What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4700191?

The tribunal order states: Phillip Jonathan Vorster must pay Enfield Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4700191?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700191?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9679484-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4700191?

The tribunal order states: Phillip Jonathan Vorster must pay Enfield Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4700191?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700191?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9679484-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Ballintra Close, Pinehill, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4700191 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

The landlord’s current rent summary shows that the rent owing to today 23 November 2023 is $2,540.00.

The weekly rent payable is $847.00.

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 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.

Here the landlord’s 14 days’ breach notice to the tenant was served on 18 September and the 14 day period expires on 2 October 2023. Consequently, the tenant still has until the end of the day on 2 October 2023 to remedy the breach.

However the landlord filed this application at 4.37pm on 2 October 2023, on the assumption that the tenant will not be remedying the breach notice at all! This by itself is defective and renders the application for termination filed on 2 October 2023 unenforceable under section 56 RTA.

The landlord contends that the tenant has breached their obligations by being in rent arrears on 2 October 2023 of $846.00 at the date of filing of this application.

The landlord’s current rent summary however shows that as at the week ending 5 October 2023, the rent was actually in credit of $1.00. The tenant has paid $1,694.00 on 28 September 2023 and paid $847.00 on 4 October 2023 which later cleared the rent arrears altogether. As at 5 October 2023, the rent was in credit of $1.00.

In other words, the landlord’s earlier 14-day notice served on the tenant on 18 September 2023 has been fully remedied by the tenant on 4 October 2023. The upshot is that the earlier breach had been remedied 1 day after the required period.

The rent was not 21 days in arrears as at 2 October 2023 nor at today’s hearing.

It would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy under those circumstances.

Only the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is successful and I hereby made a monetary order against the tenant for the rent arrears to be paid immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

The landlord’s current rent summary shows that the rent owing to today 23 November 2023 is $2,540.00.

The weekly rent payable is $847.00.

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 to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord contends that the tenant has breached their obligations by being in rent arrears on 2 October 2023 of $846.00 at the date of filing of this application.

The rent was not 21 days in arrears as at 2 October 2023 nor at today’s hearing.

It would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy under those circumstances.

Only the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is successful and I hereby made a monetary order against the tenant for the rent arrears to be paid immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700191 — Rent arrears at 9 Ballintra Close, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700191 — Rent arrears at 9 Ballintra Close, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

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