Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5425288 — Tenancy dispute at 160 Princes Street West, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120
Decided 5 May 2026 · Published 5 May 2026 · Application 5425288
- Rent arrears
- 14-day notice
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The tenancy of Lana Maree Elliott and Jamel Tattersall at 160 Princes Street West, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The applicant/s]at 11.59pm on Friday, 8 May 2026.
- Lana Maree Elliott and Jamel Tattersall must pay [The applicant/s] $13,296.57 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by [Property Manager] of Auckland Property Management. [Property Manager] advised that Auckland Property Management were acting as agent for the landlord for the purposes of filing the Tribunal application and the hearing today, but confirmed that his order should be made in the name of the landlord as stated on the tenancy agreement. He could only advise the name of one of the trustees, Satnam Singh, and so I have recorded his name as trustee for enforcement purposes.
- There was no appearance by the tenants. I am satisfied that the tenants have been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and so the hearing proceed in the tenants’ absence.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.
- The background to this tenancy is somewhat murky. This tenancy agreement (and rent summary) record that the tenancy began on 22 October 2025 but I was advised that the tenancy began approximately four weeks earlier. [Property Manager] advised that there had been an agreement between the landlord and tenants that no rent would be charged for this initial period due to various issues that occurred, so that the tenancy officially began, and rent was payable from, 22 October 2025. The landlord produced a tenancy agreement dated 13 November 2025, which was signed on this date.
- I am advised that the tenants paid a bond of four weeks (not lodged) and two weeks rent in advance, but have not paid rent since. The rent summary records the current arrears, from 22 October 2025, to be $18,720.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
- Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. Rent is now 182 days in arrears. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
How much do the tenants owe?
- The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
- However when considering claims for rent arrears I must consider whether the landlord has taken steps to mitigate their loss.
- Section 49 of the RTA provides that:
- This means that a landlord cannot simply sit back and let arrears accrue but must take active steps to reduce their loss. Where the landlord fails to take timely steps, the Tribunal may reduce the rent arrears claimed 1 .
- Landlords are entitled to an order terminating the tenancy when rent is 21 days (three weeks) in arrears. In this case the landlord did not apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy until the rent was in arrears by $7,200 (ten weeks).
- There may be some circumstances where a landlord might delay filing a Tribunal application for terminating where rent is in arrears, for example if they are in discussions with the tenant about the reason for the arrears and expect a lump sum payment or where the tenant is making part payments.
- In this case however the tenant paid not rent at all apart from the initial two weeks paid in advance.
- I consider that the landlord should have applied to the Tribunal four weeks earlier than they did, at the very latest. For that reason I have reduced the rent arrears awarded by four weeks.
- The amount awarded is the amount claimed, less four weeks rent, together with three additional days owing to the date of termination. Bond
- I was advised that a bond was paid but was not lodged (as it should have been) and so have included the bond amount to be retained by the landlord in the order above, which reduces the amount owing. Filing fee
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- The landlord also sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the substantially successful party.