What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4579030 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 4579030?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,424.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4579030?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4579030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9173782-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4579030 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 4579030?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,424.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4579030?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4579030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9173782-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4579030 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4579030 — net $644.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 July 2023	$2,424.42	Rent arrears to 11 July 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$644.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$644.86

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 tenancy of Katrina Raukura Ropiha at [tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Wednesday 12 July 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 [(Bond number suppressed)] to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Katrina Raukura Ropiha must pay [The landlord/s] $644.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by telephone.
Every party confirmed towards the end of the hearing that they had said all that they wanted to say relevant to the application. The parties gave lengthy submissions. While I have not referred to every piece of information presented to me the parties can be assured it was considered.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Both parties agree that this tenancy began on 20 November 2020. The rent was originally $450 per week. The landlord says that the arrears are presently $2,424,42 and has filed a rent summary.
The landlord has sought to increase the rent on two occasions during the course of the tenancy: a. On 14 February 2022 a notice was sent increasing the rent to $470 with effect from 20 April 2022; and b. On 9 February 2023 a notice was sent to the tenant increasing the rent to $495 with effect from 26 April 2023.
The tenant says neither of these notices are valid or lawful. She says that the landlord cannot unilaterally change the contract and she has a right to decline the offers. The tenant says the notices are null and void and a new contract was needed. She says the arrears have arisen due to these improper increases. She says they are motivated by greed and amount to treason. She also seeks to rely on various pieces of legislation falling outside of the RTA.
The tenant says the landlord did not comply with section 28, RTA. She also says she is seeking costs relating to a dehumidifier and the landlord should have taken arrears from her bond as requested. She says that if the rent increase amounts are disregarded she has in fact paid her rent up to 21 July 2023. Analysis
I find that the rent increase notices are valid. This is because the landlord has complied with s 24, RTA which sets out how a landlord may unilaterally (without the consent of the tenant and without further contract) increase the rent.
Section 24, RTA (as relevant) provides: (1) The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b) that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c) the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given; and (d) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and (e) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect...
A landlord does not need the tenant’s consent to increase rent where the rent is increased in accordance with s 24, RTA.
I find that the landlord’s notices comply with the statutory requirements in s 24, RTA: The tenant was given notice in writing, the notices set out the increase and the date the increase took effect, the increase was not less than 12 months from the last increase or the commencement of the tenancy and was not less than 60 days from the date of the notice given.
In other words, the notices given lawfully increased the rent during the course of the tenancy.
Section 28, RTA which was cited by the tenant deals with a different situation. It provides for rent increases to be agreed between the parties in other situations such as where there have been substantial improvements or agreed variations to the tenancy.
The other legislation and allegations of treason cited by the tenant falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
A landlord does not have to apply a bond to arrears. A request the tenant says she has made for dehumidifier costs does not form part of the application before me at this hearing.
The allegation of greed is not relevant to this application and no new contract was needed. As set out above the landlord may increase rent in accordance with s 23, RTA.
The tenant made requests at the hearing for various action to be taken including a forensic audit of the landlord. These requests do not form part of the application before me and cannot therefore be considered. In any event, these requests would be unlikely to fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
I am satisfied that the landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing. The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to support any claim that the rent summary was inaccurate. Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy is terminated. Suppression and filing fee
The landlord sought name suppression and I award this as it has been wholly successful in its application (s 95A, RTA). I also award the filing fee as the landlord has been wholly successful (s 102, RTA). The tenant did not want me to consider name suppression on her behalf.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4579030 — net $644.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 July 2023	$2,424.42	Rent arrears to 11 July 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$644.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$644.86

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 tenancy of Katrina Raukura Ropiha at [tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Wednesday 12 July 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 [(Bond number suppressed)] to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Katrina Raukura Ropiha must pay [The landlord/s] $644.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by telephone.
Every party confirmed towards the end of the hearing that they had said all that they wanted to say relevant to the application. The parties gave lengthy submissions. While I have not referred to every piece of information presented to me the parties can be assured it was considered.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Both parties agree that this tenancy began on 20 November 2020. The rent was originally $450 per week. The landlord says that the arrears are presently $2,424,42 and has filed a rent summary.
The landlord has sought to increase the rent on two occasions during the course of the tenancy: a. On 14 February 2022 a notice was sent increasing the rent to $470 with effect from 20 April 2022; and b. On 9 February 2023 a notice was sent to the tenant increasing the rent to $495 with effect from 26 April 2023.
The tenant says neither of these notices are valid or lawful. She says that the landlord cannot unilaterally change the contract and she has a right to decline the offers. The tenant says the notices are null and void and a new contract was needed. She says the arrears have arisen due to these improper increases. She says they are motivated by greed and amount to treason. She also seeks to rely on various pieces of legislation falling outside of the RTA.
The tenant says the landlord did not comply with section 28, RTA. She also says she is seeking costs relating to a dehumidifier and the landlord should have taken arrears from her bond as requested. She says that if the rent increase amounts are disregarded she has in fact paid her rent up to 21 July 2023. Analysis
I find that the rent increase notices are valid. This is because the landlord has complied with s 24, RTA which sets out how a landlord may unilaterally (without the consent of the tenant and without further contract) increase the rent.
Section 24, RTA (as relevant) provides: (1) The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b) that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c) the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given; and (d) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and (e) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect...
A landlord does not need the tenant’s consent to increase rent where the rent is increased in accordance with s 24, RTA.
I find that the landlord’s notices comply with the statutory requirements in s 24, RTA: The tenant was given notice in writing, the notices set out the increase and the date the increase took effect, the increase was not less than 12 months from the last increase or the commencement of the tenancy and was not less than 60 days from the date of the notice given.
In other words, the notices given lawfully increased the rent during the course of the tenancy.
Section 28, RTA which was cited by the tenant deals with a different situation. It provides for rent increases to be agreed between the parties in other situations such as where there have been substantial improvements or agreed variations to the tenancy.
The other legislation and allegations of treason cited by the tenant falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
A landlord does not have to apply a bond to arrears. A request the tenant says she has made for dehumidifier costs does not form part of the application before me at this hearing.
The allegation of greed is not relevant to this application and no new contract was needed. As set out above the landlord may increase rent in accordance with s 23, RTA.
The tenant made requests at the hearing for various action to be taken including a forensic audit of the landlord. These requests do not form part of the application before me and cannot therefore be considered. In any event, these requests would be unlikely to fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
I am satisfied that the landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing. The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to support any claim that the rent summary was inaccurate. Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy is terminated. Suppression and filing fee
The landlord sought name suppression and I award this as it has been wholly successful in its application (s 95A, RTA). I also award the filing fee as the landlord has been wholly successful (s 102, RTA). The tenant did not want me to consider name suppression on her behalf.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4579030 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4579030 — 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