How much money was awarded in case 5424090?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424090?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424090?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13302745-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5424090?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424090?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424090?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13302745-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5424090 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5424090 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 5424090 — net $1,753.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 March 2026	$1,725.00	Rent arrears to 23 March 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,753.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,753.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

The tenancy of Desiree Hurae and Toa Ranihera Hamiltonat [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm Monday 23 March 2026.

Desiree Hurae and Toa Ranihera Hamilton must pay [The landlord/s] $1,753.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below 1 :

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any call in to the conference by one of the telephone numbers provided on the Notice of Hearing. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with 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 to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 failing to pay rent arrears and failure to remove two dogs that are resident but not permitted.

The landlord has served a number 14-day notices on the tenants. The most recent were regarding rent (26 February 2026) and removal of dogs (6 January 2026). The tenants did not remedy the breaches within the required periods.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenants knew, or should have known, when accepting the tenancy and signing the tenancy agreement that no pets were allowed. The promises initially made by them that the dogs would be there for a short period only were not kept. The premises closely adjoins another premises with young children. There are no fences between the premises, nor to the long, shared driveway. Multiple exit points for the dogs exist. The matter of ongoing rent arrears is also a concern that must also be considered,

The landlord expressed concerns regarding the safety of the other tenants, as well as himself, due to the dogs.

The landlord recounted the tenants’ stance, as told to him, that the dogs were part of their family and they would not rehome them. That is understandable but based on the photographic evidence, this is not a suitable premises for such pets. This was obvious and clearly signalled in advance, and in the tenancy agreement. Any tenant expectation that it might be easier to “beg for forgiveness rather than ask permission” was misplaced. It is hoped a more suitable home can be found. Filing Fee

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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 requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5424090 — net $1,753.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 March 2026	$1,725.00	Rent arrears to 23 March 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,753.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,753.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Desiree Hurae and Toa Ranihera Hamiltonat [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm Monday 23 March 2026.
Desiree Hurae and Toa Ranihera Hamilton must pay [The landlord/s] $1,753.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below 1 :

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any call in to the conference by one of the telephone numbers provided on the Notice of Hearing. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with 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 to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 failing to pay rent arrears and failure to remove two dogs that are resident but not permitted.
The landlord has served a number 14-day notices on the tenants. The most recent were regarding rent (26 February 2026) and removal of dogs (6 January 2026). The tenants did not remedy the breaches within the required periods.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenants knew, or should have known, when accepting the tenancy and signing the tenancy agreement that no pets were allowed. The promises initially made by them that the dogs would be there for a short period only were not kept. The premises closely adjoins another premises with young children. There are no fences between the premises, nor to the long, shared driveway. Multiple exit points for the dogs exist. The matter of ongoing rent arrears is also a concern that must also be considered,
The landlord expressed concerns regarding the safety of the other tenants, as well as himself, due to the dogs.
The landlord recounted the tenants’ stance, as told to him, that the dogs were part of their family and they would not rehome them. That is understandable but based on the photographic evidence, this is not a suitable premises for such pets. This was obvious and clearly signalled in advance, and in the tenancy agreement. Any tenant expectation that it might be easier to “beg for forgiveness rather than ask permission” was misplaced. It is hoped a more suitable home can be found. Filing Fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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 requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5424090 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5424090 — 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