What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5485150 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 5485150?

Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,632.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $223.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5485150?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5485150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13714283-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5485150 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 5485150?

Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,632.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $223.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5485150?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5485150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13714283-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5485150 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5485150 — net $2,598.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 June 2026	$3,632.14	Rent arrears to 4 June 2026
Water rates for 16 June 2025 to 29 October 2025	$223.66	Water rates for 16 June 2025 to 29 October 2025
Exemplary damages for failing to allow access	$375.00	Exemplary damages for failing to allow access
Exemplary damages for using the premises for unlawful purposes	$600.00	Exemplary damages for using the premises for unlawful purposes
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,598.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,598.80

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5485150 — net $2,598.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 June 2026	$3,632.14	Rent arrears to 4 June 2026
Water rates for 16 June 2025 to 29 October 2025	$223.66	Water rates for 16 June 2025 to 29 October 2025
Exemplary damages for failing to allow access	$375.00	Exemplary damages for failing to allow access
Exemplary damages for using the premises for unlawful purposes	$600.00	Exemplary damages for using the premises for unlawful purposes
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,598.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,598.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details including the address of the tenancy.
The tenancy of Katie Jane Guest at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 9.00am on Monday 15 June 2026.
Katie Jane Guest must pay [The landlord/s] $2,723.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,260.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The application for a work order is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held on 4 June 2026 as an in- person hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord advised hey had received a text message from the tenant that morning which stated that she would not be attending the hearing. The hearing continued in the absence of the tenant.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, compensation for water rates, exemplary damages, a work order and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that: a. the tenant has been in rent arrears on 3 separate occasions within a 90 day period; b. The tenant has breached her obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by i.refusing to allow the landlord access to the premises; ii.using the premises, or permitting the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose. Should the tenancy be terminated as the tenant has been in rent arrears for 3 separate occasions within a 90day period?
Under section 55(1)(aa) RTA the Tribunal shall 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. See section 55(1)(aa) RTA.
In this case I find the landlord’s first notice, served on the tenant on 1 June 2026, was for rent arrears that were due for 5 working days before the start of the start of the 90 day period specified by the landlord. That is, the notice was for rent due on 21 April 2026 but unpaid for 5 working days, but the landlord’s notice stated that the 90-day period began on 30 April 2026.
Therefore as this notice was not served within the 90-day period specified by the landlord, the requirements of s55(1)(aa) to serve 3 notices within a 90-day period was not met. The requirements of s 55(1)(aa) are mandatory. As the grounds to terminate under s 55(21)(aa) have not been established the landlord’s application under this section is dismissed. Has the tenant breached her obligation to allow the landlord access to the premises?
Section 48, RTA states that the landlord shall not enter the premises except with the consent of the tenant given immediately or in the circumstances allowed in s 48 having given the required notice. The definition of ‘premises’ as it relates to s 48 is set out in s 48(7), which states: “In this section premises does not include land or facilities 1 ”.
Section 41 RTA states that the tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
The tenant has breached her obligations by refusing the landlord access to the property on the following occasions: a. On 12 March 2026: the landlord was refused access to look at the damaged washing line in the rear yard. The landlord had emailed the day before advising they would be attending the property. The effect of s 48(7) is to that the landlord was not required to give any notice to go onto the property to inspect the washing line. The landlord’s email sent the day before the intended entry was more than the landlord was required to do under the RTA. The landlord served the tenant with a 14-day notice regarding this breach which required the tenant to allow the landlord/property manager to access the exterior of the property. b. On 30 March 2026: the landlord’s contractor was refused entry into the house to carry out maintenance, having arranged with the tenant to be at the property on the day and at the time he had arrived. The contractor is acting as an agent of the landlord in carrying out maintenance work. The 1 Emphasis is as set out in the RTA. tenant had given consent for his entry at the arranged time. Failure to allow him entry is a breach of section 48. c. On 20 April 2026: the landlord was refused entry to the property to carry out a routine inspection. The landlord gave notice to the tenant of the inspection on 10 April 2026. The notice complied with the requirements of s 48.
The tenant emailed the landlord after refusing entry on 12 March, stating that she had the right to refuse entry as she felt unsafe and that “under the peaceful living act 1987 we can refuse entrance if we feel unsafe”. The landlord/property manager responded, stating that she had never met the tenant or any other person living in the premises, and had only spoken to them on the phone during Mediation and Tenancy Tribunal hearings.
No evidence has been presented to support that the tenant or others at the property had any reason to feel unsafe as a result of the landlord entering the premises. There is no legislation in New Zealand called the Peaceful Living Act 1987. I find that this defence to the tenant’s refusal to allow the landlord to enter fails.
The landlord also raised that on 30 March 2026 entry was refused to re-inspect breaches set out in a 14-day notice served on the tenant on 13 March. Access was refused on the basis that the tenant had not received any notice of the intended entry.
I am satisfied the 14-day letter served on 13 March included notice of the intended inspection on 30 March 2026. The landlord can give notice they are entering the premises for the purpose of determining whether or not the tenant has completed work required under a 14-day notice 2 . However the notice must be given not less than 48 hours or more than 14 days before the intended entry. The notice given of intended entry in the 14-day notice is not valid as the period of notice is more than 14 days. Therefore the refusal by the tenant, or others at the premises, on this occasion is not a breach of s 48. Has the tenant breached her obligation not to use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose?
Section 40(2)(b) RTA states that the tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
The landlord says the tenant, or someone at the premises with her permission, is using the property for unlawful purposes by operating a home occupation business which is contrary to the Hauraki District Council (HDC) District Plan.
The landlord presented evidence showing: 2 S 48(2)(c) RTA • an ongoing or permanent garage sale is being operated from the premises. Peta Robinson, who lives at the premises with the tenant, acknowledged to HDC by email on 23 March 2026 that “we do have a garage sale that runs as we used to have a second hand store we have just emptied our storage shed....”. The landlord’s evidence is that the garage sale business has been open on each occasion they have driven past the property since at least December 2025. It is run from the garage and from the carpark area at the front of the tenancy premises. • the HDC made the tenant/Peta Robinson aware the rules relating to permitted home occupation businesses under the District Plan were being breached from 18 December 2025 onwards. HDC has continued to advise the permanent garage sale is considered a retail activity which cannot be run from a residentially zoned property. On 29 April 2026 HDC gave a final warning to cease the unconsented activity within 10 working days or the Council would take further enforcement actions. • the landlord presented Facebook posts advertising the garage sale during May 2026.
From the evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is either running or permitting to be run an ongoing garage sale from the premises, and that this activity is unlawful under the HDC District Plan. I find the tenant has breached her obligations under s 40(2)(b).
The landlord issued a 14-day notice to the tenant to cease the unlawful activity on 25 March 2026. The activity has continued. Should the tenancy be terminated as a result of the tenant’s breaches?
Section 56 of the RTA is a general termination provision which allows the Tribunal to order a termination of the tenancy when: a. There has been a breach of an obligation under the tenancy agreement or RTA; and b. If the breach is capable of remedy, a notice has been given requiring the other party to remedy the breach within 14 days, and the party fails to do so; and c. The breach is of such a nature, or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
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.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
Here I consider both breaches are activities that cannot be undone. That is, once access has been refused on a certain occasion that refusal cannot be undone, even if future access is allowed. Likewise the running of the garage sale in the past cannot be undone, even though it can be stopped in the future.
Even if I am wrong in this and both breaches are capable of remedy, the landlord has issued 14-day notices in respect of both breaches requiring the tenant to remedy which the tenant has failed to do.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 the District Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in considering the ‘inequitable’ consideration under s 56. In considering those factors I find: a) The history of the tenancy and whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The garage sale activity has been ongoing since at least December 2025. HDC has clearly communicated the activity is in breach of the District Plan on an ongoing basis since then and that it needs to cease. The landlord has raised the issue with the tenant and served a 14 day notice to stop using the property for unlawful purposes. The landlord has advised the tenant of its right to enter the yard without giving notice and has issued a 14 day notice to allow the landlord entry. b) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The Facebook posts presented and the responses from Peta Robinson to HDC indicate the garage sale activity it is unlikely to stop. The landlord has not inspected the premises since 5 March 2026. In an attempt to achieve entry the landlord offered for the tenant to provide suitable dates for inspection. However the tenant did not provide any dates until a few weeks before the hearing. The landlord has been subjected to verbal abuse from Peta Robinson when attempting the inspections/ entry and as a result now feels unsafe going to the property. c) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. I find the behaviour is deliberate with regard to both breaches. d) The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has acted to bring to the attention of the tenant that inspections must be allowed and that the garage sale business activity must cease. e) The gravity of the breach. The breach is on-going. HDC allows some home- based businesses in a general residential zone. The Council considers the activity the garage sale activity is excluded. The Council is able to take enforcement action should the activity continue which indicates the seriousness of the breach. It is concerning and likely that activities of this nature disturb others in the neighbourhood. The landlord is concerned at the damage the activity may be causing to the property. The garage is full of items for sale and the landlord understands that some goods are kept in the house. The brick edge around the carpark has been removed 3 . The landlord’s insurance policy requires 13 weekly inspections. The tenants refusal to allow inspections raises concerns on whether the policy is compromised. The landlord/property manager is unable to manage the tenancy as it is required to do. f)Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I find termination is a proportionate response to the breach by the tenant of these obligations.
For the reasons set out above, I conclude that it would not be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy under s 56. Accordingly the tenancy is terminated. The effect of section 56(2) RTA
Section 56(2) RTA states: Where an application is made under this section and the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of determining the matter the landlord could have made an application under section 55, the Tribunal shall determine the mater as if an application had been made under that section.
Section 55 (1) a requires the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy when it is satisfied that the rent was, on the date on which the application was filed, at least 21 days in arrears.
The landlord has made an application under section 56. At the date of the hearing the tenant was at least 21 days in arrears, accordingly under section 56(2) the tenancy is terminated regardless that I have terminated the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under sections 48 and 40(2)(b) of the RTA.

How much rent and water rates does the tenant owe?

The tenant has not paid any rent since 14 April 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to the date of the hearing (4 June 2026). 3 A 14-day notice to remedy this damage has been served
The records provided by the landlord prove the tenant owes water rates for water usage from 16 June 2025 to 29 October 2025. The tenant was served a 14 day notice to remedy the unpaid water rates on 12 March 20206 but has failed to do so. Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages due to the tenant’s refusal of entry?
Exemplary damages may be awarded when a provision of the RTA is breached which is stated to be an unlawful act, and where the party that has committed an unlawful act intentionally and the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be just to make an award having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Exemplary damages are not compensatory in nature, but are a penalty that is applied in cases of serious breach, to mark the Tribunals’ disapproval of the manner in which that occurred and deter a party from future such offences.
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has not allowed it entry to the premises when it was entitled to enter. A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
As set out above I find the tenant has breached section 48 and therefore has committed an unlawful act.
I am satisfied that it is just to make an award of exemplary damages for this breach. I award $375.00 being one-quarter of the maximum award available. In making this award I have considered: a) the tenant, or others at the premises with her permission including her partner, have intentionally refused the landlord entry into the premises in circumstances where the landlord has been entitled to enter. The award considers that the tenant’s refusal to allow the landlord entry on 30 March 2026 was valid; b) The effect on the landlord/property manager has been that they have been unable to carry out inspections to ensure maintenance work has been carried out and to carry out regular inspections. The breach is significant in that it has caused a breach of the landlord’s insurance policy terms. c) It is in the public interest that the landlords are able to enter the premises as allowed under s 48 RTA without interference by tenants. Regular inspections are required to identify any required maintenance and to ensure tenants are meeting their obligations in relation to the condition of the premises throughout the tenancy. Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages due to the tenant using the premises, or permitting the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose?
The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using the premises, or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
As set out above I find the tenant has breached section 40(2)(b) and has therefore committed an unlawful act.
I am satisfied that it is just to make an award of exemplary damages or this breach. I award $600.00 being one-third of the maximum award available. In making this award I have considered: a) the tenant’s intention is proven as she, or others at the premises with her permission including her partner, have continued to carry out the unlawful activity despite both the landlord and HDC requiring them to cease on a number of occasions; b) the effect on the landlord/property manager has been that the property is being used for a purpose that is not allowed without a resource consent. The bricks edging the parking area have been removed. The landlord is concerned at the amount of goods that are in the garage, which it is not been able to inspect of recent. The landlord is also concerned that extra goods, intended for sale are in the house, are likely to cause extra wear and tear to the property and could result in lack of access for fire and/or other emergency services. The owner has been contacted by HDC as the garage sale activity at property breaches the District Plan. c) It is in the public interest that the tenants do not use tenancy premises for purposes that are unlawful. The purpose of residential tenancies is to provide a home for the tenant and those that live with them. It is not intended that business activities that breach District Plans or bylaws can be run from residential premises.

Is it appropriate to issue a work order?

The landlord seeks a work order for the tenant to reinstate the brick edging around the carpark. The landlord issued a 14-day notice requiring this breach to be remedied on 13 March 2026, having given the tenant the opportunity prior to that to undertake the work. The breach was not remedied at the date of the hearing.
I decline to make a work order as the tenancy is terminated. This does not prevent the tenant from completing this work before the tenancy ends. If it remains not done on the date of termination then the landlord will be able to claim compensation from the tenant to have the brick edging re-installed. Other matters
Filing Fee: As the landlord has mainly succeeded with the claim I award reimbursement of the filing fee.
Suppression: The landlord has applied for suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in the claim and is entitled to suppression. See s 95A, RTA. The landlord’s name and identifying details including the address of the tenancy are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5485150 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5485150 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much rent and water rates does the tenant owe?

Is it appropriate to issue a work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much rent and water rates does the tenant owe?

Is it appropriate to issue a work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions