How much money was awarded in case 4855744?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $870.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855744?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10444232-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4855744?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $870.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855744?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10444232-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Elizabeth Crescent, Oamaru North, Oamaru 9400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4855744 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855744 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Lisa Jensen and Michael Klnnear Smith at 3 Elizabeth Crescent,

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4855744 — net $950.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 June 2024	$870.00	Rent arrears to 11 June 2024
Rent owed to 12 June 2024	$60.00	Rent owed to 12 June 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$950.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$950.44

The tenancy of Lisa Jensen and Michael Klnnear Smith at 3 Elizabeth Crescent, Oamaru North, Oamaru 9400 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm on Wednesday 12 June 2024.

Lisa Jensen and Michael Klnnear Smith must pay [The landlord/s] $950.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants were properly notified about the hearing. They did not answer the calls made to their phones.

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 — very unfair — to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 tenants have breached their obligations by not paying rent on time and not paying rent in advance.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 8 April 2024 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The landlord wants the tenancy to end.

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.

I have considered these factors and I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. This is because the tenants have been in arrears for most of the tenancy. They missed a payment in February and this has never been caught up. As well, rent is meant to be paid one week in advance. The tenants have not attended the hearing.

The landlord has sent many 14 day notices about the rent owed, and filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal in April, and the rent breach has not been remedied. It seems unlikely to me the tenants will pay the money owed. Since the application was filed the rent arrears have increased, so the breach seems deliberate to me. The reality for the landlord is that the rent is now 14 days behind when it should be one week in advance. I am persuaded that termination is a proportionate response to the breach. The tenancy will end. Other orders

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord has asked for suppression. This is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4855744 — net $950.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 June 2024	$870.00	Rent arrears to 11 June 2024
Rent owed to 12 June 2024	$60.00	Rent owed to 12 June 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$950.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$950.44

Order

The tenancy of Lisa Jensen and Michael Klnnear Smith at 3 Elizabeth Crescent, Oamaru North, Oamaru 9400 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm on Wednesday 12 June 2024.
Lisa Jensen and Michael Klnnear Smith must pay [The landlord/s] $950.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants were properly notified about the hearing. They did not answer the calls made to their phones.
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 — very unfair — to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 tenants have breached their obligations by not paying rent on time and not paying rent in advance.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 8 April 2024 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The landlord wants the tenancy to end.
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.
I have considered these factors and I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. This is because the tenants have been in arrears for most of the tenancy. They missed a payment in February and this has never been caught up. As well, rent is meant to be paid one week in advance. The tenants have not attended the hearing.
The landlord has sent many 14 day notices about the rent owed, and filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal in April, and the rent breach has not been remedied. It seems unlikely to me the tenants will pay the money owed. Since the application was filed the rent arrears have increased, so the breach seems deliberate to me. The reality for the landlord is that the rent is now 14 days behind when it should be one week in advance. I am persuaded that termination is a proportionate response to the breach. The tenancy will end. Other orders
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has asked for suppression. This is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855744 — Rent arrears at 3 Elizabeth Crescent, Oamaru North, Oamaru 9400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855744 — Rent arrears at 3 Elizabeth Crescent, Oamaru North, Oamaru 9400

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