What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4596330 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 4596330?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed: $5,442.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $88.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4596330?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4596330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9187060-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4596330 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 4596330?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed: $5,442.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $88.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4596330?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4596330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9187060-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4596330 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4596330 — net $2,951.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owed to 17 July 2023	$5,442.86	Rent owed to 17 July 2023
Water rates	$88.54	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,951.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,951.84

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 Shontel Downs at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm on Monday 17 July 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Shontel Downs must pay [The landlord/s] $2,951.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 19 May 2023 under application 4532456.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by telephone.
The tenant joined her mother into the call. The tenant was asked more than once to end the call with her mother. This was not done. The tenant and her mother wilfully interrupted the hearing and did not behave as directed by me. I ended the telephone call with the tenant and finished the hearing with just the landlord in attendance. See section 112 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
It is unclear whether the tenant’s mother paid $5000 immediately before the hearing. Because of this I have considered whether to terminate under sections 55 and 56 RTA. Should the tenancy be terminated – section 55 RTA?
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)
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy is terminated.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on Monday 17 July 2023. Should the tenancy be terminated – section 56 RTA?
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair- to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
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 her obligations by failing to pay rent on time. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 1 June 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. No rent was paid from 18 May 2023 until today - assuming the screenshot of a payment made at 10.58, two minutes before the hearing, was actually paid to the landlord.
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: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because there is a clear pattern of not paying rent on time. There have been two previous Tribunal orders for breaches this year, including the order made on 19 May for rent and for water rates. In that order the adjudicator recorded that the rent arrears were paid in full ‘just prior to the hearing’. She also warned the tenant that the Tribunal would not look favourably on any future breaches. I note there is also an order made on 7 February 2023 for water rates arrears.
I did not get the chance to explain the legal position to the tenant during the hearing, but the late payment of rent is not enough to save this tenancy. Tenants are required to pay rent every week, on time, and in advance. This means there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement every week since about 21 May, just after the last hearing. It seems likely to me the tenant will breach her obligation to pay rent again. It seems likely to me the avoidance of rent is deliberate.
The landlord has done the right thing by filing the application to terminate the tenancy. He explained that the owner has a mortgage to pay and is finding the erratic rent payments impossible to manage.
I find that terminating the tenancy is proportionate for the gravity of the tenant’s persistent failure to pay rent. Other orders
On 19 May 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and water rates arrears to 19 May 2023. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4596330 — net $2,951.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owed to 17 July 2023	$5,442.86	Rent owed to 17 July 2023
Water rates	$88.54	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,951.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,951.84

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 Shontel Downs at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm on Monday 17 July 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Shontel Downs must pay [The landlord/s] $2,951.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 19 May 2023 under application 4532456.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by telephone.
The tenant joined her mother into the call. The tenant was asked more than once to end the call with her mother. This was not done. The tenant and her mother wilfully interrupted the hearing and did not behave as directed by me. I ended the telephone call with the tenant and finished the hearing with just the landlord in attendance. See section 112 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
It is unclear whether the tenant’s mother paid $5000 immediately before the hearing. Because of this I have considered whether to terminate under sections 55 and 56 RTA. Should the tenancy be terminated – section 55 RTA?
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)
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy is terminated.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on Monday 17 July 2023. Should the tenancy be terminated – section 56 RTA?
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair- to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
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 her obligations by failing to pay rent on time. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 1 June 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. No rent was paid from 18 May 2023 until today - assuming the screenshot of a payment made at 10.58, two minutes before the hearing, was actually paid to the landlord.
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: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because there is a clear pattern of not paying rent on time. There have been two previous Tribunal orders for breaches this year, including the order made on 19 May for rent and for water rates. In that order the adjudicator recorded that the rent arrears were paid in full ‘just prior to the hearing’. She also warned the tenant that the Tribunal would not look favourably on any future breaches. I note there is also an order made on 7 February 2023 for water rates arrears.
I did not get the chance to explain the legal position to the tenant during the hearing, but the late payment of rent is not enough to save this tenancy. Tenants are required to pay rent every week, on time, and in advance. This means there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement every week since about 21 May, just after the last hearing. It seems likely to me the tenant will breach her obligation to pay rent again. It seems likely to me the avoidance of rent is deliberate.
The landlord has done the right thing by filing the application to terminate the tenancy. He explained that the owner has a mortgage to pay and is finding the erratic rent payments impossible to manage.
I find that terminating the tenancy is proportionate for the gravity of the tenant’s persistent failure to pay rent. Other orders
On 19 May 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and water rates arrears to 19 May 2023. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4596330 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4596330 — Tenancy dispute

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