What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4985368 about?

The published order could not be summarised from available data.

How much money was awarded in case 4985368?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985368?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10832341-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4985368 about?

The published order could not be summarised from available data.

How much money was awarded in case 4985368?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985368?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10832341-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4985368 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985368 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 grounds have been established for termination of the tenancy.

The Tribunal may also 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 on time and in full.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 12 August 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

Despite the landlord having made out grounds for the termination of the tenancy under s.55(1)(a), 55(1)(aa) and s.56 RTA, the Tribunal retains the power to refuse to make the order if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy) the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies (see s.55(2) RTA).

Most importantly, the arrears have now been paid in full by the tenant so that there are no current rent arrears. The tenant explained that there had been an issue with WINZ due to a delay in her obtaining a medical certificate. WINZ pays the tenant’s rent directly and that caused the rent to fall into arrears.

The breach has been remedied. The landlord has not suffered any other loss. In my view it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of this kind.

The tenant should however be aware of her obligation to pay rent on time and in full. Any future rent arrears will inevitably result in the landlord filing a further application for termination of the tenancy. It is unlikely in those circumstances that the Tribunal would allow the tenancy to continue.

But for the payment of the rent arrears on the day of the hearing, the landlord would have been successful in this application. I have accordingly ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord, for the reasons given above, has not been wholly or substantially successful. There is in my view no public interest in the publication of the landlord’s name in the circumstances of this case and the landlord name and details are suppressed. The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985368 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 grounds have been established for termination of the tenancy.
The Tribunal may also 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 on time and in full.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 12 August 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
Despite the landlord having made out grounds for the termination of the tenancy under s.55(1)(a), 55(1)(aa) and s.56 RTA, the Tribunal retains the power to refuse to make the order if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy) the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies (see s.55(2) RTA).
Most importantly, the arrears have now been paid in full by the tenant so that there are no current rent arrears. The tenant explained that there had been an issue with WINZ due to a delay in her obtaining a medical certificate. WINZ pays the tenant’s rent directly and that caused the rent to fall into arrears.
The breach has been remedied. The landlord has not suffered any other loss. In my view it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of this kind.
The tenant should however be aware of her obligation to pay rent on time and in full. Any future rent arrears will inevitably result in the landlord filing a further application for termination of the tenancy. It is unlikely in those circumstances that the Tribunal would allow the tenancy to continue.
But for the payment of the rent arrears on the day of the hearing, the landlord would have been successful in this application. I have accordingly ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord, for the reasons given above, has not been wholly or substantially successful. There is in my view no public interest in the publication of the landlord’s name in the circumstances of this case and the landlord name and details are suppressed. The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985368 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985368 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions