How much money was awarded in case 5413399?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,128.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413399?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13142182-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5413399?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,128.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413399?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13142182-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5413399 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5413399 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5413399 — net $3,556.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 February 2026	$6,128.56	Rent arrears to 18 February 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,556.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,556.56

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 Angela Rosa Woods at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Wednesday 18 February 2026.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Angela Rosa Woods must pay [The landlord/s] $3,556.56 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

I am satisfied the tenant has been served with the application and has notice of the hearing. When the tenant did not attend the hearing that took place remotely I telephoned her. She did not answer her telephone to join the hearing. It was open to her to join the hearing at any point using the details on the Notice of Hearing. The tenant has been in touch with Tenancy Services about the application prior to the hearing so, as well as having satisfactory service, I am also satisfied that she knows of the hearing taking place. The hearing therefore proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and rent arrears.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy was framed in a number of ways.

The landlord seeks termination on the basis of rent arrears. He also says the tenant threatened and harassed him so that he feared for his safety and the safety of his family (a 14 day notice was sent in relation to this) and also that the tenant was exceeding the maximum occupancy permitted by the tenancy agreement (a 14 day notice was also sent in relation to this) and that he feared for the safety of his property.

The weekly rent is $650. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing in rent. Since the application was filed the tenant has not paid rent meaning that arrears have now built up considerably. The tenant has only paid two weeks of rent for the whole tenancy that started on 1 December 2025.

The landlord sent a 14 day notice to the tenant on 10 December 2025 regarding rent arrears but the tenant remedied that breach before the application was lodged when she paid rent on 11 December 2025.

The landlord served two other notices for the late payment of rent seemingly under section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Section 55(1)(aa) applies where the tenancy is a periodic tenancy and the landlord establishes that, on three separate occasions within a 90-day period, rent remained unpaid for at least five working days after the date it fell due. For each of those occasions, the landlord must have given the tenant written notice advising that the rent was overdue, specifying the dates and amount of the arrears, and informing the tenant of their right to apply to the Tribunal to challenge the notice. Each notice must also state how many prior notices, if any, had been issued under this provision within the same 90-day period.

I cannot terminate the tenancy on the basis of these notices pursuant to section 55(1)(aa) RTA because they do not comply with the requirements of that section. This is because: a. There are only two notices purporting to be notices under section 55(1)(aa) RTA - there must be three notices that are compliant to meet the requirements of the section. b. In relation to the notice on 10 December (in the subsequent notices the landlord says is the first notice), this was actually a 14 day notice and not a notice under this section. I note that at the hearing I thought this was a notice under section 55(1)(aa) due to the way it is referenced in the application but it is in fact a 14 day notice. If the landlord had intended for this to be a notice under section 55(1)(aa) it must also comply in all respects with the requirements of that section. For example, for this notice to comply with s 55(1)(aa)(i), the rent must have remained unpaid for at least five working days after the due date before a notice can be relied upon. The rent that was due at that time (on 8 December) was not five working days overdue when the notice was issued on 10 December. In fact, the rent for that period was paid on 11 December, well within the five-working-day timeframe. c. The second notice, issued on 18 December 2025, referred to rent due on 8 December, despite that rent having already been paid on 11 December. d. The third notice, dated 27 December 2025, referred to rent due on 10 December; however, that date falls within the same rental week as 8 December, and by 27 December the rent for that week had also been paid. e. Late payments referenced in such notices must be separate (e.g. must relate to different periods when rent was due but paid late). Here both the notice on 18 and on 27 December relate to the same rent week.

However, despite this, this is not fatal to the landlord’s application to terminate because the landlord also made an application to terminate the tenancy on the basis of other breaches – namely the tenant threatening the landlord and exceeding the permitted occupancy. 14-day notices were served on the tenant in respect of these breaches.

Section 56 RTA provides: Where an application is made by a landlord under this section and the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of determining the matter the landlord could have made an application under section 55, the Tribunal shall determine the matter as if an application had been made under that section.

This means that where landlord applies to terminate for breach but where rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Here the landlord has applied to terminate based on breaches (threats and occupancy) and the rent is now well over 21 days in arrears. Therefore, the tenancy is terminated on this basis.

Even if I am wrong in this analysis, I would in any event have also terminated this tenancy on the basis of threats made to the landlord by the tenant on 6 December 2025.

The landlord says that the tenant made threats relating to knowing where he lived/knowing his address and him needing to be ready to “face us” during a telephone call. The tenant referred to having certain people with her as protectors. The landlord said the tenant was also generally abusive in her language and left him and his family fearful of their safety because of the reference to knowing where he lived.

I accept this oral evidence as it is supported by a further telephone call made shortly afterwards (that was recorded and provided to me) in which the tenant is aggressive and abusive, and a text message sent by the tenant also sent shortly afterwards saying “Gimme my money I got your addy”.

Further, in a message to the Tribunal sent in respect of this hearing the tenant says: “...And non [sic] of my threats were intentional”. This supports the fact that threats were made. Further, I also have no reason to doubt the oral evidence given. The landlord was straightforward and consistent in what was said to him. He also readily admitted when he could not remember certain points.

Section 55(1)(c) RTA provides that a landlord may apply for, and the Tribunal shall grant, termination of the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that: ...the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii) any agent of the landlord: (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (iv) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.

A threat of assault is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force and does not require an intention or capacity to act on the threat or that the threat is passed to the person to whom the threat related. The threat must be deliberate, that is, the tenant intends it to be heard.

I am satisfied that the words the tenant used, set out above, are sufficient to establish a threat of an assault on the landlord and, considering the nature of the threat and the ongoing rent breaches, there are insufficient grounds to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to refuse to order termination.

In summary had I not terminated this tenancy on the basis of rent arrears I would in any event have terminated it on this basis. Conclusion

The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is therefore granted. Rent arrears are proven and awarded and the bond is released to the landlord to cover some of those arrears. Suppression and filing fee

Because the landlord has been successful, I reimburse the filing fee.

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 (s95A RTA).

The landlord has been successful and asks for suppression. This is awarded. I see no reason not to make this order.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5413399 — net $3,556.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 February 2026	$6,128.56	Rent arrears to 18 February 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,556.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,556.56

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 Angela Rosa Woods at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Wednesday 18 February 2026.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Angela Rosa Woods must pay [The landlord/s] $3,556.56 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and rent arrears.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy was framed in a number of ways.

Even if I am wrong in this analysis, I would in any event have also terminated this tenancy on the basis of threats made to the landlord by the tenant on 6 December 2025.

In summary had I not terminated this tenancy on the basis of rent arrears I would in any event have terminated it on this basis. Conclusion

Because the landlord has been successful, I reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord has been successful and asks for suppression. This is awarded. I see no reason not to make this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5413399 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5413399 — 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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions