What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4850181 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and

How much money was awarded in case 4850181?

Rent Arrears: $593.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850181?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10311784-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4850181 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and

How much money was awarded in case 4850181?

Rent Arrears: $593.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850181?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10311784-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4850181 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4850181 — net $363.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08 April 2024	$593.00	Rent arrears to 08 April 2024
Net award	$363.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$363.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $230.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $363.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Mr Rea appeared for the landlord by telephone. There was no appearance by the tenant.
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?

The tenancy commenced on 22 November 2016 and is periodic. On or about 19 January 2024, the landlord received a letter from a medical professional advising that the tenant had been admitted to hospital and may require a period of inpatient rehabilitation. The author of the letter also invited, seemingly on the tenant’s behalf, that a “home transfer / placement” be considered.
Clause 24 of the tenancy agreement requires the tenant live at the property at all times and that the property is used as their principal place of residence. Clause 25 requires the tenant to advise the landlord if they are away from the property for more than 30 days. Section 40 (1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) states the tenant must ensure that the premises are occupied principally for residential purposes.
On 15 February 2024, the landlord issued a 14-day notice requiring the tenant make contact within 14 days or return to the property. The rent summary produced shows that rent payments ceased on 04 March 2024. At the material time the tenant appears to have been $244.00 in arrears, failing to meet a rent increase in February 2024. The rent in this case comes directly from the tenant’s benefit. There was no response to the notice. Ms Rea states the landlord has made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the tenant, whanau, and social services involved with a view to resolving the matter. Having no response to the notice the landlord had reasonable grounds to believe that the tenant was no longer residing at the property.
On 07 March 2024, the landlord served a notice to inspect the property on 11 March 2024. The landlord has produced an inspection report which includes photographs. The property is shown empty. There is no furniture, belongings, and no signs of recent occupation.
On 02 April 2024, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination of the tenancy for failing to remedy the notice, rent arrears, and refund of the bond. On 25 April 2024, there was a further payment made of $546.00. Ms Rea states that this has not come from WINZ.
An agent of the landlord has visited the property again today and confirmed that the property is empty, also noting that the power has been disconnected. Another inspection report with photographs has been produced. The landlord submits that it would be inequitable to refuse termination. As a social housing provider, the landlord has an over overriding social responsibility to ensure that the properties at their disposal are being properly utilised.
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)(c) 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.
The tenant has breached their obligations under the agreement and has failed to remedy the notice issued on 15 February 2024.
Having considered the evidence and submissions by the landlord, I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. There has been no response to the landlords enquires. The property appears to have been abandoned. The rent is in arrears. I accept the landlord submissions.
The terminated and the landlord is granted immediate possession. I deal with rent arrears on this basis. On 11 March 2024, the landlord had reasonable grounds to believe that the tenant was no longer occupying the premises. At the material time the rent was in arrears. The application was filed on 02 April 2024, and the matter has been scheduled within a short period for hearing today. I award the landlord rent arrears owing to 11 March 2024, and thereafter 28 days in lieu of notice to 08 April 2024. I have deducted the rent payment made on 25 April 2024. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although the landlord has been wholly successful, they do not seek suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.
The letter from the medical professionals suggests that the tenant faces personal challenges. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4850181 — net $363.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08 April 2024	$593.00	Rent arrears to 08 April 2024
Net award	$363.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$363.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $230.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $363.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Mr Rea appeared for the landlord by telephone. There was no appearance by the tenant.
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?

The tenancy commenced on 22 November 2016 and is periodic. On or about 19 January 2024, the landlord received a letter from a medical professional advising that the tenant had been admitted to hospital and may require a period of inpatient rehabilitation. The author of the letter also invited, seemingly on the tenant’s behalf, that a “home transfer / placement” be considered.
Clause 24 of the tenancy agreement requires the tenant live at the property at all times and that the property is used as their principal place of residence. Clause 25 requires the tenant to advise the landlord if they are away from the property for more than 30 days. Section 40 (1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) states the tenant must ensure that the premises are occupied principally for residential purposes.
On 15 February 2024, the landlord issued a 14-day notice requiring the tenant make contact within 14 days or return to the property. The rent summary produced shows that rent payments ceased on 04 March 2024. At the material time the tenant appears to have been $244.00 in arrears, failing to meet a rent increase in February 2024. The rent in this case comes directly from the tenant’s benefit. There was no response to the notice. Ms Rea states the landlord has made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the tenant, whanau, and social services involved with a view to resolving the matter. Having no response to the notice the landlord had reasonable grounds to believe that the tenant was no longer residing at the property.
On 07 March 2024, the landlord served a notice to inspect the property on 11 March 2024. The landlord has produced an inspection report which includes photographs. The property is shown empty. There is no furniture, belongings, and no signs of recent occupation.
On 02 April 2024, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination of the tenancy for failing to remedy the notice, rent arrears, and refund of the bond. On 25 April 2024, there was a further payment made of $546.00. Ms Rea states that this has not come from WINZ.
An agent of the landlord has visited the property again today and confirmed that the property is empty, also noting that the power has been disconnected. Another inspection report with photographs has been produced. The landlord submits that it would be inequitable to refuse termination. As a social housing provider, the landlord has an over overriding social responsibility to ensure that the properties at their disposal are being properly utilised.
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)(c) 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.
The tenant has breached their obligations under the agreement and has failed to remedy the notice issued on 15 February 2024.
Having considered the evidence and submissions by the landlord, I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. There has been no response to the landlords enquires. The property appears to have been abandoned. The rent is in arrears. I accept the landlord submissions.
The terminated and the landlord is granted immediate possession. I deal with rent arrears on this basis. On 11 March 2024, the landlord had reasonable grounds to believe that the tenant was no longer occupying the premises. At the material time the rent was in arrears. The application was filed on 02 April 2024, and the matter has been scheduled within a short period for hearing today. I award the landlord rent arrears owing to 11 March 2024, and thereafter 28 days in lieu of notice to 08 April 2024. I have deducted the rent payment made on 25 April 2024. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although the landlord has been wholly successful, they do not seek suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.
The letter from the medical professionals suggests that the tenant faces personal challenges. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850181 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850181 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions