What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920894 about?

The tribunal order states: Rama Morehu must pay [The landlord/s] $600.44 immediately, being rent arrears

How much money was awarded in case 4920894?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $248.57 awarded to landlord; Rent From 16 July: $331.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920894?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920894?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10582192-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920894 about?

The tribunal order states: Rama Morehu must pay [The landlord/s] $600.44 immediately, being rent arrears

How much money was awarded in case 4920894?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $248.57 awarded to landlord; Rent From 16 July: $331.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920894?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920894?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10582192-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Hamblyn Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4920894 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4920894. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 July 2024	$248.57	Rent arrears to 15 July 2024
Rent from 16 July to 19 July 2024	$331.43	Rent from 16 July to 19 July 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Rama Morehu must pay [The landlord/s] $600.44 immediately, being rent arrears to 15 July 2024, rent from 16 July to 19 July 2024 and the filing fee as calculated in the table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 15 July 2024 Rent from 16 July to 19 July 2024 $248.57 $331.43 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$600.44

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal gave the tenant notice of the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal to explain why he would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. Background:

On 08 June 2024, the tenant went into rent arrears.

On 12 June 2024, the landlord issued a 14-day notice. This notice provided that the breach was to be remedied by the tenant paying the arrears by 26 June 2024.

On 10 July 2024, the tenant made a payment of rent and rent arrears. From 10 to 12 July 2024, rent was paid up to date and the tenant was not in rent arrears.

On 13 July 2024, a payment of rent of $580 was due for rent from 13 June 2024 to 19 July 2024. This payment has not been made.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides 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 a breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring the tenant to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

I find that the tenant has breached his obligations by failing to pay rent as it fell due and that he also failed to remedy the breach within the required period after being given a notice in accordance with Section 56(1)(b) of the RTA.

In order to make an order terminating the tenancy, including a conditional termination order, I must be satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether the breach: ...is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.

The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in that case, being: (a) The history of the tenancy. (b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. (c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was 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.

At today’s hearing, I indicated to the landlord that I would issue a conditional termination order. However, I have since considered whether it would be inequitable to terminate in these circumstances. The rent ledger provided by the landlord shows that from the start of the tenancy in July 2022 to June this year, the tenant has paid his rent in accordance with the rent schedule. This is not a case where there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings or where the history of breaches is such that the tenant is unlikely to comply with his obligations in the future. Having now looked at the matter in detail, I do not consider that a termination order, even a conditional termination order, is a proportionate response in these circumstances.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing. The rent arrears are from 13 July to 15 July 2024. However, the Tenancy Agreement provides that the rent is to be paid weekly in advance. Therefore, the tenant has breached the Tenancy Agreement by failing to pay the week’s rent on 13 July 2024. I order that the tenant pay to the landlord immediately the arrears to 15 July 2024 and the rent from 16 to 19 July which was due on 13 July 2024.

The [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, therefore I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted the application for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4920894. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 July 2024	$248.57	Rent arrears to 15 July 2024
Rent from 16 July to 19 July 2024	$331.43	Rent from 16 July to 19 July 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Rama Morehu must pay [The landlord/s] $600.44 immediately, being rent arrears to 15 July 2024, rent from 16 July to 19 July 2024 and the filing fee as calculated in the table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 15 July 2024 Rent from 16 July to 19 July 2024 $248.57 $331.43 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$600.44

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal gave the tenant notice of the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal to explain why he would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. Background:
On 08 June 2024, the tenant went into rent arrears.
On 12 June 2024, the landlord issued a 14-day notice. This notice provided that the breach was to be remedied by the tenant paying the arrears by 26 June 2024.
On 10 July 2024, the tenant made a payment of rent and rent arrears. From 10 to 12 July 2024, rent was paid up to date and the tenant was not in rent arrears.
On 13 July 2024, a payment of rent of $580 was due for rent from 13 June 2024 to 19 July 2024. This payment has not been made.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides 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 a breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring the tenant to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
I find that the tenant has breached his obligations by failing to pay rent as it fell due and that he also failed to remedy the breach within the required period after being given a notice in accordance with Section 56(1)(b) of the RTA.
In order to make an order terminating the tenancy, including a conditional termination order, I must be satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether the breach: ...is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in that case, being: (a) The history of the tenancy. (b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. (c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was 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.
At today’s hearing, I indicated to the landlord that I would issue a conditional termination order. However, I have since considered whether it would be inequitable to terminate in these circumstances. The rent ledger provided by the landlord shows that from the start of the tenancy in July 2022 to June this year, the tenant has paid his rent in accordance with the rent schedule. This is not a case where there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings or where the history of breaches is such that the tenant is unlikely to comply with his obligations in the future. Having now looked at the matter in detail, I do not consider that a termination order, even a conditional termination order, is a proportionate response in these circumstances.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing. The rent arrears are from 13 July to 15 July 2024. However, the Tenancy Agreement provides that the rent is to be paid weekly in advance. Therefore, the tenant has breached the Tenancy Agreement by failing to pay the week’s rent on 13 July 2024. I order that the tenant pay to the landlord immediately the arrears to 15 July 2024 and the rent from 16 to 19 July which was due on 13 July 2024.
The [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, therefore I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted the application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920894 — Rent arrears at 3 Hamblyn Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920894 — Rent arrears at 3 Hamblyn Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions