What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4751690?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4751690?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4751690?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4751690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9932295-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4751690?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4751690?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4751690?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4751690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9932295-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

144 Sidey Street, Calton Hill, Dunedin 9012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4751690 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Mabbett, the landlord, and Ms Edwards, the tenant, both attended the hearing by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination and possession, and rent arrears.
The landlord claimed for termination and possession on the grounds that the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears, pursuant to section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). He provided two 14-day notices dated 13 November 2023 and 20 November 2023 that he had sent to the tenant.
The applicant landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Mr Mabbett provided a rent summary immediately prior to the hearing and then resent this to the remote tenancy registry and to the tenant, during the hearing, for discussion. Section 55(1)(a) RTA
Mr Mabbett, when asked how much rent arrears he thought the tenant owed as at the hearing date of 8 February 2024, said he thought she owed $2,500.00 in rent arrears at 8 February 2024. He clarified that, in the rent summary he provided, the tenant made rent payments on 30 October 2023 and then not again until 11 December 2023 and then on 28 December 2023, so there was a large gap when no rent payments were made.
The rent summary provided only started on 30 October 2023, whereas the tenancy began on 26 July 2023, according to the application. The rent summary ended at the end of the rent period to 11 January 2024 and showed $2,215.00 in rent arrears to 11 January 2024. Mr Mabbett, when asked why the rent summary did not go to the date of hearing of 8 February 2024, said that Ms Edwards started paying rent again after 11 January 2024.
Ms Edwards denied she owed $2,215.00 or $2,500.00 in rent arrears. She said she is on a benefit and that WINZ makes her rent payments to Mr Mabbett. She explained she had a medical event and was moved to another place temporarily before returning to this property. She was aware that WINZ would have missed several rent payments to Mr Mabbett during this time but believed WINZ had already paid these rent arrears to Mr Mabbett, and that it was not reflected on his rent summary provided. Ms Edwards said, if WINZ had not made the rent arrears up to Mr Mabbett, he should have told her, and that she could arrange for it to be paid by WINZ right away.
Mr Mabbett is required to prove, with a clear rent summary from the start of the tenancy up to the date of hearing, all transactions relating to rent due, rent paid and all relevant dates of rent periods and the dates rent is due and paid. Landlords are required to maintain regular, comprehensive and accurate business records of rent payments.
I find the rent summary provided was incomplete, as it did not start at the beginning of the tenancy and did not go up to the date of hearing. Mr Mabbett also said he thought he might have missed putting a payment into the rent summary. He said he had bank statements, but these only reflected the same transactions he had already put into the rent summary. As such, I cannot rely on the rent summary as providing a full and comprehensive picture of all the rent summary whether the tenant is in fact more than 21 days in arrears.
Therefore, because the applicant landlord has not proved with rent records that the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears, I dismiss the claims. Section 56 RTA
Mr Mabbett did not say he was pursuing a termination claim based on section 56 RTA. However, even if he had, I would not have been able to make any order terminating the tenancy based on section 56 RTA, as there was insufficient evidence provided to do this either.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Mabbett, the landlord, and Ms Edwards, the tenant, both attended the hearing by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination and possession, and rent arrears.
The landlord claimed for termination and possession on the grounds that the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears, pursuant to section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). He provided two 14-day notices dated 13 November 2023 and 20 November 2023 that he had sent to the tenant.
The applicant landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Mr Mabbett provided a rent summary immediately prior to the hearing and then resent this to the remote tenancy registry and to the tenant, during the hearing, for discussion. Section 55(1)(a) RTA
Mr Mabbett, when asked how much rent arrears he thought the tenant owed as at the hearing date of 8 February 2024, said he thought she owed $2,500.00 in rent arrears at 8 February 2024. He clarified that, in the rent summary he provided, the tenant made rent payments on 30 October 2023 and then not again until 11 December 2023 and then on 28 December 2023, so there was a large gap when no rent payments were made.
The rent summary provided only started on 30 October 2023, whereas the tenancy began on 26 July 2023, according to the application. The rent summary ended at the end of the rent period to 11 January 2024 and showed $2,215.00 in rent arrears to 11 January 2024. Mr Mabbett, when asked why the rent summary did not go to the date of hearing of 8 February 2024, said that Ms Edwards started paying rent again after 11 January 2024.
Ms Edwards denied she owed $2,215.00 or $2,500.00 in rent arrears. She said she is on a benefit and that WINZ makes her rent payments to Mr Mabbett. She explained she had a medical event and was moved to another place temporarily before returning to this property. She was aware that WINZ would have missed several rent payments to Mr Mabbett during this time but believed WINZ had already paid these rent arrears to Mr Mabbett, and that it was not reflected on his rent summary provided. Ms Edwards said, if WINZ had not made the rent arrears up to Mr Mabbett, he should have told her, and that she could arrange for it to be paid by WINZ right away.
Mr Mabbett is required to prove, with a clear rent summary from the start of the tenancy up to the date of hearing, all transactions relating to rent due, rent paid and all relevant dates of rent periods and the dates rent is due and paid. Landlords are required to maintain regular, comprehensive and accurate business records of rent payments.
I find the rent summary provided was incomplete, as it did not start at the beginning of the tenancy and did not go up to the date of hearing. Mr Mabbett also said he thought he might have missed putting a payment into the rent summary. He said he had bank statements, but these only reflected the same transactions he had already put into the rent summary. As such, I cannot rely on the rent summary as providing a full and comprehensive picture of all the rent summary whether the tenant is in fact more than 21 days in arrears.
Therefore, because the applicant landlord has not proved with rent records that the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears, I dismiss the claims. Section 56 RTA
Mr Mabbett did not say he was pursuing a termination claim based on section 56 RTA. However, even if he had, I would not have been able to make any order terminating the tenancy based on section 56 RTA, as there was insufficient evidence provided to do this either.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4751690 — Rent arrears at 144 Sidey Street, Calton Hill, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4751690 — Rent arrears at 144 Sidey Street, Calton Hill, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions