How much money was awarded in case 5483849?

Compensation: $1,071.43 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5483849?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5483849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13767450-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5483849?

Compensation: $1,071.43 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5483849?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5483849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13767450-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

21 Polo Prince Drive, Totara Park, RD 1, Auckland 2576 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5483849 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5483849 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5483849 — net $2,848.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 June 2026	$3,920.00		Rent arrears to 19 June 2026
Compensation		$1,071.43	Compensation
Total award	$3,920.00	$1,071.43
Net award	$2,848.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,848.57

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

The tenancy of Barrie Dyer at 21 Polo Prince Drive, Totara Park, RD 1, Auckland 2576 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at

59pm, Sunday 28 June 2026.

Barrie Dyer must pay [The landlord/s] $2,848.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing held on 18 June 2026 by video. The tenant did not attend the hearing. An attempt was made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone, but the call went to voicemail.

The tenant had earlier requested an adjournment of the hearing due to being overseas. Initially the request was granted but the cross application was not brought to the attention of the Adjudicator. The request was then declined on the basis that the tenant could attend the hearing remotely from overseas.

Just prior to the hearing the tenant provided an email advising that he would be in a plane at the time of the hearing. He provided some submissions in support of his application, which I have considered.

The tenant applied for a work order in relation to the security gates at the premises and compensation for the landlord’s failure to attend to maintenance of the gates.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and for rent arrears.

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 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 their obligations by not paying rent when it was due.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 9 March 2026, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the rent arrears have increased since the notice was served. The tenant appears to have made no effort to reduce the arrears. The outstanding arrears are awarded. Tenant application

The tenant had applied for a work order and compensation in relation to the security gate.

In his submissions, the tenant says that the main reason he moved to the property was because the security gates ensured both his safety and security. He says that the gates were not functioning for four months and after numerous complaints the landlord sent a tradesman who was unable to resolve the issue. A second gate specialist came three times to install the new system and unfortunately the gates are still not working and functioning to a safe and secure level. He says that he closes them when he leaves the property or go to bed at night, but they are open when he comes home or wakes up. He says that this has caused him mental stress and anxiety.

At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that the problem with the gates arose in November 2025 but said that they could be closed and opened manually. The landlord said that they would be happy to compensate the tenant for the loss of amenity and given the size and amenities at the property, suggested compensation of $50.00 per week.

The landlord advised that the gates were repaired on 20 March 2026 and produced a message from the contractor which says, “Gate working and Barrie looks happy with it.”

As the landlord has advised that the gates have been repaired a work order is no longer required. While the tenant suggests that the gates are not functioning to a safe and secure level it is not clear what that means and no evidence has been produced in relation to this.

I consider that the tenant should be compensated for the loss of amenity in relation to the security gates which took 17 weeks and 6 days (16 November 2025 to 20 March 2026) to repair. I have calculated the compensation at the rate of $60.00 per week which totals $1,071.43.

As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the landlord’s name as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5483849 — net $2,848.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 June 2026	$3,920.00		Rent arrears to 19 June 2026
Compensation		$1,071.43	Compensation
Total award	$3,920.00	$1,071.43
Net award	$2,848.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,848.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Barrie Dyer at 21 Polo Prince Drive, Totara Park, RD 1, Auckland 2576 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at
59pm, Sunday 28 June 2026.
Barrie Dyer must pay [The landlord/s] $2,848.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing held on 18 June 2026 by video. The tenant did not attend the hearing. An attempt was made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone, but the call went to voicemail.
The tenant had earlier requested an adjournment of the hearing due to being overseas. Initially the request was granted but the cross application was not brought to the attention of the Adjudicator. The request was then declined on the basis that the tenant could attend the hearing remotely from overseas.
Just prior to the hearing the tenant provided an email advising that he would be in a plane at the time of the hearing. He provided some submissions in support of his application, which I have considered.
The tenant applied for a work order in relation to the security gates at the premises and compensation for the landlord’s failure to attend to maintenance of the gates.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and for rent arrears.

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 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 their obligations by not paying rent when it was due.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 9 March 2026, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the rent arrears have increased since the notice was served. The tenant appears to have made no effort to reduce the arrears. The outstanding arrears are awarded. Tenant application
The tenant had applied for a work order and compensation in relation to the security gate.
In his submissions, the tenant says that the main reason he moved to the property was because the security gates ensured both his safety and security. He says that the gates were not functioning for four months and after numerous complaints the landlord sent a tradesman who was unable to resolve the issue. A second gate specialist came three times to install the new system and unfortunately the gates are still not working and functioning to a safe and secure level. He says that he closes them when he leaves the property or go to bed at night, but they are open when he comes home or wakes up. He says that this has caused him mental stress and anxiety.
At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that the problem with the gates arose in November 2025 but said that they could be closed and opened manually. The landlord said that they would be happy to compensate the tenant for the loss of amenity and given the size and amenities at the property, suggested compensation of $50.00 per week.
The landlord advised that the gates were repaired on 20 March 2026 and produced a message from the contractor which says, “Gate working and Barrie looks happy with it.”
As the landlord has advised that the gates have been repaired a work order is no longer required. While the tenant suggests that the gates are not functioning to a safe and secure level it is not clear what that means and no evidence has been produced in relation to this.
I consider that the tenant should be compensated for the loss of amenity in relation to the security gates which took 17 weeks and 6 days (16 November 2025 to 20 March 2026) to repair. I have calculated the compensation at the rate of $60.00 per week which totals $1,071.43.
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the landlord’s name as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5483849 — Rent arrears at 21 Polo Prince Drive, Totara Park, RD 1, Auckland 2576

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5483849 — Rent arrears at 21 Polo Prince Drive, Totara Park, RD 1, Auckland 2576

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions