Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5389361 — Rent arrears at 314 George Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019
Decided 18 January 2026 · Published 18 January 2026 · Application 5389361
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Lower Hutt
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Feist
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,508.56
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,508.56
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 18 January 2026 | $1,508.56 | Rent arrears (to 18 January 2026 | |
| Net award | $1,508.56 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,508.56 |
Claims and awards for application 5389361 — net $1,508.56 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears (to 18 January 2026
- Amount
- $1,508.56
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears (to 18 January 2026
Net award
Landlord $1,508.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,508.56
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The tenancy of Te Aroha Carol Kimura at 314 George Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities, immediately.
- Te Aroha Carol Kimura must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,508.56 immediately, being rent arrears to 18 January 2026.
Reasons
- On 18 November 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.
- The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Thompson-Wise, Senior Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant was joined to the hearing by telephone. Relevant legal considerations
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
- This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. Termination of the tenancy under section 55 of the Act
- Under section 55(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must, subject to subsection 55(2) terminate the tenancy, if at the time the application was filed, the rent was at least 21 days in arrears.
- The application was filed on 18 November 2025. At the date of filing the tenant’s rent arrears totalled $716.57. Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed.
- The tenant opposed termination of the tenancy on the following grounds: a. The tenant was remanded into the custody of the Department of Corrections on 1 August 2025. b. The tenant notified the landlord and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) of her change in circumstances and requested a reassessment of her income related rent (IRR). c. MSD failed to reassess and reduce her IRR. d. Had MSD reassessed her IRR in line with her change in circumstances, then the money she had been in credit in her rent account should have been sufficient to cover her rent obligations. Income Related Rent
- Income Related Rent (IRR) is set by MSD.
- The setting of IRR by MSD is done pursuant to the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992, formerly known as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992. Any appeal or review of the IRR set by MSD is done based on that Act, not the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which the Tribunal applies. Sections 132 -135 set out the appeal process for anyone who disagrees with a decision made under Part 9 of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992. Part 9 sets out the process for assessing housing eligibility, assessable income and IRR.
- There is reference to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in section 132 which states – Nothing in this section and sections 133 to 135, or in any regulations made under section 136, limits or affects the rights of any tenant of social housing, or of any social housing provider as landlord, under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- While this section preserves the rights of landlords and tenants under the Act, it does not mean that the Tenancy Tribunal has the jurisdiction to make orders against MSD. Section 77 of the Act, which sets out the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, does not include decisions made by MSD or about IRR.
- Accordingly the Tribunal cannot consider any argument that the IRR was incorrectly set.
- The rent the tenant is strictly liable to pay, is that set out in the tenancy agreement.
- Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. In accordance with section 559109a) of the Act the tenancy is terminated.
How much is owed in rent arrears?
- The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the date of hearing totalled $1,433.14. The amount of rent owing to the date of this order is $1,508.56. The amount claimed is ordered. Termination of the tenancy for breach of the occupancy agreement
- The landlord advanced a second ground for termination of the tenancy, alleging the tenant had breached a condition of their tenancy agreement by failing to occupy the property.
- The tenant opposed termination of the tenancy for breach of the occupancy condition of the tenancy agreement stating: a. She was remanded in custody and remains there by an order of the District Court. b. Her release date is 1 April 2026. c. The tenant’s possessions remain at the property. d. The tenant intends on returning to the property following her release from custody.
- As the Tribunal has terminated the tenancy under section 55 of the Act, no further order is required terminating the tenancy under section 56.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s132, s133, s136, s3, s55, s55(1), s55(2), s559109a, s56, s77
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5389361?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Te Aroha Carol Kimura at 314 George Street, Stokes Valley,
How much money was awarded in case 5389361?
Rent Arrears: $1,508.56 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389361?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389361?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12985268-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.