How much money was awarded in case 4627339?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $528.57 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed 15 - 17 August 2023: $171.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627339?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9297508-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4627339?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $528.57 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed 15 - 17 August 2023: $171.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627339?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9297508-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32B Papua Street, Turangi 3334 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4627339 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4627339?

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 4627339 — net $720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 August 2023	$528.57	Rent arrears to 14 August 2023
Rent owed 15 - 17 August 2023	$171.43	Rent owed 15 - 17 August 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$720.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$720.44

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

BY CONSENT - Georgina Clara Dooley is the now the sole tenant.

The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Georgina Clara Dooley must pay Property Brokers Limited $720.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

The landlord had not served the requisite three notices for me to make an order under the recidivist rent claim. This is dismissed. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Ms Dooley said she and the other tenant separated, and she has been living in the house on her own. She said she contacted the previous property manager at the time and let her know. Ms Dooley said she will take full responsibility for the rent owed during the tenancy. The parties agreed Ms Dooley would be the sole tenant from now on. I tried to telephone the other tenant to advise him of this but the call would not connect.

The tenant agreed she was solely responsible for the rent owed to 17 August 2023.

The landlord asked for a conditional termination order with a “consequential clause” to be made. The Tribunal may make a conditional termination order instead of a final order – but only if there are grounds to terminate the tenancy.

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 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 tenant breached her obligations by not paying rent. The landlord served a 14 day notice on the tenant on 26 June 2023 and the breach was not remedied within the required period. See section 56(1) RTA.

Despite this, I am not persuaded I should end the tenancy today. 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: • 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.

This tenancy started about a year ago. For most of that year rent has been paid or been in credit. The tenant was served a 14 day notice May 2023 and that breach was remedied. She has been trying to get MSD to pay the arrears, or agree to a payment scheme, and to set up a redirection for the weekly rent. All of this sounds positive from the tenant. I note that as at today rent is only nine days behind. While I acknowledge that landlords should not have to wait for rent, and that rent should be paid one week in advance, I am persuaded the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future. For these reasons the landlord’s application for termination because of a breach is dismissed.

This also means I cannot make the “consequential clause” the landlord asked for.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627339 — net $720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 August 2023	$528.57	Rent arrears to 14 August 2023
Rent owed 15 - 17 August 2023	$171.43	Rent owed 15 - 17 August 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$720.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$720.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
BY CONSENT - Georgina Clara Dooley is the now the sole tenant.
The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
Georgina Clara Dooley must pay Property Brokers Limited $720.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The landlord had not served the requisite three notices for me to make an order under the recidivist rent claim. This is dismissed. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Ms Dooley said she and the other tenant separated, and she has been living in the house on her own. She said she contacted the previous property manager at the time and let her know. Ms Dooley said she will take full responsibility for the rent owed during the tenancy. The parties agreed Ms Dooley would be the sole tenant from now on. I tried to telephone the other tenant to advise him of this but the call would not connect.
The tenant agreed she was solely responsible for the rent owed to 17 August 2023.
The landlord asked for a conditional termination order with a “consequential clause” to be made. The Tribunal may make a conditional termination order instead of a final order – but only if there are grounds to terminate the tenancy.
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 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 tenant breached her obligations by not paying rent. The landlord served a 14 day notice on the tenant on 26 June 2023 and the breach was not remedied within the required period. See section 56(1) RTA.
Despite this, I am not persuaded I should end the tenancy today. 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: • 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.
This tenancy started about a year ago. For most of that year rent has been paid or been in credit. The tenant was served a 14 day notice May 2023 and that breach was remedied. She has been trying to get MSD to pay the arrears, or agree to a payment scheme, and to set up a redirection for the weekly rent. All of this sounds positive from the tenant. I note that as at today rent is only nine days behind. While I acknowledge that landlords should not have to wait for rent, and that rent should be paid one week in advance, I am persuaded the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future. For these reasons the landlord’s application for termination because of a breach is dismissed.
This also means I cannot make the “consequential clause” the landlord asked for.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627339 — Rent arrears at 32B Papua Street, Turangi 3334

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627339 — Rent arrears at 32B Papua Street, Turangi 3334

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions