What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426249 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5426249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426249?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13340560-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426249 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5426249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426249?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13340560-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

74 Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426249 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Read, representing the landlord, and Mr Pirika, the tenant, both attended the video conference hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for repeat rent breaches, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
When each party differs in their evidence about an issue, the party seeking to prove their claim must provide additional supporting evidence of their position.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord provided copies of a 14-day notice dated 5 December 2025 and 3 notices for recidivist rent breaches dated 8 December 2025, 30 December 2025 and 12 January 2026. The three notices for recidivist rent breaches complied with the requirements under section 55 (1)(aa) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided a rent summary and said the tenant owes $1,754.29 in rent to 24 March 2026.
Weekly rent is now $650.00. The rent is not at least 21 days in arrears, either at the date of filing the application or at the hearing date.
Whilst the landlord has provided 3 notices for recidivist rent breaches, the tenant said these notices are incorrect, as they contain incorrect information.
The tenant pointed to the tenancy agreement, where the ‘tenancy costs’ part of the tenancy agreement indicated the rent was to be $640.00, to be paid weekly, with the next rent payment date to be 2 December 2025.
The tenant acknowledged the tenancy started on 20 November 2025, and confirmed this is indicated correctly in the tenancy agreement. However, he said he was a boarder at the property with the previous tenant, and that the landlord entered into a new tenancy agreement with him that provided he was to start paying rent on 2 December 2025. The tenant said he had paid board to the previous tenant of $800.00 on 25 November 2025 and expected to make his first rent payment to the landlord on 2 December 2025, as per the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The rent summary showed the tenant paid $640.00 to the landlord on 27 November 2025. The tenant explained this was his first payment in advance of, and for the period starting 2 December 2025, with his next rent payment expected to be on 9 December 2025. The rent summary shows a further rent payment of $640.00 from the tenant on 9 December 2025.
The landlord said they put the start date to pay rent as 2 December 2025 in the tenancy agreement as they believed that would coincide with the tenant’s fortnightly pay period, and that they expected him to pay 2 weeks’ rent back to the start of the tenancy, when he paid on 2 December 2025. The property manager acknowledged this what not the way the starting rent payment was usually reflected but it was because the tenant had already been a boarder at the property and they decided to put him on his own new tenancy agreement, rather than complete a Variation of the tenancy agreement with the previous tenant. The tenancy agreement notes there is zero rent paid in advance, but the landlord said the tenant had paid one week in advance rather than 2 weeks in advance.
The tenant said the communication with and from the landlord had not been clear at all, as his pay period did not coincide with 2 December 2025 but was actually on 9 December 2025. He indicated the landlord’s communication had been very confusing. The landlord agreed the issue of when rent was to begin to be paid had been an issue since early in the tenancy as between the parties.
The landlord said they found it very difficult to communicate constructively with the tenant as he refused to engage with them.
The tenant said he could not accept the amount of rent arrears as claimed by the landlord, as the start date for rent payments was 2 December 2025, as per the tenancy agreement, so he believed the rent summary should have begun as at 2 December 2025, despite him living at the property from 20 November 2025. He said the landlord’s rent summary started on 20 November 2025 though. Law
A valid contract requires agreement, consideration and an intention to create legal relations. In addition, the terms of the agreement must be sufficiently certain and complete, at least as to the contract’s essential elements, or at least upon objective means of sufficient certainty by which those terms may be determined. See Wellington City Council v Body Corporate 51702 (Wellington) [2002] 3 NZLR 486 (CA) at 495.
The process of interpreting a written contract involves ascertaining “the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were in at the time of the contract”: Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 (HL) at 912 and Firm PL 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance ltd t/a Zurich New Zealand [2014] NZSC 147, [2015] 1 NZLR 432 at [60].
The text, however, remains “centrally important”: Firm Pl1 Ltd at [63]. If the language, construed in the context of the contract as a whole, has an ordinary and natural meaning, that will be a powerful indicator of what the parties meant: Firm Pl 1 Ltd at [63]. This approach was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Bathurst Resources Ltd v L & M Coal Holdings Ltd [2021] NZSC 85, [2021] 1 NZLR 696, the Court saying that “giving primacy to the written words of the agreement accords with the policy of providing commercial certainty” (at [46]).
The extent to which it is appropriate to resort to the background is itself contextual: Firm Pl 1 Ltd at [62].
One of the principles to be considered in this is that the clearer the natural meaning, the more difficult it is to justify departing from it: Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, [2015] AC 1619 at [18] and Firm Pl 1 Ltd at [63]. Discussion
The landlord did not provide evidence of the background of the tenancy agreement start date that the tenant was to pay rent, other than that they believed that 2 December 2025 would coincide with the tenant’s pay periods, which was disputed by the tenant, and that they expected the tenant to pay for 2 weeks’ rent back to the start of the tenancy, with the rent payment on 2 December 2025. There was no evidence provided by the landlord of communication with the tenant to confirm this expectation, however.
I note further that there are only 12 days back from 2 December 2025 to 20 November 2025 (start of the tenancy), not 2 weeks. So, it is unclear as to whether the landlord expected the tenant to pro-rate the rent to payment for 12 days or not, as there is no evidence provided about this either.
From the law outlined above, and considering the evidence as outlined here, I find the clear and natural meaning of the start date to pay rent, as set out in the tenancy agreement is 2 December 2025. As there was no further background provided to indicate an agreement between the parties for the tenant to pay rent for a certain period back to the start of the tenancy when he paid rent on 2 December 2025, then I must go with the clear and natural meaning of the parties’ contract/tenancy agreement.
As I find that pursuant to the tenancy agreement, the clear and natural meaning of the tenancy agreement wording was that the tenant was to start rent payments as at 2 December 2025, the rent amounts owing, as indicated by the landlord in their rent summary and in their recidivist rent notices do not accord with the start rent payment date in the tenancy agreement of 2 December 2025, and the issue of whether there would be rent owing that would justify the recidivist rent notices could also be in question. Thus, as the landlord’s recidivist rent notices and likely rent summary are now in question as to their accuracy, the landlord has not proved their claim and so the application must be dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Read, representing the landlord, and Mr Pirika, the tenant, both attended the video conference hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for repeat rent breaches, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
When each party differs in their evidence about an issue, the party seeking to prove their claim must provide additional supporting evidence of their position.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord provided copies of a 14-day notice dated 5 December 2025 and 3 notices for recidivist rent breaches dated 8 December 2025, 30 December 2025 and 12 January 2026. The three notices for recidivist rent breaches complied with the requirements under section 55 (1)(aa) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided a rent summary and said the tenant owes $1,754.29 in rent to 24 March 2026.
Weekly rent is now $650.00. The rent is not at least 21 days in arrears, either at the date of filing the application or at the hearing date.
Whilst the landlord has provided 3 notices for recidivist rent breaches, the tenant said these notices are incorrect, as they contain incorrect information.
The tenant pointed to the tenancy agreement, where the ‘tenancy costs’ part of the tenancy agreement indicated the rent was to be $640.00, to be paid weekly, with the next rent payment date to be 2 December 2025.
The tenant acknowledged the tenancy started on 20 November 2025, and confirmed this is indicated correctly in the tenancy agreement. However, he said he was a boarder at the property with the previous tenant, and that the landlord entered into a new tenancy agreement with him that provided he was to start paying rent on 2 December 2025. The tenant said he had paid board to the previous tenant of $800.00 on 25 November 2025 and expected to make his first rent payment to the landlord on 2 December 2025, as per the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The rent summary showed the tenant paid $640.00 to the landlord on 27 November 2025. The tenant explained this was his first payment in advance of, and for the period starting 2 December 2025, with his next rent payment expected to be on 9 December 2025. The rent summary shows a further rent payment of $640.00 from the tenant on 9 December 2025.
The landlord said they put the start date to pay rent as 2 December 2025 in the tenancy agreement as they believed that would coincide with the tenant’s fortnightly pay period, and that they expected him to pay 2 weeks’ rent back to the start of the tenancy, when he paid on 2 December 2025. The property manager acknowledged this what not the way the starting rent payment was usually reflected but it was because the tenant had already been a boarder at the property and they decided to put him on his own new tenancy agreement, rather than complete a Variation of the tenancy agreement with the previous tenant. The tenancy agreement notes there is zero rent paid in advance, but the landlord said the tenant had paid one week in advance rather than 2 weeks in advance.
The tenant said the communication with and from the landlord had not been clear at all, as his pay period did not coincide with 2 December 2025 but was actually on 9 December 2025. He indicated the landlord’s communication had been very confusing. The landlord agreed the issue of when rent was to begin to be paid had been an issue since early in the tenancy as between the parties.
The landlord said they found it very difficult to communicate constructively with the tenant as he refused to engage with them.
The tenant said he could not accept the amount of rent arrears as claimed by the landlord, as the start date for rent payments was 2 December 2025, as per the tenancy agreement, so he believed the rent summary should have begun as at 2 December 2025, despite him living at the property from 20 November 2025. He said the landlord’s rent summary started on 20 November 2025 though. Law
A valid contract requires agreement, consideration and an intention to create legal relations. In addition, the terms of the agreement must be sufficiently certain and complete, at least as to the contract’s essential elements, or at least upon objective means of sufficient certainty by which those terms may be determined. See Wellington City Council v Body Corporate 51702 (Wellington) [2002] 3 NZLR 486 (CA) at 495.
The process of interpreting a written contract involves ascertaining “the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were in at the time of the contract”: Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 (HL) at 912 and Firm PL 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance ltd t/a Zurich New Zealand [2014] NZSC 147, [2015] 1 NZLR 432 at [60].
The text, however, remains “centrally important”: Firm Pl1 Ltd at [63]. If the language, construed in the context of the contract as a whole, has an ordinary and natural meaning, that will be a powerful indicator of what the parties meant: Firm Pl 1 Ltd at [63]. This approach was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Bathurst Resources Ltd v L & M Coal Holdings Ltd [2021] NZSC 85, [2021] 1 NZLR 696, the Court saying that “giving primacy to the written words of the agreement accords with the policy of providing commercial certainty” (at [46]).
The extent to which it is appropriate to resort to the background is itself contextual: Firm Pl 1 Ltd at [62].
One of the principles to be considered in this is that the clearer the natural meaning, the more difficult it is to justify departing from it: Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, [2015] AC 1619 at [18] and Firm Pl 1 Ltd at [63]. Discussion
The landlord did not provide evidence of the background of the tenancy agreement start date that the tenant was to pay rent, other than that they believed that 2 December 2025 would coincide with the tenant’s pay periods, which was disputed by the tenant, and that they expected the tenant to pay for 2 weeks’ rent back to the start of the tenancy, with the rent payment on 2 December 2025. There was no evidence provided by the landlord of communication with the tenant to confirm this expectation, however.
I note further that there are only 12 days back from 2 December 2025 to 20 November 2025 (start of the tenancy), not 2 weeks. So, it is unclear as to whether the landlord expected the tenant to pro-rate the rent to payment for 12 days or not, as there is no evidence provided about this either.
From the law outlined above, and considering the evidence as outlined here, I find the clear and natural meaning of the start date to pay rent, as set out in the tenancy agreement is 2 December 2025. As there was no further background provided to indicate an agreement between the parties for the tenant to pay rent for a certain period back to the start of the tenancy when he paid rent on 2 December 2025, then I must go with the clear and natural meaning of the parties’ contract/tenancy agreement.
As I find that pursuant to the tenancy agreement, the clear and natural meaning of the tenancy agreement wording was that the tenant was to start rent payments as at 2 December 2025, the rent amounts owing, as indicated by the landlord in their rent summary and in their recidivist rent notices do not accord with the start rent payment date in the tenancy agreement of 2 December 2025, and the issue of whether there would be rent owing that would justify the recidivist rent notices could also be in question. Thus, as the landlord’s recidivist rent notices and likely rent summary are now in question as to their accuracy, the landlord has not proved their claim and so the application must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426249 — Rent arrears at 74 Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426249 — Rent arrears at 74 Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015

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