Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4873480 — Rent arrears at 19 Clearview Heights, Ranui, Auckland 0612
Decided 17 Jul 2024 · Published 17 Jul 2024 · Application 4873480
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
Order
- Shontelle Giles and Sarah Morgan owes Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For VSS Family Trust $2,276.78 being rent arrears to 19.7.2024 of $1,240, water rates of $1,016.34 and the filing fee on the application of $20.44 (“the debt”).
- Shontelle Giles and Sarah Morgan must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. A payment of $2,276.78 for the debt by Wednesday 24 July 2024; b. A payment of $890.00 by Saturday 20 July 2024 for rent due for the next rent period from Saturday 20 July 2024 to Friday 26 July 2024.
- Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, rent arrears, water rates and the filing fee.
- If the tenant fails to pay rent and rent arrears within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 19 Clearview Heights, Ranui, Auckland 0612 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
- If the tenant fails to pay the water rates and the filing fee within 2 working days of the due date, the filing fee and water rates will be payable immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing by telephone with Ms Mail representing the landlord.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates and refund of the bond. The tenant wants to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.
Should a conditional termination order be made?
- 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. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant breached their obligations by failing to pay rent on time. On 3 April 2024 the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, but the breach was not remedied within the required period. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenants have been consistently in arrears since the 14-day notice was served by the landlord.
- Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having heard the evidence I am satisfied the tenant will pay the debt within the period specified in the order and is unlikely to commit any further breach. I have granted a conditional termination with the consent of both parties. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Landlord preparation for hearing
- As discussed at the hearing, the landlord is a professional property management company that brought this application to the Tribunal. In those circumstances, the Tribunal expects that whoever is representing the company at the hearing is fully familiar with the file, has ensured that all evidence has been provided for the hearing as required, and can answer questions about that evidence put by the Tribunal. This case is yet another instance where the landlord did not ensure that an updated rent summary was provided to the Tribunal and the other party 72 hours before the telephone hearing date as required by the Notice of Hearing served on the parties. They also did not provide copies of the water rates. This is not the first time I have encountered this issue with this company. Ms Mail noted that she did not prepare the Tribunal application and was not familiar with it as it had been handled by another manager.
- I allowed the landlord further time to send evidence, but the hearing had to be adjourned to the next day to enable this to be done. This is not acceptable. While I do not attribute all blame to Ms Mail for what has occurred, I record my advice to her during the hearing that the company must ensure it is appropriately prepared for Tribunal hearings and complies with any directions in the Notices of Hearing. Should the company fail to comply with the hearing process as set out in the Notice of Hearing in future, it is unlikely that the Tribunal will adjourn the hearing and they run the risk of their applications being dismissed.