What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5491793?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Aimee Janet Sigley at 43 Riwai Street, Paraparaumu,

How much money was awarded in case 5491793?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $240.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491793?

The primary dispute was Water Rates.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13683242-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5491793?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Aimee Janet Sigley at 43 Riwai Street, Paraparaumu,

How much money was awarded in case 5491793?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $240.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491793?

The primary dispute was Water Rates.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13683242-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Riwai Street, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5491793 — Water Rates

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5491793. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: to 8 April 2026	$240.51		4. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, water rates arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and a p…
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement

The tenancy of Aimee Janet Sigley at 43 Riwai Street, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032 is terminated, and possession is granted to Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Dipak Kumar & Kinjal Patel, at 11.59 am on Wednesday 10 June 2026.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $268.51 (5588230-004) to Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Dipak Kumar & Kinjal Patel immediately calculated as shown in the table below.

The balance of the bond is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given.

This is a fixed term tenancy.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, water rates arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and a partial release of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

The landlord alleges that the tenant has breached the terms of section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Section 40(2)(c) RTA provides that a tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any person residing in the neighbourhood. A tenant is also responsible for the actions of any other person who is in the premises with the tenants permission, if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.

The tenant has breached their obligations by allowing her partner to disrupt the peace of neighbours.

The landlord provided a statement from a neighbour. The neighbour lives close by the tenant’s premises. The neighbour recorded the following incidents; • 31 March 2026 -the tenant and her partner had an argument involving screaming and driving recklessly down the street. • 4 April 2026 -A friend of the tenant had driven his car into the tenant’s fence. The police were called. • 25 April 2026 An argument in the early hours of the morning between the tenant and her partner with loud screaming and yelling. • 2 May 2026- a loud argument between the tenant and her partner. The partner left in a car driving dangerously. • 10 May 2026 – a loud argument between the tenant and her partner. • 12 May 2026 – a loud argument between the tenant and her partner. The argument ended when the tenant’s partner drove of in a reckless manner.

Police records provided show that between 12 July 2025 and 5 April 2026, Police were called to the address on 12 occasions. Six of those call outs were for disorderly or disruptive behaviour.

The breach is not capable of remedy because the incidents have already occurred.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. As this is a fixed term tenancy, the anti-social behaviour notice process is not applicable None of the incidents when considered alone would necessarily call for the tenancy to be terminated. The ongoing and repetitive nature of the tenant’s partners actions are such that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The behaviour has continued after this application was filed with Tenancy Services. I consider the repetitive breaches to be serious. The tenancy is terminated.

The landlord has provided water rates invoices which show that the water rates arrears as of the last reading on 8 April 2026 was $240.51.

As Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Dipak Kumar & Kinjal Patel has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5491793. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: to 8 April 2026	$240.51		4. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, water rates arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and a p…
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenancy of Aimee Janet Sigley at 43 Riwai Street, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032 is terminated, and possession is granted to Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Dipak Kumar & Kinjal Patel, at 11.59 am on Wednesday 10 June 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $268.51 (5588230-004) to Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Dipak Kumar & Kinjal Patel immediately calculated as shown in the table below.
The balance of the bond is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given.
This is a fixed term tenancy.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, water rates arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and a partial release of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The landlord alleges that the tenant has breached the terms of section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Section 40(2)(c) RTA provides that a tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any person residing in the neighbourhood. A tenant is also responsible for the actions of any other person who is in the premises with the tenants permission, if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
The tenant has breached their obligations by allowing her partner to disrupt the peace of neighbours.
The landlord provided a statement from a neighbour. The neighbour lives close by the tenant’s premises. The neighbour recorded the following incidents; • 31 March 2026 -the tenant and her partner had an argument involving screaming and driving recklessly down the street. • 4 April 2026 -A friend of the tenant had driven his car into the tenant’s fence. The police were called. • 25 April 2026 An argument in the early hours of the morning between the tenant and her partner with loud screaming and yelling. • 2 May 2026- a loud argument between the tenant and her partner. The partner left in a car driving dangerously. • 10 May 2026 – a loud argument between the tenant and her partner. • 12 May 2026 – a loud argument between the tenant and her partner. The argument ended when the tenant’s partner drove of in a reckless manner.
Police records provided show that between 12 July 2025 and 5 April 2026, Police were called to the address on 12 occasions. Six of those call outs were for disorderly or disruptive behaviour.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the incidents have already occurred.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. As this is a fixed term tenancy, the anti-social behaviour notice process is not applicable None of the incidents when considered alone would necessarily call for the tenancy to be terminated. The ongoing and repetitive nature of the tenant’s partners actions are such that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The behaviour has continued after this application was filed with Tenancy Services. I consider the repetitive breaches to be serious. The tenancy is terminated.
The landlord has provided water rates invoices which show that the water rates arrears as of the last reading on 8 April 2026 was $240.51.
As Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Dipak Kumar & Kinjal Patel has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491793 — Water Rates at 43 Riwai Street, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491793 — Water Rates at 43 Riwai Street, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions