What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100908?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5100908?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100908?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11489417-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100908?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5100908?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100908?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11489417-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

53 Mural Drive, Katikati, Katikati 3129 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100908 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The landlord has made an application seeking termination of the tenancy, payment of rent arrears, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55(1)(aa) of the Residential Tenancies Act in essence provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is a periodic tenancy and on 3 separate occasions within a 90 day rent period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrears, and on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which the rent was overdue, the amount of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice. Each of the notices must state how many other notices have been given, if any, and the landlord must have applied to the Tribunal within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
I accept that the landlord has complied with the notice requirements provided by s55(1)(aa), although there were some minor drafting errors. Therefore, an order terminating the tenancy should be made.
However, that section is subject to s 55(2) which provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied, 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.
There are no rent arrears at present. Further, the tenancy is to end 26 March 2025 by separate landlord notice to terminate. This information was provided to me by the tenant and not the landlord.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
Given there are no rent arrears and only four weeks until the tenancy ends via other means, I consider it fair and appropriate to dismiss this application.
That is not to say it did not have justification when lodged. Suppression
The tenant sought suppression. A previous order granted suppression for both parties. The landlord sought suppression at that time but not now.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord did not request suppression in its application and no landlord name suppression is ordered.
At the hearing the tenant requested continued name suppression. There were no specific reasons provided for this request and I do not consider I am bound by any previous suppression orders, given the nature of the claims at that time and this subsequent application were similar. Respectfully, the public interest in orders where termination by order is a possibility being available (as is the default) is such that some special reason should exist for any order of tenant name suppression.
No suppression order is made.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The landlord has made an application seeking termination of the tenancy, payment of rent arrears, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55(1)(aa) of the Residential Tenancies Act in essence provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is a periodic tenancy and on 3 separate occasions within a 90 day rent period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrears, and on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which the rent was overdue, the amount of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice. Each of the notices must state how many other notices have been given, if any, and the landlord must have applied to the Tribunal within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
I accept that the landlord has complied with the notice requirements provided by s55(1)(aa), although there were some minor drafting errors. Therefore, an order terminating the tenancy should be made.
However, that section is subject to s 55(2) which provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied, 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.
There are no rent arrears at present. Further, the tenancy is to end 26 March 2025 by separate landlord notice to terminate. This information was provided to me by the tenant and not the landlord.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
Given there are no rent arrears and only four weeks until the tenancy ends via other means, I consider it fair and appropriate to dismiss this application.
That is not to say it did not have justification when lodged. Suppression
The tenant sought suppression. A previous order granted suppression for both parties. The landlord sought suppression at that time but not now.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord did not request suppression in its application and no landlord name suppression is ordered.
At the hearing the tenant requested continued name suppression. There were no specific reasons provided for this request and I do not consider I am bound by any previous suppression orders, given the nature of the claims at that time and this subsequent application were similar. Respectfully, the public interest in orders where termination by order is a possibility being available (as is the default) is such that some special reason should exist for any order of tenant name suppression.
No suppression order is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100908 — Rent arrears at 53 Mural Drive, Katikati, Katikati 3129

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100908 — Rent arrears at 53 Mural Drive, Katikati, Katikati 3129

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions