What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4929861 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Oliva Thomas Wharepouri and Omega Katoa at 29 Mildmay

How much money was awarded in case 4929861?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,884.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4929861?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4929861?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10607849-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4929861 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Oliva Thomas Wharepouri and Omega Katoa at 29 Mildmay

How much money was awarded in case 4929861?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,884.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4929861?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4929861?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10607849-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

29 Mildmay Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4929861 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4929861 — net $31.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 July 2024	$2,884.57	Rent arrears to 22 July 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$31.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$31.57

The tenancy of Oliva Thomas Wharepouri and Omega Katoa at 29 Mildmay Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on 22 July 2024.

Oliva Thomas Wharepouri and Omega Katoa must pay [The landlord/s] $31.57 immediately, being rent arrears to 22 July 2024 and reimbursement of the filing fee, less the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing for the landlord. 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 they would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Background:

The tenancy commenced on 18 August 2021. Under the tenancy agreement, the tenant is obliged to pay rent weekly in advance.

On 24 June 2024, the tenant went into rent arrears.

On 01 July 2024, the landlord sent a letter to the tenant advising that the tenant’s failure to pay rent placed them in breach of the tenancy agreement and that they had 14 days to remedy the breach.

The breach was not remedied within the 14-day period and the tenant continued to fail to pay rent.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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.

The landlord had provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove that the tenant has failed to pay rent since 17 June 2024. I find that the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay rent as it fell due and that they have 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, 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.

In this case, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the breach is significant. The tenant has failed to pay the last 6 weeks’ rent and failed to comply with the 14-day notice. I consider the history of these breaches is such that it is likely the tenant will continue to fail to comply with their obligations in the future. Overall, I consider termination to be a proportionate response to the breach.

The [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim. Therefore, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee and grant the application for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4929861 — net $31.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 July 2024	$2,884.57	Rent arrears to 22 July 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$31.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$31.57

Order

The tenancy of Oliva Thomas Wharepouri and Omega Katoa at 29 Mildmay Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on 22 July 2024.
Oliva Thomas Wharepouri and Omega Katoa must pay [The landlord/s] $31.57 immediately, being rent arrears to 22 July 2024 and reimbursement of the filing fee, less the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing for the landlord. 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 they would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Background:
The tenancy commenced on 18 August 2021. Under the tenancy agreement, the tenant is obliged to pay rent weekly in advance.
On 24 June 2024, the tenant went into rent arrears.
On 01 July 2024, the landlord sent a letter to the tenant advising that the tenant’s failure to pay rent placed them in breach of the tenancy agreement and that they had 14 days to remedy the breach.
The breach was not remedied within the 14-day period and the tenant continued to fail to pay rent.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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.
The landlord had provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove that the tenant has failed to pay rent since 17 June 2024. I find that the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay rent as it fell due and that they have 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, 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.
In this case, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the breach is significant. The tenant has failed to pay the last 6 weeks’ rent and failed to comply with the 14-day notice. I consider the history of these breaches is such that it is likely the tenant will continue to fail to comply with their obligations in the future. Overall, I consider termination to be a proportionate response to the breach.
The [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim. Therefore, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee and grant the application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4929861 — Rent arrears at 29 Mildmay Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4929861 — Rent arrears at 29 Mildmay Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions