What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4785038?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Harley Aitken at 45A Fleming Street, North New Brighton,

How much money was awarded in case 4785038?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4785038?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4785038?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10047992-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4785038?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Harley Aitken at 45A Fleming Street, North New Brighton,

How much money was awarded in case 4785038?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4785038?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4785038?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10047992-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

45A Fleming Street, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4785038 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4785038 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

The tenancy of Harley Aitken at 45A Fleming Street, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083 is terminated, and possession is granted to Brett Justin Heaney, at 11.59 am on Thursday 14 March 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay $20.44 from the bond (5183039-008) to Brett Justin Heaney immediately.

The balance of the bond of $1,579.56 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

Rent was not at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).The application under s.55(1)(a) RTA is dismissed.

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

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.

The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay the rent owing in full and on time.

The landlord served three 14-day notices on the tenant on 5 December 2023, 2 January 2024 and 20 February 2024 and the tenant did not remedy the breaches within the required period. A notice dated 16 January 2024 was complied with.

Would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy (see s. 56(1)(c) RTA) ?

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: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

The history of the tenancy shows that the rent has been in arrears more often than not. The landlord has issued a large number of breach notices to the tenant. Most of the breach notices have not been complied with. The breaches have been persistent, despite repeated warnings from the landlord. A failure to pay rent on time and in full is a deliberate breach by the tenant.

The persistent breaches are such that despite the tenant having paid the rent the day prior to the hearing, termination of the tenancy is a proportionate response.

As Brett Justin Heaney has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression is dismissed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4785038 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

The tenancy of Harley Aitken at 45A Fleming Street, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083 is terminated, and possession is granted to Brett Justin Heaney, at 11.59 am on Thursday 14 March 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay $20.44 from the bond (5183039-008) to Brett Justin Heaney immediately.

The balance of the bond of $1,579.56 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

Rent was not at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).The application under s.55(1)(a) RTA is dismissed.

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

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 tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay the rent owing in full and on time.

Would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy (see s. 56(1)(c) RTA) ?

The persistent breaches are such that despite the tenant having paid the rent the day prior to the hearing, termination of the tenancy is a proportionate response.

As Brett Justin Heaney has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4785038 — Tenancy dispute at 45A Fleming Street, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4785038 — Tenancy dispute at 45A Fleming Street, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions