What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5431393?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kelei Kaifa at 180 Mahia Road, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103 is

How much money was awarded in case 5431393?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,923.49 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $560.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431393?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13562836-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5431393?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kelei Kaifa at 180 Mahia Road, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103 is

How much money was awarded in case 5431393?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,923.49 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $560.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431393?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13562836-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

180 Mahia Road, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5431393 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5431393 — net $2,511.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,923.49	2025. Since then the tenant has consistently paid $620.00 in rent a week rather than $650.00 a week as is required under the tenancy agreement.
Water rates	$560.40	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,511.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,511.89

The tenancy of Kelei Kaifa at 180 Mahia Road, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103 is terminated, and possession is granted to TBT Property Management Limited As Agent For Abishek Verma, immediately.

Kelei Kaifa to pay Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Abishek Verma $2,511.89 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The balance of the bond of $88.11 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held remotely by video. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

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

The tenancy commenced on 5 May 2025. Rent is $650.00 a week.

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 (RTA).

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 landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenants on 24 January 2026 which required the tenants to pay the amount outstanding for rent and water rates by 9 February 2026. The tenants did not remedy the overdue water rates within the required period.

Therefore I find the tenants have breached their obligations to pay the rent and the water rates.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 the District Court set out a range of factors that could be relevant in considering the ‘inequitable’ consideration under s 56. I now consider those factors: a) The history of the tenancy and whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: The tenant has been in rent arrears since the tenancy week commencing 13 October 2025. Since then the tenant has consistently paid $620.00 in rent a week rather than $650.00 a week as is required under the tenancy agreement. In addition the tenant has failed to pay the weekly rent on 2 separate occasions and has not remedied that default. Since 9 February 2026 at least 11 days rent has been overdue. At the date of the hearing (4 May 2026) rent was 17 days overdue. The tenant has paid no water rates since the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has served 7 14-day notices on the tenant since the start of the tenancy. The notices were for both rent arrears and water rates. I am satisfied there is a clear history of the tenants failing to pay the rent and water rates when they are due. The landlord has given repeated warning to the tenant that failure to do so may result in termination of the tenancy. b) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future: The history of breaches is syuch that I am convinced that the tenants will not meet their obligations in the future. c) Whether the breach was in advertent or deliberately committed: The rent and water rates arrears can only be considered to be deliberate. d) The conduct of the landlord: I am satisfied the landlord has taken repeated action to bring the arrears to the attention of the tenancy and that if the arrears are not remedied termination is a potential consequence. e) The gravity of the breach: The total amount owed by the tenant to the landlord for rent and water rates at the date of the hearing is $2,204.83. f)Whether termination is a proportionate response to the tenant’s breach. I consider termination is a proportionate response to the tenant’s breach in this instance particularly given the amount that is outstanding and the length of time that the tenant has been in rent and water rates arrears

In considering the above factors I find it would be inequitable, or unfair, not to terminate the tenancy. Therefore the tenancy is terminated.

As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5431393 — net $2,511.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,923.49	2025. Since then the tenant has consistently paid $620.00 in rent a week rather than $650.00 a week as is required under the tenancy agreement.
Water rates	$560.40	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,511.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,511.89

Order

The tenancy of Kelei Kaifa at 180 Mahia Road, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103 is terminated, and possession is granted to TBT Property Management Limited As Agent For Abishek Verma, immediately.
Kelei Kaifa to pay Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Abishek Verma $2,511.89 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the bond of $88.11 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held remotely by video. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The tenancy commenced on 5 May 2025. Rent is $650.00 a week.

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 (RTA).
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 landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenants on 24 January 2026 which required the tenants to pay the amount outstanding for rent and water rates by 9 February 2026. The tenants did not remedy the overdue water rates within the required period.
Therefore I find the tenants have breached their obligations to pay the rent and the water rates.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 the District Court set out a range of factors that could be relevant in considering the ‘inequitable’ consideration under s 56. I now consider those factors: a) The history of the tenancy and whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: The tenant has been in rent arrears since the tenancy week commencing 13 October 2025. Since then the tenant has consistently paid $620.00 in rent a week rather than $650.00 a week as is required under the tenancy agreement. In addition the tenant has failed to pay the weekly rent on 2 separate occasions and has not remedied that default. Since 9 February 2026 at least 11 days rent has been overdue. At the date of the hearing (4 May 2026) rent was 17 days overdue. The tenant has paid no water rates since the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has served 7 14-day notices on the tenant since the start of the tenancy. The notices were for both rent arrears and water rates. I am satisfied there is a clear history of the tenants failing to pay the rent and water rates when they are due. The landlord has given repeated warning to the tenant that failure to do so may result in termination of the tenancy. b) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future: The history of breaches is syuch that I am convinced that the tenants will not meet their obligations in the future. c) Whether the breach was in advertent or deliberately committed: The rent and water rates arrears can only be considered to be deliberate. d) The conduct of the landlord: I am satisfied the landlord has taken repeated action to bring the arrears to the attention of the tenancy and that if the arrears are not remedied termination is a potential consequence. e) The gravity of the breach: The total amount owed by the tenant to the landlord for rent and water rates at the date of the hearing is $2,204.83. f)Whether termination is a proportionate response to the tenant’s breach. I consider termination is a proportionate response to the tenant’s breach in this instance particularly given the amount that is outstanding and the length of time that the tenant has been in rent and water rates arrears
In considering the above factors I find it would be inequitable, or unfair, not to terminate the tenancy. Therefore the tenancy is terminated.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431393 — Rent arrears at 180 Mahia Road, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431393 — Rent arrears at 180 Mahia Road, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions