What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5388801 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5388801?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5388801?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5388801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12974671-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5388801 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5388801?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5388801?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5388801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12974671-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 31 Kauri Street, Dargaville 0310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5388801 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for termination is dismissed.
Cole Walker must pay North Island Community Services Limited As Agent For Edmund Yeung the sum of $1,228.00 immediately, being: a. rent arrears to 14 January 2026 of $1,200 and b. filing fee of $28.00.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The grounds for termination are non-payment of rent and noise disturbance.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55 for rent arrears?

Section 55(1) provides that on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— a. the rent was, at the date on which the application was filed at least 21 days in arrear (see section 55(1)(a)); or b. in the case of a periodic tenancy, on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period an amount of rent has been owing for at least 5 working days after the date on which it was due under the tenancy agreement; and on each occasion notice was given in accordance with section 55(1)(aa).
The rent summaries filed show that although today the rent is 21 days in arrears, it was not 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. Therefore, the ground under section 55(1)(a) has not been met.
There was no evidence of three notices for non-payment of rent within a 90-day period. Therefore there is no ground to terminate under section 55(1)(aa).
That also means that there is no ground to grant a conditional termination.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56 for non-payment of rent?

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.
The tenant has breached their obligations by not paying the rent. This is a breach capable of remedy.
The landlord issued a notice on 29 October for non-payment of rent. That has not been remedied.
Using the wording of the Act, I do not find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. The fact that the tenant has missed two further payments in December makes this more serious, but the arrears have only reached the 21 day threshold today. On balance, I find that it would be inequitable to terminate for non-payment of one week’s rent.
The tenant is annoyed because he considers that the landlord has breached certain responsibilities. If those matters cannot be resolved, he may consider bringing a claim before the Tribunal. However, any breaches by the landlord do not absolve the tenant of his ongoing responsibilities under the tenancy agreement, and perhaps the most important one is to pay his rent. Failure to do so may lead to termination.

Should the tenancy be terminated because of noise disturbances?

The landlord has served two notices on the tenant regarding complaints about noise and disturbances.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
In fact, these are alleged breaches that are not capable of remedy because the alleged harm has been done.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate. There is no criticism of the landlord for serving the notices on the tenants.
The tenant disputes that he has breached any obligations.
The onus is on the landlord to prove the claims.
The landlord provided no signed statements from any witnesses and did not have any witnesses on hand to give evidence about the nature or degree of the disturbances.
Accordingly, the landlord has not proved the allegations and the application is dismissed.
There was no application under section 55A for anti-social behaviour. The strict provisions of that section had not been met in any event. Conclusion
The tenant does not dispute that he owes $1,200 in rent arrears and so an order is made for that amount plus the filing fee of $28.00.
The landlord’s applications for termination are dismissed.
The parties’ attention is drawn to the provisions of sections: a. 55(1)(a) b. 55(1A) c. 55(2).

Order

The application for termination is dismissed.
Cole Walker must pay North Island Community Services Limited As Agent For Edmund Yeung the sum of $1,228.00 immediately, being: a. rent arrears to 14 January 2026 of $1,200 and b. filing fee of $28.00.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The grounds for termination are non-payment of rent and noise disturbance.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55 for rent arrears?

Section 55(1) provides that on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— a. the rent was, at the date on which the application was filed at least 21 days in arrear (see section 55(1)(a)); or b. in the case of a periodic tenancy, on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period an amount of rent has been owing for at least 5 working days after the date on which it was due under the tenancy agreement; and on each occasion notice was given in accordance with section 55(1)(aa).
The rent summaries filed show that although today the rent is 21 days in arrears, it was not 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. Therefore, the ground under section 55(1)(a) has not been met.
There was no evidence of three notices for non-payment of rent within a 90-day period. Therefore there is no ground to terminate under section 55(1)(aa).
That also means that there is no ground to grant a conditional termination.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56 for non-payment of rent?

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.
The tenant has breached their obligations by not paying the rent. This is a breach capable of remedy.
The landlord issued a notice on 29 October for non-payment of rent. That has not been remedied.
Using the wording of the Act, I do not find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. The fact that the tenant has missed two further payments in December makes this more serious, but the arrears have only reached the 21 day threshold today. On balance, I find that it would be inequitable to terminate for non-payment of one week’s rent.
The tenant is annoyed because he considers that the landlord has breached certain responsibilities. If those matters cannot be resolved, he may consider bringing a claim before the Tribunal. However, any breaches by the landlord do not absolve the tenant of his ongoing responsibilities under the tenancy agreement, and perhaps the most important one is to pay his rent. Failure to do so may lead to termination.

Should the tenancy be terminated because of noise disturbances?

The landlord has served two notices on the tenant regarding complaints about noise and disturbances.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
In fact, these are alleged breaches that are not capable of remedy because the alleged harm has been done.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate. There is no criticism of the landlord for serving the notices on the tenants.
The tenant disputes that he has breached any obligations.
The onus is on the landlord to prove the claims.
The landlord provided no signed statements from any witnesses and did not have any witnesses on hand to give evidence about the nature or degree of the disturbances.
Accordingly, the landlord has not proved the allegations and the application is dismissed.
There was no application under section 55A for anti-social behaviour. The strict provisions of that section had not been met in any event. Conclusion
The tenant does not dispute that he owes $1,200 in rent arrears and so an order is made for that amount plus the filing fee of $28.00.
The landlord’s applications for termination are dismissed.
The parties’ attention is drawn to the provisions of sections: a. 55(1)(a) b. 55(1A) c. 55(2).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5388801 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 31 Kauri Street, Dargaville 0310

Tenancy Tribunal case 5388801 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 31 Kauri Street, Dargaville 0310

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55 for rent arrears?

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56 for non-payment of rent?

Should the tenancy be terminated because of noise disturbances?

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55 for rent arrears?

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56 for non-payment of rent?

Should the tenancy be terminated because of noise disturbances?