What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5500889?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Daniel Clarke and Nicole Calvert at 3 Jarrow Place, Halswell,

How much money was awarded in case 5500889?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5500889?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5500889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13745052-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5500889?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Daniel Clarke and Nicole Calvert at 3 Jarrow Place, Halswell,

How much money was awarded in case 5500889?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5500889?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5500889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13745052-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Jarrow Place, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5500889 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5500889 — net $1,048.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 09/06/2026	$1,020.00	44. While some matters have improved, the evidence establishes that significant breaches remained outstanding at the hearing, including rent arrears and the un…
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,048.00
Bond	$1,048.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,048.00

Order

The tenancy of Daniel Clarke and Nicole Calvert at 3 Jarrow Place, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 is terminated, and possession is granted to A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Raesha Ismail, at 5pm on Friday 26 June 2026.
Daniel Clarke and Nicole Calvert must pay A$1,048.00 to A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Raesha Ismail from the bond immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay $1,048.00 from the bond of $2,380.00 (BN- 32606102) to A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Raesha Ismail immediately.
The balance of the bond of $1,332.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference on 9 June 2026.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) based on multiple alleged breaches of the tenants’ obligations. The landlord also seeks rent arrears and various compliance orders. Background
The tenancy commenced on 31 March 2026. The weekly rent is $595.00 and the bond is $2,380.00.
The landlord relies on several alleged breaches occurring during what the tenancy. These include rent arrears, failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, neighbour complaints, police attendances, failure to pay an agreed pet bond and comply with council requirements.
The landlord served a number of notices during the tenancy. Relevant to this application are: (a) A 14-day notice dated 5 May 2026 requiring payment of rent arrears of $595.00. (b) A 14-day notice dated 4 May 2026 requiring the tenants to remedy numerous alleged breaches including cleaning and rubbish removal, replacement of broken glass panes, removal of a caravan, removal of an unauthorised dryer frame, professional cleaning of carpet stains, compliance with council requirements, and addressing neighbour complaints. (c) A further 14-day notice dated 21 April 2026 requiring payment of a pet bond of $1,190.00.
The landlord also produced evidence of complaints received from Christchurch City Council, inspection photographs, neighbour complaints, police attendances at the property, rent records and correspondence exchanged with the tenants.
At the hearing, the landlord advised that rent arrears remained outstanding at $1,020.00.
The tenants acknowledged many of the matters raised by the landlord. They submitted that they wished to remain in the tenancy and had been attempting to address the issues identified. They explained that financial difficulties, health issues suffered, mental health challenges, and the demands of caring for three children had contributed to the problems.
The tenants advised that Work and Income had agreed to assist and that the rent arrears would likely be paid by the end of the week. They also submitted that they had undertaken substantial cleaning, engaged professional cleaners to deal with stains, moved the caravan, returned the fence to its original position, and taken steps to improve their relationship and communication following police involvement.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 56 of the Act permits the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where a tenant has breached the tenancy agreement or the Act, a valid notice to remedy has been served where required, and due to the nature or extent of the breach it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
Section 40(1)(a) requires tenants to pay rent when due.
Section 40(1)(c) requires tenants to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
Section 40(2)(c) requires tenants not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
The Tribunal must assess not only whether breaches occurred, but also their seriousness, frequency, whether they have been remedied, and whether it would be inequitable to refuse termination. Rent arrears
The rent records establish that rent arrears existed when the application was filed and remained outstanding at the hearing.
The 14-day notice dated 5 May 2026 was validly issued and required the tenants to remedy the arrears.
Although the tenants submitted that Work and Income would shortly pay the arrears, the arrears had not been remedied by the expiry of the notice nor by the date of hearing.
The Tribunal accepts there was a genuine financial difficulty and some administrative issues with Work and Income. However, the statutory obligation is to pay rent when due. The breach was therefore established. Pet bond
The landlord also relies on the tenants’ failure to pay a pet bond.
Since 1 December 2025, landlords may require a pet bond of up to two weeks’ rent where a tenant has consent to keep a pet. The evidence before me establishes that the tenants were required to pay a pet bond of $1,190.00, being the equivalent of two weeks’ rent. A 14-day notice requiring payment was issued on 21 April 2026.
The tenants acknowledged that the pet bond remained unpaid. They submitted that they had understood they would be permitted to pay the pet bond over time and that financial hardship had prevented payment. The landlord disputed that any agreed payment arrangement existed and noted that no payments had been made towards the pet bond.
Regardless of whether there was some misunderstanding regarding timing, I am satisfied that the pet bond remained unpaid at the expiry of the notice period and at the date of the hearing. The tenants were therefore in breach of this obligation. Cleanliness and condition of premises
The inspection photographs produced by the landlord demonstrate that the premises were not being maintained to the standard required by section 40(1)(c) at the time the breach notices were issued.
The photographs show significant clutter, rubbish accumulation, staining and poor housekeeping both inside and outside the property.
The tenants accepted that the standard of cleanliness had fallen below what was expected. They explained that the circumstances arose during the move into the property, while coping with illness and caring responsibilities.
The Tribunal accepts that some improvement occurred after the notices were issued. However, the evidence indicates the concerns were substantial and persisted for a period of time despite formal notices. Neighbour complaints, council involvement and police attendance
The landlord produced evidence of repeated complaints received from Christchurch City Council concerning obstruction of the footpath and environmental concerns associated with the property.
Council records show multiple complaints were received within a relatively short period.
Police also attended the property on two occasions on 10 April 2026 and once on 4 May 2026.
Police attendance alone does not establish a breach of the Act. However, the tenants acknowledged that arguments between them resulted in police attendance and neighbour concerns.
The tenants candidly accepted responsibility for these disturbances and advised they were seeking counselling and support.
The Tribunal accepts that the tenants have taken some positive steps to address these issues. Nevertheless, repeated disturbances resulting in police attendance and neighbour complaints within the first few weeks of a tenancy are serious matters. Unauthorised alteration to the premises
The evidence establishes that the tenants removed a section of front fencing to facilitate relocation of a caravan and trailer.
The tenants acknowledged this occurred without the landlord’s consent.
Although the tenants subsequently reinstated the fence and explained that they believed they were addressing safety concerns, the conduct nonetheless constituted an unauthorised alteration. Overall assessment
The Tribunal must consider the cumulative effect of all proven breaches rather than viewing each breach in isolation.
This tenancy was only approximately ten weeks old at the time of hearing. During that short period there were rent arrears, non-payment of the pet bond, multiple breach notices, council involvement, police attendances, neighbour complaints, cleanliness concerns, unauthorised alterations to the premises, and ongoing concerns regarding compliance with tenancy obligations.
The breaches were not isolated incidents. They demonstrate a pattern of repeated non-compliance affecting numerous aspects of the tenancy.
I accept the tenants’ evidence regarding health issues, mental health challenges, financial hardship and the responsibilities associated with caring for three children. I also accept that some efforts have been made to address the concerns raised by the landlord. The caravan was moved, the fence reinstated, cleaning undertaken, and the tenants have sought support and counselling.
Nevertheless, the relevant question is whether, having regard to the nature and extent of the breaches, it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
The landlord is entitled to have confidence that the tenancy will be conducted in accordance with the Act and tenancy agreement. Given the number and nature of the breaches occurring over such a short period, that confidence has been significantly undermined.
The landlord has experienced repeated issues throughout what has been a very short tenancy. The breaches have affected not only the landlord’s interests but also neighbouring occupiers and resulted in local authority involvement and police attendance.
While some matters have improved, the evidence establishes that significant breaches remained outstanding at the hearing, including rent arrears and the unpaid pet bond. More importantly, the overall history demonstrates repeated failures to comply with the tenants’ obligations under the Act and tenancy agreement.
Having considered all of the evidence, including the tenants’ explanations and mitigating circumstances, I am satisfied that the nature and extent of the breaches are such that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
Termination is therefore warranted under section 56 of the Act.
Taking into account the tenants’ personal circumstances, the landlord considered it appropriate to defer the termination date for 2 weeks. Rent arrears
The landlord’s rent records establish that rent arrears of $1,020.00 were owing at the date of hearing.
The landlord is entitled to recover those arrears. Filing fee
As the landlord has been wholly successful with the claim, I must order the tenants’ to reimbursement the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5500889 — net $1,048.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 09/06/2026	$1,020.00	44. While some matters have improved, the evidence establishes that significant breaches remained outstanding at the hearing, including rent arrears and the un…
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,048.00
Bond	$1,048.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,048.00

Order

The tenancy of Daniel Clarke and Nicole Calvert at 3 Jarrow Place, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 is terminated, and possession is granted to A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Raesha Ismail, at 5pm on Friday 26 June 2026.
Daniel Clarke and Nicole Calvert must pay A$1,048.00 to A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Raesha Ismail from the bond immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay $1,048.00 from the bond of $2,380.00 (BN- 32606102) to A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Raesha Ismail immediately.
The balance of the bond of $1,332.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference on 9 June 2026.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) based on multiple alleged breaches of the tenants’ obligations. The landlord also seeks rent arrears and various compliance orders. Background
The tenancy commenced on 31 March 2026. The weekly rent is $595.00 and the bond is $2,380.00.
The landlord relies on several alleged breaches occurring during what the tenancy. These include rent arrears, failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, neighbour complaints, police attendances, failure to pay an agreed pet bond and comply with council requirements.
The landlord served a number of notices during the tenancy. Relevant to this application are: (a) A 14-day notice dated 5 May 2026 requiring payment of rent arrears of $595.00. (b) A 14-day notice dated 4 May 2026 requiring the tenants to remedy numerous alleged breaches including cleaning and rubbish removal, replacement of broken glass panes, removal of a caravan, removal of an unauthorised dryer frame, professional cleaning of carpet stains, compliance with council requirements, and addressing neighbour complaints. (c) A further 14-day notice dated 21 April 2026 requiring payment of a pet bond of $1,190.00.
The landlord also produced evidence of complaints received from Christchurch City Council, inspection photographs, neighbour complaints, police attendances at the property, rent records and correspondence exchanged with the tenants.
At the hearing, the landlord advised that rent arrears remained outstanding at $1,020.00.
The tenants acknowledged many of the matters raised by the landlord. They submitted that they wished to remain in the tenancy and had been attempting to address the issues identified. They explained that financial difficulties, health issues suffered, mental health challenges, and the demands of caring for three children had contributed to the problems.
The tenants advised that Work and Income had agreed to assist and that the rent arrears would likely be paid by the end of the week. They also submitted that they had undertaken substantial cleaning, engaged professional cleaners to deal with stains, moved the caravan, returned the fence to its original position, and taken steps to improve their relationship and communication following police involvement.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 56 of the Act permits the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where a tenant has breached the tenancy agreement or the Act, a valid notice to remedy has been served where required, and due to the nature or extent of the breach it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
Section 40(1)(a) requires tenants to pay rent when due.
Section 40(1)(c) requires tenants to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
Section 40(2)(c) requires tenants not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
The Tribunal must assess not only whether breaches occurred, but also their seriousness, frequency, whether they have been remedied, and whether it would be inequitable to refuse termination. Rent arrears
The rent records establish that rent arrears existed when the application was filed and remained outstanding at the hearing.
The 14-day notice dated 5 May 2026 was validly issued and required the tenants to remedy the arrears.
Although the tenants submitted that Work and Income would shortly pay the arrears, the arrears had not been remedied by the expiry of the notice nor by the date of hearing.
The Tribunal accepts there was a genuine financial difficulty and some administrative issues with Work and Income. However, the statutory obligation is to pay rent when due. The breach was therefore established. Pet bond
The landlord also relies on the tenants’ failure to pay a pet bond.
Since 1 December 2025, landlords may require a pet bond of up to two weeks’ rent where a tenant has consent to keep a pet. The evidence before me establishes that the tenants were required to pay a pet bond of $1,190.00, being the equivalent of two weeks’ rent. A 14-day notice requiring payment was issued on 21 April 2026.
The tenants acknowledged that the pet bond remained unpaid. They submitted that they had understood they would be permitted to pay the pet bond over time and that financial hardship had prevented payment. The landlord disputed that any agreed payment arrangement existed and noted that no payments had been made towards the pet bond.
Regardless of whether there was some misunderstanding regarding timing, I am satisfied that the pet bond remained unpaid at the expiry of the notice period and at the date of the hearing. The tenants were therefore in breach of this obligation. Cleanliness and condition of premises
The inspection photographs produced by the landlord demonstrate that the premises were not being maintained to the standard required by section 40(1)(c) at the time the breach notices were issued.
The photographs show significant clutter, rubbish accumulation, staining and poor housekeeping both inside and outside the property.
The tenants accepted that the standard of cleanliness had fallen below what was expected. They explained that the circumstances arose during the move into the property, while coping with illness and caring responsibilities.
The Tribunal accepts that some improvement occurred after the notices were issued. However, the evidence indicates the concerns were substantial and persisted for a period of time despite formal notices. Neighbour complaints, council involvement and police attendance
The landlord produced evidence of repeated complaints received from Christchurch City Council concerning obstruction of the footpath and environmental concerns associated with the property.
Council records show multiple complaints were received within a relatively short period.
Police also attended the property on two occasions on 10 April 2026 and once on 4 May 2026.
Police attendance alone does not establish a breach of the Act. However, the tenants acknowledged that arguments between them resulted in police attendance and neighbour concerns.
The tenants candidly accepted responsibility for these disturbances and advised they were seeking counselling and support.
The Tribunal accepts that the tenants have taken some positive steps to address these issues. Nevertheless, repeated disturbances resulting in police attendance and neighbour complaints within the first few weeks of a tenancy are serious matters. Unauthorised alteration to the premises
The evidence establishes that the tenants removed a section of front fencing to facilitate relocation of a caravan and trailer.
The tenants acknowledged this occurred without the landlord’s consent.
Although the tenants subsequently reinstated the fence and explained that they believed they were addressing safety concerns, the conduct nonetheless constituted an unauthorised alteration. Overall assessment
The Tribunal must consider the cumulative effect of all proven breaches rather than viewing each breach in isolation.
This tenancy was only approximately ten weeks old at the time of hearing. During that short period there were rent arrears, non-payment of the pet bond, multiple breach notices, council involvement, police attendances, neighbour complaints, cleanliness concerns, unauthorised alterations to the premises, and ongoing concerns regarding compliance with tenancy obligations.
The breaches were not isolated incidents. They demonstrate a pattern of repeated non-compliance affecting numerous aspects of the tenancy.
I accept the tenants’ evidence regarding health issues, mental health challenges, financial hardship and the responsibilities associated with caring for three children. I also accept that some efforts have been made to address the concerns raised by the landlord. The caravan was moved, the fence reinstated, cleaning undertaken, and the tenants have sought support and counselling.
Nevertheless, the relevant question is whether, having regard to the nature and extent of the breaches, it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
The landlord is entitled to have confidence that the tenancy will be conducted in accordance with the Act and tenancy agreement. Given the number and nature of the breaches occurring over such a short period, that confidence has been significantly undermined.
The landlord has experienced repeated issues throughout what has been a very short tenancy. The breaches have affected not only the landlord’s interests but also neighbouring occupiers and resulted in local authority involvement and police attendance.
While some matters have improved, the evidence establishes that significant breaches remained outstanding at the hearing, including rent arrears and the unpaid pet bond. More importantly, the overall history demonstrates repeated failures to comply with the tenants’ obligations under the Act and tenancy agreement.
Having considered all of the evidence, including the tenants’ explanations and mitigating circumstances, I am satisfied that the nature and extent of the breaches are such that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
Termination is therefore warranted under section 56 of the Act.
Taking into account the tenants’ personal circumstances, the landlord considered it appropriate to defer the termination date for 2 weeks. Rent arrears
The landlord’s rent records establish that rent arrears of $1,020.00 were owing at the date of hearing.
The landlord is entitled to recover those arrears. Filing fee
As the landlord has been wholly successful with the claim, I must order the tenants’ to reimbursement the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5500889 — Rent arrears at 3 Jarrow Place, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5500889 — Rent arrears at 3 Jarrow Place, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions