How much money was awarded in case 5494129?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,360.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5494129?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5494129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13756612-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5494129?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,360.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5494129?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5494129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13756612-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

64 Springhill Road, Mornington, Dunedin 9011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5494129 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5494129?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Emma Williams at 64 Springhill Road, Mornington, Dunedin 9011

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5494129 — net $7,648.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 June 2026	$9,360.00	Rent arrears to 18 June 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,648.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,648.00

The tenancy of Emma Williams at 64 Springhill Road, Mornington, Dunedin 9011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otago Flats Limited, at 11.59pm on Thursday 18 June 2026.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,740.00 (BN-00029278) to Otago Flats Limited immediately.

Emma Williams must pay Otago Flats Limited $7,648.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely.

Ms Walker and Ms Hale attended for the landlord by video.

The tenant did not access the hearing by the telephone or video link provided in the Notice of Hearing. I called the tenant at the start of the hearing on the phone number provided on the application and she answered the call. The tenant terminated the call part way through the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that the Tribunal must terminate a tenancy if it is satisfied that at the date of the application rent was at least 21 days in arrears.

The landlord filed its application for termination on 21 April 2026. At that date the rent records provided by the landlord show the tenant was 4,554.30 in rent arrears. Weekly rent is $580.00. I am satisfied that rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. Do the issues raised by the tenant at the hearing as a set off result in the tenancy not terminating?

As explained to the parties in the hearing, the Tribunal must consider whether any issues raised by a tenant should fairly be taken into account before it makes a termination or rent arrears decision 1 . This is called ‘equitable set-off’.

An equitable set off is a closely linked claim, “a claim which so affects the [landlord’s] claim that it would be unjust to allow the [landlord] to have judgment without bringing the cross-claim to account” 2 . A tenant does not have to file a claim to establish an equitable set-off because it is a defence and not a claim. If the tenant is entitled to set off, any such amount can be set-off against the rent payable for the purposes of a section 55(1)(a) calculation.

The tenants raised the following set-off issues at the hearing: a) the landlord failed to provide an oven rack from the start of the tenancy; b) a higher fence was required for the safety of the tenant’s children; c) the window latches needed to be replaced as they often became stuck; d) one of the landlord’s representatives vaped on the premises.

When such set-off issues are raised, it is for the party raising the issues to prove on the balance of probabilities that the other party has committed a breach of the RTA and/or the terms of the tenancy agreement and if so, what amount is then entitled to be set-off against the rent arrears owed. 1 See O’Shea v Brown (HC Auckland, AP110-PL01, 14 December 2001) 2 Grant v NZMC Ltd [1989] 1 NZLR 8 (CA) at 12-13.

After listing the issues I commenced working through each issue to determine if the tenant had a valid set-off off against the rent payable for the purposes of a section 55 calculation. However the tenant terminated her call after starting to discuss the first issue involving the oven rack. Without the tenant present at the hearing to give more details in relation to the issues I am unable to further consider or determine these issues. The landlord denies any breach in relation to the issues.

There maybe some validity to the claims raised by the tenant. However the rent arrears owed are now substantial. Rent owing to the date of the hearing is $9,194.28.

In the event the tenant had established she is owed compensation for the above issues I am not satisfied that any award in her favour would reduce the rent arrears owed to the extent that the Tribunal would not terminate under section 55(1)(a). I am satisfied that the extent of the arrears is such that the principle of set-off does not have any application in this case.

Accordingly the tenancy is terminated.

This does not deny the tenant the opportunity to pursue an application with the Tribunal. If the tenant wishes to do so, it would be in the tenant’s best interests to file an application as soon as possible.

How much rent does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Reimbursement of the filing fee: As the landlord has been successful in its claim I must award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5494129 — net $7,648.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 June 2026	$9,360.00	Rent arrears to 18 June 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,648.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,648.00

Order

The tenancy of Emma Williams at 64 Springhill Road, Mornington, Dunedin 9011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otago Flats Limited, at 11.59pm on Thursday 18 June 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,740.00 (BN-00029278) to Otago Flats Limited immediately.
Emma Williams must pay Otago Flats Limited $7,648.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely.
Ms Walker and Ms Hale attended for the landlord by video.
The tenant did not access the hearing by the telephone or video link provided in the Notice of Hearing. I called the tenant at the start of the hearing on the phone number provided on the application and she answered the call. The tenant terminated the call part way through the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that the Tribunal must terminate a tenancy if it is satisfied that at the date of the application rent was at least 21 days in arrears.
The landlord filed its application for termination on 21 April 2026. At that date the rent records provided by the landlord show the tenant was 4,554.30 in rent arrears. Weekly rent is $580.00. I am satisfied that rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. Do the issues raised by the tenant at the hearing as a set off result in the tenancy not terminating?
As explained to the parties in the hearing, the Tribunal must consider whether any issues raised by a tenant should fairly be taken into account before it makes a termination or rent arrears decision 1 . This is called ‘equitable set-off’.
An equitable set off is a closely linked claim, “a claim which so affects the [landlord’s] claim that it would be unjust to allow the [landlord] to have judgment without bringing the cross-claim to account” 2 . A tenant does not have to file a claim to establish an equitable set-off because it is a defence and not a claim. If the tenant is entitled to set off, any such amount can be set-off against the rent payable for the purposes of a section 55(1)(a) calculation.
The tenants raised the following set-off issues at the hearing: a) the landlord failed to provide an oven rack from the start of the tenancy; b) a higher fence was required for the safety of the tenant’s children; c) the window latches needed to be replaced as they often became stuck; d) one of the landlord’s representatives vaped on the premises.
When such set-off issues are raised, it is for the party raising the issues to prove on the balance of probabilities that the other party has committed a breach of the RTA and/or the terms of the tenancy agreement and if so, what amount is then entitled to be set-off against the rent arrears owed. 1 See O’Shea v Brown (HC Auckland, AP110-PL01, 14 December 2001) 2 Grant v NZMC Ltd [1989] 1 NZLR 8 (CA) at 12-13.
After listing the issues I commenced working through each issue to determine if the tenant had a valid set-off off against the rent payable for the purposes of a section 55 calculation. However the tenant terminated her call after starting to discuss the first issue involving the oven rack. Without the tenant present at the hearing to give more details in relation to the issues I am unable to further consider or determine these issues. The landlord denies any breach in relation to the issues.
There maybe some validity to the claims raised by the tenant. However the rent arrears owed are now substantial. Rent owing to the date of the hearing is $9,194.28.
In the event the tenant had established she is owed compensation for the above issues I am not satisfied that any award in her favour would reduce the rent arrears owed to the extent that the Tribunal would not terminate under section 55(1)(a). I am satisfied that the extent of the arrears is such that the principle of set-off does not have any application in this case.
Accordingly the tenancy is terminated.
This does not deny the tenant the opportunity to pursue an application with the Tribunal. If the tenant wishes to do so, it would be in the tenant’s best interests to file an application as soon as possible.

How much rent does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Reimbursement of the filing fee: As the landlord has been successful in its claim I must award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5494129 — Rent arrears at 64 Springhill Road, Mornington, Dunedin 9011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5494129 — Rent arrears at 64 Springhill Road, Mornington, Dunedin 9011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent does the tenant owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent does the tenant owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions