What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5167937 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 5167937?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $685.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167937?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11675807-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5167937 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 5167937?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $685.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167937?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11675807-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5167937 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167937 — net $712.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$685.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$712.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$712.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Katie Jane Jones and David Joseph O'Brien must pay [The landlord/s] $712.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 4 April 2025 and the filing fee.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. Termination of the tenancy.
The landlord has made applications to terminate the tenancy under both sections 55(1)(a) and 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). I consider each of those applications in turn.
The first application is under s.55(1)(a) RTA. That section provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent was, at the date on which the application was filed, at least 21 days in arrears.
The landlord provided a rent summary. The summary showed that the rent arrears on the date that this application was filed (17 February 2025) was $1,781.42. Those arrears are not more than the equivalent of 21 days rent in arrears and that application is dismissed.
The Tribunal may also 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 in full and on time.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 15 February 2025. The notice recorded that the rent was $1,390.00 in arrears. The tenant was given until 29 January 2025 to pay both the arrears and any rent falling due during that period. The tenant paid $1,370.00 to the landlord on the 20th of January 2025 (being the rent due during the period), but did not pay the arrears of $1,390.00. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
Having found that the tenants have failed to remedy the rent arrears required by the notice, I am required to consider if it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate 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.
A review of those factors in relation to this tenancy shows;
The tenants have paid rent on time and in full on almost all occasions from the commencement of the tenancy in April 2023 through until November 2024. I am not aware of any previous applications to the Tribunal in relation to this tenancy and these tenants.
The only evidence of a failure, after a warning is the failure to comply with the 14 day breach notice.
The history of rent payments is such that I consider it likely that the tenants will comply with their obligations in the future.
The failure to pay the rent was deliberately committed.
No issues in relation to the landlord’s conduct regarding the rent arrears in termination application was raised by the tenants.
A failure to pay rent on time and in full is always a serious matter. The landlord’s 14 day breach notice referred to a failure to pay two weeks rent.
The landlord said that the rent was $685.00 in arrears at the date of the hearing. That rent having fallen due today. The tenant's evidence was that the rent had been paid today. Rent is taken to have been paid when it is in the landlord’s account, not when the payment is made by the tenant.
Having considered the history of this tenancy and the current rent arrears, I consider that termination of the tenancy would not be a proportionate response to the breach. The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed. The tenant is however reminded of their obligation to pay rent on time and in full. A failure to do so in the future will inevitably result in the landlord filing a further application with the Tribunal. In the event of that occurring, the landlord may wish to refer the Tribunal adjudicator considering that application to this decision.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing is $685.00. As indicated previously, rent is taken as having been paid once it is in the landlords account. An order is made for the payment of $685.00. Assuming that the rent payment does arrive in the landlords account later today, the tenant will not be required to make a further payment.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and the tenants’ application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167937 — net $712.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$685.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$712.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$712.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Katie Jane Jones and David Joseph O'Brien must pay [The landlord/s] $712.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 4 April 2025 and the filing fee.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. Termination of the tenancy.
The landlord has made applications to terminate the tenancy under both sections 55(1)(a) and 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). I consider each of those applications in turn.
The first application is under s.55(1)(a) RTA. That section provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent was, at the date on which the application was filed, at least 21 days in arrears.
The landlord provided a rent summary. The summary showed that the rent arrears on the date that this application was filed (17 February 2025) was $1,781.42. Those arrears are not more than the equivalent of 21 days rent in arrears and that application is dismissed.
The Tribunal may also 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 in full and on time.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 15 February 2025. The notice recorded that the rent was $1,390.00 in arrears. The tenant was given until 29 January 2025 to pay both the arrears and any rent falling due during that period. The tenant paid $1,370.00 to the landlord on the 20th of January 2025 (being the rent due during the period), but did not pay the arrears of $1,390.00. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
Having found that the tenants have failed to remedy the rent arrears required by the notice, I am required to consider if it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate 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.
A review of those factors in relation to this tenancy shows;
The tenants have paid rent on time and in full on almost all occasions from the commencement of the tenancy in April 2023 through until November 2024. I am not aware of any previous applications to the Tribunal in relation to this tenancy and these tenants.
The only evidence of a failure, after a warning is the failure to comply with the 14 day breach notice.
The history of rent payments is such that I consider it likely that the tenants will comply with their obligations in the future.
The failure to pay the rent was deliberately committed.
No issues in relation to the landlord’s conduct regarding the rent arrears in termination application was raised by the tenants.
A failure to pay rent on time and in full is always a serious matter. The landlord’s 14 day breach notice referred to a failure to pay two weeks rent.
The landlord said that the rent was $685.00 in arrears at the date of the hearing. That rent having fallen due today. The tenant's evidence was that the rent had been paid today. Rent is taken to have been paid when it is in the landlord’s account, not when the payment is made by the tenant.
Having considered the history of this tenancy and the current rent arrears, I consider that termination of the tenancy would not be a proportionate response to the breach. The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed. The tenant is however reminded of their obligation to pay rent on time and in full. A failure to do so in the future will inevitably result in the landlord filing a further application with the Tribunal. In the event of that occurring, the landlord may wish to refer the Tribunal adjudicator considering that application to this decision.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing is $685.00. As indicated previously, rent is taken as having been paid once it is in the landlords account. An order is made for the payment of $685.00. Assuming that the rent payment does arrive in the landlords account later today, the tenant will not be required to make a further payment.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and the tenants’ application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167937 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167937 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions