What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4863781 about?

This case concerned a rent arrears dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4863781?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4863781?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4863781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10516965-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4863781 about?

This case concerned a rent arrears dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4863781?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4863781?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4863781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10516965-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4863781 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.

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 on time and in full.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 2 April 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy? 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.

In this matter there has been a history of breaches where the tenant has been late in making rent payments.

The rent is now in advance by 8 days. The rent has not fallen into arrears during the last month. In the circumstances, and by a very slim margin, I consider that termination of the tenancy would not be a proportionate response.

The tenant needs to be aware that a continuation of previous rent arrears entitles the landlord to apply to terminate the tenancy under the recidivist rent arrears provisions in s.55(1)(aa) RTA. That section provides; 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.

As [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim as rent has now been paid, I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Both parties have applied for name suppression. Both parties have achieved a degree of success in this matter and I order suppression of both the landlord and tenant names and details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.
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 on time and in full.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 2 April 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy? 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.
In this matter there has been a history of breaches where the tenant has been late in making rent payments.
The rent is now in advance by 8 days. The rent has not fallen into arrears during the last month. In the circumstances, and by a very slim margin, I consider that termination of the tenancy would not be a proportionate response.
The tenant needs to be aware that a continuation of previous rent arrears entitles the landlord to apply to terminate the tenancy under the recidivist rent arrears provisions in s.55(1)(aa) RTA. That section provides; 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.
As [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim as rent has now been paid, I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. Both parties have achieved a degree of success in this matter and I order suppression of both the landlord and tenant names and details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4863781 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4863781 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions