What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5492571 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5492571?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5492571?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5492571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13592789-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5492571 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5492571?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5492571?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5492571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13592789-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

210A West Parkdale Street, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5492571 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not connect via telephone as instructed in the Notice of Hearing sent to them by post to the tenancy address. The hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee. Termination

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. 1 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. 1 See section 56(1) RTA.

The tenant breached their obligations by failing to pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 2 The landlord served a notice to remedy a breach on the tenant on 2 April 2026. The tenant did not remedy the breach. The tenant has now paid the rent arrears in full. The landlord now seeks a conditional termination order to apply to rent in advance.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 3 the Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant when considering 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, being: a) The history of the tenancy. b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was 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.

In considering the factors above I consider the most relevant factor is that the tenant has paid her rent arrears and as at the hearing date there is no rent arrears.

The landlord said three 14-day notices have been served on the tenant this year, however the tenancy started in July 2023 and as the landlord has not provided a rent summary from the start of the tenancy there is no evidence that rent arrears are a long standing issue or rather a recent issue which the tenant had now rectified.

Rent arrears is a serious breach and I have no information about why the tenant fell into arrears, however the rent summary indicates the tenant is paying rent and has made arrangements to pay the amount specified in the 14-day notice.

I consider that termination is not a proportionate response to the breach in the circumstances.

The application for termination is dismissed. 2 See section 40 (1) (a) RTA 3 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61].,

The tenant should be on notice that any further rent arrears may result in a further 14 day notice being served on her and a further application to the Tribunal, therefore she should ensure her rent is in advance without delay. Other matters

There are no rent arrears, therefore the application for rent arrears is dismissed.

Because the landlord has been unsuccessful in the claim I have not reimbursed the landlord the filing fee.

On my enquiry, the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not connect via telephone as instructed in the Notice of Hearing sent to them by post to the tenancy address. The hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee. Termination

In considering the factors above I consider the most relevant factor is that the tenant has paid her rent arrears and as at the hearing date there is no rent arrears.

I consider that termination is not a proportionate response to the breach in the circumstances.

The application for termination is dismissed. 2 See section 40 (1) (a) RTA 3 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61].,

There are no rent arrears, therefore the application for rent arrears is dismissed.

Because the landlord has been unsuccessful in the claim I have not reimbursed the landlord the filing fee.

On my enquiry, the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5492571 — Rent arrears at 210A West Parkdale Street, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5492571 — Rent arrears at 210A West Parkdale Street, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions