What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4871162?

The tribunal order states: The claim is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4871162?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871162?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871162?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10564440-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4871162?

The tribunal order states: The claim is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4871162?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871162?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871162?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10564440-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

227 Hollands Road, Tinwald, Ashburton 7771 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4871162 — Rent arrears

Order

The claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, on the grounds that the tenant has been at least 5 days in arrear on three separate occasions within a 90 day period.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that 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.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The grounds have been established for the tenancy to be terminated.
See section 55(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: ‘The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies.’
In the present case the breach has been remedied. Rachel has paid rent to 25 July 2024. The landlord has not provided any evidence of any tangible loss that has arisen as a result of irregular payments. The only other part of section 55(2) that must be determined is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies.
The tenant does not dispute that payments have been irregular. Her explanation is that she is in legal work where the Ministry of Justice pays her irregularly. Sometimes expected payment dates pass without payment being received. Rachel said that she does not have savings that assist her when payments are late, but she always catches up.
There is a further section of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that applies to all decisions adjudicators must make. Section 85(2) requires: ‘The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.’
Termination of a tenancy is an extremely serious matter. I must determine whether this case warrants the Tribunal not being bound by the landlord’s strict legal rights.
In making my decision I have taken into account that the amount of rent arrears since August 2023 has never exceeded the amount of bond that the landlord has as a security. I have taken account of the fact that the tenant has been in credit for forty of the weeks since the tenancy began in July 2022. I have taken into account that there is no supporting evidence showing that the owner is unable to make mortgage payments due to the irregular rent payments. I have taken into account that the tenant is in a job where there is security of income and therefore security of rent payments, albeit not with the regularity that landlords can expect.
Having weighed up the evidence I find that termination of the tenancy does not reflect the merits and justice of the case and the tenancy should be able to continue. This does not mean that the landlord is stopped from making a further application if the situation changed from that currently in place.

Order

The claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, on the grounds that the tenant has been at least 5 days in arrear on three separate occasions within a 90 day period.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that 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.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The grounds have been established for the tenancy to be terminated.
See section 55(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: ‘The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies.’
In the present case the breach has been remedied. Rachel has paid rent to 25 July 2024. The landlord has not provided any evidence of any tangible loss that has arisen as a result of irregular payments. The only other part of section 55(2) that must be determined is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies.
The tenant does not dispute that payments have been irregular. Her explanation is that she is in legal work where the Ministry of Justice pays her irregularly. Sometimes expected payment dates pass without payment being received. Rachel said that she does not have savings that assist her when payments are late, but she always catches up.
There is a further section of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that applies to all decisions adjudicators must make. Section 85(2) requires: ‘The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.’
Termination of a tenancy is an extremely serious matter. I must determine whether this case warrants the Tribunal not being bound by the landlord’s strict legal rights.
In making my decision I have taken into account that the amount of rent arrears since August 2023 has never exceeded the amount of bond that the landlord has as a security. I have taken account of the fact that the tenant has been in credit for forty of the weeks since the tenancy began in July 2022. I have taken into account that there is no supporting evidence showing that the owner is unable to make mortgage payments due to the irregular rent payments. I have taken into account that the tenant is in a job where there is security of income and therefore security of rent payments, albeit not with the regularity that landlords can expect.
Having weighed up the evidence I find that termination of the tenancy does not reflect the merits and justice of the case and the tenancy should be able to continue. This does not mean that the landlord is stopped from making a further application if the situation changed from that currently in place.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871162 — Rent arrears at 227 Hollands Road, Tinwald, Ashburton 7771

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871162 — Rent arrears at 227 Hollands Road, Tinwald, Ashburton 7771

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions