What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5494309 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 5494309?

Compensation: Failure to maintain- D…: $2,842.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- D…: $302.86 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,657.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5494309?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5494309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13692254-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5494309 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 5494309?

Compensation: Failure to maintain- D…: $2,842.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- D…: $302.86 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,657.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5494309?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5494309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13692254-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5494309 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5494309 — net $111.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 June 2026	$5,657.15		Rent arrears to 3 June 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Failure to maintain- Door gaps		$2,842.86	Failure to maintain- Door gaps
Compensation: Failure to maintain- Door handle		$302.86	Failure to maintain- Door handle
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$5,685.15	$3,173.72
Net award	$111.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$111.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5494309 — net $111.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 June 2026	$5,657.15		Rent arrears to 3 June 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Failure to maintain- Door gaps		$2,842.86	Failure to maintain- Door gaps
Compensation: Failure to maintain- Door handle		$302.86	Failure to maintain- Door handle
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$5,685.15	$3,173.72
Net award	$111.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$111.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of John Douglas Hannay at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlords], at 11:59pm on Wednesday 3 June 2026.
John Douglas Hannay must pay [The landlords] $111.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Aspire Property Services Limited As Agent For Tomovski Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 25 May 2026.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant has applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenant entered this tenancy with the owners of the property. He says that at the start of the tenancy his relationship with the owners was good and they did things to make him, and his elderly dog Meg feel welcome, accommodated and like they could treat the premise as their home. For example, the owners installed outside sensor lights and a gate on the deck, as requested by the tenant, to ensure his and Meg’s safety.
The evidence suggests after the owners appointed a property management company to manage the tenancy in January 2026, the relationship between the owners and the tenant deteriorated and the relationship between the property managers and the tenant were strained from not long after it was appointed.
The tenant expressed concern about being sent links to the property manager’s Facebook account and seeing her public page had a photograph of her in a bathing suit, which the tenant found distressing and inappropriate. Especially, given this was a professional relationship. He considered the public page as anything but professional and had to block her attempts to communicate with him via Facebook.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA, bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) obligations to the tenant?
John Douglas Hannay claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Breaching either of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which a total amount of exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Exemplary damages may only be awarded by the Tribunal when a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, and the Tribunal is satisfied it would be just to do so, 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Front door handle
The tenant confirmed he raised the issue with the door handle not working as it should not long after the tenancy commenced. He also provided text message 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. evidence that proves the male owner came to retighten it at least 5 or 6 times, and while the door handle was initially working better, after 24 hours it was loose again.
The PMO was informed by the tenant of this issue on 31 March 2026, and it asked its contractor to look at the door at the same time the gate latch was fixed on 24 April 2026. The contractor confirmed that it needed addressing by a door handle specialist. This specialist came on 6 May 2026 and put extra thread on the shortened screws. He told the tenant it was a temporary fix, but did not inform the PMO of this. The PMO says the invoice confirms the handle is fixed.
In videos provided by the tenant, [contractor name suppressed], one of the PMO’s contractors, explains the issue kept reoccurring because “the top screw has nothing to grip to on the aluminium frame”. The videos show [contractor name suppressed], pulled the screw right out and it was evident it had been cut, to shorten it. The screw had plenty of thread, but [contractor name suppressed], found metal threads had been spun onto the screw to make it thicker to hopefully squeeze itself to the frame. In the tenant’s view the door handle needs replacing rather than continuing with these temporary fixes that don’t last long. He confirmed that the 6 May 2026 fix was still holding on the date of the hearing.
I am satisfied the landlord breached it obligations to investigate and remediate the door handle, in that despite the door handle being repaired a number of times unsuccessfully by the owners, it kept failing because of the shortened screws and thread inserted wearing off again. The tenant confirms that it has stayed in place since it was repaired by a specialist on 6 May 2026, despite alleging the repair is only intended to be temporary and that the handle needs replacing.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not having the door handle investigated and remediated in a timely manner in all the circumstances and award the tenant a rent rebate of $102.86 for the period 31 March 2026 and 6 May 2026 (5 weeks and 1 day at 20.00 per week) and an additional $200.00 compensation for the period the owners completed unsuccessful repairs over a prolonged but undefined period from around late August 2024 to January 2026. Door frame gaps
The tenant confirmed the bi-fold door had gaps from the start of the tenancy, due to faulty door alignment. He confirmed he had raised this issue with the owners at the start of the tenancy and told them the gaps made the house cold and draughty, he was told these gaps were normal, assisted with ventilation of the home, was just part of the normal structure of these types of doors and that nothing could be done to address the gaps.
The tenant says, while sceptical about the owner’s explanation, he felt he had no choice but to accept it.
The tenant moved into the home near the start of spring of 2024, so he did not really experience the extreme coldness caused by the gaps until winter 2025. It was at this time of the year it became harder to heat the house and to keep it free from draughts. Being elderly, with a very old dog, he says he was forced to use more power to heat the house to try and keep them both warm. He also stated he just paid the bills as he had no other choice.
The tenant confirmed he raised this issue again with the new landlord in February 2026, and on 23 February 2026 the property manager accepted that the gaps were larger than normal and needed addressing. She undertook to get this issue investigated and some minor draught proofing undertaken. At the date of the hearing the gaps were still an issue. The tenant says the owner had tried to fix the hinges, and initially the doors looked better, but in under 24 hours the doors had dropped, and the gaps were worse than ever.
The PMO had the original installers scheduled to come and investigate the door gaps on 28 May 2026. This work has been postponed until after the tenant moves out on 3 June 2026, by agreement by the parties.
The tenant’s evidence is that the gaps in the door frames also made it expensive to heat the house, with the tenant’s power bills being over $400.00 per month, instead of his usual up to $250.00 per month. He seeks a contribution to the additional power used of around $150.00 per month, on average.
I find the tenant has produced sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the landlords have failed to provide the bi-fold doors in a reasonable state of repair in all the circumstances, and that the owners made an intentional decision not to contact the original installers to have them investigate the tenant’s concerns about the gaps letting draughts in at the start of the tenancy. It was only when the PMO started managing the tenancy that the issue was in any way addressed. Unfortunately, the tenancy has ended before this investigation and remediation work could be completed. I find the landlords have committed an unlawful act.
This unlawful act occurred in the first weeks of the tenancy, when the tenant first raised it with the owners, and continued until 28 May 2026, when the original installer was due to come and investigate the issue and suggest remediation options. This was delayed due to the tenancy being due to end on that date and the tenant preferring not to be disturbed while packing and moving.
I find the landlord failed to address the issue from late August 2024 until 5 January 2026, and the PMO failed to address the issue from 23 February 2026 to 28 May 2026, being 13 weeks 3 days. I award the tenant general damages by way of a rent rebate of $100.00 per week for the stress, inconvenience, additional power and loss of amenity he was paying rent to enjoy for those 13 weeks and 3 days, being $1,342.86. I also award a further compensatory lump sum of $1,500.00 for the stress, inconvenience, loss of amenity and additional power consumption during the earlier part of the tenancy.
Section109(2)(b) of the RTA, bars me from making any awards of exemplary damages for this intentional breach, as the first breach occurred more than 12 months prior to the date of the tenants’ application to the Tribunal on 23 March 2026. Ants
The tenant claims the owners outdoor potted plants attracted a significant amount of ants, that in turn infested his plants and ultimately ended up infesting his home.
When this issue was first raised with the owners, in the first week of the tenancy. He states the male owner was dismissive and said “ants are ants” and indicated that ants are normal and to ignore them. After the tenant raised this issue again on 24 December 2025, because the ants had become an infestation that had come into the house, the male owner provided some ant gel bait to the tenant but the female owner blamed the tenant for the ant problem and told him he had to pay for an exterminator himself if the bait was not sufficient. The tenant found this bait toxic and says it attracted more ants from below. The tenant then purchased spray ant killer, and applied this to the infected areas, but the ant infestation has continued, mostly outdoors, with 10 to 12 a day coming indoors.
This was raised with the PMO in an email on 31 March 2026. The PMO has undertook to get this issue investigated further. The tenant provided emails that show an exterminator was engaged, but not exactly when. The emails state that the exterminator confirmed the tenant had done nothing to attract the ant infestation.
I am satisfied the landlord has taken steps to address the ant infestation by providing ant bait to the tenant and engaging an exterminator in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances, once it was made aware the ant issue had become more of an inside infestation. There was no evidence the ants were causing damage to the tenant’s outdoor plants.
I find the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant in relation to the ant issue. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Gate latch
The tenant’s evidence was the latch of the horizontal gate the owners had installed on the deck, to protect Meg from accidents, came apart five or six times. Then in some windy weather on 26 March 2026, the latch snapped. This was reported to the property manager on 31 March 2026 and was fixed on 24 April 2025.
I am satisfied the landlord took steps to address any issues with the gate latch in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant in relation to the gate latch issue. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Outdoor lights
The tenant asked the owners to install outdoor sensor lights, not long after the start of the tenancy, to preserve his and Meg’s safety at night. From not long after these lights were installed, the tenant raised issues about them with the owners. He stated that the banana tree was blocking them, as were the plants on the glass balustrades, and the lights were not well positioned for the sensors to turn the lights on when he needed them to. Further, he needed to be able to turn the lights on and off when taking Meg to the toilet at night and these lights were only sensor triggered and this meant they went on and off all the time adding to his power bill. He also stated they mostly failed to detect Meg as she’s so small and that every time that door gets opened to let her out the heated air escapes and cold air enters the house.
I find that the evidence proves the owners installed the lights at the tenant’s request to ensure his and Meg’s safety and that just because the lights were not positioned where the tenant preferred, there was no evidence that the landlord had an obligation to install lights that could be switched on and off at the wall or that the sensors had to work in the specific ways the tenant required. The evidence also suggests the landlord took steps to try and adjust the sensors, but could do no more than it did without having to install another set of different sensor lights. The tenant’s claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment
John Douglas Hannay claims the landlord has harassed him and breached his quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant has cited a number of incidents when the landlord has given lawful notice for property inspections or contractor wanting to come to the house to engage in repair and maintenance work and these times have not suited the tenant. Sometimes the dates have been moved and sometimes the landlord has had reasons why an inspection date needs to happen or a contractor needs to come on a specified day/time. There was no evidence provided to the Tribunal that proves on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has been unreasonable in wanting to carry out inspections, including the one scheduled for 26 May 2026.
The tenant asked if the 26 May 2026 inspection could be carried out on 28 May 2026, the same day the contractor was going to investigate the bi-fold door gap issues. The landlord explained that the 28 May 2026 was not convenient for the PMO as it “schedules inspections well in advance and organise them so several properties in the area are inspected on one day. We have already postponed the inspection once at your request and avoided the 2 days you said you are busy. I have had to arrange a colleague who does not usually service this area to perform the inspection as you said I cannot do it myself. It takes approximately 15 mins, does not require you to even speak to the inspector if you don’t want to. He just needs to test smoke alarms, look for leaks and photograph the property. As mentioned, you are not required to be there, but I understand you prefer to always be present at inspections. We will proceed with the 26th. If you wish, you can raise this on the 25th with the adjudicator and if they say we need to move it we will move it”. This response is not unreasonable in all the circumstances and does not meet the legal definition of harassment. I note that at the hearing, the date was moved as the tenant had agreed to move out on 28 May 2026. On the contrary, the tenant has made it clear to the PMO that the Head of Residential Property Management will be trespassed if he comes to inspect the premise even when he has given the required notice. The tenant has no legal right to trespass the owners appointed agent(s) if that agent(s) has given lawful notice to access the premise for the purpose of carrying out an inspection. There was no evidence provided that proves on the balance of probabilities the Head of Residential Property Management had conducted himself in any other way but professionally. The evidence shows the tenant was unhappy with the appointment of the PMO, did not want to comply with its processes and objected to the Head of Residential Property Management stepping in to assist the appointed property manager.
Another incident raised was on 15 May 2026 when the PMO’s contractor, [contractor name suppressed], showed up to the gate unannounced and rang the gate buzzer. He was in the area and thought he would call in to see if he could look at the bi-fold door issue earlier than the agreed date of 28 May 2026. When the tenant informed him, it was not convenient for him to have the doors looked at that day and asked him to come back on 28 May 2026. The text messages show the contractor agreed, said sorry for disturbing the tenant and left.
I am not of the view that the actions of landlord’s agent can be deemed to be the landlord harassing the tenant, based on the definitions above. I am also not of the view that a contractor popping in to see if he can undertake an investigation of an issue that the tenant says had been causing him cost, inconvenience, stress and loss of amenity can be deemed to be the landlord harassing the tenant, based on the definitions above. For the reasons set out above, the tenant’s claims for breach of his quiet enjoyment are dismissed. Did the landlord notify the tenant of a change in the landlord party and the new landlords’ contact details?
John Douglas Hannay claims the landlord appointed an agent to manage the property, did not notify him of this change in landlord, and did not provide contact details for this agent within 10 working days from the date the agent was appointed.
When the landlord appoints an agent/property management organisation (PMO) to manage the tenancy, regardless of this change being permanent or temporary, the PMO is considered the landlord. The property owner must give the tenant written notice of the change within 10 working days of the change (Refer to s16 of the RTA). This notice must include: a. who is taking over as landlord; b. the new landlord’s contact details; c. the details for paying the rent (for example, the new landlord’s bank account number); and d. when the new landlord takes over/when payment of rent must change to the new bank account.
After receiving notice of change of landlord, the tenant must pay their rent to the new landlord from the date specified in the notice. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If this is a permanent landlord change, and a bond is being held in the Residential Tenancies Trust Account in respect of a tenancy agreement, the landlord also needs to complete a ‘change of landlord’ form. This form must be sent to the Bond Centre, so that the name, contact details and address for service of the landlord can be updated in the Bond Centre records (Refer to s21A of the RTA).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00 where the unlawful act is found to be intentional, and the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be just to do so, 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 16(2), 109(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant stated that he was first made aware of the PMO managing the tenancy on 20 March 2026 when the property manager, [name suppressed], a, started to send him emails. It was in this email that he was notified that the PMO had a key to his premise. He was upset about this.
The landlord provided a copy of the Rental Management Agreement that proves [PMO name suppressed],, took over the exclusive management of the property on 5 January 2026.
The landlord also proved the tenant received email communications notifying him of the change in landlord, the new landlord’s contact details, the new landlord’s bank account for payment of rent and when the change is to take place from. These email communications to the tenant were all sent on 5 January 2026.
The first communication was sent by [name suppressed], at 12:32pm, notifying the tenant of the appointment of the PMO and the date on which they were appointed to manage the tenancy from and that [name suppressed], would be in touch later that day to introduce herself and to inform him of all necessary details.
The second communication was sent by that [name suppressed] at 1:40pm. This email confirms: a. All tenancy related issues going forward must be sent to the PMO; b. The tenant must change the bank account the rent is paid to as soon as possible to the account number provided; c. [Name suppressed] is tenant’s point of contact during the transition period, until a property manager is appointed to the tenancy; d. How to log maintenance issues; e. Rent payment policies confirmed, including the expectation of weekly payments; and f. They will undertake pest control for the ant issue in the next few weeks.
On 5 January 2026 at 4:59pm the tenant responded to Ms Daly’s email and confirmed: a. He pays rent fortnightly; b. His and Meg’s needs, both being advanced in years; c. He has had an ant issue since the beginning of the tenancy, due to the owners potted & trayed terrace plants; d. He will start paying rent to the PMO; e. He and Meg would be welcoming to any new property manager appointed to manage his tenancy; and f. Some information about himself and his career history.
On 23 March 2026, the tenant made his first fortnightly rent payment to the PMO account. After 23 March 2026 all rent payments ceased. The tenant notified the owners that rent would cease until he no longer had to deal with the PMO.
The email communications on 5 January 2026 prove that the tenant was made aware of the PMO taking over the management of the tenancy from that date, he received and responded to the emails from the owners and PMO, and he agreed that he and Meg would work with the PMO as their new landlord. The tenant’s email response and change of payment of rent to the PMO proves he was informed of the new landlord and received the statutorily required information about the PMO, its processes, and the new account for payment of rent.
I am satisfied the evidence provided proves on the balance of probabilities there has been no breach by the landlord of s16 of the RTA. This claim is therefore dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The tenant made his last rent payment on 23 March 2026 and has not paid any rent from that date, due to ongoing repair and maintenance issues he says remain unresolved, in conjunction with emails he received from the PMO about rent arrears before his next rent was due. This was because he paid fortnightly, as agreed with the owners, and not weekly as the PMO required. Consequently, rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, being 21 April 2026.
The tenant’s claims have not resulted in an equitable offset that reduces the rent owing to less than 21 days, therefore, the tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the landlord and tenant agreed the tenancy would end at 11:59pm on Thursday 28 May 2026, as the tenant has a new tenancy that is due to commence that date.
Post the hearing, the tenant has notified the Tribunal, by email, he has had a medical incident, and this has delayed him being able to move out of the premise until 3 June 2026.
It was at the landlord’s discretion whether to grant the tenant’s request to adjust termination date to Wednesday 3 June 2026. The landlord agreed to the new termination date, conditional on the Tribunal awarding rent arrears to that date. Therefore, the tenancy ends on 3 June 2026 and rent is payable until that date.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The landlord and the tenant] have substantially succeeded with their claims I have reimbursed the filing fees. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5494309 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5494309 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions