What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4785397 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4785397?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4785397?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4785397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10055285-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4785397 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4785397?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4785397?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4785397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10055285-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4785397 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4785397 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 on time and in full.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 18 December 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

The 14 day notice required the tenant to pay rent arrears of $957.14 and any rent which may fall due during the 14-day period.

The tenant paid $1,805.00 during the 14 day period, leaving an outstanding balance of rent arrears of $352.14 owing at the end of the 14 day period.

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: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

The history of the tenancy shows a tenancy of a little over one year. The tenant has been in arrears from time to time during that period.

The 14-day notice served in this case is the only warning that the Tribunal is aware of.

I am unable to say that it would be unlikely that the tenant would fail to comply. The tenant explained that her circumstances have changed and that she did not foresee any issue with paying the rent on time and in full in the future.

A failure to pay rent on time and in full is almost inevitably deliberate.

The landlord conduct has been appropriate in all the circumstances.

The breach of the 14 day notice is relatively minor and amounts to a little over 4 days rent.

The tenant has now paid all rent arrears and is in credit.

In all of the circumstances shown above, I consider that terminating the tenancy would not be a proportionate response to the breach.

It would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy and the application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

The rent is not in arrears and the rent arrears claim is dismissed.

The landlord has applied for reimbursement of the filing fee, which would usually only be granted where the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially. The main reason for that is the tenant’s payment of the rent arrears on the day of the hearing. In those circumstances, I consider it appropriate that the tenant reimburse the landlord for the filing fee.

Both parties have applied for name suppression. In the slightly unusual facts of this case, where the landlord was essentially forced to issue the proceedings and matters were only resolved on the day of the hearing, I order suppression of the both the landlord and tenant name and details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4785397 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The application is dismissed.
The tenant is to pay $20.44 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 on time and in full.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 18 December 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The 14 day notice required the tenant to pay rent arrears of $957.14 and any rent which may fall due during the 14-day period.
The tenant paid $1,805.00 during the 14 day period, leaving an outstanding balance of rent arrears of $352.14 owing at the end of the 14 day period.
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: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The history of the tenancy shows a tenancy of a little over one year. The tenant has been in arrears from time to time during that period.
The 14-day notice served in this case is the only warning that the Tribunal is aware of.
I am unable to say that it would be unlikely that the tenant would fail to comply. The tenant explained that her circumstances have changed and that she did not foresee any issue with paying the rent on time and in full in the future.
A failure to pay rent on time and in full is almost inevitably deliberate.
The landlord conduct has been appropriate in all the circumstances.
The breach of the 14 day notice is relatively minor and amounts to a little over 4 days rent.
The tenant has now paid all rent arrears and is in credit.
In all of the circumstances shown above, I consider that terminating the tenancy would not be a proportionate response to the breach.
It would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy and the application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
The rent is not in arrears and the rent arrears claim is dismissed.
The landlord has applied for reimbursement of the filing fee, which would usually only be granted where the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially. The main reason for that is the tenant’s payment of the rent arrears on the day of the hearing. In those circumstances, I consider it appropriate that the tenant reimburse the landlord for the filing fee.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. In the slightly unusual facts of this case, where the landlord was essentially forced to issue the proceedings and matters were only resolved on the day of the hearing, I order suppression of the both the landlord and tenant name and details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4785397 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4785397 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions