What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465006 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 5465006?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465006?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465006?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13359281-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465006 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 5465006?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465006?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465006?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13359281-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465006 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlords’ name and identifying details.
The tenancy will terminate on 17 April 2026.
The tenant’s application (5465006) is adjourned and will be concluded before me in a half day, face to face hearing at Wellington District Court. The date will be set down.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This order determines the landlords’ application for termination. The tenant’s application for damages, work orders, and exemplary damages is still to be determined. Background
The background to the current matter is: a. The tenancy began on 23 January 2021, running to 19 February 2022, as a fixed term. From that date it has been periodic. b. The tenancy is the landlords’ family home. As I understand it, they rented the property out as they work and live overseas, initially in Ireland but currently in Belgium. It is the landlords’ intention to live in the home when they return to New Zealand. c. The landlord has appointed a friend who lives near the tenancy as agent. I note that the legitimacy of this appointment is disputed and will be substantively considered when the tenant’s application is heard. d. Over time there have been a series of issues relating to maintenance raised by the tenant. Initially those issues raised in 2021 and 2022 appear to have not led to any acrimony. However, in February 2023 a severe weather event washed out a section of the shared pathway which provides access to this property and, as I understand it, three others. There were delays in the access being remediated, which it appears were related to Wellington City Council’s response. It appears that from around the state on the has been increasing levels of tension and then open dispute between the parties. As above the access way issue will be substantively considered with the tenant’s application but is noted for background purposes. e. In August 2023, the tenant’s mother had an accident when wooden decking broke beneath her causing her foot to go through the deck and causing injury. Correspondence relating to this issue was exchanged between the tenant, the landlords, and the agent. f. Reviewing the correspondence, I note that from approximately May 2025 the tone of the correspondence becomes increasingly fractious. Around this time the tenant sent a spreadsheet of issues to the landlords. g. On 10 October 2025, the tenant issued a 14-day notice seeking repair of a number of issues. As above these issues are part of the tenant substantive application, and so the 14-day notice and any response to it are noted for background purposes h. One section of the property, running along the southern boundary line, suffers from historic subsidence. The tenant alleges that the subsidence makes the tenancy unsafe and raised in the 14-day notice. Landlords engaged a structural engineer to report on this issue. i. The tenant has alleged that he was induced into entering into the tenancy agreement by deception, as a result he has made threats to make a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office. As I understand it the particulars include allegations relating to the appointment of the landlords’ agent, the information contained in the tenancy agreement relating to healthy homes compliance, and the structural integrity of the deck. j. The tenant has made complaints to work safe alleging that the landlords are in breach of the Health and Safety in Employment legislation, as he works from home. k. The tenant has made complaints to MBIE’s Tenancy Compliance and Investigation Team (TCIT), who visited the property in January 2026, and produced a report. l. The landlord has provided a schedule of rent arrears, which shows that the tenant has been periodically in arrears since May 2025. While the level of arrears has never been significant the pattern has been relatively constant. The tenant says that whenever he has had notice that payments have been missed, he has corrected the issue immediately. According to the landlord schedule the arrears currently stand at three weeks, although it is noted that the tenant says that these arrears were cleared as soon as he was made aware. Application
The landlords have applied to terminate the periodic tenancy on the grounds of hardship under s55B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant has argued that: a. the landlords’ grounds are not made out; b. this application is retaliatory notice; and c. the late provision of the counter claim has prejudiced his ability to respond.
I will consider the retaliatory notice and prejudice issues first then the substantive application and response. Retaliation
The tenant has argued that the application for termination is retaliation under s54 RTA. S54 says: 54 Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1) This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U). (2) The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a) that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b) that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises.
The landlord’s lawyer argues that s 54 cannot apply as no notice of termination was served, rather, the application is a request for the Tribunal to exercise its powers to terminate the tenancy.
As a matter of statutory interpretation, the landlords’ position must be correct. The powers under s 54 relate to notices made under s 51 and the landlords’ application does not fall within s51 and is not a termination by notice. In saying this the exercise of rights is a factual consideration to be assessed when considering the substantive application. Prejudice
The tenant has argued that the consideration of the landlords’ application for termination should be adjourned and dealt with along with his applications. This is because he was not sent the landlords’ documents until 20 March 2026, while the hearing occurred on 24 March 2026. He says that as a single parent he had not had time or opportunity to prepare a response.
The landlords’ lawyer says that the documents were filed with Tenancy Services on 13 March 2026, and he chased up several times asking for confirmation these had been received.
The issue is one of prejudice. The Tribunal is a lay forum and does not have rules of evidence or rules under which evidence filed late can be excluded. I need to consider whether the documents were of a nature that, in fairness, the tenant could not reasonably be expected to have digested and prepared a response in 4 days.
Reviewing the material it includes: a. written submissions which, while comprehensive, are not overly long; b. summaries of correspondence with the tenant; and c. detailed responses to the tenant’s applications.
I conclude that the tenant is not prejudiced by the timing in which he received the material. There is little if any fresh evidence provided, beyond some material relating to alternative rental accommodation in the same area as the tenancy. The tenant can be taken to be aware of the correspondence he has had with the landlords, their agents, and the tradespeople involved in these matters. The tenant has filed over 400 pages of detailed and well-prepared documents in support of his own applications and is plainly able to consider the documents provided. Substantive issue – s55B
The Tribunal may terminate a periodic tenancy on the grounds of hardship where: a. Without the order the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant and b. because of the hardship it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy. See section 55B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In making such and order the Tribunal must take into account the impact termination would have on the tenant.
The test set out in the S 55B is in the form of a comparison of the balance of convenience between the rights of each party. Previous considerations of the section by the Tribunal show that the question of hardship is to be considered in the round and is not restricted to financial hardship.
In the Tribunal’s decision (TT4632374 dated 24 August 2024) the adjudicator, with regard to possible applications of s 55B, considered at [49], “If the tenant embarks on a course of obstructive and/or abusive behaviour, there may come a point at which the circumstances of this tenancy are grounds for termination and/or payment of exemplary damages to the landlord”.
The submissions made at the hearing were that the landlords’ grounds of hardship are: a. the financial stress of relatively regular late payment of rent; b. the distress caused by the complaints of criminal wrongdoing, and threats to make complaints to the serious fraud office, which also made the landlords’ unable to respond directly with the tenant, as he is a witness in a criminal complaint made against them; c. the distress caused by the tenant’s complaints to Work Safe, and TCIT; d. that the tenant has caused or has failed to report damage to the property, causing distress and putting the property at risk; e. the tenant’s refusal to allow access to trades to carry out repairs and maintenance; and f. the escalation of the issues in dispute between the parties.
The landlords’ lawyer says the tenant has made numerous refences to wishing to leave the tenancy and that he could find alternative accommodation easily. He says the balance of convenience sits with the landlords.
The tenant’s response is that: a. whenever he was asked to pay arrears he did so promptly; b. the various complaints were reasonable responses to the issues he was experiencing; c. he denied causing damage, and said he had promptly reported any issues; d. he denied causing issues with trades accessing the property; e. moving out with his children, one of whom is a primary student nearby, would cause hardship; and f. he has been complaining about real issues and was exercising legitimate rights under the RTA. Discussion
I will consider the application taking some care where the issues relate to findings about issues to be determined in the tenant’s applications. This is because I have not had these issues fully argued before me.
Considering the parties positions I note that: a. While they never exceeded 3 weeks of arrears, the rent has been in arrears for at least two thirds of the life of the tenancy and has been in arrears. For instance, between 17 May 2025 and 20 March 2026, the tenant was continuously in arrears. b. With regard to the complaint to the SFO, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider matters under the Crimes Act 1961. Therefore, I must take care with assessing the merits of a matter outside of jurisdiction. I make no comment about the merit of the allegations or whether they are breaches of the RTA, as the hearing for those matters has not occurred. However, in terms of matters which have come before this Tribunal, the actions of the landlords are not unusual or out of keeping with what the Tribunal regularly sees. What is unusual is the SFO complaint. Tenants and landlords before the Tribunal often have heated disputes, but, criminal complaints of the type alleged here appear to be out of keeping with the gravity of the tenancy breaches alleged. c. The work safe complaint is misconstrued. Under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 2015, a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) is responsible for managing risk in a working environment. As a self-employed person the tenant is the PCBU in this instance, not the landlords. d. The tenant was within his rights to engage with the TCIT regarding his complaints about the issues at the tenancy. e. I note that the damage to the shower and the deck alleged by landlords is disputed and make no comment. However, one example in the evidence is that the tenant removed kitchen cabinet doors which were then left outside and appear to have suffered water damage. There appear to be other examples of the tenant making changes to the tenancy, such as the removal of the basement door. Without evaluating the merits of these specific issues in terms of the obligations of the parties under the RTA, it is reasonable for the landlords to be concerned about this behaviour. f. With regard to the allegation that the tenant is restricting access, the correspondence shows that there has been a marked shift in the behaviour. I accept the tenant’s position that he was not obstructive when matters earlier in the tenancy are considered. However, as the relationship soured through 2025 this came to a head when, on 6 November 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord’s agent requiring that trades access would on be granted if requests were made in writing which met his four criteria. I also note emails from 3 tradesmen in late 2025 early 2026, where difficulties getting access were mentioned. g. During the hearing the tenant repeated that he would like to end the tenancy, a position which he had put forward in at least 3 emails to the landlords over the last year. However, he says that if the tenancy is terminated the work orders he seeks will be moot, and he has concerns about the enforcement of any monetary orders made. His first concern has some merit as work orders are generally not enforceable after a tenancy has ended. His second does not as money orders are enforceable in person and do not need the tenancy to have continued. The orders sought are: i. That the deck is fixed, I note this work was completed before the hearing. ii. That the retaining wall and subsidence is fixed. Having extensive experience with land movement and subsidence matters I note that this matter has a number of complexities as the land in question sits on a boundary with a neighbour, and there is a suggestion in the evidence that leaking Council storm water services are a cause of the issue. As such it appears unlikely that this issue will be a suitable one to be the subject of a work order. iii. That the sliding door between the living room and the sunroom is replaced. As I understand it this issue has, or will soon be fixed. iv. That the other maintenance issues are attended too. As I understand it a number of these issues have been attended to. The work order issue has little weight. Any concerns about the rights of future tenants are not matters for the Tribunal but are best addressed through the TCIT, which has already been engaged with. h. In my judgment the relationship between the parties has worsened to the point where it is unsustainable. i. I acknowledge that moving out will cause inconvenience for the tenants. However, the rental market in Wellington is currently favourable for tenants.
After taking into account the impact on the tenant I find that the landlord’s hardship would be greater than the tenant’s and it would be unreasonable for the tenancy to continue. The key issues are that the tenant has expressed a desire to leave the tenancy which was repeated and the relationship is untenable. Termination will not prejudice the tenant’s underlying applications.
Noting the Tenant’s concerns about the issues moving his family out, I consider a three week period is reasonable. The tenancy will terminate on 17 April 2026. 26.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465006 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465006 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions