What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5277481?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5277481?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277481?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12299955-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5277481?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5277481?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277481?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12299955-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

133C Douglas Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277481 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.

The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 3 May 2025 to 9 February 2026. The weekly rent is $600.00 payable fortnightly.

The landlord served notices to remedy rent arrears on 27 May and 14 July 2025. The landlord applied for termination on 1 June 2025. Termination for Rent Arrears / Breach

When the landlord applied for termination, the rent was just over two weeks in arrears. Section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) only requires the Tribunal to terminate if the rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date of application. It follows that a termination order cannot be made under this provision.

The notices to remedy invoke section 56 of the Act, which enables the Tribunal to terminate for serious breach. The nature or extent of the breach must be such that it would be inequitable not to terminate.

Here it is relevant that no rent was paid between 3 May and 25 June 2025. The rent arrears increased to about $3,600.00. Then on 26 June 2025, the tenants paid $3,600.00 and cleared the arrears. They have continued to pay $1,000.00 each fortnight together with a payment of $400.00 on 17 July 2025. The rent is now $200.00 in arrears. The tenants said this will be paid this week.

The landlord referred to the past behaviour of the tenants at other rental properties with different landlords and said the Tribunal should take a holistic approach to the evidence. The allegations include unlawful use and damage. The landlord is right that the tenants have previously appeared in the Tribunal. Previous behaviour may be relevant to credibility but is not evidence of any fact at issue in this application.

The landlord’s alternative submission was that the tenancy should be terminated because the tenants had misrepresented their ability to pay the rent. In essence, the submission was that the tenants misrepresented that they had funding from WINZ. A review of the rent payments during the hearing showed that the bond and first weeks’ rent was paid by MSD. More recent payments, including those on 26 June 2025, have been paid from NZ Super. I am not satisfied that the tenants misrepresented the source of their income prior to the tenancy.

The tenants said the missed rental payments came about because of a transfer from MSD to Super. The landlord pointed out that this was not the explanation given by the tenants in their email of 16 June 2025 (which stated that WINZ had paid the rent to their previous landlord). However, it is not necessary to accept the tenants’ explanation to determine this case.

The landlord explained that he has been unable to find a property manager willing to deal with the tenants and he is distressed by the difficulties with payments and communication. The tenancy has proved more burdensome than it should be. I understand this, but there needs to be a legal basis for termination.

I am not satisfied that the history of rent arrears justifies termination today, or that the tenants’ previous alleged behaviours can be used as evidence to show it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. The breach has been remedied, or very nearly. That said, the Tribunal does expect the tenants to pay the rent when it is due. If there is a further episode of non-payment, the Tribunal may decide to terminate whether the breach is remedied or not. Other Matters

For completeness, the landlord served notices requiring the tenants to move their horses from some grazing land which is not part of the tenancy but is owned by a third party.

It is difficult to identify a provision of the Act or the tenancy agreement which applies, as the issue relates to land not included in the tenancy. The tenants may be trespassing on someone else’s land. That would seem to be an issue for the owner of the land. I understood arrangements are being made for the horse owner to remove them. I make no order about this issue.

Order

The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 3 May 2025 to 9 February 2026. The weekly rent is $600.00 payable fortnightly.
The landlord served notices to remedy rent arrears on 27 May and 14 July 2025. The landlord applied for termination on 1 June 2025. Termination for Rent Arrears / Breach
When the landlord applied for termination, the rent was just over two weeks in arrears. Section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) only requires the Tribunal to terminate if the rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date of application. It follows that a termination order cannot be made under this provision.
The notices to remedy invoke section 56 of the Act, which enables the Tribunal to terminate for serious breach. The nature or extent of the breach must be such that it would be inequitable not to terminate.
Here it is relevant that no rent was paid between 3 May and 25 June 2025. The rent arrears increased to about $3,600.00. Then on 26 June 2025, the tenants paid $3,600.00 and cleared the arrears. They have continued to pay $1,000.00 each fortnight together with a payment of $400.00 on 17 July 2025. The rent is now $200.00 in arrears. The tenants said this will be paid this week.
The landlord referred to the past behaviour of the tenants at other rental properties with different landlords and said the Tribunal should take a holistic approach to the evidence. The allegations include unlawful use and damage. The landlord is right that the tenants have previously appeared in the Tribunal. Previous behaviour may be relevant to credibility but is not evidence of any fact at issue in this application.
The landlord’s alternative submission was that the tenancy should be terminated because the tenants had misrepresented their ability to pay the rent. In essence, the submission was that the tenants misrepresented that they had funding from WINZ. A review of the rent payments during the hearing showed that the bond and first weeks’ rent was paid by MSD. More recent payments, including those on 26 June 2025, have been paid from NZ Super. I am not satisfied that the tenants misrepresented the source of their income prior to the tenancy.
The tenants said the missed rental payments came about because of a transfer from MSD to Super. The landlord pointed out that this was not the explanation given by the tenants in their email of 16 June 2025 (which stated that WINZ had paid the rent to their previous landlord). However, it is not necessary to accept the tenants’ explanation to determine this case.
The landlord explained that he has been unable to find a property manager willing to deal with the tenants and he is distressed by the difficulties with payments and communication. The tenancy has proved more burdensome than it should be. I understand this, but there needs to be a legal basis for termination.
I am not satisfied that the history of rent arrears justifies termination today, or that the tenants’ previous alleged behaviours can be used as evidence to show it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. The breach has been remedied, or very nearly. That said, the Tribunal does expect the tenants to pay the rent when it is due. If there is a further episode of non-payment, the Tribunal may decide to terminate whether the breach is remedied or not. Other Matters
For completeness, the landlord served notices requiring the tenants to move their horses from some grazing land which is not part of the tenancy but is owned by a third party.
It is difficult to identify a provision of the Act or the tenancy agreement which applies, as the issue relates to land not included in the tenancy. The tenants may be trespassing on someone else’s land. That would seem to be an issue for the owner of the land. I understood arrangements are being made for the horse owner to remove them. I make no order about this issue.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277481 — Rent arrears at 133C Douglas Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277481 — Rent arrears at 133C Douglas Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions