What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5411608?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Nga Whizzle at Unit 44, 10 Buffon Street, Waltham,

How much money was awarded in case 5411608?

Costs For Inspections Where Tenant D…: $603.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5411608?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5411608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13202199-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5411608?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Nga Whizzle at Unit 44, 10 Buffon Street, Waltham,

How much money was awarded in case 5411608?

Costs For Inspections Where Tenant D…: $603.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5411608?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5411608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13202199-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 44, 10 Buffon Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5411608 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5411608 — net $1,911.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,280.00	Rent arrears
Costs for inspections where tenant did not allow access	$603.75	Costs for inspections where tenant did not allow access
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,911.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,911.75

Order

The tenancy of Nga Whizzle at Unit 44, 10 Buffon Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Aashish Sharma, at 5pm on 4 March 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1911.75 out of the total bond of $2,360.00 to Aashish Sharma immediately.
The balance of the bond (being $448.25) is to remain at the Bond Centre until released by agreement between the parties or by order of the Tribunal.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the (now) periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission and/or, failure to comply with a 90-day termination notice and/or, ongoing breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord also applies for rent arrears, compensation and refund of the filing fee.
The landlord provided copies of three anti-social behaviour notices purported to be issued under section 55A of the Act.
This section makes this an available avenue for termination for a periodic tenancy. This tenancy began on 23 December 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 23 December 2025.
The anti-social behaviour notices were issued on 19 November 2025, 6 December 2025 and 10 December 2025 while the property was still in the fixed term.
The tenancy is unable to be terminated under section 55A of the Act as it was not a periodic tenancy when the notices were given.
The landlord wished (and still wishes) to sell the property as he is now based in Auckland and is unable to manage the tenancy effectively.
He purported to give a 90-day notice on this basis to the tenant on 18 November 2025. Although a landlord is able to end a tenancy with 90 days’ notice (with no reason having to be given) this section applies only to periodic tenancies (section 51(1) of the Act).
The tenancy was unable to be terminated under section 51(1) of the Act as it was not a periodic tenancy when the notice was given.

Should the tenancy be terminated for breaches under section 56 of the Act?

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 under section 56(1) of the Act.
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 their obligations by: a. continuously allowing visitors to park in the resident parking area thereby blocking other occupants in contrary to the Body Corporate rules and in disruption of the peace, comfort and privacy of neighbours in breach of the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(c) of the Act, b. Keeping dogs with no consent having been sought and contrary to the tenancy agreement and allowing those dogs to access neighbouring properties and defecate there, again in breach of section 40(2)(c) of the Act, c. Having or allowing loud music late at night over extended periods of time again in breach of section 40(2)(c) of the Act, d. Allowing rent to go into arrears and not remedying this situation despite numerous appeals from the landlord to do so over many months contrary to section40(1)(a) of the Act, e. Refusing access for inspections (three times) despite proper notice having been given on each occasion as required under section 48(2)(b) of the Act, f. Failing to communicate or respond to the landlord’s communications in relation to any aspect of the tenancy.
The landlord sent a number of “breach notices” (over 15) to the tenant for the above matters by email and by text. Most of these notices included a statement that failure to remedy the matter “may result in a fourteen-day notice being issued”.
The notices did not comply with the requirements for 14-days notices under section 56 of the Act.
Although none of the notices comply with the requirements of the Act as regards 14-day notices for breaches capable of remedy, they do provide insight into the tenancy and into the ongoing disruptive behaviour of the tenant.
Given the significant evidence provided by the landlord, neighbouring occupiers and the Body Corporate manager, it is clear to the Tribunal that the tenant has behaved in a manner that is disrupting the peace, comfort and privacy of her neighbours contrary to section 40(2)(c) of the Act.
Whilst the Tribunal may be reluctant to terminate a tenancy for one or two such breaches without proper opportunity being given to the tenant to reform her ways through a valid 14-day notice, there are multiple examples before the Tribunal and the tenant has equally been given multiple opportunities to correct the behaviour, but she has chosen not to do so.
On the contrary, the landlord was being advised of further breaches right up to the day before the hearing date.
Evidence of the breaches was provided and is persuasive. This includes numerous photographs and emails from various occupants and the property manager detailing disruptive behaviour.
On the initial hearing of this matter, the tenant arrived late and had missed the hearing time. To give her fair opportunity to be heard, the hearing was adjourned. Despite this the tenant continued the behaviour complained of and did not attend the next hearing date.
By this stage, it appears clear that the multiple breaches of the neighbours’ peace, comfort and privacy can no longer be remedied by the tenant ceasing the behaviour. It has gone too far for that, and I consider that these are now breaches incapable of remedy and notice is not required.
For all of the reasons outlined above, I consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy and it is terminated as ordered above. Rent arrears and compensation
The landlord provided a rent summary confirming the amount of arrears to 27 February 2026, being $1,280.00.
The landlord provided evidence to support his claim for $603.75 being the cost of failed inspection attempts.
The landlord provided evidence to show that valid notice was given for an inspection by a professional property inspection company and the tenant refused access on three separate occasions in breach of her obligations under section 48(2)(b) of the Act at a cost to the landlord of $603.75.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
As Aashish Sharma has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5411608 — net $1,911.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,280.00	Rent arrears
Costs for inspections where tenant did not allow access	$603.75	Costs for inspections where tenant did not allow access
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,911.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,911.75

Order

The tenancy of Nga Whizzle at Unit 44, 10 Buffon Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Aashish Sharma, at 5pm on 4 March 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1911.75 out of the total bond of $2,360.00 to Aashish Sharma immediately.
The balance of the bond (being $448.25) is to remain at the Bond Centre until released by agreement between the parties or by order of the Tribunal.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the (now) periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission and/or, failure to comply with a 90-day termination notice and/or, ongoing breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord also applies for rent arrears, compensation and refund of the filing fee.
The landlord provided copies of three anti-social behaviour notices purported to be issued under section 55A of the Act.
This section makes this an available avenue for termination for a periodic tenancy. This tenancy began on 23 December 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 23 December 2025.
The anti-social behaviour notices were issued on 19 November 2025, 6 December 2025 and 10 December 2025 while the property was still in the fixed term.
The tenancy is unable to be terminated under section 55A of the Act as it was not a periodic tenancy when the notices were given.
The landlord wished (and still wishes) to sell the property as he is now based in Auckland and is unable to manage the tenancy effectively.
He purported to give a 90-day notice on this basis to the tenant on 18 November 2025. Although a landlord is able to end a tenancy with 90 days’ notice (with no reason having to be given) this section applies only to periodic tenancies (section 51(1) of the Act).
The tenancy was unable to be terminated under section 51(1) of the Act as it was not a periodic tenancy when the notice was given.

Should the tenancy be terminated for breaches under section 56 of the Act?

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 under section 56(1) of the Act.
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 their obligations by: a. continuously allowing visitors to park in the resident parking area thereby blocking other occupants in contrary to the Body Corporate rules and in disruption of the peace, comfort and privacy of neighbours in breach of the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(c) of the Act, b. Keeping dogs with no consent having been sought and contrary to the tenancy agreement and allowing those dogs to access neighbouring properties and defecate there, again in breach of section 40(2)(c) of the Act, c. Having or allowing loud music late at night over extended periods of time again in breach of section 40(2)(c) of the Act, d. Allowing rent to go into arrears and not remedying this situation despite numerous appeals from the landlord to do so over many months contrary to section40(1)(a) of the Act, e. Refusing access for inspections (three times) despite proper notice having been given on each occasion as required under section 48(2)(b) of the Act, f. Failing to communicate or respond to the landlord’s communications in relation to any aspect of the tenancy.
The landlord sent a number of “breach notices” (over 15) to the tenant for the above matters by email and by text. Most of these notices included a statement that failure to remedy the matter “may result in a fourteen-day notice being issued”.
The notices did not comply with the requirements for 14-days notices under section 56 of the Act.
Although none of the notices comply with the requirements of the Act as regards 14-day notices for breaches capable of remedy, they do provide insight into the tenancy and into the ongoing disruptive behaviour of the tenant.
Given the significant evidence provided by the landlord, neighbouring occupiers and the Body Corporate manager, it is clear to the Tribunal that the tenant has behaved in a manner that is disrupting the peace, comfort and privacy of her neighbours contrary to section 40(2)(c) of the Act.
Whilst the Tribunal may be reluctant to terminate a tenancy for one or two such breaches without proper opportunity being given to the tenant to reform her ways through a valid 14-day notice, there are multiple examples before the Tribunal and the tenant has equally been given multiple opportunities to correct the behaviour, but she has chosen not to do so.
On the contrary, the landlord was being advised of further breaches right up to the day before the hearing date.
Evidence of the breaches was provided and is persuasive. This includes numerous photographs and emails from various occupants and the property manager detailing disruptive behaviour.
On the initial hearing of this matter, the tenant arrived late and had missed the hearing time. To give her fair opportunity to be heard, the hearing was adjourned. Despite this the tenant continued the behaviour complained of and did not attend the next hearing date.
By this stage, it appears clear that the multiple breaches of the neighbours’ peace, comfort and privacy can no longer be remedied by the tenant ceasing the behaviour. It has gone too far for that, and I consider that these are now breaches incapable of remedy and notice is not required.
For all of the reasons outlined above, I consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy and it is terminated as ordered above. Rent arrears and compensation
The landlord provided a rent summary confirming the amount of arrears to 27 February 2026, being $1,280.00.
The landlord provided evidence to support his claim for $603.75 being the cost of failed inspection attempts.
The landlord provided evidence to show that valid notice was given for an inspection by a professional property inspection company and the tenant refused access on three separate occasions in breach of her obligations under section 48(2)(b) of the Act at a cost to the landlord of $603.75.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
As Aashish Sharma has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5411608 — Rent arrears at Unit 44, 10 Buffon Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5411608 — Rent arrears at Unit 44, 10 Buffon Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for breaches under section 56 of the Act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for breaches under section 56 of the Act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions