What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4621011?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4621011?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4621011?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4621011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9284040-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4621011?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4621011?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4621011?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4621011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9284040-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

63 York Street, Solway, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4621011 — 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 is dismissed.

Reasons

The owner and agent attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Section 55(1)(a) provides that if the landlord applies for termination of the tenancy on the basis rent being at least 21 days in arrears at the date of the application, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy.
Although the application was made on the basis that the rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, that is not supported by the rent summary. Nor is the rent 21 days in arrears today. Therefore the Tribunal may not terminate on that basis.
Section 55(1)(aa) provides that the Tribunal must terminate if: a. within 90 days, on at least 3 separate occasions the rent has been at least on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice;
On 21 April 2023 the owner sent the tenant an email which said: This letter serves as notice to terminate the tenancy agreement you have in place with me for 63 York Street. The missed rental payments now standing at $1100 are to be paid to me by 5pm today. Should you manage to put in place regular weekly payments for the property at 63 York Street, I will reconsider our options. Otherwise please take this letter as termination of the property. All rubbish, cars/vehicles, pets and persons to be vacated by Friday 28th April 2023
This notice does not comply with section 55(1)(aa). It does not specify the dates or provide the tenant with the right to challenge the notice.
At that time the tenant’s weekly rent was $550.
More importantly, the notice is not valid because according to the rent summary provided, when the application was filed, on 21 April 2023, the tenant’s rent payments were $100 in credit. Even taking into account that he made a payment of $1,100 on 21 April, on 13 April, he was behind by $450, which is less than 5 working days in arrears.
The rent summary provided at the hearing is even more favourable to the tenant. On 13 April he was $10.00 in credit, and with a payment of $1,100 made on 21 April 2023, he was $560 in credit. The first notice was not valid.
The next notice was an email dated 22 May 2023 which reads: Last week's rent has not been paid in full. After several requests you have deposited $200 which is $350 short. This seems to be an ongoing issue which isn't working for me. The tenancy agreement between us is FULL rent to be paid every Thursday into my account. It appears to be spasmodic. I think it best for you to find alternative accommodation where any future landlord doesn't mind whether they receive regular rental payments or no payment.
Again, this does not comply with the requirements of section 55(1)(aa). In particular, the tenant was not 5 working days in arrears. According to the rent summary filed with the application, he owed $250, and according the summary produced at the hearing, he was behind by $340. Both figures are less than 5 working days. Therefore the second notice was not valid.
A third notice was sent on 22 June 2023. This was in a form that complies with section 55(1)(aa). It says that the amount of rent above that was due and that has remained unpaid (in full or in part) for five working days is $1100. According to the rent summary provided with the application, by that date, he was in arrears of $1550 and according to the summary provided at the hearing, the figure was $1090. On either figure, he was more than 5 working days in arrears. However the previous two notices were not valid. Accordingly, there is no basis for automatic 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. 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 breached his obligations to pay rent on time. He has not been served with 14-day notices to remedy, but in any event, he has remedied the breaches.
The landlord has not established a basis for termination of the tenancy and the landlord’s application is dismissed.

Order

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

Reasons

The owner and agent attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Section 55(1)(a) provides that if the landlord applies for termination of the tenancy on the basis rent being at least 21 days in arrears at the date of the application, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy.
Although the application was made on the basis that the rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, that is not supported by the rent summary. Nor is the rent 21 days in arrears today. Therefore the Tribunal may not terminate on that basis.
Section 55(1)(aa) provides that the Tribunal must terminate if: a. within 90 days, on at least 3 separate occasions the rent has been at least on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice;
On 21 April 2023 the owner sent the tenant an email which said: This letter serves as notice to terminate the tenancy agreement you have in place with me for 63 York Street. The missed rental payments now standing at $1100 are to be paid to me by 5pm today. Should you manage to put in place regular weekly payments for the property at 63 York Street, I will reconsider our options. Otherwise please take this letter as termination of the property. All rubbish, cars/vehicles, pets and persons to be vacated by Friday 28th April 2023
This notice does not comply with section 55(1)(aa). It does not specify the dates or provide the tenant with the right to challenge the notice.
At that time the tenant’s weekly rent was $550.
More importantly, the notice is not valid because according to the rent summary provided, when the application was filed, on 21 April 2023, the tenant’s rent payments were $100 in credit. Even taking into account that he made a payment of $1,100 on 21 April, on 13 April, he was behind by $450, which is less than 5 working days in arrears.
The rent summary provided at the hearing is even more favourable to the tenant. On 13 April he was $10.00 in credit, and with a payment of $1,100 made on 21 April 2023, he was $560 in credit. The first notice was not valid.
The next notice was an email dated 22 May 2023 which reads: Last week's rent has not been paid in full. After several requests you have deposited $200 which is $350 short. This seems to be an ongoing issue which isn't working for me. The tenancy agreement between us is FULL rent to be paid every Thursday into my account. It appears to be spasmodic. I think it best for you to find alternative accommodation where any future landlord doesn't mind whether they receive regular rental payments or no payment.
Again, this does not comply with the requirements of section 55(1)(aa). In particular, the tenant was not 5 working days in arrears. According to the rent summary filed with the application, he owed $250, and according the summary produced at the hearing, he was behind by $340. Both figures are less than 5 working days. Therefore the second notice was not valid.
A third notice was sent on 22 June 2023. This was in a form that complies with section 55(1)(aa). It says that the amount of rent above that was due and that has remained unpaid (in full or in part) for five working days is $1100. According to the rent summary provided with the application, by that date, he was in arrears of $1550 and according to the summary provided at the hearing, the figure was $1090. On either figure, he was more than 5 working days in arrears. However the previous two notices were not valid. Accordingly, there is no basis for automatic 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. 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 breached his obligations to pay rent on time. He has not been served with 14-day notices to remedy, but in any event, he has remedied the breaches.
The landlord has not established a basis for termination of the tenancy and the landlord’s application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4621011 — Rent arrears at 63 York Street, Solway, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4621011 — Rent arrears at 63 York Street, Solway, Masterton 5810

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