What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4995888?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name is amended.

How much money was awarded in case 4995888?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent For 15 October 2024: $41.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed: $726.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4995888?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4995888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10956701-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4995888?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name is amended.

How much money was awarded in case 4995888?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent For 15 October 2024: $41.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed: $726.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4995888?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4995888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10956701-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2C, 52 Helena Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4995888 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4995888 — net $795.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owed to 14 October 2024	$726.57	Rent owed to 14 October 2024
Rent for 15 October 2024	$41.43	Rent for 15 October 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$795.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$795.00

The tenant’s name is amended.

The tenancy of Lebuhang Nigel Marupi at Unit/Flat 2C, 52 Helena Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 is terminated, and possession is granted to Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals As Agent For Eglinton Fc Ltd, at

59 pm on Tuesday 12 November 2024.

Lebuhang Nigel Marupi must pay Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals As Agent For Eglinton Fc Ltd $795.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Lebuhang Nigel Marupi must pay the weekly rent due between now and the end of the tenancy as follows: a. By weekly payments of $290.00 for rent. b. Payments will be every Wednesday, with the first payment on 16/10/2024 and continuing until the end of the tenancy.

If the tenant fails to pay rent within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at Unit/Flat 2C, 52 Helena Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.

Any payments made between now and the end of the tenancy will be allocated in the following order: rent to 12 November 2024, rent arrears, and the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant is described as Nigel Lebuhang Marupi on the tenancy agreement and I have amended the application to reflect the name on his passport.

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

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable (very unfair) to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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 to pay rent weekly in advance. The landlord provided rent records and the tenant agreed he owes the rent.

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

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered section 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is 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.

The tenant has been in rent arrears before. I accept that he has also been in credit some of the time, but there have been around 20 weeks since the start of the year when he has owed rent. Warnings have been given in the past. The landlord filed an application for rent arrears earlier in the year and a mediated order was made. The tenant paid the money owed but is in arrears again. Given the number of breaches it seems most likely to me that the arrears are deliberate rather than inadvertent. The landlord has acted promptly by giving breach notices and filing applications.

For much of this year the rent has been only a small amount behind. However, the tenant is currently 18 days behind in his rent payments, three days short of the 21 days when I can end a tenancy with a much quicker process. He is not paying rent in advance either, which he is required to do under the RTA. Taken together I find that termination is the proportionate response to the breaches. I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

The parties agreed at the hearing that the tenant can live at the tenancy premises for another month. This is contingent on the tenant paying the weekly the rent between now and 12 November 2024. If the weekly rent is not paid as ordered then the tenancy will end before 12 November. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4995888 — net $795.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owed to 14 October 2024	$726.57	Rent owed to 14 October 2024
Rent for 15 October 2024	$41.43	Rent for 15 October 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$795.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$795.00

Order

The tenant’s name is amended.
The tenancy of Lebuhang Nigel Marupi at Unit/Flat 2C, 52 Helena Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 is terminated, and possession is granted to Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals As Agent For Eglinton Fc Ltd, at
59 pm on Tuesday 12 November 2024.
Lebuhang Nigel Marupi must pay Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals As Agent For Eglinton Fc Ltd $795.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Lebuhang Nigel Marupi must pay the weekly rent due between now and the end of the tenancy as follows: a. By weekly payments of $290.00 for rent. b. Payments will be every Wednesday, with the first payment on 16/10/2024 and continuing until the end of the tenancy.
If the tenant fails to pay rent within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at Unit/Flat 2C, 52 Helena Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
Any payments made between now and the end of the tenancy will be allocated in the following order: rent to 12 November 2024, rent arrears, and the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant is described as Nigel Lebuhang Marupi on the tenancy agreement and I have amended the application to reflect the name on his passport.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable (very unfair) to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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 to pay rent weekly in advance. The landlord provided rent records and the tenant agreed he owes the rent.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 5 September 2024 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered section 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is 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.
The tenant has been in rent arrears before. I accept that he has also been in credit some of the time, but there have been around 20 weeks since the start of the year when he has owed rent. Warnings have been given in the past. The landlord filed an application for rent arrears earlier in the year and a mediated order was made. The tenant paid the money owed but is in arrears again. Given the number of breaches it seems most likely to me that the arrears are deliberate rather than inadvertent. The landlord has acted promptly by giving breach notices and filing applications.
For much of this year the rent has been only a small amount behind. However, the tenant is currently 18 days behind in his rent payments, three days short of the 21 days when I can end a tenancy with a much quicker process. He is not paying rent in advance either, which he is required to do under the RTA. Taken together I find that termination is the proportionate response to the breaches. I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The parties agreed at the hearing that the tenant can live at the tenancy premises for another month. This is contingent on the tenant paying the weekly the rent between now and 12 November 2024. If the weekly rent is not paid as ordered then the tenancy will end before 12 November. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4995888 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2C, 52 Helena Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4995888 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2C, 52 Helena Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions