How much money was awarded in case 4610470?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,190.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed 28 July: $521.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4610470?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4610470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9220618-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4610470?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,190.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed 28 July: $521.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4610470?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4610470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9220618-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27B Oran Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4610470 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4610470?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4610470. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 July 2023	$2,190.00	Rent arrears to 27 July 2023
Rent owed 28 July to 1 August 2023	$521.43	Rent owed 28 July to 1 August 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

The tenancy of Tangi Tawa at 27B Oran Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072 is terminated, and possession is granted to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Haorong (Albert) And Angie Xie, at 11.59pm on Tuesday 1 August 2023.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,731.87 (6484803-011) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Haorong (Albert) And Angie Xie immediately and HOLD the balance of $188.13, as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s 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 tenant has failed to do so. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 13 June 2023. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

The tenant has breached her obligations by not paying rent on time, not paying rent a week in advance, and not remedying a 14 day notice.

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. These were considered at the hearing. •The history of the tenancy. This tenancy started in March 2023. The tenant has been in rent arrears for 11 out of 18 weeks. •Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The landlord served a 14 day notice in June and the breach has not been remedied. In April the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal and the tenant paid the rent arrears in full, so the application was withdrawn. Rent fell into arrears again three weeks later. •Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The landlord said it is very hard to communicate with the tenant. Given the number of weeks the tenant has been in arrears it seems most likely to me the tenant will fall into arrears again. •Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. The landlord has been proactive, filing two applications with the Tribunal and serving the 14 day notice. I find the breaches are most likely deliberate. •The conduct of the landlord. I have not heard from the tenant. This landlord has taken steps to mitigate loss and manage the tenancy. The landlord submitted the lack of certainty in receiving rent has caused stress for the owner, who have financial obligations. •The gravity of the breach. As at the today the rent is 19 days behind. The rent is not paid in advance. I find this to be as serious as an application where the rent is 21 days in arrears. •Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Given the above, I find that termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The landlord has asked that the tenant be given some time to pack her things and move out. This is allowed.

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4610470. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 July 2023	$2,190.00	Rent arrears to 27 July 2023
Rent owed 28 July to 1 August 2023	$521.43	Rent owed 28 July to 1 August 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Tangi Tawa at 27B Oran Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072 is terminated, and possession is granted to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Haorong (Albert) And Angie Xie, at 11.59pm on Tuesday 1 August 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,731.87 (6484803-011) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Haorong (Albert) And Angie Xie immediately and HOLD the balance of $188.13, as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s 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 tenant has failed to do so. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 13 June 2023. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The tenant has breached her obligations by not paying rent on time, not paying rent a week in advance, and not remedying a 14 day notice.
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. These were considered at the hearing. •The history of the tenancy. This tenancy started in March 2023. The tenant has been in rent arrears for 11 out of 18 weeks. •Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The landlord served a 14 day notice in June and the breach has not been remedied. In April the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal and the tenant paid the rent arrears in full, so the application was withdrawn. Rent fell into arrears again three weeks later. •Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The landlord said it is very hard to communicate with the tenant. Given the number of weeks the tenant has been in arrears it seems most likely to me the tenant will fall into arrears again. •Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. The landlord has been proactive, filing two applications with the Tribunal and serving the 14 day notice. I find the breaches are most likely deliberate. •The conduct of the landlord. I have not heard from the tenant. This landlord has taken steps to mitigate loss and manage the tenancy. The landlord submitted the lack of certainty in receiving rent has caused stress for the owner, who have financial obligations. •The gravity of the breach. As at the today the rent is 19 days behind. The rent is not paid in advance. I find this to be as serious as an application where the rent is 21 days in arrears. •Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Given the above, I find that termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The landlord has asked that the tenant be given some time to pack her things and move out. This is allowed.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4610470 — Rent arrears at 27B Oran Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4610470 — Rent arrears at 27B Oran Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

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