What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5491770 about?

The tribunal order states: Elina Wily and Harry Wily owes Emslie Investments Limited $1,968.00 (“the

How much money was awarded in case 5491770?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491770?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13829269-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5491770 about?

The tribunal order states: Elina Wily and Harry Wily owes Emslie Investments Limited $1,968.00 (“the

How much money was awarded in case 5491770?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491770?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13829269-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

46 Moreland Avenue, Papanui, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5491770 — Rent arrears

Order

Elina Wily and Harry Wily owes Emslie Investments Limited $1,968.00 (“the debt”, comprising $1,940 in rent arrears up to 27 June 2026, plus the filing fee of $28.00.
Elina Wily and Harry Wily must the debt today 30 June 2026.
If the tenant fails to pay the rent arrears of $1,940 by 10am Thursday 2 July: a. The tenancy at 46 Moreland Avenue, Papanui, Christchurch 8053 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
If the tenant fails to pay the filing fee within 2 working days of the due date, the filing fee will be payable immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Wily confirmed that she appeared for herself and Mr Wily.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55?

Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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 landlord has provided a rent summary which shows that at the date the application was filed on 17 April 2026, the rent arrears owing were $1280, which is 16 days in arrears. The rent was not 21 days in arrears at the date the application was filed and so the tenancy cannot be terminated under section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

However, section 56 of the Act provides that 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 the rent when due.
On 27 February 2026 the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, requiring rent arrears of $1,720 to be paid by 14 March 2026 The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The arrears were all but paid on 14 March, leaving a shortfall of $60.00.
I do not find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy based on $60.00 outstanding arrears.
On 1 April 2026 a further 14-day notice was issued, requiring payment of $160 rent arrears, being 2 days. That amount was not remedied and 17 April the landlord applied for termination.
Again, the I would not find it inequitable to refuse to terminate over $160 rent arrears, when the weekly rent is $560.00.
The tenant continued to allow the rent arrears to accumulate to a total of $1280 at the date the application was filed. That is still not 21 days in arrears. No further notices were issued.
However, section 56(2) says that where an application is made by a landlord 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 matter as if an application had been made under that section.
By today’s hearing, the amount owing is $1,940, which is more than 21 days. Therefore the matter must be considered under section 55 and the tenancy must be terminated, but a conditional termination order may be made.

Should a conditional termination be ordered?

The tenant wants to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination. The tenant provided an email from MSD saying that $1,940 would be released to the landlord’s account tonight. The tenant says that she will be able to pay the rent from now on.
I have made a conditional order for termination.
However, the tenant must understand that if she falls behind again, her tenancy is at risk. In addition to the sections set out above, the landlord may decide to use the provisions of section 55(1a) which says that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant should make sure that this week’s rent is paid. There is a further 3 days in arrears at present.
Because the landlord has been successful, the filing fee is reimbursed.
The landlord confirmed at the hearing that she did not seek name suppression.

Order

Elina Wily and Harry Wily owes Emslie Investments Limited $1,968.00 (“the debt”, comprising $1,940 in rent arrears up to 27 June 2026, plus the filing fee of $28.00.
Elina Wily and Harry Wily must the debt today 30 June 2026.
If the tenant fails to pay the rent arrears of $1,940 by 10am Thursday 2 July: a. The tenancy at 46 Moreland Avenue, Papanui, Christchurch 8053 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
If the tenant fails to pay the filing fee within 2 working days of the due date, the filing fee will be payable immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Wily confirmed that she appeared for herself and Mr Wily.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55?

Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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 landlord has provided a rent summary which shows that at the date the application was filed on 17 April 2026, the rent arrears owing were $1280, which is 16 days in arrears. The rent was not 21 days in arrears at the date the application was filed and so the tenancy cannot be terminated under section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

However, section 56 of the Act provides that 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 the rent when due.
On 27 February 2026 the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, requiring rent arrears of $1,720 to be paid by 14 March 2026 The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The arrears were all but paid on 14 March, leaving a shortfall of $60.00.
I do not find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy based on $60.00 outstanding arrears.
On 1 April 2026 a further 14-day notice was issued, requiring payment of $160 rent arrears, being 2 days. That amount was not remedied and 17 April the landlord applied for termination.
Again, the I would not find it inequitable to refuse to terminate over $160 rent arrears, when the weekly rent is $560.00.
The tenant continued to allow the rent arrears to accumulate to a total of $1280 at the date the application was filed. That is still not 21 days in arrears. No further notices were issued.
However, section 56(2) says that where an application is made by a landlord 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 matter as if an application had been made under that section.
By today’s hearing, the amount owing is $1,940, which is more than 21 days. Therefore the matter must be considered under section 55 and the tenancy must be terminated, but a conditional termination order may be made.

Should a conditional termination be ordered?

The tenant wants to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination. The tenant provided an email from MSD saying that $1,940 would be released to the landlord’s account tonight. The tenant says that she will be able to pay the rent from now on.
I have made a conditional order for termination.
However, the tenant must understand that if she falls behind again, her tenancy is at risk. In addition to the sections set out above, the landlord may decide to use the provisions of section 55(1a) which says that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant should make sure that this week’s rent is paid. There is a further 3 days in arrears at present.
Because the landlord has been successful, the filing fee is reimbursed.
The landlord confirmed at the hearing that she did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491770 — Rent arrears at 46 Moreland Avenue, Papanui, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491770 — Rent arrears at 46 Moreland Avenue, Papanui, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55?

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

Should a conditional termination be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55?

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

Should a conditional termination be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions