What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4953763?

The tribunal order states: Chechayna Murray owes The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For John & Joan

How much money was awarded in case 4953763?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $818.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953763?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953763?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10721193-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4953763?

The tribunal order states: Chechayna Murray owes The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For John & Joan

How much money was awarded in case 4953763?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $818.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953763?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953763?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10721193-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 246 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953763 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953763 — net $845.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$818.72	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$845.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$845.72

Order

Chechayna Murray owes The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For John & Joan Holding $845.72 (“the debt”) as detailed in the table below by 31 October 2024.
Payment will be allocated in the following order: water rates and the filing fee.
If the tenant fails to pay the water rates within 2 working days of the due date: a. The tenancy at Unit/Flat 5, 246 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 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

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears 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 remedy a 14-day notice regarding rent arrears and outstanding water rates. On 26 July 2024, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant requiring the tenant to pay rent arrears of $540.00 and outstanding water rates of $839.16. The tenant had until 9 August 2024. The tenant paid rent arrears, but not the outstanding water rates. The Tribunal is required to determine whether this 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 relevant to the assessment whether it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating a tenancy. These 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 25 August 2022. From 03/11/2022 – 07/12/2022 the tenant was in rent arrears. The arrears peaked at $1,360.00 on 7 December 2022. The tenant fell into rent arrears again on 25 July 2024. Other than these instances, the tenant has paid their rent on time.
The last time the tenant was up to date regarding their payment of water rates was 14 December 2022.
Other than the above issues, the landlord advised the Tribunal that the tenant is a good tenant who looks after the property. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings
The tenant has been behind in their payment of water for approximately 18 months. The landlord provided the Tribunal with eleven 14-day notices they have served on the tenant. The tenant has not remedied any of these 14-day notices and the outstanding water rates have increased over time. Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future
The tenant advised the Tribunal that they receive a sickness benefit. Their rent is usually redirected and after they purchase food, they have very little left over to meet their other bills. The tenant advised the Tribunal that they were not in a position to repay the debt over time. The tenant advised the Tribunal that the only way they can repay the debt is with the assistance of Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ). The tenant advised the Tribunal that they were ineligible to receive any assistance from WINZ for a further three months, as WINZ has recently assisted the tenant to clear rent arrears.
The landlord and tenant previously attended mediation where the tenant agreed to pay an additional $30.00 per week towards the outstanding water rates. The tenant has not made one payment.
Considering the length of time the tenant has not paid their water rates invoices when due, I consider it is unlikely that the tenant will comply with their obligations in the future. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberate
The tenant has not paid their water rates invoices when due on 25 separate occasions. Therefore, I consider the breach to be deliberate, rather than inadvertent. The conduct of the landlord
The landlord has issued eleven 14-day notices and attempted mediation with the tenant. The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for termination as a last resort. The gravity of the breach
Considering the length of time the tenant has been in debt for outstanding water rates and the amount owing at the date of the hearing ($818.72), I consider the breach to be relatively high. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach
The tenant has been behind in their payment of water for approximately 18 months. The landlord has issued eleven 14-day notices that have not been remedied and attempted mediation. The tenant advised the Tribunal that they are not in a position to repay any amount towards the outstanding water invoices. Considering these factors, I find termination to be 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. The tenant advised the Tribunal that they have sought assistance to create a budget and will set aside a portion of their benefit for future water invoices. I therefore find that the tenant 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.
Because The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For John & Joan Holding has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953763 — net $845.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$818.72	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$845.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$845.72

Order

Chechayna Murray owes The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For John & Joan Holding $845.72 (“the debt”) as detailed in the table below by 31 October 2024.
Payment will be allocated in the following order: water rates and the filing fee.
If the tenant fails to pay the water rates within 2 working days of the due date: a. The tenancy at Unit/Flat 5, 246 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 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

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears 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 remedy a 14-day notice regarding rent arrears and outstanding water rates. On 26 July 2024, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant requiring the tenant to pay rent arrears of $540.00 and outstanding water rates of $839.16. The tenant had until 9 August 2024. The tenant paid rent arrears, but not the outstanding water rates. The Tribunal is required to determine whether this 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 relevant to the assessment whether it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating a tenancy. These 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 25 August 2022. From 03/11/2022 – 07/12/2022 the tenant was in rent arrears. The arrears peaked at $1,360.00 on 7 December 2022. The tenant fell into rent arrears again on 25 July 2024. Other than these instances, the tenant has paid their rent on time.
The last time the tenant was up to date regarding their payment of water rates was 14 December 2022.
Other than the above issues, the landlord advised the Tribunal that the tenant is a good tenant who looks after the property. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings
The tenant has been behind in their payment of water for approximately 18 months. The landlord provided the Tribunal with eleven 14-day notices they have served on the tenant. The tenant has not remedied any of these 14-day notices and the outstanding water rates have increased over time. Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future
The tenant advised the Tribunal that they receive a sickness benefit. Their rent is usually redirected and after they purchase food, they have very little left over to meet their other bills. The tenant advised the Tribunal that they were not in a position to repay the debt over time. The tenant advised the Tribunal that the only way they can repay the debt is with the assistance of Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ). The tenant advised the Tribunal that they were ineligible to receive any assistance from WINZ for a further three months, as WINZ has recently assisted the tenant to clear rent arrears.
The landlord and tenant previously attended mediation where the tenant agreed to pay an additional $30.00 per week towards the outstanding water rates. The tenant has not made one payment.
Considering the length of time the tenant has not paid their water rates invoices when due, I consider it is unlikely that the tenant will comply with their obligations in the future. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberate
The tenant has not paid their water rates invoices when due on 25 separate occasions. Therefore, I consider the breach to be deliberate, rather than inadvertent. The conduct of the landlord
The landlord has issued eleven 14-day notices and attempted mediation with the tenant. The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for termination as a last resort. The gravity of the breach
Considering the length of time the tenant has been in debt for outstanding water rates and the amount owing at the date of the hearing ($818.72), I consider the breach to be relatively high. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach
The tenant has been behind in their payment of water for approximately 18 months. The landlord has issued eleven 14-day notices that have not been remedied and attempted mediation. The tenant advised the Tribunal that they are not in a position to repay any amount towards the outstanding water invoices. Considering these factors, I find termination to be 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. The tenant advised the Tribunal that they have sought assistance to create a budget and will set aside a portion of their benefit for future water invoices. I therefore find that the tenant 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.
Because The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For John & Joan Holding has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953763 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 5, 246 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953763 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 5, 246 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

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