How much money was awarded in case 4932753?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,394.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932753?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10672512-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4932753?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,394.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932753?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10672512-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

201 Carlyle Street, Napier South, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4932753 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4932753 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Premitha Pothupitiyage and Charith Ruwanpathirana at 201

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4932753 — net $821.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent and rent arrears	$2,394.28	Rent and rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$821.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$821.28

The tenancy of Premitha Pothupitiyage and Charith Ruwanpathirana at 201 Carlyle Street, Napier South, Napier 4110 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 8pm Sunday 18 August 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Premitha Pothupitiyage and Charith Ruwanpathirana must pay [The landlord/s] $821.28 no later than 15 August 2024, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Charith Ruwanpathirana represented both tenants as his wife was ill.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. Two grounds for termination were cited, s 55(1)(aa) and s 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Should the tenancy be terminated per s 55(1)(aa)?

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. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In this case I find 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 three notices were served on 15 May 2024, 21 June 2024, and 5 July 2024. These were effectively a second round of notices after three earlier ones had been served and an application for termination and rent arrears made. Given that order was not under a suppression order, its details are left out here.

The grounds have been established and the tenancy must be terminated. Rent records have been provided which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, as ordered above.

Should the tenancy be terminated per s 56?

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 arrears.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 5 July 2024 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the historic issues with recidivist rent and previous Tribunal orders. There is no need to rely on this section given the grounds confirmed in s 55(1)(aa) already but, if required, the tenancy is ended on s 56 grounds as well. Exit

An extended period before the tenancy ends has been provided for. The situation of the tenants and their failure to address longstanding rent issues reflects an economic hardship. Such a reality precluded any consideration of a conditional order as an alternative.

The date for the payment of the debt has been set at 15 August 2024 as that is the due date for the last (part) week of rent payment. Filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4932753 — net $821.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent and rent arrears	$2,394.28	Rent and rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$821.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$821.28

Order

The tenancy of Premitha Pothupitiyage and Charith Ruwanpathirana at 201 Carlyle Street, Napier South, Napier 4110 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 8pm Sunday 18 August 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Premitha Pothupitiyage and Charith Ruwanpathirana must pay [The landlord/s] $821.28 no later than 15 August 2024, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Charith Ruwanpathirana represented both tenants as his wife was ill.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. Two grounds for termination were cited, s 55(1)(aa) and s 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Should the tenancy be terminated per s 55(1)(aa)?
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. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case I find 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 three notices were served on 15 May 2024, 21 June 2024, and 5 July 2024. These were effectively a second round of notices after three earlier ones had been served and an application for termination and rent arrears made. Given that order was not under a suppression order, its details are left out here.
The grounds have been established and the tenancy must be terminated. Rent records have been provided which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, as ordered above.

Should the tenancy be terminated per s 56?

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 arrears.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 5 July 2024 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the historic issues with recidivist rent and previous Tribunal orders. There is no need to rely on this section given the grounds confirmed in s 55(1)(aa) already but, if required, the tenancy is ended on s 56 grounds as well. Exit
An extended period before the tenancy ends has been provided for. The situation of the tenants and their failure to address longstanding rent issues reflects an economic hardship. Such a reality precluded any consideration of a conditional order as an alternative.
The date for the payment of the debt has been set at 15 August 2024 as that is the due date for the last (part) week of rent payment. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932753 — Rent arrears at 201 Carlyle Street, Napier South, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932753 — Rent arrears at 201 Carlyle Street, Napier South, Napier 4110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated per s 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated per s 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions