How much money was awarded in case 4577989?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,871.42 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $701.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4577989?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4577989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9180747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4577989?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,871.42 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $701.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4577989?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4577989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9180747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4577989 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4577989 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4577989 — net $3,393.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears owing as at today	$4,871.42	Rent arrears owing as at today
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$701.50	Water rates
Net award	$3,393.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,393.36

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 5pm on 21 July 2023.

Emily May Blake must pay [The landlord/s] $3,393.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. She must continue to pay rent up until the date she vacates the premises.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

The tenancy was terminated when the landlord gave a 90-day notice on 7 February 2023, bringing the tenancy to an end on 10 May 2023.

The landlord's husband has cancer. He is no longer able to work. The couple owns two properties and they need to renovate and sell the property the subject of this application. They cannot afford to continue paying the mortgage. I accept the landlord's evidence that this is the reason the tenancy was brought to an end and indeed I note that this aspect was not challenged at all by the tenant.

The background to this matter is that the tenant had been paying rent satisfactorily up until 3 May 2023, but as best I can tell a misunderstanding about the final move out date lead to a stressful altercation at the property that seems to have been entirely unnecessary, even resulting in the police being called. This allegedly interrupted the tenant’s move and she has not moved out of the premises. That said, she has moved some of her belongings to storage.

The tenant claims that she only received the application last Friday, less than a week ago. She believes she has grounds for a cross application and sought an adjournment on that basis. She says that she has filed that application this morning but it was not before the tribunal at the time of the hearing. It relates to the altercation that took place on the proposed move out date and some alleged damage to her belongings as a result of a leak.

The rent arrears are at a very high level and the tribunal was not prepared to grant any adjournment of the matter. The tenant has not been paying rent since the date she was supposed to have moved out and the landlord is very stressed about not being able to pay the mortgage. It is unknown when the application would come back before the tribunal if it was to be adjourned to be heard together with the tenant’s application.

The landlord was insistent on an immediate order for termination but some consideration should be given to the fact the tenant has children and needs to find alternative accommodation. The landlord claims that the tenant’s application is nothing more than a stalling tactic and attempted to refer to an earlier decision also involving the tenant which I declined to consider.

The tenancy ended on 10 May 2023, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing as ordered above.

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4577989 — net $3,393.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears owing as at today	$4,871.42	Rent arrears owing as at today
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$701.50	Water rates
Net award	$3,393.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,393.36

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 5pm on 21 July 2023.
Emily May Blake must pay [The landlord/s] $3,393.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. She must continue to pay rent up until the date she vacates the premises.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy was terminated when the landlord gave a 90-day notice on 7 February 2023, bringing the tenancy to an end on 10 May 2023.
The landlord's husband has cancer. He is no longer able to work. The couple owns two properties and they need to renovate and sell the property the subject of this application. They cannot afford to continue paying the mortgage. I accept the landlord's evidence that this is the reason the tenancy was brought to an end and indeed I note that this aspect was not challenged at all by the tenant.
The background to this matter is that the tenant had been paying rent satisfactorily up until 3 May 2023, but as best I can tell a misunderstanding about the final move out date lead to a stressful altercation at the property that seems to have been entirely unnecessary, even resulting in the police being called. This allegedly interrupted the tenant’s move and she has not moved out of the premises. That said, she has moved some of her belongings to storage.
The tenant claims that she only received the application last Friday, less than a week ago. She believes she has grounds for a cross application and sought an adjournment on that basis. She says that she has filed that application this morning but it was not before the tribunal at the time of the hearing. It relates to the altercation that took place on the proposed move out date and some alleged damage to her belongings as a result of a leak.
The rent arrears are at a very high level and the tribunal was not prepared to grant any adjournment of the matter. The tenant has not been paying rent since the date she was supposed to have moved out and the landlord is very stressed about not being able to pay the mortgage. It is unknown when the application would come back before the tribunal if it was to be adjourned to be heard together with the tenant’s application.
The landlord was insistent on an immediate order for termination but some consideration should be given to the fact the tenant has children and needs to find alternative accommodation. The landlord claims that the tenant’s application is nothing more than a stalling tactic and attempted to refer to an earlier decision also involving the tenant which I declined to consider.
The tenancy ended on 10 May 2023, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing as ordered above.
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4577989 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4577989 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions