What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100240 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5100240?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100240?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100240?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11605035-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100240 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5100240?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100240?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100240?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11605035-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100240 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100240 — 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 video hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 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 25 November 2024 requiring the tenant to pay rent arrears of $805.00 and to continue to pay any rent which was to fall due during the 14 day period. The tenant paid the rent that fell due during the period, but did not pay the arrears and in doing so, the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

The issue for the tribunal to determine is whether the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

The history of the tenancy, as recorded in the rent summary, shows that over this lengthy tenancy there have been long periods where the tenant’s rent has been in credit and equally lengthy periods where the tenant has been in arrears. The tenant said in evidence that she had had some difficulty in arranging for her benefit payments. Those difficulties had now been resolved. As of the date of hearing, the rent is now back in credit.

I am not aware of a persistent failure by the tenant to pay rent after having received repeated warnings.

The tenant has been made aware that future breaches will inevitably result in the landlord filing another application for termination of the tenancy with the Tribunal. It is in the best interests of both the tenant and the landlord that rent is paid on time and in full by the tenant. I am satisfied having heard from the tenant that she will ensure that she complies with her rent obligations in the future.

I do not consider the previous rent breaches to be substantial, nor do I consider termination of the tenancy to be a proportionate response to the breach. The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed. Once again, I remind the tenant of her obligation to pay rent on time and in full.

There being no current rent arrears the application for a rent arrears order is dismissed.

As the tenants failure to pay rent on time and in full caused [The applicant/s]

Both parties applied for name suppression. Both parties have achieved a degree of success in this hearing and accordingly name suppression is granted to both parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100240 — 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

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.
The tenant is ordered to pay the filing fee of $27.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 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 25 November 2024 requiring the tenant to pay rent arrears of $805.00 and to continue to pay any rent which was to fall due during the 14 day period. The tenant paid the rent that fell due during the period, but did not pay the arrears and in doing so, the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The issue for the tribunal to determine is whether the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The history of the tenancy, as recorded in the rent summary, shows that over this lengthy tenancy there have been long periods where the tenant’s rent has been in credit and equally lengthy periods where the tenant has been in arrears. The tenant said in evidence that she had had some difficulty in arranging for her benefit payments. Those difficulties had now been resolved. As of the date of hearing, the rent is now back in credit.
I am not aware of a persistent failure by the tenant to pay rent after having received repeated warnings.
The tenant has been made aware that future breaches will inevitably result in the landlord filing another application for termination of the tenancy with the Tribunal. It is in the best interests of both the tenant and the landlord that rent is paid on time and in full by the tenant. I am satisfied having heard from the tenant that she will ensure that she complies with her rent obligations in the future.
I do not consider the previous rent breaches to be substantial, nor do I consider termination of the tenancy to be a proportionate response to the breach. The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed. Once again, I remind the tenant of her obligation to pay rent on time and in full.
There being no current rent arrears the application for a rent arrears order is dismissed.
As the tenants failure to pay rent on time and in full caused [The applicant/s]
Both parties applied for name suppression. Both parties have achieved a degree of success in this hearing and accordingly name suppression is granted to both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100240 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100240 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions