What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4453340?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4453340?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4453340?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4453340?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9201929-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4453340?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4453340?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4453340?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4453340?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9201929-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Winiata Terrace, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4453340 — Rent arrears

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings granted on 27 June 2023 is set aside.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 20 July 2023.
On 26 June 2023 the tenant applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s order dated 2 May 2023 and for a stay of proceedings. The Tribunal set the application down for hearing and granted a stay on 27 June 2023.
The tenant stated in her application that the landlord was wrongly attempting to evict, despite her compliance with the 2 May 2023 conditional termination order. The tenant also said that the landlord had not complied with the work order made on 2 May 2023.
As framed, the application is not for a rehearing but rather for an order preventing the landlord from enforcing the conditional termination order. This would usually be addressed by an application in the District Court for a stay of enforcement, see for example rule 19.8 of the District Court Rules. It is unclear whether section 77(2)(m) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 enables the Tribunal to restrain enforcement contrary to the terms of a Tribunal order. Certainly, this provision is not explicitly designed with enforcement of a Tribunal order in mind.
The rehearing application could also be interpreted as a request for enforcement of the work order. There is a separate process that needs to be followed to enforce work orders (see section 108 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Notwithstanding these procedural points, I have considered the rehearing application on the basis that I have jurisdiction to determine whether it would result in a miscarriage of justice if a rehearing is not granted, and the conditional termination order were enforced.
The conditional termination order required the tenant to pay the weekly rent of $480.00 and an extra $100.00 for arrears each week from 9 May 2023. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that, while the tenant has made payments on a fortnightly basis, at no stage has the tenant paid $580.00 per week as ordered. Even accepting that the conditional termination order should have permitted $1,160.00 to be paid each fortnight, in step with the tenant’s pay cycle, the tenant has not paid this amount each fortnight. The rent arrears to the end of the current rent week on 24 July 2023 are $5,428.40 (not taking account of the $780.00 the tenant says she paid on 20 July 2023). The arrears are now more than the rent arrears awarded on 2 May 2023.
The tenant says she is in hardship because of the need to comply with the conditional termination order. The only alternative to a conditional termination order would have been a final termination order. For the reasons explained in my order dated 2 May 2023, I decided to give the tenant an opportunity to pay off the arrears and avoid termination of the tenancy. The tenant says she advised that she is paid fortnightly, the implication being that the Tribunal should have known that the payment terms were not suitable when issuing a conditional termination order. The tenancy agreement provides for weekly rent. Given the extent of the rent arrears, I still consider it was reasonable for the Tribunal to order payment of the arrears by weekly instalments of $100.00.
As to the work order, the landlord provided evidence of the steps taken to comply. I am satisfied on the evidence available that the landlord complied with the work order, even if issues relating to the oven, bathroom floor and the sealing of the windows have since recurred. The landlord says he has sent a tradesman to deal with the replacement oven but has not been able to gain access. Conclusion
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
I find that the tenant has not complied with the terms of the conditional termination order and that, given the ability to apply for a stay of enforcement in the District Court, I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice will occur if a rehearing is not granted.
I am also satisfied on the evidence available today that the landlord has complied with the work order.
For these reasons I decline to grant a rehearing or to continue the stay of proceedings.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings granted on 27 June 2023 is set aside.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 20 July 2023.
On 26 June 2023 the tenant applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s order dated 2 May 2023 and for a stay of proceedings. The Tribunal set the application down for hearing and granted a stay on 27 June 2023.
The tenant stated in her application that the landlord was wrongly attempting to evict, despite her compliance with the 2 May 2023 conditional termination order. The tenant also said that the landlord had not complied with the work order made on 2 May 2023.
As framed, the application is not for a rehearing but rather for an order preventing the landlord from enforcing the conditional termination order. This would usually be addressed by an application in the District Court for a stay of enforcement, see for example rule 19.8 of the District Court Rules. It is unclear whether section 77(2)(m) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 enables the Tribunal to restrain enforcement contrary to the terms of a Tribunal order. Certainly, this provision is not explicitly designed with enforcement of a Tribunal order in mind.
The rehearing application could also be interpreted as a request for enforcement of the work order. There is a separate process that needs to be followed to enforce work orders (see section 108 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Notwithstanding these procedural points, I have considered the rehearing application on the basis that I have jurisdiction to determine whether it would result in a miscarriage of justice if a rehearing is not granted, and the conditional termination order were enforced.
The conditional termination order required the tenant to pay the weekly rent of $480.00 and an extra $100.00 for arrears each week from 9 May 2023. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that, while the tenant has made payments on a fortnightly basis, at no stage has the tenant paid $580.00 per week as ordered. Even accepting that the conditional termination order should have permitted $1,160.00 to be paid each fortnight, in step with the tenant’s pay cycle, the tenant has not paid this amount each fortnight. The rent arrears to the end of the current rent week on 24 July 2023 are $5,428.40 (not taking account of the $780.00 the tenant says she paid on 20 July 2023). The arrears are now more than the rent arrears awarded on 2 May 2023.
The tenant says she is in hardship because of the need to comply with the conditional termination order. The only alternative to a conditional termination order would have been a final termination order. For the reasons explained in my order dated 2 May 2023, I decided to give the tenant an opportunity to pay off the arrears and avoid termination of the tenancy. The tenant says she advised that she is paid fortnightly, the implication being that the Tribunal should have known that the payment terms were not suitable when issuing a conditional termination order. The tenancy agreement provides for weekly rent. Given the extent of the rent arrears, I still consider it was reasonable for the Tribunal to order payment of the arrears by weekly instalments of $100.00.
As to the work order, the landlord provided evidence of the steps taken to comply. I am satisfied on the evidence available that the landlord complied with the work order, even if issues relating to the oven, bathroom floor and the sealing of the windows have since recurred. The landlord says he has sent a tradesman to deal with the replacement oven but has not been able to gain access. Conclusion
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
I find that the tenant has not complied with the terms of the conditional termination order and that, given the ability to apply for a stay of enforcement in the District Court, I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice will occur if a rehearing is not granted.
I am also satisfied on the evidence available today that the landlord has complied with the work order.
For these reasons I decline to grant a rehearing or to continue the stay of proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4453340 — Rent arrears at 16 Winiata Terrace, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4453340 — Rent arrears at 16 Winiata Terrace, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions