Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5479489 — Rent arrears at Flat 3, 13 Fifth Avenue, Avenues, Whangarei 0110
Published 18 May 2026 · Application 5479489
Mixed / unclear
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Mixed / unclear
From published order
Location
Whangarei
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
N Blake
Dispute themes
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| une 2026. 2. Jackson Clark is to pay Marksight Property Management Ltd t/as Quinovic Whangarei (as agent for Nazia Khan | $28.00 | une 2026. 2. Jackson Clark is to pay Marksight Property Management Ltd t/as Quinovic Whangarei (as agent for Nazia Khan |
Claims and awards for application 5479489. Verify on MoJ.
une 2026. 2. Jackson Clark is to pay Marksight Property Management Ltd t/as Quinovic Whangarei (as agent for Nazia Khan
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- une 2026. 2. Jackson Clark is to pay Marksight Property Management Ltd t/as Quinovic Whangarei (as agent for Nazia Khan
Order
- The tenancy of Jackson Clark at Flat 3, 13 Fifth Avenue, Avenues, Whangarei 0110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Marskight Property Management Limited Andrea Phelan, at 9.00am on Monday 1 June 2026.
- Jackson Clark is to pay Marksight Property Management Ltd t/as Quinovic Whangarei (as agent for Nazia Khan) $28.00, being the filing fee for this application.
Reasons
Background
- The tenancy began on 12 September 2025 as a one-year fixed term tenancy. The owner managed the tenancy at that time. Quinovic took over management in December 2025.
- The application seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds of rent arrears, and issues with rubbish, parking, and interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of neighbours.
- The hearing took place in Whangarei on 15 May 2026. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Gardiner represented Quinovic at the hearing. Law
- The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy if: 1 a. The tenant breached an obligation that they owe under the terms of the tenancy agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”); and b. If the breach is capable of being remedied, the landlord gave the tenant a notice describing the breach and giving the tenant a reasonable period of time (not less than 14-days) to remedy the breach; and c. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the notice period; and d. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be inequitable to refuse the request for termination. Alleged breaches Rent arrears
- The rent is $450.00 per week.
- Ms Gardiner provided rent records from during the period of the owner’s management, and during Quinovic’s management.
- The records show that: a. Mr Clark had some late payments during the period of the owner’s management but he was up to date when Quinovic took over in December. b. The first missed rent payment under Quinovic’s management was on 24 March 2026. c. The next miss was on 14 April. The next week, 21 April, Mr Clark paid $200 only. d. On 5 May Mr Clark paid $350 not $450. e. The arrears got up to $1250.
- Quinovic sent breach notices in respect of rent arrears on 25 March, 10 April, and 30 April.
- The 25 March notice required Mr Clark to pay the arrears of $450 by 8 April. 1 Section 56 RTA
- Mr Clark made a payment of $450 on 7 April, which is was day that the normal weekly rent is due. Quinovic (correctly) applied this $450 payment to the arrears, which mean that Mr Clark had not paid the rent due for that week.
- Quinovic sent a breach notice about that payment on 10 April.
- Mr Clark did not remedy that breach within the notice period.
- The 30 April breach notices identified arrears of $1,150, which Mr Clark was required to pay by 14 May. Mr Clark paid $1,150 on 12 May, but he still had some residual arrears due to a short payment after 30 April.
- At the date of hearing, Mr Clark had a small amount of arrears, and was not one week in advance with the rent as the tenancy agreement requires. Rubbish
- There are four units on this property. Mr Clark has a shed / garage for his exclusive use.
- Quinovic’s complaint relates to rubbish inside the garage and on part of a common area, next to Mr Clark’s unit.
- Mr Clark agreed that he has some bagged rubbish that must remain on site until rubbish collection day. He kept it in his garage, but he shifted it outside because it smelled bad.
- Quinovic sent breach notices about rubbish on 5 January, 9 March, 19 March, 25 March, and 13 May.
- Mr Clark said that: a. He is not always able to afford rubbish stickers every week, so the rubbish has to remain somewhere until it can be taken away. b. Quinovic seems to be unhappy with the rubbish being in the garage or outside, so he does not know what to do.
- Ms Gardiner said that Quinovic had raised this issue many times with Mr Clark, but the problem persisted. The breach letters note that the rubbish can create rodent problems.
- At the hearing, Mr Clark confirmed that he had dealt with the rubbish identified in the most recent breach notice. Parking
- Mr Clark’s property has one allocated carpark at the rear of the unit. There is a driveway at the front of the unit which accesses car ports that belong to other units. Mr Clark is not permitted to park on that front driveway.
- Ms Gardiner submitted that Mr Clark and his visitors frequently breached this obligation.
- Quinovic issued breach notices about parking on 14 January, 2 March, 9 March, 25 March, and 7 April.
- Mr Clark said that the parking space behind his unit is inconvenient because there is a narrow walkway from there to the front of the unit. He said that he would sometimes park in the front driveway to unload his car, and if his young son was asleep in the car he might leave the car there for no more than an hour.
- Mr Clark said that his upstairs neighbour seems to dislike him and reports issues to Quinovic at any opportunity. Interference with peace and privacy of neighbours
- On 25 March, Quinovic sent Mr Clark a breach notice about a “verbal altercation in the shared driveway” that took place that day.
- Mr Clark acknowledged that he had a loud argument with his ex-partner. Outcome - termination
- On the evidence provided to me I am satisfied that: a. Mr Clark breached his tenancy agreement obligation to pay rent of $450 per week, one week in advance. The breach is capable of being remedied. Quinovic issued breach notices. The breaches were not (in all cases) remedied within the period of the notice. b. Mr Clark breached his Residential Tenancies Act obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. In particular, Mr Clark left rubbish in the common area. The breach is capable of being remedied. Quinovic issued five breach notices about rubbish. The breaches were not (in all cases) remedied within the period of the notice. c. Mr Clark breached his obligation to park only in his allocated car park. The breach is technically not capable of being remedied, but it was appropriate for Quinovic to issue breach notices to give Mr Clark the opportunity to stop this behaviour. Unfortunately, it continued. d. There is one proven instance of disturbing the peace of the neighbours but (as discussed below) it does not amount to an unreasonable interference.
- My finding is that the cumulative effect of the rent arrears, rubbish, and car parking breaches is such that it would it be inequitable to refuse the landlord’s request for termination. I have had regard to the following factors: a. Mr Clark has tried very hard to catch up with the rent when he has missed payments. This is not an instance of a tenant simply ignoring his obligation to pay rent. However, the arrears got to a significant level – nearly 21 days. At the date of hearing Mr Clark had nearly caught up with the arrears but was still not one week in advance. Payment of rent in full and on time is at the heart of a tenancy contract. b. I also acknowledge Mr Clark’s struggle with the rubbish. Households produce rubbish and it has to put somewhere. However, there were steps that Mr Clark could have taken but didn’t (such as putting bagged rubbish in plastic bins / containers), and his putting rubbish in a common area was understandably not acceptable to the landlord or to his neighbours, c. Mr Clark’s car park is at the rear of the unit. This might be inconvenient at times, but that is the set-up of the property that Mr Clark chose to rent. Mr Clark and his visitors parking on the front driveway causes inconvenience for the other residents. d. The incident on 25 March is not a supporting grounds for termination. People living in close proximity must expect that they will occasionally hear arguments from their neighbours. A one-off incident, with no proven aggravating factors, is within the parameters of a “reasonable” interference with peace and privacy.
- My finding is that the landlord is entitled to an order for termination of the tenancy.
- The last day of the tenancy will be Sunday 31 May, with possession granted to the landlord on Monday 1 June. Current rent arrears, compensation for chain and packlock
- Given that the tenancy is about to end I will not make a monetary order for arrears at this time. I encourage Mr Clark to ensure that there are no arrears at the end of the tenancy.
- The claim seeks $50 from Mr Clark for the cost of putting a chain and padlock on the front driveway. This was a preventative measure taken by the owners. My finding is that Mr Clark is not liable for this cost. Filing fee, name suppression
- I will award the landlord the filing fee of $28.00. 2 2 Section 102(4)(b) RTA
- The landlord did not seek name suppression. There is no legal basis to grant name suppression to the tenant in this instance. 3
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s102(4), s27, s5, s56, s95A(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Property management
- MARSKIGHT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5479489?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jackson Clark at Flat 3, 13 Fifth Avenue, Avenues, Whangarei
How much money was awarded in case 5479489?
Une 2026. 2. Jackson Clark Is To Pay…: $28.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5479489?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5479489?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13609371-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.