Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5371421 — Rent arrears at 133C Douglas Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684
Decided 11 February 2026 · Published 11 February 2026 · Application 5371421
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Pollok
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
T Harris
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $945.03
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $945.03
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 3 February 2026 | $917.03 | Rent arrears to 3 February 2026 | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $945.03 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $945.03 |
Claims and awards for application 5371421 — net $945.03 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 3 February 2026
- Amount
- $917.03
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 3 February 2026
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $945.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $945.03
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The tenancy of Andre James Dunasemant and Shelly Louise Dunasemant at 133C Douglas Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684 is terminated, and possession is granted to Golden Pheasant Assets Limited, immediately.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $945.03 (BN-00089487) to Golden Pheasant Assets Limited immediately. The balance of the bond is to be held.
- Andre James Dunasemant and Shelly Louise Dunasemant must pay Golden Pheasant Assets Limited $945.03 to be taken from the bond calculated as shown in the table below
Reasons
- The landlord attended by telephone. The tenants were called on the phone numbers provided and could not be contacted.
- The tenants applied for an adjournment of the hearing on 16 December 2025 on the basis that they had a medical appointment, and an appointment with WINZ on 18 December to obtain evidence for the hearing. The adjournment was granted
- The tenants applied for an adjournment of the current hearing on 2 February 2026 because one tenant was sick, and they had already asked the landlord if they could pay off the rent arrears at $200.00 per week.
- The tenants were asked if the other tenant could attend the telephone conference, and they replied that had very little reception, and they had emailed the landlord and explained everything. They also raised healthy homes issues.
- There was no evidence that a cross application had been lodged.
- The tenants were informed on 23 December 2025, 29 January 2026 and 2 February 2026 that a telephone hearing was scheduled for 3 February 2026. There was time to make arrangements to be where telephone reception was better so they could attend the hearing, or to apply for an adjournment for a face-to-face hearing.
- The landlord did not consent to a second adjournment raising concerns about the rent arrears going back 2 months.
- The application for an adjournment was declined and 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 tenants have breached their obligations by repeatedly failing to pay the correct amount of rent in full when it was due.
- The landlord served a notice on the tenant on 7 October 2025 which specified. •The date of the notice •that the tenants were overdue 3 weeks rent •that the rent had to be paid by Wednesday and a copy of the rent record was provided (which Wednesday was not specified) • if the rent was not paid the landlord would apply to the Tenancy Tribunal •It was signed by the landlord
Was this a valid notice?
- A notice issued under section 56 RTA is required to contain enough detail to clearly inform the recipient of what the breach is, what must be done to remedy the breach within a timeframe, and the consequence of failing to do this. The notice must be dated and signed. The Tribunal can set aside notices that do not comply.
- The notice of 7 October 2025 did not specify the relevant law breached or detail which Wednesday the payments were required to be made but contained enough detail in relation to the rent owing the consequence of not paying. It was signed and dated. I find that the tenants would have known the breach and what was required to remedy it.
- The tenant was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to understand what was required and I find that the notice dated 7 October 2026 is valid.
- The landlord said that he had sent 7 further reminders about the rent arrears and provided copies of four of them. All notices stated how much rent was owing and consequences of not paying the amount owed.
- The landlord’s concern is that the rent per week is $1200.00, and the tenant has not paid this amount in full on the due date since 26 June 2025.
- The landlord said an agreement was made that the tenants would top up their WINZ payments of $1000.00 by payments of $200.00 per week. This was paid by the tenants from 17July 2025 to 17 September 2025. No more rent payments have been received and the rent summary provided supports this.
- The result is increasing rent arrears since 17 September 2025 and the tenants have made no effort to remedy the breach. The landlord said that they have not honoured the repayment agreement, and he was concerned that the rent arrears will increase to where they will not be covered by the bond.
- The landlord has come to the Tribunal previously seeking termination on the same grounds.
- I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because a) The tenants said they would get information for the Tribunal about repayments at the first adjournment and this did not happen. b) The tenants said they agreed to top up the weekly rental but the rent arrears summary show this occurred for 2 months and has not happened since. c) There has been no attempt to remedy the recent breach. d) The rent arrears are increasing and if the tenants cannot afford the weekly rent this debt will keep growing.
- The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
- Because Golden Pheasant Assets Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s11, s56, s56(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Property management
- GOLDEN PHEASANT ASSETS LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5371421?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Andre James Dunasemant and Shelly Louise Dunasemant at
How much money was awarded in case 5371421?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $917.03 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371421?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371421?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13064253-Tribunal_Order.pdf.