What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5444429 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 5444429?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5444429?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5444429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13277286-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5444429 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 5444429?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5444429?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5444429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13277286-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 6, 27 Main Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt Tenancy Tribunal Case 5444429 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Atarie Anne Meihana at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 27 Main Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm on Thursday 12 March 2026.
Atarie Anne Meihana must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended 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 (very unfair) 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 tenant breached her obligations by breaching the quiet enjoyment of the other neighbours in the complex of new townhouses. This is a breach of section 40(2)(c) RTA which provides that a tenant cannot cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The landlord served three 14 day notices on the tenant for breach of quiet enjoyment. The second notice was served on 22 December 2025 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The third 14 day notice was served on 12 February 2026 after the landlord received complaints that included excessive noise, aggressive behaviour, and dogs barking.
Whether or not to end a tenancy under section 56 RTA was considered by the District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229. The Court set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
History – The tenant moved in on 20 November 2025 and there were complaints from the neighbours almost immediately. The landlord has served four 14 day notices for breaches and spoken with the tenant about the noise. The tenant has been in rent arrears for 8 weeks, and there was damage at the latest inspection. The landlord has also received emails from the body corporate about parking and blocking the shared driveway.
Persistent failure – I have not heard from the tenant but it seems most likely to me the tenant has been properly warned and continues to breach the RTA.
Future compliance - The landlord said it was unlikely the tenant would comply in the future based on their conversations about the breaches. She said each time she has talked with the tenant the tenant has blamed a family member and not accepted responsibility for the noise coming from the tenancy premises.
Deliberate breach – It seems most likely to me the tenant understands what is required for quiet enjoyment so the ongoing breaches are deliberate.
Landlord’s conduct – I cannot see anything in the emails, the notices or the submission which would suggest the landlord has behaved unfairly.
Gravity – Not respecting the right to quiet enjoyment can cause significant stress to neighbours.
Proportionate response – The tenant did not attend the hearing. Rent is now 14 days in arrears. It seems likely the tenant will breach the neighbours’ quiet enjoyment again. I find it would be inequitable not to end the tenancy. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest when the Tribunal ends tenancies. See section 95A RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Atarie Anne Meihana at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 27 Main Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm on Thursday 12 March 2026.
Atarie Anne Meihana must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended 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 (very unfair) 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 tenant breached her obligations by breaching the quiet enjoyment of the other neighbours in the complex of new townhouses. This is a breach of section 40(2)(c) RTA which provides that a tenant cannot cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The landlord served three 14 day notices on the tenant for breach of quiet enjoyment. The second notice was served on 22 December 2025 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The third 14 day notice was served on 12 February 2026 after the landlord received complaints that included excessive noise, aggressive behaviour, and dogs barking.
Whether or not to end a tenancy under section 56 RTA was considered by the District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229. The Court set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
History – The tenant moved in on 20 November 2025 and there were complaints from the neighbours almost immediately. The landlord has served four 14 day notices for breaches and spoken with the tenant about the noise. The tenant has been in rent arrears for 8 weeks, and there was damage at the latest inspection. The landlord has also received emails from the body corporate about parking and blocking the shared driveway.
Persistent failure – I have not heard from the tenant but it seems most likely to me the tenant has been properly warned and continues to breach the RTA.
Future compliance - The landlord said it was unlikely the tenant would comply in the future based on their conversations about the breaches. She said each time she has talked with the tenant the tenant has blamed a family member and not accepted responsibility for the noise coming from the tenancy premises.
Deliberate breach – It seems most likely to me the tenant understands what is required for quiet enjoyment so the ongoing breaches are deliberate.
Landlord’s conduct – I cannot see anything in the emails, the notices or the submission which would suggest the landlord has behaved unfairly.
Gravity – Not respecting the right to quiet enjoyment can cause significant stress to neighbours.
Proportionate response – The tenant did not attend the hearing. Rent is now 14 days in arrears. It seems likely the tenant will breach the neighbours’ quiet enjoyment again. I find it would be inequitable not to end the tenancy. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest when the Tribunal ends tenancies. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5444429 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 27 Main Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5444429 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 27 Main Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt

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