What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615051?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4615051?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,590.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615051?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9255048-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615051?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4615051?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,590.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615051?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9255048-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11A Ranui Station Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615051 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4615051 — net $1,610.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 August 2023	$1,590.00	Rent arrears to 3 August 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,610.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,610.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision
Rosie Petersen and Amanaki Koro must pay Andrew Smith $1,610.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, which was conducted via teleconference. Multiple attempts were made to contact the tenants on several different numbers but these efforts either went to voicemail or did not connect.
I am satisfied that the tenants had notice of the time and date of the hearing, therefore the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and payment of rent arrears. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 3 August 2023$1,590.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,610.44

Should the Tenancy be Terminated?

Section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that (a) the rent was, at the date on which the application was filed under section 86, at least 21 days in arrear; or (aa) the tenancy is a periodic tenancy and— (i) on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and (ii) on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice (see sections 77(1) and 78(1)(a) regarding the Tribunal); and (iii) each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and (iv) the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice; or
Section 56 of the Act provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach (including non-payment of rent) where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) of the Act.
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.
In this case, there was some confusion regarding the rent summary initially provided. That is because the rent in this case is $530.00 per week but the rent summary showed amounts due of $545.00 per week.
The landlord explained that was because the tenants had indicated they wanted to pay an additional $15 per week to cover likely water costs.
Water may be charged by a landlord but only where it can be shown to be exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities – see section 39 of the Act. For example, tenants are not liable for fixed costs on a Watercare invoice. I will leave it to the parties to ensure that whatever arrangement is in place is compliant with this section.
For the purpose of today’s hearing however, the landlord was able to resubmit a rent summary that showed only rent owing by the tenants with water removed from the equation.
That summary showed that on the date of the application rent was in arrears in the amount of $1287.14. That is less than 21 days in arrears, thus an application under section 55(1)(a) of the Act cannot succeed.
In terms of section 56 of the Act, although the landlord provided a copy of a 14- day notice dated 10 June 2023 that was given to the tenants, this did not comply with the requirements of the section because it gave the tenants only 6 days to comply with the notice (until 16 June 2023).
In this case, it appears that the tenants are endeavouring to remedy the situation. In fact, during the hearing the landlord indicated he had just received an email from the tenant to that effect.
The landlord was still seeking termination because his view was that the tenants consistently got into arrears and then at the last minute tried to sort things out.
However, on balance, I am not satisfied that a proper basis for termination under either section 55 or 56 has been made out.
The application for termination is therefore dismissed.
I do however make an order for the rent arrears, which are $1590.00 as of today’s date, 3 August 2023.
The tenants should be aware that if they fail to remedy the situation, they may well face a further application for termination which might result in a different outcome.
Because Andrew Smith has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. J R Smith 03 August 2023

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4615051 — net $1,610.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 August 2023	$1,590.00	Rent arrears to 3 August 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,610.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,610.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision
Rosie Petersen and Amanaki Koro must pay Andrew Smith $1,610.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, which was conducted via teleconference. Multiple attempts were made to contact the tenants on several different numbers but these efforts either went to voicemail or did not connect.
I am satisfied that the tenants had notice of the time and date of the hearing, therefore the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and payment of rent arrears. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 3 August 2023$1,590.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,610.44

Should the Tenancy be Terminated?

Section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that (a) the rent was, at the date on which the application was filed under section 86, at least 21 days in arrear; or (aa) the tenancy is a periodic tenancy and— (i) on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and (ii) on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice (see sections 77(1) and 78(1)(a) regarding the Tribunal); and (iii) each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and (iv) the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice; or
Section 56 of the Act provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach (including non-payment of rent) where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) of the Act.
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.
In this case, there was some confusion regarding the rent summary initially provided. That is because the rent in this case is $530.00 per week but the rent summary showed amounts due of $545.00 per week.
The landlord explained that was because the tenants had indicated they wanted to pay an additional $15 per week to cover likely water costs.
Water may be charged by a landlord but only where it can be shown to be exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities – see section 39 of the Act. For example, tenants are not liable for fixed costs on a Watercare invoice. I will leave it to the parties to ensure that whatever arrangement is in place is compliant with this section.
For the purpose of today’s hearing however, the landlord was able to resubmit a rent summary that showed only rent owing by the tenants with water removed from the equation.
That summary showed that on the date of the application rent was in arrears in the amount of $1287.14. That is less than 21 days in arrears, thus an application under section 55(1)(a) of the Act cannot succeed.
In terms of section 56 of the Act, although the landlord provided a copy of a 14- day notice dated 10 June 2023 that was given to the tenants, this did not comply with the requirements of the section because it gave the tenants only 6 days to comply with the notice (until 16 June 2023).
In this case, it appears that the tenants are endeavouring to remedy the situation. In fact, during the hearing the landlord indicated he had just received an email from the tenant to that effect.
The landlord was still seeking termination because his view was that the tenants consistently got into arrears and then at the last minute tried to sort things out.
However, on balance, I am not satisfied that a proper basis for termination under either section 55 or 56 has been made out.
The application for termination is therefore dismissed.
I do however make an order for the rent arrears, which are $1590.00 as of today’s date, 3 August 2023.
The tenants should be aware that if they fail to remedy the situation, they may well face a further application for termination which might result in a different outcome.
Because Andrew Smith has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. J R Smith 03 August 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615051 — Rent arrears at 11A Ranui Station Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615051 — Rent arrears at 11A Ranui Station Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

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