What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4879088?

The tribunal order states: Josie Leigh Patricia Pirini owes The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Avneel

How much money was awarded in case 4879088?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $770.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $806.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879088?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10704456-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4879088?

The tribunal order states: Josie Leigh Patricia Pirini owes The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Avneel

How much money was awarded in case 4879088?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $770.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $806.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879088?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10704456-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Thompson Terrace, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4879088 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4879088 — net $1,597.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 August 2024	$770.00	Rent arrears to 9 August 2024
Water rates	$806.81	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,597.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,597.25

Order

Josie Leigh Patricia Pirini owes The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Avneel Kumar $1,597.25 (“the debt”) as detailed in the table below.
Josie Leigh Patricia Pirini must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. By 53 weekly payments of $720.00, being $690.00 for rent and $30.00 for the debt. b. A final payment of $697.25, being $690.00 for rent and $7.25 for the debt. c. Payments will be every Friday, with the first payment on 16/08/2024 and continuing until 22/08/2025.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, rent arrears, water rates and the filing fee.
If the tenant fails to pay rent, rent arrears and water rates within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 17 Thompson Terrace, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
If the tenant fails to pay the filing fee within 2 working days of the due date, the filing fee will be payable immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates and refund of the bond. The tenant wants to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

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. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant breached their obligations by failing to pay their rent when it was due and has been in a constant state of arrears since 19 April 2024. On 24 April 2024, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, but the breach was not remedied within the required period. The Tribunal is required to determine whether the breach is of such a nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. See section 56(1)(c) RTA.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating a tenancy. The relevant factors are:
The history of the tenancy.
Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.
Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.
The conduct of the landlord.
The gravity of the breach.
Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
Applying the above factors to the present case, I make the following observations: History of the tenancy
The tenancy began on 29 December 2023. The tenant first fell into arrears of one week on 26 January 2024. This was cleared on 5 February 2024. The tenant fell into arrears of one week again on 8 March 2024. This was cleared on 13 March 2024. The tenant fell into arrears again on 19 April 2024 and has been in a constant state of arrears from this date up until the hearing on 12 August 2024. On 16 May 2024, rental arrears totalled $2,070.00 at their highest (21 days). Although the tenant has made payments towards rent and the arrears, they have not been able to clear the arrears in full.
The tenant also owes $806.81 in water rates.
The landlord advised the Tribunal that they have made multiple attempts to engage the tenant and organise a payment plan in respect of the arrears and water rates. The landlord advised that the tenant was relatively good at keeping in contact with them at the beginning of the tenancy, but has been more difficult to engage with in recent times. The tenant did not attend the first mediation. A second mediation was scheduled to allow the tenant another opportunity to attend. The tenant did not attend the second mediation either.
The landlord advised the Tribunal that the tenant looks after the property, and keeps it clean and tidy. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a total of ten 14-day notices that had been given to the tenant regarding rent arrears and outstanding water rates. These 14-day notices were issued between 30 January 2024 - 24 April 2024. Despite these repeated warnings, the tenant has remained in a constant state of arrears. Whether the history was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future
Considering the length of time the tenant has been in arrears and number of warnings they have been given by the landlord, I find it is unlikely that they will comply with their obligations in the future. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberate
The failure of the tenant to pay rent when due has been persistent, as opposed to a one-off incident. I therefore find the breach to be deliberate rather than inadvertent. The conduct of the landlord
The landlord has given the tenant multiple opportunities to repay the arrears and attend mediation before seeking an order for termination from the Tribunal. The conduct of the landlord has been positive and accommodating. They have applied to the Tribunal as a last resort. The gravity of the breach
The obligation to pay rent when due is an important and basic requirement of a residential tenancy. Considering the length of time that the tenant has been in rental arrears, I find the gravity of the breach to be relatively high. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach
The total amount of rent owing at the date of the hearing is not particularly high however, the tenant has been in a constant state of arrears for 17 weeks. They have had multiple 14-day notices given to them, but have not cleared the arrears and remedied the breach. At its highest, the arrears totalled $2,070.00 (21 days). In recent times, the tenant has become evasive and difficult to engage with. The tenant did not attend two scheduled mediations. For these reasons, I find that termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having heard the evidence I am satisfied the tenant will pay the debt within the period specified in the order and is unlikely to commit any further breach. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and water rates. They have provided rent records and invoices from the water rates authority which prove the amounts owing.
Because The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Avneel Kumar has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4879088 — net $1,597.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 August 2024	$770.00	Rent arrears to 9 August 2024
Water rates	$806.81	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,597.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,597.25

Order

Josie Leigh Patricia Pirini owes The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Avneel Kumar $1,597.25 (“the debt”) as detailed in the table below.
Josie Leigh Patricia Pirini must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. By 53 weekly payments of $720.00, being $690.00 for rent and $30.00 for the debt. b. A final payment of $697.25, being $690.00 for rent and $7.25 for the debt. c. Payments will be every Friday, with the first payment on 16/08/2024 and continuing until 22/08/2025.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, rent arrears, water rates and the filing fee.
If the tenant fails to pay rent, rent arrears and water rates within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 17 Thompson Terrace, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
If the tenant fails to pay the filing fee within 2 working days of the due date, the filing fee will be payable immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates and refund of the bond. The tenant wants to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

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. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant breached their obligations by failing to pay their rent when it was due and has been in a constant state of arrears since 19 April 2024. On 24 April 2024, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, but the breach was not remedied within the required period. The Tribunal is required to determine whether the breach is of such a nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. See section 56(1)(c) RTA.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating a tenancy. The relevant factors are:
The history of the tenancy.
Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.
Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.
The conduct of the landlord.
The gravity of the breach.
Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
Applying the above factors to the present case, I make the following observations: History of the tenancy
The tenancy began on 29 December 2023. The tenant first fell into arrears of one week on 26 January 2024. This was cleared on 5 February 2024. The tenant fell into arrears of one week again on 8 March 2024. This was cleared on 13 March 2024. The tenant fell into arrears again on 19 April 2024 and has been in a constant state of arrears from this date up until the hearing on 12 August 2024. On 16 May 2024, rental arrears totalled $2,070.00 at their highest (21 days). Although the tenant has made payments towards rent and the arrears, they have not been able to clear the arrears in full.
The tenant also owes $806.81 in water rates.
The landlord advised the Tribunal that they have made multiple attempts to engage the tenant and organise a payment plan in respect of the arrears and water rates. The landlord advised that the tenant was relatively good at keeping in contact with them at the beginning of the tenancy, but has been more difficult to engage with in recent times. The tenant did not attend the first mediation. A second mediation was scheduled to allow the tenant another opportunity to attend. The tenant did not attend the second mediation either.
The landlord advised the Tribunal that the tenant looks after the property, and keeps it clean and tidy. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a total of ten 14-day notices that had been given to the tenant regarding rent arrears and outstanding water rates. These 14-day notices were issued between 30 January 2024 - 24 April 2024. Despite these repeated warnings, the tenant has remained in a constant state of arrears. Whether the history was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future
Considering the length of time the tenant has been in arrears and number of warnings they have been given by the landlord, I find it is unlikely that they will comply with their obligations in the future. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberate
The failure of the tenant to pay rent when due has been persistent, as opposed to a one-off incident. I therefore find the breach to be deliberate rather than inadvertent. The conduct of the landlord
The landlord has given the tenant multiple opportunities to repay the arrears and attend mediation before seeking an order for termination from the Tribunal. The conduct of the landlord has been positive and accommodating. They have applied to the Tribunal as a last resort. The gravity of the breach
The obligation to pay rent when due is an important and basic requirement of a residential tenancy. Considering the length of time that the tenant has been in rental arrears, I find the gravity of the breach to be relatively high. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach
The total amount of rent owing at the date of the hearing is not particularly high however, the tenant has been in a constant state of arrears for 17 weeks. They have had multiple 14-day notices given to them, but have not cleared the arrears and remedied the breach. At its highest, the arrears totalled $2,070.00 (21 days). In recent times, the tenant has become evasive and difficult to engage with. The tenant did not attend two scheduled mediations. For these reasons, I find that termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having heard the evidence I am satisfied the tenant will pay the debt within the period specified in the order and is unlikely to commit any further breach. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and water rates. They have provided rent records and invoices from the water rates authority which prove the amounts owing.
Because The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Avneel Kumar has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879088 — Rent arrears at 17 Thompson Terrace, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879088 — Rent arrears at 17 Thompson Terrace, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions