What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4996690 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4996690?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4996690?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4996690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10897473-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4996690 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4996690?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4996690?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4996690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10897473-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16B Ruby Place, Pukehangi, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4996690 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy pursuant to section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 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 breach

Section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act provides that the tenant shall keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.

The landlord’s evidence is that the tenant failed to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord carried out inspections at the premises on 8 July 2024, 31 July 2024, 14 August 2024, and 29 August 2024. The landlord issued 14-day breach notices to the tenant on 12 July 2024, 31 July 2024, and 15 August 2024.

The landlord produced the inspection report from the 8 July 2024 inspection. The report records that the property was presented in a mostly clean and tidy condition although some extra cleaning was required. The further cleaning required by the landlord included cleaning the fly dirt from the smoke alarm, replacing the ripped net curtain, re-hooking the curtains, replacing the broken light shade, cleaning the rangehood, oven, vanity, bath, toilet, ceiling vent, mow the lawns and remove the clippings.

Following the hearing the landlord produced the pre tenancy inspection report. I note from that report that the lounge curtains were badly stained, and the kitchen net curtains were ripped at the beginning of the tenancy. While the landlord produced an invoice dated 19 January 2022 for replacement net curtains and drapes, they had not been replaced by the inspection carried out on 10 March 2022.

This evidence suggests that the net curtains in the premises were not in good condition or were aged. I also note that in the pre tenancy report there is a photograph where there appears to be an issue with the hanging of the drapes. While I presume that the drapes were replaced after March 2022, I also note that there was a problem with the curtain track in the July 2022 inspection report.

At the hearing the tenant’s evidence is that at the time of the inspections and 14 day notices she was struggling financially and could not afford to carry out the cleaning or replacing the net curtains. She said that she was on a benefit and had struggled to pay the rent arrears. The tenant had struggled to afford to buy cleaning products. Recently she has managed to secure fulltime employment. The tenant mentioned at the hearing that she is currently 30 weeks pregnant.

The parties had a Mediated order (4922880) dated 12 August 2024 where the tenant owed $1,116.87 for rent arrears to 20 August 2024 and the application fee. The order provided for the tenant to pay an extra $300.00 per fortnight toward the debt and at the time of this hearing the debt had been paid. I note from the rent summary produced by the landlord that this tenant had been in credit for rent from the beginning of the tenancy until the end of May 2024.

While I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remedy a breach that is capable of remedy, I must now consider whether the breach is of such a nature that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate?

The District Court 1 has set out the factors to consider when assessing whether it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy under section 56(1)(c). The factors to consider include: (a) The history of the tenancy; (b) Whether there has 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 inadvertently or deliberately committed; (e) The conduct of the landlord; (f) The gravity of the breach; and (g) Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

The tenant has been in this tenancy for two years and eight months. As stated above her rent was in credit for over two years of the tenancy. The landlord had applied to the Tribunal for rent arrears in June 2024 which resulted in a Mediated Order and the tenant repaid the arrears avoiding termination.

The landlord had given the tenant several warnings and three 14-day notices. The tenant’s evidence is that she was struggling financially, and I accept that many of the steps that needed to be taken to address the list of issues required a financial input. Therefore, I do not think that the tenant deliberately committed the breach and instead it resulted from a combination of factors but especially her financial situation.

I am satisfied that the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future as her situation has improved.

When considering the landlord’s conduct, I refer to the condition of the premises at the beginning of the premises. The tenant lived at the tenancy for at least two months before the landlord replaced ripped net curtains and stained drapes.

In considering the gravity of the breach, the main issues as evidenced by the photographs is cleaning, particularly the stove, oven and vanity. However, I consider that the breach is not so serious as to cause permanent damage to the premises. I also refer to the general comment in the inspection report dated 8 July 2024 where it states that the property was presented in a mainly clean and 1 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC19229 at para 61 tidy condition, although some extra cleaning was required. This does not suggest a dire situation.

I consider the final factor set out by the District Court as the most relevant in this situation. I am not satisfied that termination of this tenancy is a proportionate response to the breach where some extra cleaning was required.

In her evidence the tenant said that her financial situation has improved and that is evidenced by the payment of rent arrears. She also said that she has purchased cleaning products.

While the landlord has not been successful with the application to terminate the tenancy that does not mean that the responsibility of the tenant to comply with the Act no longer applies. I would urge the tenant to take steps to remedy the breach as soon as possible. Application fee and suppression

As the landlord has not been successful with the application I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

For the same reason I have suppressed the tenant’s name because the tenancy is not terminated.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy pursuant to section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act provides that the tenant shall keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.

The landlord’s evidence is that the tenant failed to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate?

I am satisfied that the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future as her situation has improved.

In her evidence the tenant said that her financial situation has improved and that is evidenced by the payment of rent arrears. She also said that she has purchased cleaning products.

As the landlord has not been successful with the application I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

For the same reason I have suppressed the tenant’s name because the tenancy is not terminated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4996690 — Rent arrears at 16B Ruby Place, Pukehangi, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4996690 — Rent arrears at 16B Ruby Place, Pukehangi, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions