What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4540010 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4540010?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4540010?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4540010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9193087-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4540010 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4540010?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4540010?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4540010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9193087-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4540010 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4540010 — net $2,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,380.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,400.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,400.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Stacey Tawhara and Laloata Tautalafua at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at
59 am on Thursday 27 July 2023.
Stacey Tawhara and Laloata Tautalafua must pay [The landlord/s] $2,400.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing. Ms Tawhara was authorised to appear on behalf of Mr Tautalafua.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant seeks damages for a breach of her quiet enjoyment and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the rent was 21 days of more in arrears on the date that the landlord’s application was filed with Tenancy Services (see s.55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
A review of the landlord’s rent schedule shows that the rent was not 21 or more days in arrears on the date that the application was filed ( 31 March 2023).The application is dismissed.
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 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.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay the rent on time and in full.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 2 March 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
Would it be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy?
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because; • The rent has been almost consistently in arrears throughout the term of the tenancy. At the hearing, the tenant asked how, having paid a week’s rent in advance at the commencement of the tenancy did they manage to get into arrears? A review of the rent summary shows that for the first three weeks of the tenancy, no rent was paid. • The rent appears to have been in arrears by varying amounts more often than not during the tenancy. • The tenant has been warned about the rent arrears on a number of occasions , including the 14 day rent breach notice. • In light of the arrears in the past, I have no confidence that the tenant would make sure that rent was paid on time and in full in the future. • The tenant says that rent arrears have only become an issue since February 2023 when they asked the landlord to change the payment requirement from being weekly to fortnightly. The landlord approved the request, but only on the condition that rent was at all times paid one week in advance, as per the terms of the tenancy agreement. The tenant’s argument may have carried more weight had the tenant always been on time with rental payments prior to the request in February 2023.That was not the position. • The tenant said that they had been very rudely treated by the landlord when they asked questions about the rent situation. I am not required to make a finding on this matter. It is not a breach of a tenancy agreement or the RTA for the landlord to be rude or abrupt unless it becomes an issue of harassment (see s 38(3) RTA). • The breach, when looked at in light of the history of tenant rent payments throughout the tenancy, is of significance and termination is not out of proportion with the breach.
For these reasons, I order that the tenancy be terminated.
The landlord has provided a rent summary which shows that the rent arrears at the end of the tenancy on 27 July 2023 (assuming that no further rent is paid by the tenant) will be $2,380.00.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal for exemplary damages on the grounds that the landlord had breached her quiet enjoyment. The evidence in support of that claim was emails from the landlord to the tenant. The emails expressed a degree of frustration on the landlord’s part at what they saw as continuous questions from the tenant regarding the amount of rent owed. The landlord replied from time to time, but did make it clear that there was also a responsibility on the tenant to keep a record of payments.
The tenant said that she did not understand the rental due once she went onto fortnightly rent payments. The emails show that the landlord did tell the tenant the amount due on more than one occasion.
The Tribunal has the power to deal with breaches of the RTA and breaches on a tenancy agreement. Even if I were to accept the tenant’s allegations about the landlord’s conduct, that conduct does not amount to a breach of the RTA or the tenancy agreement. The tenant application is dismissed.
As [The Landlords/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and suppression of the landlord details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression of the tenant details is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4540010 — net $2,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,380.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,400.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,400.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Stacey Tawhara and Laloata Tautalafua at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at
59 am on Thursday 27 July 2023.
Stacey Tawhara and Laloata Tautalafua must pay [The landlord/s] $2,400.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing. Ms Tawhara was authorised to appear on behalf of Mr Tautalafua.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant seeks damages for a breach of her quiet enjoyment and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the rent was 21 days of more in arrears on the date that the landlord’s application was filed with Tenancy Services (see s.55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
A review of the landlord’s rent schedule shows that the rent was not 21 or more days in arrears on the date that the application was filed ( 31 March 2023).The application is dismissed.
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 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.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay the rent on time and in full.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 2 March 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
Would it be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy?
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because; • The rent has been almost consistently in arrears throughout the term of the tenancy. At the hearing, the tenant asked how, having paid a week’s rent in advance at the commencement of the tenancy did they manage to get into arrears? A review of the rent summary shows that for the first three weeks of the tenancy, no rent was paid. • The rent appears to have been in arrears by varying amounts more often than not during the tenancy. • The tenant has been warned about the rent arrears on a number of occasions , including the 14 day rent breach notice. • In light of the arrears in the past, I have no confidence that the tenant would make sure that rent was paid on time and in full in the future. • The tenant says that rent arrears have only become an issue since February 2023 when they asked the landlord to change the payment requirement from being weekly to fortnightly. The landlord approved the request, but only on the condition that rent was at all times paid one week in advance, as per the terms of the tenancy agreement. The tenant’s argument may have carried more weight had the tenant always been on time with rental payments prior to the request in February 2023.That was not the position. • The tenant said that they had been very rudely treated by the landlord when they asked questions about the rent situation. I am not required to make a finding on this matter. It is not a breach of a tenancy agreement or the RTA for the landlord to be rude or abrupt unless it becomes an issue of harassment (see s 38(3) RTA). • The breach, when looked at in light of the history of tenant rent payments throughout the tenancy, is of significance and termination is not out of proportion with the breach.
For these reasons, I order that the tenancy be terminated.
The landlord has provided a rent summary which shows that the rent arrears at the end of the tenancy on 27 July 2023 (assuming that no further rent is paid by the tenant) will be $2,380.00.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal for exemplary damages on the grounds that the landlord had breached her quiet enjoyment. The evidence in support of that claim was emails from the landlord to the tenant. The emails expressed a degree of frustration on the landlord’s part at what they saw as continuous questions from the tenant regarding the amount of rent owed. The landlord replied from time to time, but did make it clear that there was also a responsibility on the tenant to keep a record of payments.
The tenant said that she did not understand the rental due once she went onto fortnightly rent payments. The emails show that the landlord did tell the tenant the amount due on more than one occasion.
The Tribunal has the power to deal with breaches of the RTA and breaches on a tenancy agreement. Even if I were to accept the tenant’s allegations about the landlord’s conduct, that conduct does not amount to a breach of the RTA or the tenancy agreement. The tenant application is dismissed.
As [The Landlords/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and suppression of the landlord details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression of the tenant details is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4540010 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4540010 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions