What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4862355 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4862355?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862355?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862355?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10407650-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4862355 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4862355?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862355?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862355?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10407650-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 121 Ingestre Street, Whanganui, Whanganui Tenancy Tribunal Case 4862355 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears under section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”).

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. 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; and c. 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 d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I note that section 55(1)(aa) RTA requires the rent to five working days in arrears. I have not considered whether some of the days included in the landlord’s calculations were not working days.
As discussed at the hearing, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the notices issued are accurate. The first notice issued on 23 April 2024 claimed the rent was in arrears by $1,290.00 on that date. The landlord’s rent records show that the tenant was in arrears by $860.00 on 18 April 2024. The tenant was in arrears by a further five days to 23 April 2024. This equates to a further $307.14. Total payments of $1,290.00 were made on 23 April 2024 and yet the notice was issued.
Similarly, the second notice issued on 6 May 2024 claims that the rent was in arrears by one week or $430.00 on 3 May 2024. At that date, the landlord’s rent record indicates that the tenant had not yet paid the week’s rent in advance. The tenant was not in arrears, but was in breach of the tenancy agreement which requires rent to be paid in advance. This notice also incorrectly recorded that the 90 day period started on 15 February 2024.
I have reservations about the landlord filing its application on 16 April 2024, before any of the notices relied on its application had been issued to the tenant. It refers to a notice issued on 8 April 2024 and is not one of the three notices issued under section 55(1)(aa) RTA. There may be nothing that precludes such a step and it is not necessary to consider this aspect of the application to reach the Tribunal’s decision. However, it is possible that such an application may fail because, at the time of making it, the landlord had not issued the three notices as required under section 55(1)(aa) RTA.
The landlord confirmed that until this year, there had been no problems with the tenancy which had proceeded satisfactorily for three and a half years before the tenants fell into financial difficulty when they both lost their jobs.
The tenant confirmed that a payment of rent had been made today. The landlord advised that one further payment was due today so that the rent was paid a week in advance as required by the tenancy agreement. The tenant agreed to make this payment.
Termination of a tenancy is the ultimate sanction. The consequences of termination have very serious consequences for a tenant: a tenant loses their home. The terms of this section of the RTA are very specific and it is reasonable to presume that Parliament intended that they be complied with strictly. The Tribunal has previously taken a prescriptive interpretation of this provision requiring landlords’ strict adherence to its requirements.
As the landlord’s notices do not comply with the requirements of section 55(1)(aa) RTA due to inaccuracies in the information they must contain, the landlord’s application must be dismissed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears under section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”).

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. 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; and c. 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 d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I note that section 55(1)(aa) RTA requires the rent to five working days in arrears. I have not considered whether some of the days included in the landlord’s calculations were not working days.
As discussed at the hearing, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the notices issued are accurate. The first notice issued on 23 April 2024 claimed the rent was in arrears by $1,290.00 on that date. The landlord’s rent records show that the tenant was in arrears by $860.00 on 18 April 2024. The tenant was in arrears by a further five days to 23 April 2024. This equates to a further $307.14. Total payments of $1,290.00 were made on 23 April 2024 and yet the notice was issued.
Similarly, the second notice issued on 6 May 2024 claims that the rent was in arrears by one week or $430.00 on 3 May 2024. At that date, the landlord’s rent record indicates that the tenant had not yet paid the week’s rent in advance. The tenant was not in arrears, but was in breach of the tenancy agreement which requires rent to be paid in advance. This notice also incorrectly recorded that the 90 day period started on 15 February 2024.
I have reservations about the landlord filing its application on 16 April 2024, before any of the notices relied on its application had been issued to the tenant. It refers to a notice issued on 8 April 2024 and is not one of the three notices issued under section 55(1)(aa) RTA. There may be nothing that precludes such a step and it is not necessary to consider this aspect of the application to reach the Tribunal’s decision. However, it is possible that such an application may fail because, at the time of making it, the landlord had not issued the three notices as required under section 55(1)(aa) RTA.
The landlord confirmed that until this year, there had been no problems with the tenancy which had proceeded satisfactorily for three and a half years before the tenants fell into financial difficulty when they both lost their jobs.
The tenant confirmed that a payment of rent had been made today. The landlord advised that one further payment was due today so that the rent was paid a week in advance as required by the tenancy agreement. The tenant agreed to make this payment.
Termination of a tenancy is the ultimate sanction. The consequences of termination have very serious consequences for a tenant: a tenant loses their home. The terms of this section of the RTA are very specific and it is reasonable to presume that Parliament intended that they be complied with strictly. The Tribunal has previously taken a prescriptive interpretation of this provision requiring landlords’ strict adherence to its requirements.
As the landlord’s notices do not comply with the requirements of section 55(1)(aa) RTA due to inaccuracies in the information they must contain, the landlord’s application must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862355 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 4, 121 Ingestre Street, Whanganui, Whanganui

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862355 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 4, 121 Ingestre Street, Whanganui, Whanganui

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions