What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4750309?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay $1,684.43 from the bond of $$2,120.00 (3213075-

How much money was awarded in case 4750309?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $363.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4750309?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4750309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10048806-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4750309?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay $1,684.43 from the bond of $$2,120.00 (3213075-

How much money was awarded in case 4750309?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $363.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4750309?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4750309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10048806-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 6 Myna Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4750309 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4750309 — net $1,684.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 06 March 2024	$1,300.00	Rent arrears to 06 March 2024
Water rates	$363.99	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,684.43
Bond	$1,684.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,684.43

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

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

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing at the date of the hearing is $1,300.00, and the amount of water rates owing at the date of the hearing is $363.99.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Where rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the Tribunal must make either a final or a conditional termination order. See section 55(1)(a) and (1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

As the tenant is paying $590.00 rent per week, 21 days arrears amounts to $1,770.00.

The landlord’s application was filed on 27 November 2023. According to the landlord’s Rent Summary on 27 November 2023 the tenant was $120.00 or less than two days, in arrears.

For this reason, the Tribunal has no power to make a conditional Order for termination.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Where an applicant files under section 56 Residential Tenancies Act and the Adjudicator is satisfied that at the time of determining the application, the applicant could have made an application under section 55 of the Act, the Tribunal shall determine the application as if it had been made under that section.

According to the landlord’s Rent Summary as at today’s date the tenant is $1300.00 in arrears.

For this reason the Tribunal cannot determine the application as if it had been made under section 55 of the Act which requires the tenant to be 21 days, or in this case $1,770.00 in arrears.

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 has breached their obligations by failing to pay rent on time.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 21 November 2023 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

I do not consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The Rent Summary provided shows that at the time the 14-day notice-to- remedy was served on the tenant, the rent payments were out of step with the rent due dates. In effect what this means is that for one week the tenant was in arrears by $710.00, and the next week she was in arrears by $120.00. I consider this to be a minimal amount of arrears. b. 14-day notices-to-remedy are available to be used for a wide range of breaches. Against this, the Residential Tenancy Act provides specific pathways for landlords to seek termination of a tenancy for rent arrears. If the arrears are not sufficient to activate one of those specific provisions, I consider this is likely to indicate the breach is of a lesser seriousness. In these cases the simple fact that there is an arrears does not of itself convince me that refusing to terminate would be inequitable. c. The tenant stated that she is a single mother of four children who is working full-time and also undertaking tertiary study. The circumstances of the tenant are such that to terminate would cause hardship far in excess of the hardship being caused to the landlord by a relatively small amount of rent arrears. I consider this also indicates that refusing to terminate is not inequitable.

For these reasons the landlord had not persuaded me that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Because Tbt Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4750309 — net $1,684.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 06 March 2024	$1,300.00	Rent arrears to 06 March 2024
Water rates	$363.99	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,684.43
Bond	$1,684.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,684.43

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay $1,684.43 from the bond of $$2,120.00 (3213075- 012) to Tbt Property Management Limited immediately.
The balance of the bond of $435.57 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, outgoings and refund of the bond.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing at the date of the hearing is $1,300.00, and the amount of water rates owing at the date of the hearing is $363.99.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Where rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the Tribunal must make either a final or a conditional termination order. See section 55(1)(a) and (1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As the tenant is paying $590.00 rent per week, 21 days arrears amounts to $1,770.00.
The landlord’s application was filed on 27 November 2023. According to the landlord’s Rent Summary on 27 November 2023 the tenant was $120.00 or less than two days, in arrears.
For this reason, the Tribunal has no power to make a conditional Order for termination.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Where an applicant files under section 56 Residential Tenancies Act and the Adjudicator is satisfied that at the time of determining the application, the applicant could have made an application under section 55 of the Act, the Tribunal shall determine the application as if it had been made under that section.
According to the landlord’s Rent Summary as at today’s date the tenant is $1300.00 in arrears.
For this reason the Tribunal cannot determine the application as if it had been made under section 55 of the Act which requires the tenant to be 21 days, or in this case $1,770.00 in arrears.
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 has breached their obligations by failing to pay rent on time.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 21 November 2023 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
I do not consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The Rent Summary provided shows that at the time the 14-day notice-to- remedy was served on the tenant, the rent payments were out of step with the rent due dates. In effect what this means is that for one week the tenant was in arrears by $710.00, and the next week she was in arrears by $120.00. I consider this to be a minimal amount of arrears. b. 14-day notices-to-remedy are available to be used for a wide range of breaches. Against this, the Residential Tenancy Act provides specific pathways for landlords to seek termination of a tenancy for rent arrears. If the arrears are not sufficient to activate one of those specific provisions, I consider this is likely to indicate the breach is of a lesser seriousness. In these cases the simple fact that there is an arrears does not of itself convince me that refusing to terminate would be inequitable. c. The tenant stated that she is a single mother of four children who is working full-time and also undertaking tertiary study. The circumstances of the tenant are such that to terminate would cause hardship far in excess of the hardship being caused to the landlord by a relatively small amount of rent arrears. I consider this also indicates that refusing to terminate is not inequitable.
For these reasons the landlord had not persuaded me that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Because Tbt Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4750309 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 6 Myna Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4750309 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 6 Myna Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions