What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5450890 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 5450890?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5450890?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5450890?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13834868-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5450890 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 5450890?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5450890?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5450890?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13834868-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5450890 — 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 landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely.
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. At the hearing the landlord said that they would prefer a conditional termination.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, there are three different sections which provide for termination for rent arrears, on application by the landlord: section 55(1), 55(1a) and 56.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55?

Section 55 says that on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent was, at the date on which the application, at least 21 days in arrears.
The weekly rent is $900. The landlord provided a rent summary which shows that on 20 February 2026 when the application was filed with the Tribunal, the rent owing up to 19 February 2026 was $2,571.43, which is less than 21 days.
Therefore, the tenancy cannot be terminated under that section.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

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.
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 has breached her obligations by failing to pay the rent. On 6 January 2026 the landlord served a 14-day notice saying that the tenant was required to pay $2,405 in arrears. The rent summary shows that the tenant reduced the arrears to $790, but she did not fully remedy the breach within the required period.
No updated rent summary was produced before or at the hearing.
However, the parties agree that the tenant has made payments to reduce the arrears. The tenant filed a series of screenshots that show that on 26 and 28 June, she had made payments of $450. She then made a further three payments on the day of the hearing (30 June), totalling $2,740. The landlord was unable to provide an updated rent summary but advised that before the 30 June payments were deducted, the balance owing was $2,645.71. That means that at the time of the hearing, once the $2,740 is added, the tenant was $94.29 in credit.
Although the tenant’s frequent tardiness with rent payments is a significant issue for the landlord, I am not satisfied at this stage that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. In fact, the landlord wanted a conditional termination, but because the tenant has now remedied the breach, I cannot make such an order. The Tribunal cannot order a conditional termination for possible future arrears that have not been incurred.
The tenant may find that if she falls into arrears again, and fails to remedy the breach, the tenancy is terminated under section 55(1)(a) or 56. Termination under section 55(1a)
The parties are also reminded of section 55(1a) which says that the Tribunal must terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The tenant has already reimbursed the filing fee and so there is no order for payment of that.
There is an order for suppression of the landlord’s name. There is no order for suppression of the tenant’s name.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely.

The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. At the hearing the landlord said that they would prefer a conditional termination.

Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, there are three different sections which provide for termination for rent arrears, on application by the landlord: section 55(1), 55(1a) and 56.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55?

Section 55 says that on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent was, at the date on which the application, at least 21 days in arrears.

The weekly rent is $900. The landlord provided a rent summary which shows that on 20 February 2026 when the application was filed with the Tribunal, the rent owing up to 19 February 2026 was $2,571.43, which is less than 21 days.

Therefore, the tenancy cannot be terminated under that section.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

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.

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 has breached her obligations by failing to pay the rent. On 6 January 2026 the landlord served a 14-day notice saying that the tenant was required to pay $2,405 in arrears. The rent summary shows that the tenant reduced the arrears to $790, but she did not fully remedy the breach within the required period.

No updated rent summary was produced before or at the hearing.

However, the parties agree that the tenant has made payments to reduce the arrears. The tenant filed a series of screenshots that show that on 26 and 28 June, she had made payments of $450. She then made a further three payments on the day of the hearing (30 June), totalling $2,740. The landlord was unable to provide an updated rent summary but advised that before the 30 June payments were deducted, the balance owing was $2,645.71. That means that at the time of the hearing, once the $2,740 is added, the tenant was $94.29 in credit.

Although the tenant’s frequent tardiness with rent payments is a significant issue for the landlord, I am not satisfied at this stage that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. In fact, the landlord wanted a conditional termination, but because the tenant has now remedied the breach, I cannot make such an order. The Tribunal cannot order a conditional termination for possible future arrears that have not been incurred.

The tenant may find that if she falls into arrears again, and fails to remedy the breach, the tenancy is terminated under section 55(1)(a) or 56. Termination under section 55(1a)

The parties are also reminded of section 55(1a) which says that the Tribunal must terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.

The tenant has already reimbursed the filing fee and so there is no order for payment of that.

There is an order for suppression of the landlord’s name. There is no order for suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5450890 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5450890 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55?

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55?

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions