How much money was awarded in case 5392083?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,844.29 awarded to landlord; Rent Owing 3: $887.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392083?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13061889-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5392083?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,844.29 awarded to landlord; Rent Owing 3: $887.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392083?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13061889-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16 York Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5392083 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5392083 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5392083. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 February 2026	$1,844.29	Rent arrears to 2 February 2026
Rent owing 3 to 11 February 2026	$887.14	Rent owing 3 to 11 February 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

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 Bryce Luke King at 16 York Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm on Wednesday 11 February 2026.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,759.43 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately, as shown in the table.

The Bond Centre is to HOLD the bond of $0.57 ([Bond number suppressed]) for the tenant.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing and was represented by a property manager.

The tenant was emailed the notice of hearing and the other documents. He did not attend the hearing.

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 (very unfair) to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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 tenant has breached his obligations by not paying rent on time and not paying the arrears. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 11 November 2025 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

This tenancy started around 15 weeks ago, so there is only a short history. However the tenant has been in rent arrears the whole tenancy. He paid $290 less than he should have for the first few weeks and then arranged for the correct rent to be paid. He has not addressed the arrears.

The property manager said there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. She has served a 14 day notice, sent many emails and attempted mediation. The tenant has not attended today’s hearing.

The tenant has paid the full rent every week since 9 December. He has not addressed the arrears, and he is not paying rent in advance, which he is required to do under the tenancy agreement. Given the history of missed payments it seems unlikely the tenant will comply with his obligations the future.

I have no evidence from the tenant so it is impossible to know if the breaches were inadvertent.

It seems to me the landlord has acted reasonably and given the tenant chances to stay in the tenancy premises.

I find the fact the tenant is 18 days behind in his rent to be serious. I find ending the tenancy is the proportionate response to the breaches.

I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest in names when tenants owe rent. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5392083. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 February 2026	$1,844.29	Rent arrears to 2 February 2026
Rent owing 3 to 11 February 2026	$887.14	Rent owing 3 to 11 February 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

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 Bryce Luke King at 16 York Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm on Wednesday 11 February 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,759.43 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately, as shown in the table.

The Bond Centre is to HOLD the bond of $0.57 ([Bond number suppressed]) for the tenant.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing and was represented by a property manager.
The tenant was emailed the notice of hearing and the other documents. He did not attend the hearing.
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 (very unfair) to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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 tenant has breached his obligations by not paying rent on time and not paying the arrears. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 11 November 2025 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
This tenancy started around 15 weeks ago, so there is only a short history. However the tenant has been in rent arrears the whole tenancy. He paid $290 less than he should have for the first few weeks and then arranged for the correct rent to be paid. He has not addressed the arrears.
The property manager said there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. She has served a 14 day notice, sent many emails and attempted mediation. The tenant has not attended today’s hearing.
The tenant has paid the full rent every week since 9 December. He has not addressed the arrears, and he is not paying rent in advance, which he is required to do under the tenancy agreement. Given the history of missed payments it seems unlikely the tenant will comply with his obligations the future.
I have no evidence from the tenant so it is impossible to know if the breaches were inadvertent.
It seems to me the landlord has acted reasonably and given the tenant chances to stay in the tenancy premises.
I find the fact the tenant is 18 days behind in his rent to be serious. I find ending the tenancy is the proportionate response to the breaches.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest in names when tenants owe rent. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5392083 — Rent arrears at 16 York Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5392083 — Rent arrears at 16 York Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions