What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4907653?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mutian Yuan, Zeyang Li and Xianlu Chen at Unit/Flat 2, 954

How much money was awarded in case 4907653?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,324.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907653?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10662205-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4907653?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mutian Yuan, Zeyang Li and Xianlu Chen at Unit/Flat 2, 954

How much money was awarded in case 4907653?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,324.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907653?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10662205-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 954 East Coast Road, Northcross, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4907653 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4907653 — net $3,344.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 August 2024	$3,324.29	Rent arrears to 7 August 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,344.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,344.73

The tenancy of Mutian Yuan, Zeyang Li and Xianlu Chen at Unit/Flat 2, 954 East Coast Road, Northcross, Auckland 0632 is terminated, and possession is granted to Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Deli Investment Ltd, at

00pm pm on Wednesday 7 August 2024.

Mutian Yuan, Zeyang Li and Xianlu Chen must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Deli Investment Ltd $3,344.73 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.

The tenants were telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenants were properly served with notice of the hearing by email. The hearing proceeded in their absence.

I was subsequently informed that one of the tenants attended at the North Shore District Court during the hearing to enquire about the hearing. The tenant was advised by the registry of their right to apply for a rehearing in the circumstances. Landlords application

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, and reimbursement of the filing fee. There was no application in respect of the bond.

The tenancy commenced on 27 May 2023. Termination

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. First 14-day notice

The landlord served a notice to remedy a breach of the tenants’ obligation to pay rent on the tenant on 4 June 2024.

The landlord filed this application for termination on 6 June 2024.

The tenants remedied the breach by paying the rent arrears in full on 25 June 2024. The tenancy is not terminated because of this breach. The tenants have however incurred further rent arrears prior to the hearing. Second 14-day notice

The landlord served a further notice to remedy a breach for rent arrears on 14 July 2024 – after filing this application for termination.

The second 14 days’ notice to remedy the breach expired on 28 July 2024.

The tenant did not remedy the breach; however, this notice was only emailed to the Tribunal on the day of the hearing, and I place no weight on in in determining this matter.

Requirements of s 55 (1) (a) are established.

Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

This matter was heard on Friday 2 August 2024.

Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy is terminated.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 2 August 2024 is $2,685.00. The tenancy is to terminate on Wednesday 7 August 2024, and I have made an order for rent payable to this date. Alternative application for termination by landlord

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In this case I find the landlord has not served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided copies of the notices as evidence, and I note the following: a. First notice - Monday 27 May 2024 – rent was paid until Friday 25 May 2024 therefore it was not five working days in arrears. The notice does not comply with the RTA. b. Second notice - Wednesday 5 June 2024 – rent was at least 5 working days in arrears therefore this notice does comply with the RTA. c. Third notice - Friday 19 July 2024 – rent was at least 5 working days in arrears therefore this notice does comply with the RTA.

Had I had to determine the application solely under Section 55 (1) (aa) of the RTA the application would have been dismissed as the grounds to terminate were not established. Filing fee

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4907653 — net $3,344.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 August 2024	$3,324.29	Rent arrears to 7 August 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,344.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,344.73

Order

The tenancy of Mutian Yuan, Zeyang Li and Xianlu Chen at Unit/Flat 2, 954 East Coast Road, Northcross, Auckland 0632 is terminated, and possession is granted to Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Deli Investment Ltd, at
00pm pm on Wednesday 7 August 2024.
Mutian Yuan, Zeyang Li and Xianlu Chen must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Deli Investment Ltd $3,344.73 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
The tenants were telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenants were properly served with notice of the hearing by email. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
I was subsequently informed that one of the tenants attended at the North Shore District Court during the hearing to enquire about the hearing. The tenant was advised by the registry of their right to apply for a rehearing in the circumstances. Landlords application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, and reimbursement of the filing fee. There was no application in respect of the bond.
The tenancy commenced on 27 May 2023. Termination
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. First 14-day notice
The landlord served a notice to remedy a breach of the tenants’ obligation to pay rent on the tenant on 4 June 2024.
The landlord filed this application for termination on 6 June 2024.
The tenants remedied the breach by paying the rent arrears in full on 25 June 2024. The tenancy is not terminated because of this breach. The tenants have however incurred further rent arrears prior to the hearing. Second 14-day notice
The landlord served a further notice to remedy a breach for rent arrears on 14 July 2024 – after filing this application for termination.
The second 14 days’ notice to remedy the breach expired on 28 July 2024.
The tenant did not remedy the breach; however, this notice was only emailed to the Tribunal on the day of the hearing, and I place no weight on in in determining this matter.
Requirements of s 55 (1) (a) are established.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This matter was heard on Friday 2 August 2024.
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy is terminated.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 2 August 2024 is $2,685.00. The tenancy is to terminate on Wednesday 7 August 2024, and I have made an order for rent payable to this date. Alternative application for termination by landlord
The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case I find the landlord has not served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided copies of the notices as evidence, and I note the following: a. First notice - Monday 27 May 2024 – rent was paid until Friday 25 May 2024 therefore it was not five working days in arrears. The notice does not comply with the RTA. b. Second notice - Wednesday 5 June 2024 – rent was at least 5 working days in arrears therefore this notice does comply with the RTA. c. Third notice - Friday 19 July 2024 – rent was at least 5 working days in arrears therefore this notice does comply with the RTA.
Had I had to determine the application solely under Section 55 (1) (aa) of the RTA the application would have been dismissed as the grounds to terminate were not established. Filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4907653 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 954 East Coast Road, Northcross, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4907653 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 954 East Coast Road, Northcross, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions