Tribunal Denies Termination of Tenancy Due to Minor Rent Arrears
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled against terminating a tenancy due to minor and consistent rent arrears, stating that it would be unfair to terminate the lease under these conditions.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's minor and consistent rent arrears do not justify termination of the tenancy.
📖 What the law says
This section allows the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy if one party has broken the tenancy agreement or the Act. If the problem can be fixed, the party who wants to end the tenancy must first give the other party a notice explaining the problem and giving them at least 10 working days to fix it.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal denied the landlord's request to terminate the tenancy due to minor rent arrears.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal denied the landlord's request to terminate the tenancy due to minor and consistent rent arrears, finding it inequitable to terminate under these circumstances.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5122848 1
[2025] NZTT 5122848
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted] Family Trust
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] As Agents For Smat Family Trust $244.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Description Landlord Rent arrears and current rent to 13 April 2025 $217.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $244.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $244.00
Reasons:
1. A representative of the landlord attended the hearing.
2. The tenant did not attend by the video link provided in the Notice of Hearing and did not answer a call to his mobile during the hearing.
3. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5122848 2
Should the tenancy be terminated?
4. 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.
5. Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
6. The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay rent on the due date for payment.
7. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 9 December 2025, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
8. The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant will pay rent weekly, in advance, on Monday. This tenant pays rent regularly, but later in the week and not on consistent days. The result is that each week the rent falls a couple of days into arrears.
9. I am not persuaded that it would be equitable to terminate the tenancy. The level of arrears each week is very modest, and the rent summary shows that, each week the tenant comes out of arrears and rent is in advance for a few days. The application for termination is dismissed.
Rent Payments
10. The landlord provided rent records which prove that the amount owing to the end of the current rent cycle (on 13 April 2025) is $217.00. [NAME] must pay that amount immediately to bring his rent up to date.
11. He should then make the weekly rent payments of $385.00 each Monday for that week (from Monday to Sunday) with the first payment to be made on 14 April 2025.
12. As the landlord succeeded with the claim for rent arrears I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.
R Morgan
08 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5122848 3
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5122848 4
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 consistently pays rent, albeit a few days late each week.
- The level of rent arrears is very small each week.
- The tenant brings rent up to date each week, showing intent to fulfill obligations.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord argued that the tenant's consistent rent arrears justified termination of the tenancy.
- The landlord claimed the breach of paying rent late was significant enough to warrant termination.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal denied the landlord's request to terminate the tenancy due to minor rent arrears.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord could terminate the tenancy because the tenant consistently paid rent late by a few days each week.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided against terminating the tenancy because the level of arrears was very small and the tenant had always eventually paid the rent in full.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 56(1), was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the level of arrears was very modest and the tenant had always eventually paid the rent in full.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For tenants facing similar situations, this means that minor and consistent rent arrears may not be sufficient grounds for termination of the tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The rent records showing the consistent pattern of minor arrears and eventual full payment were important.