What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5072468 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5072468?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072468?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11493426-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5072468 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5072468?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072468?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11493426-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

83 Matai Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5072468 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

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?

Pursuant to the applicable section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) 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.
I note from the onset that section 55(1)(aa) RTA was recently amended and those amendments came info effect from 30 January 2025. The amended version of section 55(1)(aa)(i) RTA reads “on 3 separate occasions within a 90- day period an amount of rent has been owing for at least 5 working days after the date on which it was due under the tenancy agreement.”
The operative words of the amended section, “an amount of rent has been owing for at least 5 working days after the date on which it was due”, is different from the operative words of the previous (and applicable) section which reads “the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear”.
In this case before me, the applicable section requires the rent to be at least 5 working days in arrear on the landlord’s issuance of each notice.
Here, none of the 3 notices relied upon by the landlord complies with the applicable 55(1)(aa) RTA.
On the date of issuance of the first notice on 15 November 2024, the rent was not at least 5 working days in arrear. The weekly rent is $555.00. As at that date ie., 15 November 2024, the rent was not in arrears at all, taking into account the payments by the tenant of $265.00 and $200.00 on 13 November 2024. Rent payable in advance cannot be part of the calculation of arrears.
Even when viewing the weekly rent calculated to 19 November 2024, the rent arrears were only $248.00 as at 19 November 2024 which rent was not at least 5 working days in arrear as required by section 55(1)(aa) RTA.
At no point between 6 November to 17 December 2024 was the rent at least 5 working days in arrear.
The landlord’s notices issued purportedly pursuant to section 55(1)(aa) RTA on 15 November, 22 November and 12 December 2024 were therefore defective and cannot be accepted because the rent was not at least 5 working days in arrears at the material times.
In this case I find the landlord has failed to served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy must fail.
For the sake of completeness, the rent was no longer in arrears from 18 December 2024 onwards; the rent has actually been in credit from 23 December 2024 to present date. The rent to 25 February 2025 is in credit of $100.00 with the current rent for 26 February to 4 March 2025 due today which the tenant is expected to pay tonight and which payment is expected show up in the landlord’s bank statement/account tomorrow. It is not appropriate to calculate today’s weekly rent because as at the hearing at 3.45pm today (26 February), the tenant is still allowed to and entitled to pay the rent by the end of today.
The grounds for termination have therefore not been established and the landlord’s application must be dismissed.
The tenant, being successful in the defence of this claim, is entitled to an order for their names to be suppressed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

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?

Pursuant to the applicable section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) 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.
I note from the onset that section 55(1)(aa) RTA was recently amended and those amendments came info effect from 30 January 2025. The amended version of section 55(1)(aa)(i) RTA reads “on 3 separate occasions within a 90- day period an amount of rent has been owing for at least 5 working days after the date on which it was due under the tenancy agreement.”
The operative words of the amended section, “an amount of rent has been owing for at least 5 working days after the date on which it was due”, is different from the operative words of the previous (and applicable) section which reads “the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear”.
In this case before me, the applicable section requires the rent to be at least 5 working days in arrear on the landlord’s issuance of each notice.
Here, none of the 3 notices relied upon by the landlord complies with the applicable 55(1)(aa) RTA.
On the date of issuance of the first notice on 15 November 2024, the rent was not at least 5 working days in arrear. The weekly rent is $555.00. As at that date ie., 15 November 2024, the rent was not in arrears at all, taking into account the payments by the tenant of $265.00 and $200.00 on 13 November 2024. Rent payable in advance cannot be part of the calculation of arrears.
Even when viewing the weekly rent calculated to 19 November 2024, the rent arrears were only $248.00 as at 19 November 2024 which rent was not at least 5 working days in arrear as required by section 55(1)(aa) RTA.
At no point between 6 November to 17 December 2024 was the rent at least 5 working days in arrear.
The landlord’s notices issued purportedly pursuant to section 55(1)(aa) RTA on 15 November, 22 November and 12 December 2024 were therefore defective and cannot be accepted because the rent was not at least 5 working days in arrears at the material times.
In this case I find the landlord has failed to served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy must fail.
For the sake of completeness, the rent was no longer in arrears from 18 December 2024 onwards; the rent has actually been in credit from 23 December 2024 to present date. The rent to 25 February 2025 is in credit of $100.00 with the current rent for 26 February to 4 March 2025 due today which the tenant is expected to pay tonight and which payment is expected show up in the landlord’s bank statement/account tomorrow. It is not appropriate to calculate today’s weekly rent because as at the hearing at 3.45pm today (26 February), the tenant is still allowed to and entitled to pay the rent by the end of today.
The grounds for termination have therefore not been established and the landlord’s application must be dismissed.
The tenant, being successful in the defence of this claim, is entitled to an order for their names to be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072468 — Rent arrears at 83 Matai Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072468 — Rent arrears at 83 Matai Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions