What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5513929 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 5513929?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $938.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $304.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5513929?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5513929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13777806-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5513929 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 5513929?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $938.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $304.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5513929?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5513929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13777806-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5513929 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5513929 — net $1,270.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 June 2026	$938.57	Rent arrears to 19 June 2026
Water rates: Feb, Mar, Apr, May	$304.14	Water rates: Feb, Mar, Apr, May
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,270.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,270.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The respondent/s] must pay [The applicant/s] the sum of $1,270.71 immediately as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr B. Ms K represented both tenants.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates and filing fee.
The amount of rent owing today is $938.57. The weekly rent is $615. The rent is currently 9.68 days in arrears. Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55(1)(a)? DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 19 June 2026$938.57 Water rates: Feb, Mar, Apr, May$304.14 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,270.71 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,270.71
Section 55(1)(a) says that the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date on which the application was filed.
The application was filed on 25 May 2026 and the landlord recorded that $1,230 was owed at that time. That is 14 days.
In fact, the rent summary accompanying the application shows that the rent owing to 24 May was $1,054.29. The later rent summary to 18 June shows that on Monday 25 May, a payment of $1,170.00 was made, leaving rent arrears of $60 on 25 May.
The rent summary shows that the rent has never been 21 days in arrears and was not 21 days in arrears at the time the application was made and so the tenancy cannot be terminated under this section. Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55(1)(aa)?
Section 55(1)(aa) says that the Tribunal must 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.
Therefore, even if the rent arrears have been rectified, the Tribunal must terminate, provided that every aspect of section 55(1)(aa) has been complied with.
The rent summary shows that the tenant has been at least 5 working days in arrears on more than 3 separate occasions within 90 days.
The landlord has served notices to remedy on 25 February, 25 March, 9 April, 22 April and 20 May.
However, the notices do not comply with section 55(1)(aa) because they do not state: • The dates for which the tenant was overdue; • The tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; or • In the case of the last four notices, how many other notices had been given.
Therefore the landlord has not established the grounds for termination under section 55(1)(aa).

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

I have also considered whether there are grounds to terminate under section 56 of the Act. This 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.
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 tenants have breached their obligations by failing to pay the rent as it falls due on several occasions.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on the dates set out above. However, on each occasion, the tenant has remedied the breach within the required period. On one occasion, $30 remained. On another occasion, $35 remained and on the last occasion $60.00 remained owing. That is less than one day.
Therefore, the tenant has all but remedied the breach within the required time. It would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy over such small amounts of the remaining unpaid rent.
On the last occasion, 20 May 2026, the landlord also required the tenant to pay the outstanding water rates of $211.81 by 3 June 2026. The water rates have not been paid. Therefore the tenant has not remedied this breach.
It is not fair that the landlord has paid the water rates on the tenant’s behalf and the tenant has not reimbursed the landlord. The landlord should not be out of pocket for the tenant’s water usage. However, it is not reasonable to terminate a tenancy over a debt of $211.81. I therefore find because of the nature of the breach, it is not inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy under section 56.
The landlord has provided four water rates invoices as follows: a. February: $65.17 b. March: $81.47 c. April: $81.47 d. May $76.03
The first three come to $211.81, which is the amount referred to in the notice to remedy. With the fourth invoice, the total comes to $304.14. The tenant does not dispute the water rates and says that her husband will pay this next week.
Although this breach as not been remedied, the nature and extent of the breach do not justify a termination. I find it would therefore not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant says that she will pay $1,230.00 this evening and that her husband will pay the water rates next week.
This will clear the arrears, but by next Friday, she will need to make another payment of rent in order to avoid arrears.
The tenant gets paid fortnightly. Therefore, she is advised to pay her rent fortnightly in advance.
The rent week is from Wednesday to Tuesday. The landlord would agree to alter the payment date to a Friday, once the arrears have been cleared.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties have had some success and so there is an order for non-publication of the names and identifying details of the parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5513929 — net $1,270.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 June 2026	$938.57	Rent arrears to 19 June 2026
Water rates: Feb, Mar, Apr, May	$304.14	Water rates: Feb, Mar, Apr, May
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,270.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,270.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The respondent/s] must pay [The applicant/s] the sum of $1,270.71 immediately as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr B. Ms K represented both tenants.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates and filing fee.
The amount of rent owing today is $938.57. The weekly rent is $615. The rent is currently 9.68 days in arrears. Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55(1)(a)? DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 19 June 2026$938.57 Water rates: Feb, Mar, Apr, May$304.14 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,270.71 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,270.71
Section 55(1)(a) says that the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date on which the application was filed.
The application was filed on 25 May 2026 and the landlord recorded that $1,230 was owed at that time. That is 14 days.
In fact, the rent summary accompanying the application shows that the rent owing to 24 May was $1,054.29. The later rent summary to 18 June shows that on Monday 25 May, a payment of $1,170.00 was made, leaving rent arrears of $60 on 25 May.
The rent summary shows that the rent has never been 21 days in arrears and was not 21 days in arrears at the time the application was made and so the tenancy cannot be terminated under this section. Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55(1)(aa)?
Section 55(1)(aa) says that the Tribunal must 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.
Therefore, even if the rent arrears have been rectified, the Tribunal must terminate, provided that every aspect of section 55(1)(aa) has been complied with.
The rent summary shows that the tenant has been at least 5 working days in arrears on more than 3 separate occasions within 90 days.
The landlord has served notices to remedy on 25 February, 25 March, 9 April, 22 April and 20 May.
However, the notices do not comply with section 55(1)(aa) because they do not state: • The dates for which the tenant was overdue; • The tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; or • In the case of the last four notices, how many other notices had been given.
Therefore the landlord has not established the grounds for termination under section 55(1)(aa).

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

I have also considered whether there are grounds to terminate under section 56 of the Act. This 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.
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 tenants have breached their obligations by failing to pay the rent as it falls due on several occasions.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on the dates set out above. However, on each occasion, the tenant has remedied the breach within the required period. On one occasion, $30 remained. On another occasion, $35 remained and on the last occasion $60.00 remained owing. That is less than one day.
Therefore, the tenant has all but remedied the breach within the required time. It would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy over such small amounts of the remaining unpaid rent.
On the last occasion, 20 May 2026, the landlord also required the tenant to pay the outstanding water rates of $211.81 by 3 June 2026. The water rates have not been paid. Therefore the tenant has not remedied this breach.
It is not fair that the landlord has paid the water rates on the tenant’s behalf and the tenant has not reimbursed the landlord. The landlord should not be out of pocket for the tenant’s water usage. However, it is not reasonable to terminate a tenancy over a debt of $211.81. I therefore find because of the nature of the breach, it is not inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy under section 56.
The landlord has provided four water rates invoices as follows: a. February: $65.17 b. March: $81.47 c. April: $81.47 d. May $76.03
The first three come to $211.81, which is the amount referred to in the notice to remedy. With the fourth invoice, the total comes to $304.14. The tenant does not dispute the water rates and says that her husband will pay this next week.
Although this breach as not been remedied, the nature and extent of the breach do not justify a termination. I find it would therefore not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant says that she will pay $1,230.00 this evening and that her husband will pay the water rates next week.
This will clear the arrears, but by next Friday, she will need to make another payment of rent in order to avoid arrears.
The tenant gets paid fortnightly. Therefore, she is advised to pay her rent fortnightly in advance.
The rent week is from Wednesday to Tuesday. The landlord would agree to alter the payment date to a Friday, once the arrears have been cleared.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties have had some success and so there is an order for non-publication of the names and identifying details of the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5513929 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5513929 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions