Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5544224 — Tenancy dispute at 63B Brian Crescent, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932
Decided 25 Sept 2026 · Published 25 Sept 2026 · Application 5544224
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Whangaparaoa
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Greene
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing today. Mr Farquharson represented the landlord.
- The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy on the basis of a 14-day breach notice it alleges the tenant has not complied with.
- The breach notice, dated 16 July 2026, states that the tenant has wilfully damaged the property and has denied the property manager future access to the premises.
- A striking feature of this case is the personal animosity between the tenant and Mr Farquharson the property manager. The tenant made serious allegations against him, which became the subject of a police complaint, but the police report produced in evidence states: We have assessed the information you provided and currently we can’t take any further action because there is not enough to investigate at this time.
- In turn Mr Farquharson suspects drug use at the premises and states that a drug test he arranged had to be cancelled due to the tenant’s aggressive behaviour.
- The tenant made other allegations about Mr Fraquharson’s behaviour towards tenants in a nearby, but separate, tenancy he also managed, allegations denied by Mr Farquharson.
- Separate to the 14-day breach notice the landlord issued on 16 July 2026, it also issued a 90-day termination notice the same day that gives no reason for the termination, something a landlord is permitted to do.
- The tenancy terminates on 14 October 2026, which is about 3 weeks away.
- There is no tenant cross application before the Tribunal so the notice to terminate the tenancy stands.
- The Tribunal is not persuaded to terminate the tenancy now based on the 14- day breach notice. Why? Firstly, the tenant gave evidence, and produced documentary evidence to support her evidence, that she has repaired the broken window which is part of the damage the landlord referred to. The cause of the other damage remains disputed.
- Secondly, the tenancy has been terminated by notice validly given. The tenancy will end on 14 October 2026. There is no legal basis at this time for the Tribunal to set aside that notice.
- Thirdly, if the tenant is correct that the owner of the premises wants to terminate Global Rentals and Properly Management Limited as the property manager and agent, that gives time for that to happen. The tenant and the owner (or the owner’s new agent/property manager) can then enter a new tenancy agreement once this tenancy has ended. That would allow the tenant to remain in possession with a new tenancy agreement in place.
- If the tenant was bluffing in her evidence about that, there will be no new property manager/agent, and this tenancy will end. As I explained, the Tribunal cannot remove a property manager as landlord or agent for the owner just because there is a personality clash between the individuals involved and the tenant wants the agent removed. Result
- To summarise, the issues raised in the landlord’s application are not of such gravity so as to justify the immediate termination of the tenancy, given that the tenancy terminates by notice, properly given, in about 3 weeks’ time.
- For that reason, the application is dismissed. Comment
- It would be wise for the parties to have as little contact as possible over the next 3 weeks. Then, if the tenant is correct, the owner (who is a landlord by definition) might appoint a new agent, and a new tenancy would commence between the tenant and the new property manager/agent. But if the tenant is not correct the landlord will be entitled to possession and drug testing can be carried out then. Name suppression
- When asked, neither party sought an order for name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5544224 about?
The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.
How much money was awarded in case 5544224?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5544224?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5544224?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14266453-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.