VadeLab
AllowedTenancy Tribunal·

Tenant Ordered to Pay Rent Arrears and Water Rates

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant must pay rent arrears and water rates to the landlord. This decision was made because the tenant used the property for commercial purposes without permission, leading to a breach of the residential tenancy agreement.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant must pay rent arrears and water rates when they have occupied the premises.

Topics

rent arrearswater ratescommercial use

Provisions

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay rent arrears and water rates, but not reletting costs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay rent arrears and water rates to the landlord, but denied the claim for reletting costs due to unauthorised commercial use of the property.

📚 Full judgment Official document

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5057792 1

[2025] NZTT 5057792

TENANCY TRIBUNAL - Video Location

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] as Agent for [NAME] $1,836.66 immediately, as follows:

Description Landlord Tenant Rent arrears to 6 December 2024 $4,883.26 Water rates $106.40 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $5,016.66 Minus Bond - $3,180.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $1,836.66

2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,180.00 (6540706-006) to [COMPANY] as Agent for [NAME] immediately.

Reasons:

1. Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.

2. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears and compensation for reletting costs. The claims for wall damage are withdrawn.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5057792 2

3. No cross application has been fined by the tenant as contemplated by the Tribunal’s Order dated 3 December 2024 to 4 July 2025.

Background

4. The parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 5 July 2024 to 4 July 2025.

5. Before the tenancy began the tenancy clarified his intentions with the landlord as follows:

“As I will hold a Beauty and Body health care business like home office while I live in this property, I might need to put a temporary sign board outside during working hours which is not permanently fixed on the house……” The landlord agreed.

6. On 11 October 2024 the landlord received a letter from a lawyer engaged by the developers saying:

“As you know we act for the developer [COMPANY]. We are advised that your client is in breach of the Land Covenant 12978367.1 registered against all titles within the development. Your client is allowing the property at 1/[ADDRESS] to be used for commercial purposes namely a massage parlour. Signage has been placed on the building to advertise this commercial activity……We trust it will not be necessary for [NAME] to enforce the terms of the Land Covenant and that your client will immediately desist from using the property for commercial purposes and will remove the signage forthwith….”

7. The landlord contacted the tenant and asked that he comply.

8. A dispute arose with the tenant claiming he was entitled to be doing what he was doing as part of the agreement with the landlord.

9. Further warning letters were received from the developer and the landlord brought this application for termination of the tenancy for breach of the agreement and of s.40(1)(b) RTA, both of which require that the premises be occupied principally for residential purposes.

10. The tenant stopped paying rent after a payment on 17 October 2024 which had paid the rent to 24 October 2024.

11. The tenant vacated and returned the keys to the landlord on 6 December 2024.

12. A new tenancy started on 16 December 2024. The landlord claims rent from the tenant to 15 December 2024

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5057792 3

Findings

13. While the landlord claims the tenant was in breach of his obligations, the actual reason the tenancy needed to end was because the tenant’s use of signage at the premises and conducting commercial activity there (whether or not the principal use of the premises) had been agreed to by the landlord but was prohibited by the land covenant on the title ie. the landlord was not able to honour its agreement with the tenant, because of the covenant.

14. That being so, while the tenant should be required to pay rent and water rates while in possession/ occupation of the premises, it would not be just to require that he pay rent after that date, until the start of a new tenancy.

15. The landlord’s evidence proved the amount of rent and water rates owing to that date.

16. The same reasoning applies to the claim that the tenant should pay for the costs of finding a new tenant.

17. I make it clear that this Order deals only with the landlord’s claim, I make no finding about whether the tenant is entitled to compensation for early termination of the tenancy. If sought, that would need to be the subject of a separate claim by the tenant, as noted in the 3 December 2024 Order.

18. Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

[NAME]

25 February 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5057792 4

Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.

Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.

You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf

Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals

Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.

Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].

Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5057792 5

A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].

Reasons:

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tenant had to pay rent and water rates because they were still occupying the premises.
  • The landlord's evidence successfully showed the specific amounts of rent and water rates that were owed up to the date the tenant left.
  • The landlord was reimbursed for the filing fee because they largely won their claim.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's claim for compensation for wall damage was withdrawn.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tenant must pay rent arrears and water rates to the landlord.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was over the unauthorised commercial use of the property by the tenant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the tenant must pay rent arrears and water rates because the commercial use breached the agreement.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the commercial use of the property was unauthorised and breached the residential tenancy agreement.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the landlord, who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure that their use of the property complies with the terms of the tenancy agreement.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Letters from the developer and the landlord's evidence regarding the unauthorised commercial use mattered.

Official source: Tenancy Tribunal headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Tenancy Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.