Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5416451 — Rent arrears at 85 Staveley Street, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042
Published 26 February 2026 · Application 5416451
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
W Lang
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $17,060.84
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$2,380.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $14,680.84
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 1 March 2026 | $17,032.84 | Rent arrears to 1 March 2026 | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $14,680.84 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $14,680.84 |
Claims and awards for application 5416451 — net $14,680.84 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 1 March 2026
- Amount
- $17,032.84
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 1 March 2026
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $14,680.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $14,680.84
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The tenancy of Miles Pierre Hobbs, Tracy Anne Davis also known as Tracy Anne Hobbs, Nathan John Davis, Samantha Marie Davis and Jacob William Davis at 85 Staveley Street, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 is terminated, and possession is granted to Wongeoon Vast Limited, at 5.30pm on Sunday 1 March 2026.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (BN-17187275) to Wongeoon Vast Limited immediately.
- Miles Pierre Hobbs, Tracy Anne Davis also known as Tracy Anne Hobbs, Nathan John Davis, Samantha Marie Davis and Jacob William Davis must pay Wongeoon Vast Limited $14,680.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing by video. Miles Hobbs, Tracy Hobbs, Nathan Davis and Samantha Davis joined the hearing around 15 minutes after the hearing started by telephone.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
- The tenancy commenced on 26 November 2022. Rent is $595.00 a week.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
- The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if is satisfied that at the date of the application rent was at least 21 days in arrears. See section 55(1)(a), RTA.
- The landlord filed its application on 17 December 2025. At that time the rent summary provided by the landlord shows that rent was $10,742.84 in arrears. Therefore I am satisfied that rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed.
- The tenants raised a number of issues at the hearing in their defence of the landlord’s application including: a. the contractor who had repaired the hot water cylinder told them it needed to be replaced, but it had not been replaced; b. there was no wall insulation; c. there were gaps in the windows which let air/breezes into the house; d. there was no clothesline at the property at the start of the tenancy; the landlord had promised one would be installed but it was not. They installed one at their own cost; e. they organised bins to clean the premises at the start of the premises and have not been reimbursed the cost; f.ill health prevented one of the tenants from working and resulted in that tenant losing their job. The tenant had an enforced stand down period before they were able to receive a benefit. This had a major impact on the ability of the tenants to pay rent; g. the landlord would not agree to three of the tenants being removed as tenants part way through the tenancy. This prevented Kiwi Saver funds being able to be utilised to clear arrears, based on a requirement of the Kiwi Saver provider; h. One of the tenants denied being a tenant and said a copy of the tenancy agreement had not been received.
- I must consider whether any of the matters raised by the tenants should fairly be taken into account before I make any decision to terminate the tenancy 1 , regardless that the issues were verbally raised at the hearing, This is called “equitable set-off”.
- An equitable set-off is a closely linked and “interdependent” claim by the tenant: “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 .
- I have considered the matters raised by the tenants. In particular I have considered the following factors: a. Mitigation of loss and timing: The tenants did not provide any evidence supporting or corroborating their claims. The notice of hearing was sent to the parties for this hearing on 14 January 2026, some 5 weeks before the hearing date. This gave the tenants sufficient time to provide evidence on any issues they believed should be taken into account by the tribunal in determining the application. b. The strength of their case/issues raised: • the tenants confirmed they did not experience any issues with the hot water cylinder after it was repaired and have not raised with the landlord any complaints about its performance; • there is no requirement under the RTA for residential tenancy premises to have wall insulation; • no evidence has been provided supporting their claim that there are gaps in any windows/joinery. The landlord said it has not been raised with him; • no costs for the bins were presented; • the landlord is not required to provide a clothesline for premises. If the tenants have provided the clothesline at their cost they are entitled to take it when the tenancy ends; • as a result of ill health the tenants ability to pay the rent may have been impacted. However the landlord is entitled to receive the weekly rent agreed to in the tenancy agreement • The tenants named in this application are the tenants named on the tenancy agreement. All tenants signed and dated the agreement. The landlord does not have to agree to the removal of any tenants from the agreement. A copy of the tenancy agreement was provided with the notice of hearing and the landlord’s application to all of the tenants. 1 O’Shea v Brown HC Auckland, AP110-PL01, 14 December 2001 2 Grant v NZMC Ltd [1989] 1 NZLR 8 (CA) at 12-13. c. The amount of rent arrears owing versus any potential set off: Rent arrears owed are now substantial. Rent owing to the date of the hearing (25 February 2026) is $16,692.84. The last time the tenants paid their weekly rent (ie $595 paid within one rent week) was for the week starting 20 September 2025. No rent has been paid by the tenants since 5 November 2026. Even if the tenants were successful in a claim against the landlord for the matters raised it would not result in rent arrears being less than 21 days in arrears at the date the landlord filed the application.
- Considering the substantial rent arrears owed and the matters raised by the tenants I am satisfied that any potential set off would not reduce the arrears to the extent that the Tribunal would not terminate the tenancy under section 55(1)(a).
- Accordingly the tenancy is terminated.
- This does not deny the tenants right to pursue any matters relating to the tenancy against the landlord in an application to the Tribunal. Other matters
- Filing Fee reimbursement: As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
- Suppression: The landlord has not applied for suppression. The tenants have applied for suppression on the basis that the publication of this order may have an effect on them being able to be successful in getting future tenancies.
- Section 95A(4) RTA sets out that the Tribunal may on the application of any party to the proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order non-publication of evidence and the names or identifying particulars of any party. In balancing these factors I am not persuaded that the reasons given by the tenants for suppression are sufficient given the significant amount of arrears. Therefore their suppression application is declined.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s13, s55(1), s95A(4)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Property management
- WONGEOON VAST LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5416451?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Miles Pierre Hobbs, Tracy Anne Davis also known as Tracy
How much money was awarded in case 5416451?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $17,032.84 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416451?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416451?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13190309-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.