What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5250640?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Analyn Evale Sagaral and Jeffrey Guinto Sagaral at 10

How much money was awarded in case 5250640?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,007.14 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed 2 - 6 July 2025: $657.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $369.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250640?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12057260-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5250640?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Analyn Evale Sagaral and Jeffrey Guinto Sagaral at 10

How much money was awarded in case 5250640?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,007.14 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed 2 - 6 July 2025: $657.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $369.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250640?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12057260-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Brailsford Court, Dannemora, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5250640 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5250640. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 July 2025	$1,007.14	2025. The tenants paid the rent arrears, but they did not pay the water rates arrears.
Rent owed 2 - 6 July 2025	$657.14	Rent owed 2 - 6 July 2025
Water rates: to 13 June 2025	$369.58	Water rates: to 13 June 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

The tenancy of Analyn Evale Sagaral and Jeffrey Guinto Sagaral at 10 Brailsford Court, Dannemora, Auckland 2016 is terminated, and possession is granted to Grovefield Joal Limited As Agent For Aixinyaju Family Trust (Ailing Chen), at 11.59 pm on Sunday 6 July 2025.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,060.86 (5202909-004) to Grovefield Joal Limited As Agent For Aixinyaju Family Trust (Ailing Chen) immediately and HOLD the balance of $1,619.14 pending the final inspection. The calculation is:

This order incorporates the Tribunal orders made on 16 October 2024 under application 4981868 and 12 February 2025 under application 5092850.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenants’ obligations.

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 – very unfair - to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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 tenants have failed to do so.

The tenants have breached their obligations by failing to pay rent on time and failing to pay the water rates when due. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenants on 23 April 2025. The tenants paid the rent arrears, but they did not pay the water rates arrears. This means they did not remedy the water rates breach within the required period.

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

As to history, this tenancy started in November 2023. This is the third application to the Tribunal for arrears. I can see from the rent summary the rent has been in arrears for most of the tenancy. The water rates were fully paid once, in December 2024. On 18 June 2025, after this application was filed, the tenants owed $2,158.57 for water, which is the equivalent of 16 days of rent arrears. The landlord has served 14 day notices and filed three applications. It seems most likely to me there has been a persistent failure by the tenants after repeated warnings.

The tenants said their financial position has improved because both tenants are now working full time. This is a significant change because one of the tenants was made redundant in December 2023, right at the start of the tenancy. Yesterday they paid all but the latest water rates bill and they reduced the rent arrears by $2,300 on 26 June. Despite the new job and the Tribunal application the tenants still owe the landlord money for rent and for water rates. I find there is no certainty that the tenants will comply with their obligations in the future.

It is hard for me to determine whether the breaches were deliberate but is seems likely to me the tenants have been juggling the rent and water rates with their other financial commitments.

From the application and the evidence at the hearing it seems most likely to me the landlord has managed the tenancy appropriately. After the 14 day notice was served on 23 April the rent arrears were cleared, but the tenants did not pay all their rent and owed $2,550 on 16 May. They missed rent completely on 8 May and 12 June, which was after the application was filed. These missed payments have made it very hard for the landlord to manage the tenancy. I note the landlord’s submission that the owner has a mortgage and other bills that are affected when the tenants don’t pay rent.

Taken together, I find the breaches to be serious and termination of the tenancy to be a proportionate response. The landlord has proved it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy ends on Sunday 6 July 2025. Other orders

The Tribunal has made two orders relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and for water rates arrears. These previous orders are incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5250640. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 July 2025	$1,007.14	2025. The tenants paid the rent arrears, but they did not pay the water rates arrears.
Rent owed 2 - 6 July 2025	$657.14	Rent owed 2 - 6 July 2025
Water rates: to 13 June 2025	$369.58	Water rates: to 13 June 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenancy of Analyn Evale Sagaral and Jeffrey Guinto Sagaral at 10 Brailsford Court, Dannemora, Auckland 2016 is terminated, and possession is granted to Grovefield Joal Limited As Agent For Aixinyaju Family Trust (Ailing Chen), at 11.59 pm on Sunday 6 July 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,060.86 (5202909-004) to Grovefield Joal Limited As Agent For Aixinyaju Family Trust (Ailing Chen) immediately and HOLD the balance of $1,619.14 pending the final inspection. The calculation is:
This order incorporates the Tribunal orders made on 16 October 2024 under application 4981868 and 12 February 2025 under application 5092850.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenants’ obligations.

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 – very unfair - to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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 tenants have failed to do so.
The tenants have breached their obligations by failing to pay rent on time and failing to pay the water rates when due. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenants on 23 April 2025. The tenants paid the rent arrears, but they did not pay the water rates arrears. This means they did not remedy the water rates breach within the required period.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered section 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
As to history, this tenancy started in November 2023. This is the third application to the Tribunal for arrears. I can see from the rent summary the rent has been in arrears for most of the tenancy. The water rates were fully paid once, in December 2024. On 18 June 2025, after this application was filed, the tenants owed $2,158.57 for water, which is the equivalent of 16 days of rent arrears. The landlord has served 14 day notices and filed three applications. It seems most likely to me there has been a persistent failure by the tenants after repeated warnings.
The tenants said their financial position has improved because both tenants are now working full time. This is a significant change because one of the tenants was made redundant in December 2023, right at the start of the tenancy. Yesterday they paid all but the latest water rates bill and they reduced the rent arrears by $2,300 on 26 June. Despite the new job and the Tribunal application the tenants still owe the landlord money for rent and for water rates. I find there is no certainty that the tenants will comply with their obligations in the future.
It is hard for me to determine whether the breaches were deliberate but is seems likely to me the tenants have been juggling the rent and water rates with their other financial commitments.
From the application and the evidence at the hearing it seems most likely to me the landlord has managed the tenancy appropriately. After the 14 day notice was served on 23 April the rent arrears were cleared, but the tenants did not pay all their rent and owed $2,550 on 16 May. They missed rent completely on 8 May and 12 June, which was after the application was filed. These missed payments have made it very hard for the landlord to manage the tenancy. I note the landlord’s submission that the owner has a mortgage and other bills that are affected when the tenants don’t pay rent.
Taken together, I find the breaches to be serious and termination of the tenancy to be a proportionate response. The landlord has proved it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy ends on Sunday 6 July 2025. Other orders
The Tribunal has made two orders relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and for water rates arrears. These previous orders are incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5250640 — Rent arrears at 10 Brailsford Court, Dannemora, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5250640 — Rent arrears at 10 Brailsford Court, Dannemora, Auckland 2016

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