How much money was awarded in case 4627309?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,094.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627309?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9352944-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4627309?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,094.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627309?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9352944-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

627A Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4627309 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627309 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 4627309 — net $1,114.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 29 August 2023	$1,094.00	Rent arrears as at 29 August 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,114.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,114.44

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

The claim against Stacy-Ria King is dismissed.

The tenancy of Keesha King and Stacey Ria King at 627A Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Tuesday 29 August 2023.

Keesha King and Stacey Ria King must pay [The landlord/s] $1,114.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

This application was scheduled to be heard by teleconference. I rang the number provided for Keesha King three times but on each occasion my call went to voicemail. I did not ring Stacy-Ria King because I was advised by the landlord that she has left the tenancy and has no part in today’s application.

I proceeded with the hearing in Keesha King’s absence and dismissed the claim against Stacy-Ria King.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 rent as and when it fell due.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 30 June 2023 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because Ms King is in continual rent arrears, has only made sporadic payments towards these arrears and did not attend today’s hearing to discuss this issue.

I note that at today’s hearing the landlord advised that they would have been willing to enter into a payment plan with Ms King to avoid termination. However an agreement cannot be made in the absence of one party and so such an arrangement could not be made.

Given that I think there is still a possibility that Ms King avoids termination of her tenancy if she contacts the landlord, I am leaving the bond at the Bond Centre at this time. Rent arrears

I accept the evidence indicating that as at today’s date Ms King owes $1094.00 in rent arrears. She is required to pay this. Filing fee reimbursement

As well as paying the rent arrears, because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order Ms King to reimburse them the filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

I have ordered the suppression of the landlord’s name because they have applied for it and were wholly successful in their claim. C ter Haar 29 August 2023

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627309 — net $1,114.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 29 August 2023	$1,094.00	Rent arrears as at 29 August 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,114.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,114.44

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 claim against Stacy-Ria King is dismissed.
The tenancy of Keesha King and Stacey Ria King at 627A Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Tuesday 29 August 2023.
Keesha King and Stacey Ria King must pay [The landlord/s] $1,114.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

This application was scheduled to be heard by teleconference. I rang the number provided for Keesha King three times but on each occasion my call went to voicemail. I did not ring Stacy-Ria King because I was advised by the landlord that she has left the tenancy and has no part in today’s application.
I proceeded with the hearing in Keesha King’s absence and dismissed the claim against Stacy-Ria King.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 rent as and when it fell due.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 30 June 2023 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because Ms King is in continual rent arrears, has only made sporadic payments towards these arrears and did not attend today’s hearing to discuss this issue.
I note that at today’s hearing the landlord advised that they would have been willing to enter into a payment plan with Ms King to avoid termination. However an agreement cannot be made in the absence of one party and so such an arrangement could not be made.
Given that I think there is still a possibility that Ms King avoids termination of her tenancy if she contacts the landlord, I am leaving the bond at the Bond Centre at this time. Rent arrears
I accept the evidence indicating that as at today’s date Ms King owes $1094.00 in rent arrears. She is required to pay this. Filing fee reimbursement
As well as paying the rent arrears, because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order Ms King to reimburse them the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I have ordered the suppression of the landlord’s name because they have applied for it and were wholly successful in their claim. C ter Haar 29 August 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627309 — Rent arrears at 627A Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627309 — Rent arrears at 627A Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

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