What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5431917 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5431917?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,285.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431917?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431917?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13194925-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5431917 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5431917?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,285.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431917?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431917?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13194925-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

639 Huia Road, Parau, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5431917 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5431917 — net $4,313.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 02/03/2026	$4,285.00	Rent arrears to 02/03/2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,313.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,313.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 639 Huia Road, Parau, Auckland 0604 is terminated, and possession is granted to Mig14 Trustee Company Limited, at 11:59 on Monday 2 March 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay Mig14 Trustee Company Limited $4,285.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The landlord states that they received a notice purportedly issued under section 56B from the tenant, Eli Trakadas. The landlord submits that the notice did not appear to comply with the prescribed form required under section 56B. They also state that they observed Eli Trakadas at the property after the date upon which the notice was said to take effect.
The respondent, Anita Karoria, stated that she was unaware of the section 56B notice and that Eli Trakadis remained at the property until last week.
In any event, the Tribunal has not been asked to make any determination in relation to the purported section 56B notice. No findings are therefore made in respect of it, and no weight has been placed upon it in determining this application.
The tenant, Anita Karauria, in response to much of the landlord’s claim, attributed the rental arrears and other breaches to her co-tenant.
Tenants who enter into a tenancy agreement together are jointly and severally liable. This means that each tenant is individually responsible, and all tenants together are collectively responsible, for the full amount of any debt or obligation arising under the tenancy.
Accordingly, any default by one tenant is a matter to be resolved between the tenants themselves. It does not limit the landlord’s right to recover the full amount of rent arrears or other sums owing from either or both tenants.
Both tenants remain liable for the obligations under the tenancy until such time as a tenant is lawfully removed from the tenancy or the tenancy comes to an end.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied these records are correct. I have added another weeks rent to reflect the amount owing to the end of the tenancy.
The landlord did not provide a bond number in the application. They will therefore need to seek the bond directly from the bond centre or make a further application to the tribunal. Tenants claim:
Anita Karauria seeks $5,000.00 in exemplary damages, alleging retaliatory notice, breach of quiet enjoyment, and failure to maintain the premises.
The claims follow incidents following a toilet blockage on 31 December 2025. Ms Karauria states that on that date the toilet “exploded”, splattering faeces and urine across the bathroom floor. She says she texted the landlord, who did not respond until 3 January. She states that her immediate reaction was to clean the bathroom and that she did not take photographs until later. The photographs produced show water on the bathroom floor.
Ms Karauria states that the landlord attended the property on 3 January. She says he yelled at her, in earshot of neighbours, that she was six weeks in arrears and that he was going to evict her. She also says that she had been able to smell the septic tank from the beginning of the tenancy.
In support of her claim for breach of quiet enjoyment, she also relies on the landlord’s service of multiple 14-day notices and the incident on 3 January.
The landlord states that he was out of reception over New Years. He returned to Auckland on 2 January and advised the tenant he would attend on 3 January to address the issue. He says that when he attended, he was refused access and told to return the following day. He accepts that he was upset, having driven approximately 40 minutes to the property, and says he expressed frustration about both the arrears and being turned away. He states that the toilet didn’t explode but rather was blocked and when he returned on the 4 th of January he hosed out the gulley trap which remedied the issue. The landlord also provided text messages from the tenant on the 3 rd of January where she advised that there were no flooding issues.
The parties’ accounts of the events on 3 January are not materially different. I accept that the landlord was likely aggravated and that it is likely he raised his voice and said words to the effect described by the tenant. The landlord maintains that, although he raised the issue of arrears and potential eviction, he did not do so in the manner alleged.
A breach of section 38 (quiet enjoyment), for which exemplary damages may be awarded, requires conduct that amounts to harassment. I am satisfied that the landlord attended the property at the tenant’s request for the purpose of carrying out repairs. Even if the attendance had not been expressly requested, the purpose of the visit was to address the plumbing issue, not to harass the tenant.
Even if the discussion became heated and involved raised voices, a one-off incident of this nature does not amount to harassment.
The tenant also relies on the landlord’s service of at least eight 14-day notices. While that number is unusual and may reflect poor judgment, the use of a statutory mechanism to seek compliance does not, without more, amount to harassment or a breach of quiet enjoyment. The evidence reflects an inexperienced and unprofessional landlord, but not conduct that meets the statutory threshold for breach.
In relation to the alleged failure to maintain under section 45, the tenant refers to ongoing issues but has provided evidence of two incidents only, on 4 January and 12 February, both relating to the toilet. On both occasions, the landlord attended and addressed the issue. The landlord’s evidence is that the blockages were caused by excessive toilet paper and were remedied by clearing the obstruction. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that there was a failure to comply with the obligations under section 45.
Finally, the tenant alleges retaliatory notice, relying on the landlord’s statement on 3 January that she was six weeks in arrears and would be evicted. That statement is consistent with both parties’ evidence of the conversation. However, an expression of intention to seek termination is not, of itself, a notice. In the absence of any notice alleged to be retaliatory, the claim cannot be established.
The tenant’s claims for exemplary damages are therefore dismissed. Filing fee and suppression:
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with their claim I have awarded their filing fee and granted their request for suppression. H Ben Fayed 25 February 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5431917 — net $4,313.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 02/03/2026	$4,285.00	Rent arrears to 02/03/2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,313.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,313.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 639 Huia Road, Parau, Auckland 0604 is terminated, and possession is granted to Mig14 Trustee Company Limited, at 11:59 on Monday 2 March 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay Mig14 Trustee Company Limited $4,285.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The landlord states that they received a notice purportedly issued under section 56B from the tenant, Eli Trakadas. The landlord submits that the notice did not appear to comply with the prescribed form required under section 56B. They also state that they observed Eli Trakadas at the property after the date upon which the notice was said to take effect.
The respondent, Anita Karoria, stated that she was unaware of the section 56B notice and that Eli Trakadis remained at the property until last week.
In any event, the Tribunal has not been asked to make any determination in relation to the purported section 56B notice. No findings are therefore made in respect of it, and no weight has been placed upon it in determining this application.
The tenant, Anita Karauria, in response to much of the landlord’s claim, attributed the rental arrears and other breaches to her co-tenant.
Tenants who enter into a tenancy agreement together are jointly and severally liable. This means that each tenant is individually responsible, and all tenants together are collectively responsible, for the full amount of any debt or obligation arising under the tenancy.
Accordingly, any default by one tenant is a matter to be resolved between the tenants themselves. It does not limit the landlord’s right to recover the full amount of rent arrears or other sums owing from either or both tenants.
Both tenants remain liable for the obligations under the tenancy until such time as a tenant is lawfully removed from the tenancy or the tenancy comes to an end.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied these records are correct. I have added another weeks rent to reflect the amount owing to the end of the tenancy.
The landlord did not provide a bond number in the application. They will therefore need to seek the bond directly from the bond centre or make a further application to the tribunal. Tenants claim:
Anita Karauria seeks $5,000.00 in exemplary damages, alleging retaliatory notice, breach of quiet enjoyment, and failure to maintain the premises.
The claims follow incidents following a toilet blockage on 31 December 2025. Ms Karauria states that on that date the toilet “exploded”, splattering faeces and urine across the bathroom floor. She says she texted the landlord, who did not respond until 3 January. She states that her immediate reaction was to clean the bathroom and that she did not take photographs until later. The photographs produced show water on the bathroom floor.
Ms Karauria states that the landlord attended the property on 3 January. She says he yelled at her, in earshot of neighbours, that she was six weeks in arrears and that he was going to evict her. She also says that she had been able to smell the septic tank from the beginning of the tenancy.
In support of her claim for breach of quiet enjoyment, she also relies on the landlord’s service of multiple 14-day notices and the incident on 3 January.
The landlord states that he was out of reception over New Years. He returned to Auckland on 2 January and advised the tenant he would attend on 3 January to address the issue. He says that when he attended, he was refused access and told to return the following day. He accepts that he was upset, having driven approximately 40 minutes to the property, and says he expressed frustration about both the arrears and being turned away. He states that the toilet didn’t explode but rather was blocked and when he returned on the 4 th of January he hosed out the gulley trap which remedied the issue. The landlord also provided text messages from the tenant on the 3 rd of January where she advised that there were no flooding issues.
The parties’ accounts of the events on 3 January are not materially different. I accept that the landlord was likely aggravated and that it is likely he raised his voice and said words to the effect described by the tenant. The landlord maintains that, although he raised the issue of arrears and potential eviction, he did not do so in the manner alleged.
A breach of section 38 (quiet enjoyment), for which exemplary damages may be awarded, requires conduct that amounts to harassment. I am satisfied that the landlord attended the property at the tenant’s request for the purpose of carrying out repairs. Even if the attendance had not been expressly requested, the purpose of the visit was to address the plumbing issue, not to harass the tenant.
Even if the discussion became heated and involved raised voices, a one-off incident of this nature does not amount to harassment.
The tenant also relies on the landlord’s service of at least eight 14-day notices. While that number is unusual and may reflect poor judgment, the use of a statutory mechanism to seek compliance does not, without more, amount to harassment or a breach of quiet enjoyment. The evidence reflects an inexperienced and unprofessional landlord, but not conduct that meets the statutory threshold for breach.
In relation to the alleged failure to maintain under section 45, the tenant refers to ongoing issues but has provided evidence of two incidents only, on 4 January and 12 February, both relating to the toilet. On both occasions, the landlord attended and addressed the issue. The landlord’s evidence is that the blockages were caused by excessive toilet paper and were remedied by clearing the obstruction. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that there was a failure to comply with the obligations under section 45.
Finally, the tenant alleges retaliatory notice, relying on the landlord’s statement on 3 January that she was six weeks in arrears and would be evicted. That statement is consistent with both parties’ evidence of the conversation. However, an expression of intention to seek termination is not, of itself, a notice. In the absence of any notice alleged to be retaliatory, the claim cannot be established.
The tenant’s claims for exemplary damages are therefore dismissed. Filing fee and suppression:
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with their claim I have awarded their filing fee and granted their request for suppression. H Ben Fayed 25 February 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431917 — Rent arrears at 639 Huia Road, Parau, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431917 — Rent arrears at 639 Huia Road, Parau, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions