What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380283 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5380283?

Rent Arrears: $2,237.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380283?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380283?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12754634-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380283 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5380283?

Rent Arrears: $2,237.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380283?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380283?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12754634-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380283 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380283 — net $2,237.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,237.14	Rent arrears
Net award	$2,237.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,237.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Shakana Patene Taylor at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
The tenant is ordered to pay $2,237.14 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 19 November 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 15 May 2025.
The landlord has applied to have the tenancy terminated on the grounds that the tenancy has been abandoned and for rent arrears. Burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
Section 61 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides: 61 Abandonment of premises (1) On the application of the landlord, the Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy where it is satisfied that the tenant has abandoned the premises and rent is in arrear. (2) Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1) in respect of a periodic tenancy, it shall determine, as best it can on the evidence before it, the date on which the landlord first became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, that the tenant had abandoned the premises, and shall specify that date in the order.
The term “abandoned” is not defined in the RTA. In the context of s. 61 RTA it seems to connote, first, the broad meaning of going away without intending to return and, secondly, an element of irresponsibility such as non-payment of rent or failure to give notice of termination: Evans v Cantwell Christchurch TT 920/90.
The rent was in arrears on the date of this hearing in the sum of $1,740.00. The requirement that a tenant be in arrear is proven by the landlord.
The landlord must also prove on the balance of the probabilities that it is more likely than not, that the tenant has left the premises and does not intend to return. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord said that she had carried out an inspection of the premises in July 2025. The premises were in an acceptable condition and the tenant’s daughter had a bedroom set up for her.
The landlord returned in October 2025. She found that the tenant was not at the premises. There was one person at the premises who indicated that they did not know where the tenant was. The bedroom was no longer set up for the tenant’s daughter. The premises had been damaged.
The landlord visited the premises again on 4 November 2025. More damage has been caused. She found two women at the property. One of the woman said that they were the tenant’s sisters and that the tenant was not living there. Tenant’s evidence
The tenant said she was still living at the premises. She said that she had been away from the premises for some time in Palmerston North because of issues with her children and her mother's medical problems. She accepted that some damage had been caused to the premises by her sister. She said that the sister had now moved away.
I find that the most compelling evidence is that of the tenant’s sisters who confirmed that the tenant no longer lived at the premises. The landlord is required by the RTA to prove that the tenant has more likely than not abandoned the premises. The landlord is not required to prove it to an absolute certainty.
In the circumstances as described above, I consider that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that the tenant has abandoned the premises. As the premises have been abandoned and the rent is in arrear, the tenancy is terminated immediately.
I consider that date when the landlord when the landlord first became aware or ought reasonably to have become aware that the tenant had abandoned the premises was 4 November 2025, when she was told by the sister that the tenant no longer lived there. Rent arrears
The landlord has provided rent records which show that the rent was in arrears on the date of the hearing in the sum of $1,740.00. Section 61(3)(a) RTA provides that in a periodic tenancy, the tenant shall be liable to pay rent for any period up to the expiry of 21 days after the date specified by the Tribunal as the date on which the landlord ought to have been aware of the abandonment. The tenant is ordered to pay rent arrears through until and including 25 November 2025.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the application for suppression of the tenant’s name and details is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380283 — net $2,237.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,237.14	Rent arrears
Net award	$2,237.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,237.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Shakana Patene Taylor at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
The tenant is ordered to pay $2,237.14 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 19 November 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 15 May 2025.
The landlord has applied to have the tenancy terminated on the grounds that the tenancy has been abandoned and for rent arrears. Burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
Section 61 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides: 61 Abandonment of premises (1) On the application of the landlord, the Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy where it is satisfied that the tenant has abandoned the premises and rent is in arrear. (2) Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1) in respect of a periodic tenancy, it shall determine, as best it can on the evidence before it, the date on which the landlord first became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, that the tenant had abandoned the premises, and shall specify that date in the order.
The term “abandoned” is not defined in the RTA. In the context of s. 61 RTA it seems to connote, first, the broad meaning of going away without intending to return and, secondly, an element of irresponsibility such as non-payment of rent or failure to give notice of termination: Evans v Cantwell Christchurch TT 920/90.
The rent was in arrears on the date of this hearing in the sum of $1,740.00. The requirement that a tenant be in arrear is proven by the landlord.
The landlord must also prove on the balance of the probabilities that it is more likely than not, that the tenant has left the premises and does not intend to return. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord said that she had carried out an inspection of the premises in July 2025. The premises were in an acceptable condition and the tenant’s daughter had a bedroom set up for her.
The landlord returned in October 2025. She found that the tenant was not at the premises. There was one person at the premises who indicated that they did not know where the tenant was. The bedroom was no longer set up for the tenant’s daughter. The premises had been damaged.
The landlord visited the premises again on 4 November 2025. More damage has been caused. She found two women at the property. One of the woman said that they were the tenant’s sisters and that the tenant was not living there. Tenant’s evidence
The tenant said she was still living at the premises. She said that she had been away from the premises for some time in Palmerston North because of issues with her children and her mother's medical problems. She accepted that some damage had been caused to the premises by her sister. She said that the sister had now moved away.
I find that the most compelling evidence is that of the tenant’s sisters who confirmed that the tenant no longer lived at the premises. The landlord is required by the RTA to prove that the tenant has more likely than not abandoned the premises. The landlord is not required to prove it to an absolute certainty.
In the circumstances as described above, I consider that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that the tenant has abandoned the premises. As the premises have been abandoned and the rent is in arrear, the tenancy is terminated immediately.
I consider that date when the landlord when the landlord first became aware or ought reasonably to have become aware that the tenant had abandoned the premises was 4 November 2025, when she was told by the sister that the tenant no longer lived there. Rent arrears
The landlord has provided rent records which show that the rent was in arrears on the date of the hearing in the sum of $1,740.00. Section 61(3)(a) RTA provides that in a periodic tenancy, the tenant shall be liable to pay rent for any period up to the expiry of 21 days after the date specified by the Tribunal as the date on which the landlord ought to have been aware of the abandonment. The tenant is ordered to pay rent arrears through until and including 25 November 2025.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the application for suppression of the tenant’s name and details is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380283 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380283 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions