What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5464858?

The tribunal order states: Kately-rose Wilson is removed as a party to this application.

How much money was awarded in case 5464858?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,214.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5464858?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5464858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13518683-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5464858?

The tribunal order states: Kately-rose Wilson is removed as a party to this application.

How much money was awarded in case 5464858?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,214.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5464858?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5464858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13518683-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 View Street, Maungaturoto 0520 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5464858 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5464858 — net $6,242.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 29 April 2026	$6,214.00	Rent arrears (to 29 April 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,242.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,242.00

Order

Kately-rose Wilson is removed as a party to this application.
The tenancy of Wade Weir at 34 View Street, Maungaturoto 0520 is terminated, and possession is granted to Athol George Goldsmith and Vivienne Goldsmith, at 2pm on Wednesday 29 April 2026.
Wade Weir (tenant) and Patricia Anne Wilson (guarantor) must pay Athol George Goldsmith and Vivienne Goldsmith $6,242.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 29 April 2026)$6,214.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$6,242.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,242.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
Mr Weir is the tenant under a tenancy agreement dated 9 February 2026. Patricia Wilson guaranteed the tenant’s obligations under that agreement. Kately-rose Wilson was also going to reside at the premises. She is under the age of 18 and is removed as a party to this application.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, so I must terminate the tenancy. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Mr Weir and Patricia Wilson disputed the amount of rent claimed. The tenancy agreement was signed at the property on 9 February 2026. The tenancy was due to start the following weekend, on 14 February 2026.
Mr Weir never took possession of the premises. He says that the landlord changed its mind about renting the property to him, on 10 or 11 February. Patricia Wilson claims that Mr Goldsmith video called her and advised that Mr Weir was too young and that Mr Goldsmith intended to issue a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy as soon as it started. Mr Goldsmith says that there was no such discussion. Ms Wilson did not provide evidence of the call.
In his primary evidence, Mr Weir said that he had not had any discussions directly with Mr or Mrs Goldsmith about them changing their minds on 10 or 11 February. He said that Patricia Wilson told him that the landlord didn’t want to go ahead with the tenancy. Later in the hearing, Mr Weir said that there was a text message from the landlord saying it had changed its mind. No such message was provided in evidence.
The text messages provided by both parties are inconsistent with Mr Weir and Ms Wilson’s evidence. None of the messages from landlord’s indicate that they had changed their minds or were intending to immediately terminate the tenancy. There are messages reminding Mr Weir and Ms Wilson that the first rent and bond need to be paid, and confirming a meeting at the property to hand over the keys on 14 February.
Mr Weir sent a curious message to Mrs Goldsmith seeking $3,000 compensation on 11 February 2026. Mr Weir says the message was in response to the landlord changing its mind about the tenancy. After that message was received, Mr Goldsmith sent a text to Mr Weir confirming that the tenancy agreement was in place and reminding him about the rent and bond.
When Mr Weir did not reply and did not pay the rent and bond, the Goldsmiths offered to end the arrangement to prevent Mr Weir incurring more debt. He declined, unless the Goldsmiths paid him compensation.
The Goldsmiths did not believe they were liable to pay any compensation. They were content for the tenancy to go ahead, as set out in the agreement, with rent and bond being paid. Alternatively, Mr Weir could end the tenancy.
Mr and Mrs Goldsmith did issue a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy, but only after Mr Weir failed to meet at the property to collect the keys and failed to pay the bond and first week’s rent. The Goldsmith’s say that in doing so, they acted on legal advice
At the hearing, Mr Weir was clear that he wanted the tenancy to end. It was not clear why he had not issued a notice to terminate the tenancy on 28 days’ notice to stop the rent debt accruing. Ms Wilson claimed that he had poor literacy so was unable to do so. That assertion is inconsistent with the text message sent to Mrs Goldsmith on 11 February seeking compensation. 1
In summary, there is no compelling or persuasive evidence that the Goldsmiths changed their minds about the tenancy before the commencement date on 14 February 2026. They went to the property on 14 February, intending to hand over the keys. Mr Weir did not turn up.
The tenancy started on 14 February 2026. Mr Weir has not paid rent for the duration of the tenancy. Mr and Mrs Goldsmith are entitled to rent to today. Patricia Wilson is also liable as guarantor. I have made orders accordingly.
As Mr and Mrs Goldsmith were the successful party, I have also awarded them reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5464858 — net $6,242.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 29 April 2026	$6,214.00	Rent arrears (to 29 April 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,242.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,242.00

Order

Kately-rose Wilson is removed as a party to this application.
The tenancy of Wade Weir at 34 View Street, Maungaturoto 0520 is terminated, and possession is granted to Athol George Goldsmith and Vivienne Goldsmith, at 2pm on Wednesday 29 April 2026.
Wade Weir (tenant) and Patricia Anne Wilson (guarantor) must pay Athol George Goldsmith and Vivienne Goldsmith $6,242.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 29 April 2026)$6,214.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$6,242.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,242.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
Mr Weir is the tenant under a tenancy agreement dated 9 February 2026. Patricia Wilson guaranteed the tenant’s obligations under that agreement. Kately-rose Wilson was also going to reside at the premises. She is under the age of 18 and is removed as a party to this application.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, so I must terminate the tenancy. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Mr Weir and Patricia Wilson disputed the amount of rent claimed. The tenancy agreement was signed at the property on 9 February 2026. The tenancy was due to start the following weekend, on 14 February 2026.
Mr Weir never took possession of the premises. He says that the landlord changed its mind about renting the property to him, on 10 or 11 February. Patricia Wilson claims that Mr Goldsmith video called her and advised that Mr Weir was too young and that Mr Goldsmith intended to issue a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy as soon as it started. Mr Goldsmith says that there was no such discussion. Ms Wilson did not provide evidence of the call.
In his primary evidence, Mr Weir said that he had not had any discussions directly with Mr or Mrs Goldsmith about them changing their minds on 10 or 11 February. He said that Patricia Wilson told him that the landlord didn’t want to go ahead with the tenancy. Later in the hearing, Mr Weir said that there was a text message from the landlord saying it had changed its mind. No such message was provided in evidence.
The text messages provided by both parties are inconsistent with Mr Weir and Ms Wilson’s evidence. None of the messages from landlord’s indicate that they had changed their minds or were intending to immediately terminate the tenancy. There are messages reminding Mr Weir and Ms Wilson that the first rent and bond need to be paid, and confirming a meeting at the property to hand over the keys on 14 February.
Mr Weir sent a curious message to Mrs Goldsmith seeking $3,000 compensation on 11 February 2026. Mr Weir says the message was in response to the landlord changing its mind about the tenancy. After that message was received, Mr Goldsmith sent a text to Mr Weir confirming that the tenancy agreement was in place and reminding him about the rent and bond.
When Mr Weir did not reply and did not pay the rent and bond, the Goldsmiths offered to end the arrangement to prevent Mr Weir incurring more debt. He declined, unless the Goldsmiths paid him compensation.
The Goldsmiths did not believe they were liable to pay any compensation. They were content for the tenancy to go ahead, as set out in the agreement, with rent and bond being paid. Alternatively, Mr Weir could end the tenancy.
Mr and Mrs Goldsmith did issue a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy, but only after Mr Weir failed to meet at the property to collect the keys and failed to pay the bond and first week’s rent. The Goldsmith’s say that in doing so, they acted on legal advice
At the hearing, Mr Weir was clear that he wanted the tenancy to end. It was not clear why he had not issued a notice to terminate the tenancy on 28 days’ notice to stop the rent debt accruing. Ms Wilson claimed that he had poor literacy so was unable to do so. That assertion is inconsistent with the text message sent to Mrs Goldsmith on 11 February seeking compensation. 1
In summary, there is no compelling or persuasive evidence that the Goldsmiths changed their minds about the tenancy before the commencement date on 14 February 2026. They went to the property on 14 February, intending to hand over the keys. Mr Weir did not turn up.
The tenancy started on 14 February 2026. Mr Weir has not paid rent for the duration of the tenancy. Mr and Mrs Goldsmith are entitled to rent to today. Patricia Wilson is also liable as guarantor. I have made orders accordingly.
As Mr and Mrs Goldsmith were the successful party, I have also awarded them reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5464858 — Rent arrears at 34 View Street, Maungaturoto 0520

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5464858 — Rent arrears at 34 View Street, Maungaturoto 0520

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions