What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391543 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 5391543?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,142.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391543?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12846949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391543 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 5391543?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,142.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391543?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12846949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5391543 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391543 — net $3,210.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears and weekly water charge (both to 9 December 2025	$5,142.86	Rent arrears and weekly water charge (both to 9 December 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,210.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,210.86

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 CAROLEE IKINEPULE at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Tuesday 9 December 2025
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
CAROLEE IKINEPULE must pay [The landlord/s] $3,210.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by telephone.
I allowed the landlord a representative on the basis that she said she had issues with literacy and English was not her first language so there would be a disparity between the parties (s93 Residential Tenancies Act 1986). However, during the hearing the landlord was still able to take an active speaking role. The application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord alleges that there was an assault on her by the tenant’s partner.
The tenant says she did not see this happen as the landlord describes it but that the landlord came to the property and her partner had told her that the landlord shoved him, so he shoved her back.
The landlord disagrees strongly with this version of events saying she was picked up by the waist by the tenant’s partner and thrown onto the concrete.
Ultimately, I do not have to make a finding in relation to termination on this ground because of the significant rent arrears that are presently owed. However, I note that a shove (as admitted to being done) can amount to an assault.
The landlord says there are significant arrears. She provided rent records.
This record set out all sums paid by the tenant during this tenancy. The tenancy began on 5 May 2025 and the weekly rent is $490. There is also a fixed water charge of $10 a of week which is considered in more detail below.
The tenant agrees the summary has an accurate reflection of sums she paid – altogether she has paid $1,000 (10 times - $10,000) and $500 once ($500) (therefore total paid $10,500).
I am therefore satisfied that the rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In part of the hearing the landlord and tenant discussed the possibility of the tenant making periodic payments and staying in the tenancy. The tenant says she could pay a lump sum now, obtain a sum from WINZ and then pay $20 on top of regular rent payments. There was a concern between the parties that the tenancy was terminating in any event on 9 February and the arrears would not be paid off by that point. No final clear consensus was reached and ultimately the landlord says she wants termination and immediate payment.
I find that a conditional termination order is not appropriate in this case because I am not sufficiently satisfied the tenant will pay the debt within the remainder of the tenancy - the repayments will not be complete before the tenant and landlord say the tenancy would otherwise end (I heard how a 90 day notice to end the tenancy had been given). Further, the arrears are significant, and the landlord does not want delayed payment, and I am not satisfied as to when the tenant will be able to make the second lump sum payment offered. The landlord also expressed concern for her safety given her account of what had happened with the tenant’s partner (albeit I acknowledge that each party has their version of that event).
In this tenancy, the water charge was fixed at $10 a week and was not based on consumption. I heard how the landlord is charged for water by the appropriate authority but how there is only one water meter for the premises. The landlord lives separately upstairs and the tenant lives in an apartment below.
As set out above the weekly rent was $490, and the tenancy agreement sets out that the fixed charge the landlord and tenant agreed to was $10 a week.
I have considered the tenant’s submission that the rent of $490 was supposed to include water charges. However, I find that the tenancy agreement sets out that $10 a week is payable, and I find this is the better evidence of the agreement that was reached between the parties.
Section 39(3) RTA provides that the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises attributable to the tenants’ possession of the house or to the tenants’ use of the facilities. Section 39(4) RTA provides that without limiting the generality of ss.3, the tenant is responsible for the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
The District Court held Geraghty v Raui (2019) NZDC 3813 when considering a similar claim, that in considering whether to require the tenant to pay for outgoings, when there is no means for calculating the tenant’s actual consumption, the Tenancy Tribunal must have regard to section 85 RTA.
Section 85(2) RTA states: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give strict effect to legal rights or obligations or legal forms or technicalities.
The common-sense proposition being that the tenants used some water during the tenancy. I am satisfied that $10 per week is a reasonable sum for the tenant to pay for water.
Therefore, I am satisfied that the sum owed for both rent and for the weekly water payments together is $5,142.86 as at 9 December 2025. The parties also both agreed that this sum was the correct amount. This sum is ordered. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Bond
The bond is released to the landlord as part payment towards the sum ordered. The landlord should contact the Bond Centre to provide her details. Suppression
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.
The landlord seeks non-publication. She has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication of her name or identifying details is in the public interest or is justified due to any other circumstances of the case. I award the landlord suppression of her identifying details.
The tenant also seeks non-publication. She has not been successful, and I see no other reason to award the tenant suppression. I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order.
The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and the tenant’s interest does not outweigh the public interest. Her application for suppression of her identifying details are declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391543 — net $3,210.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears and weekly water charge (both to 9 December 2025	$5,142.86	Rent arrears and weekly water charge (both to 9 December 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,210.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,210.86

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 CAROLEE IKINEPULE at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Tuesday 9 December 2025
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
CAROLEE IKINEPULE must pay [The landlord/s] $3,210.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by telephone.
I allowed the landlord a representative on the basis that she said she had issues with literacy and English was not her first language so there would be a disparity between the parties (s93 Residential Tenancies Act 1986). However, during the hearing the landlord was still able to take an active speaking role. The application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord alleges that there was an assault on her by the tenant’s partner.
The tenant says she did not see this happen as the landlord describes it but that the landlord came to the property and her partner had told her that the landlord shoved him, so he shoved her back.
The landlord disagrees strongly with this version of events saying she was picked up by the waist by the tenant’s partner and thrown onto the concrete.
Ultimately, I do not have to make a finding in relation to termination on this ground because of the significant rent arrears that are presently owed. However, I note that a shove (as admitted to being done) can amount to an assault.
The landlord says there are significant arrears. She provided rent records.
This record set out all sums paid by the tenant during this tenancy. The tenancy began on 5 May 2025 and the weekly rent is $490. There is also a fixed water charge of $10 a of week which is considered in more detail below.
The tenant agrees the summary has an accurate reflection of sums she paid – altogether she has paid $1,000 (10 times - $10,000) and $500 once ($500) (therefore total paid $10,500).
I am therefore satisfied that the rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In part of the hearing the landlord and tenant discussed the possibility of the tenant making periodic payments and staying in the tenancy. The tenant says she could pay a lump sum now, obtain a sum from WINZ and then pay $20 on top of regular rent payments. There was a concern between the parties that the tenancy was terminating in any event on 9 February and the arrears would not be paid off by that point. No final clear consensus was reached and ultimately the landlord says she wants termination and immediate payment.
I find that a conditional termination order is not appropriate in this case because I am not sufficiently satisfied the tenant will pay the debt within the remainder of the tenancy - the repayments will not be complete before the tenant and landlord say the tenancy would otherwise end (I heard how a 90 day notice to end the tenancy had been given). Further, the arrears are significant, and the landlord does not want delayed payment, and I am not satisfied as to when the tenant will be able to make the second lump sum payment offered. The landlord also expressed concern for her safety given her account of what had happened with the tenant’s partner (albeit I acknowledge that each party has their version of that event).
In this tenancy, the water charge was fixed at $10 a week and was not based on consumption. I heard how the landlord is charged for water by the appropriate authority but how there is only one water meter for the premises. The landlord lives separately upstairs and the tenant lives in an apartment below.
As set out above the weekly rent was $490, and the tenancy agreement sets out that the fixed charge the landlord and tenant agreed to was $10 a week.
I have considered the tenant’s submission that the rent of $490 was supposed to include water charges. However, I find that the tenancy agreement sets out that $10 a week is payable, and I find this is the better evidence of the agreement that was reached between the parties.
Section 39(3) RTA provides that the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises attributable to the tenants’ possession of the house or to the tenants’ use of the facilities. Section 39(4) RTA provides that without limiting the generality of ss.3, the tenant is responsible for the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
The District Court held Geraghty v Raui (2019) NZDC 3813 when considering a similar claim, that in considering whether to require the tenant to pay for outgoings, when there is no means for calculating the tenant’s actual consumption, the Tenancy Tribunal must have regard to section 85 RTA.
Section 85(2) RTA states: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give strict effect to legal rights or obligations or legal forms or technicalities.
The common-sense proposition being that the tenants used some water during the tenancy. I am satisfied that $10 per week is a reasonable sum for the tenant to pay for water.
Therefore, I am satisfied that the sum owed for both rent and for the weekly water payments together is $5,142.86 as at 9 December 2025. The parties also both agreed that this sum was the correct amount. This sum is ordered. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Bond
The bond is released to the landlord as part payment towards the sum ordered. The landlord should contact the Bond Centre to provide her details. Suppression
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.
The landlord seeks non-publication. She has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication of her name or identifying details is in the public interest or is justified due to any other circumstances of the case. I award the landlord suppression of her identifying details.
The tenant also seeks non-publication. She has not been successful, and I see no other reason to award the tenant suppression. I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order.
The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and the tenant’s interest does not outweigh the public interest. Her application for suppression of her identifying details are declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391543 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391543 — Rent arrears

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