What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5417009?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Keri Ann Highet at 179 Albany Heights Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2,

How much money was awarded in case 5417009?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417009?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13412298-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5417009?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Keri Ann Highet at 179 Albany Heights Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2,

How much money was awarded in case 5417009?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417009?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13412298-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

179 Albany Heights Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5417009 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5417009 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

The tenancy of Keri Ann Highet at 179 Albany Heights Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792 is terminated, and possession is granted to Li Bo CHEN, at

59 pm, Thursday, 8 September 2026 or earlier by the tenant giving the landlord no less than 21 days’ notice to quit. DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$28.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$28.00

Reasons

Introduction

This decision concerns the landlord’s application (5417009) for termination of the tenancy under section 55B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).

The hearing was held on 2 April 2026.

Mr Van Lawrence appeared for the landlord.

I was provided with a written notice of authority signed by the landlord, Mr Li Bo Chen, authorising Mr Van Lawrence, acting through Harcourts Reforma, to act on his behalf in relation to the tenancy and these proceedings, including representing him at the hearing and preparing and presenting evidence and submissions.

Ms Keri Ann Highet appeared as the tenant, supported by her daughter, Ms T Highet.

This matter forms part of three related applications. This decision addresses only the landlord’s application for termination under section 55B of the Act. I have not taken into account submissions or evidence relating to the other applications. Representation

The landlord was represented at the hearing by Mr Van Lawrence.

The tenant opposed Mr Van Lawrence appearing as the landlord’s representative.

The tenant submitted that Mr Van Lawrence is a professional advocate experienced in Residential Tenancies Act litigation and that his appointment is a strategic attempt to create an imbalance of power. The tenant further submitted that his involvement forms part of a broader strategy to support the landlord’s application under section 55B and places her at a disadvantage.

Section 93(2) of the Act provides that a party may be represented at a hearing if one of the specified conditions is met. In the present case, the amount in dispute between the parties across all applications exceeds $6,000. Accordingly, section 93(2)(b) of the Act applies, entitling the landlord to be represented.

In my view, the purpose of section 93(2) is to assist in the just and efficient resolution of the matter and to ensure that representation does not cause unfairness to the other party.

Section 93(7) limits who may be appointed as a representative under section 93(2). It provides that the Tribunal must not approve a person to represent a party if that person is or has been enrolled as a barrister and solicitor, or who, in the opinion of the Tribunal, is or has been regularly engaged in advocacy work before other tribunals, unless an exception applies.

I first consider the nature of Mr Van Lawrence’s role.

The evidence before me is that Mr Van Lawrence has been formally appointed as the landlord’s agent and property manager. The notice of authority confers broad powers extending beyond the conduct of this proceeding, including management of the tenancy, liaison with contractors, arranging inspections, and communicating with the Tribunal and the tenant.

There is no evidence before me that Mr Van Lawrence is or has been regularly engaged in advocacy work before other tribunals, or that he is or has been enrolled as a barrister and solicitor. His authority arises from his role as the landlord’s agent in relation to the tenancy more generally.

While the tenant submits that Mr Van Lawrence is, in substance, acting as a professional advocate, I am not satisfied on the evidence that he is, or has been, regularly engaged in advocacy work before other tribunals as contemplated by section 93(7). His role may properly be characterised as that of an authorised agent under section 2 who, as part of that role, represents the landlord in these proceedings.

Accordingly, section 93(7) does not operate to prevent his appearance.

I then consider whether approval should be granted under section 93(2).

This proceeding involves an application under section 55B of the Act, requiring a comparative assessment of hardship. The matter is supported by extensive documentary evidence, including financial records, invoices, and technical material. There are also multiple related proceedings and a prior Tribunal order dated 9 September 2025 dealing with applications 5158997 and 5329896. The issues are not straightforward.

Representation by an agent is capable of assisting in the orderly presentation of the landlord’s case and the efficient conduct of the hearing.

I have also considered whether allowing representation would create unfairness.

The tenant raised concerns about imbalance. However, I note that the tenant informed me during the hearing that she had obtained assistance from a lawyer and had incurred significant legal costs. Her written submissions were detailed and well structured.

In the hearing, the tenant was able to articulate her position clearly and at length. She made detailed oral submissions addressing both the landlord’s hardship claim and her own circumstances.

By comparison, Mr Van Lawrence did not advance extensive oral submissions. He largely relied on the landlord’s written submissions and responded to the tenant’s arguments where necessary.

In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that allowing Mr Van Lawrence to represent the landlord created any material imbalance or unfairness in the conduct of the hearing.

Taking all of these matters into account, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant approval under section 93(2) for Mr Van Lawrence to represent the landlord.

Accordingly, I approve Mr Van Lawrence’s appearance as the landlord’s representative in this proceeding. Background

The tenancy commenced on 12 June 2015 and has continued for approximately 11 years.

The property is a large rural residential dwelling occupied by the tenant, her children, her daughter’s partner, and her elderly mother.

The application was previously adjourned to allow both parties to file further evidence and submissions.

The landlord relies on a substantial volume of documentary evidence, including tenancy transaction records, property expense reports, contractor invoices, and quotations for further works.

The tenant filed written submissions opposing the application and produced material addressing both the landlord’s hardship claim and her own circumstances. The law

The landlord has applied to terminate the periodic tenancy on the grounds of hardship.

The Tribunal may terminate a periodic tenancy on the grounds of hardship where: a. Without the order the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant and b. because of the hardship it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy. See section 55B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In making such and order the Tribunal must take into account the impact termination would have on the tenant. Landlord’s submissions and evidence

The landlord submits that the tenancy is financially unsustainable and that continuing it causes ongoing hardship.

Mr Van Lawrence submitted that the property is operating at a significant negative return. He stated that the current rental income is insufficient to meet the costs associated with the property.

The landlord relies on tenancy transaction records showing that rent has effectively been reduced to approximately $525 per week following Tribunal orders, compared to a higher market level previously.

The landlord also relies on extensive expense records demonstrating substantial ongoing costs.

These include multiple invoices for maintenance and repair work, such as plumbing, drainage, septic system servicing, and compliance work.

The evidence shows significant expenditure, including: a. Septic servicing and disposal costs exceeding $1,200. b. Drainage and plumbing works in excess of $2,800. c. Pump replacement and associated works exceeding $4,000.

The landlord also relies on quotations and reports indicating that further substantial remedial work is required, including structural and exterior work.

Mr Van Lawrence submitted that the landlord is considering either selling the property or undertaking significant renovation.

It is submitted that both options require vacant possession and that contractors are reluctant to undertake major works while the property is occupied due to health and safety concerns.

The landlord’s position is that he cannot continue to sustain financial losses while the tenancy remains in place. Tenant’s submissions and evidence

The tenant opposes the application.

The tenant submits that the landlord’s financial position arises from a failure to properly maintain the property over time and should not justify termination.

The tenant also submits that some of the work relied upon by the landlord could be undertaken while the property is occupied and that the landlord has overstated the practical difficulties.

The tenant argues that granting termination would effectively reward the landlord for failing to comply with maintenance obligations.

In relation to hardship, the tenant provided detailed evidence of her personal circumstances.

The tenant’s son, aged 13, has auditory processing disorder and is currently attending a local high school.

The tenant states that her son relies on specialised educational support and that relocation would significantly disrupt his learning and development.

The tenant has occupied the property for approximately 11 years and it has been the family home for that period.

The tenant also lives with her elderly mother, aged 69, who is financially dependent and unable to live independently.

The household includes multiple family members, which increases the difficulty of securing alternative accommodation.

The tenant states that she has been unable to find affordable housing in the same area and that relocation would create significant financial and personal hardship. Assessment

I now assess the landlord’s application under section 55B of the Act, taking into account the evidence, the parties’ submissions, and relevant Tribunal decisions. Landlord hardship

I accept that the landlord has incurred substantial and ongoing costs in relation to the property.

The documentary evidence demonstrates repeated expenditure on maintenance and repairs, including significant one-off and recurring costs such as plumbing, drainage, and septic system works.

I also accept that the current rental income, as reduced following earlier Tribunal orders, is insufficient to meet the costs associated with the property.

The landlord has also provided evidence of further required remedial works, which are likely to involve significant additional expense.

I accept the landlord’s submission that these works cannot be readily undertaken while the property is occupied, due to both practical and health and safety considerations.

The tenant submits that the landlord’s financial position is self-created. However, section 55B is concerned with the present and future position of the parties rather than attributing fault. In my view, section 55B focuses on the tenancy in issue rather than the landlord’s overall financial position. A landlord may have multiple properties, and their overall financial position may be sound. However, that does not mean the landlord must continue to sustain a tenancy that is operating at a loss. Each tenancy may properly be viewed as a discrete financial undertaking. It is neither realistic nor reasonable to require a landlord to indefinitely subsidise a tenancy that generates a negative return.

The evidence establishes that the landlord is experiencing ongoing financial loss arising from this tenancy and that this position is not temporary.

I am satisfied that the landlord will suffer hardship if the tenancy continues. Tenant hardship

I accept that the tenant will suffer significant hardship if the tenancy is terminated.

This includes disruption to her son’s education and developmental needs, financial difficulty in securing alternative accommodation, and the impact on her elderly mother who resides with her.

The length of the tenancy, being approximately 11 years, and the stability it has provided to the household are also relevant considerations.

The hardship identified is substantial and goes beyond the ordinary inconvenience associated with relocation. Other relevant Tribunal decisions

I have also considered two previous Tenancy Tribunal decisions addressing termination under section 55B of the Act.

In the decision dated 4 June 2025 (application 5113648), the Tribunal accepted that a landlord may establish hardship where the tenancy has become financially unsustainable. In that case, the landlord demonstrated ongoing financial pressure, including an inability to meet maintenance obligations and reliance on borrowing to sustain the tenancy. The Tribunal found that the landlord’s financial position constituted significant hardship and that it was unreasonable to require the landlord to continue the tenancy.

In the decision dated 22 October 2025 (application 5331021), the Tribunal recognised that hardship under section 55B is not confined to financial hardship, but may extend to broader circumstances where a tenancy has become unsustainable. The Tribunal accepted that where continuation of the tenancy places ongoing strain on the landlord and creates an untenable situation, termination may be justified.

These decisions support the proposition that section 55B applies where a tenancy is no longer sustainable for the landlord, including in circumstances of ongoing financial pressure. Comparative hardship and application of principles

I must now compare the hardship of both parties. This is a finely balanced case.

The tenant’s hardship is immediate and personal, affecting multiple members of her household and involving significant practical and emotional consequences.

The landlord’s hardship, while financial in nature, is ongoing and without a clear pathway to resolution if the tenancy continues.

The evidence indicates that the landlord cannot reasonably restore the property to a viable position while the tenancy remains in place without incurring further financial loss.

As reflected in application 5113648, I accept that a tenancy which is operating at a sustained financial loss may properly be characterised as unsustainable.

I also accept, consistent with application 5331021, that the concept of hardship under section 55B is not narrowly confined and includes circumstances where continuation of the tenancy places an unreasonable burden on the landlord.

Having carefully considered both positions, I find that the landlord’s hardship is greater than that of the tenant for the purposes of section 55B. Reasonableness

I must also consider whether it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue the tenancy.

In light of the ongoing financial losses associated with this tenancy, the scale of the required works, and the practical limitations on addressing those issues while the property is occupied, I am satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue the tenancy.

I do not accept the tenant’s argument that granting termination would effectively reward the landlord for failing to comply with maintenance obligations. This is because, irrespective of the outcome of this application, the Tribunal order dated 9 September 2025 remains enforceable, subject only to any appellate decision.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the requirements of section 55B of the Act are met.

The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is granted. Termination date

I must determine an appropriate termination date, taking into account the impact of termination on the tenant.

Ms Highet submitted that she would require six months to vacate the property. She explained that she has been unable to secure suitable alternative accommodation despite ongoing efforts and that relocation would have a significant impact on her household.

I accept that the tenant requires a reasonable period to secure alternative accommodation and to manage the transition.

At the same time, I must balance this against the landlord’s ongoing hardship if the tenancy continues.

In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that a period of six months appropriately balances the competing interests of the parties.

I therefore fix the termination date as 7 September 2026 or earlier by the tenant giving the landlord no less than 21 days’ notice to quit. Filing fee

Because Li Bo CHEN has wholly succeeded with the application, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5417009 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00