropriate response to the ongoing breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant.

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

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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358027 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Kelly Jordan at 13 Freyberg Crescent, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm Wednesday 10 December 2025.
Kelly Jordan must pay the landlord the amount of $28.00, being the application filing fee as recorded in the table below, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via remote video conference. There was no attendance by the tenant. A telephone call to the phone number provided with the application went unanswered to voicemail. The hearing continued in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 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 tenant has breached their obligations by keeping two dogs on the premises without the consent of the landlord.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 1 October 2025, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach
The landlord’s most recent inspection was on 29 September 2025 where the landlord observed two dogs on the premises. One of the dogs was in the lounge and the other dog in the garage. The tenant and one other were sleeping in the garage at the time. I also note that the Tribunal issued an Order on 19 November 2024 in respect of the same breach.
The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of their application. The evidence was convincing, showing a dog on the couch and dog faeces on the carpet. There was also evidence of carpet staining.
The landlord also provided an inspection summary from Green Carpet Cleaning dated 22 October 2025. The writer noted “a very strong urine odour is present immediately upon entering the property through the front door. The contamination appears extensive and widespread throughout the main living areas”.
I am entirely satisfied that the tenant has failed to remedy the breach within the required timeframe. I am also satisfied that termination is an appropriate response to the ongoing breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358027 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Freyberg Crescent, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358027 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Freyberg Crescent, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions