How much money was awarded in case 4927016?

For Rent And: $520.00 awarded to landlord; On 31 July 2024, Being: $520.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927016?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927016?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10644952-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4927016?

For Rent And: $520.00 awarded to landlord; On 31 July 2024, Being: $520.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927016?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927016?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10644952-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Westcott Street, Dallington, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927016 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4927016?

The tribunal order states: Andrew Leggett owes Quintessential Property Management Limited Trading As

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927016. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
on 31 July 2024, being	$520.00		on 31 July 2024, being
for rent and	$520.00		for rent and

Andrew Leggett owes Quintessential Property Management Limited Trading As Quinovic Riccarton $520.00 (“the debt”) being rent arrears to 30 July 2024.

Andrew Leggett must pay rent and the debt totalling $1,040.00 on 31 July 2024, being $520.00 for rent and $520.00 for the debt.

Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, and rent arrears.

If the tenant fails to pay rent and rent arrears on the due date: a. The tenancy at 8 Westcott Street, Dallington, Christchurch 8061 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for immediate 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 keep up with current rent payments.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 25 June 2024 to remedy the breach by 9 July 2024.

From the rent summary adduced by the landlord, the tenant did remedy the breach within the required period. The rent was no longer in arrears as at 9 July 2024.

The rent summary also indicates that the tenant paid the current rent on 10 July 2024 on the same date. So, as at 10 July 2024, the rent was paid up to 16 July 2024.

For the above reasons, I am unable to accede to the landlord’s request for immediate termination of the tenancy on grounds of the rent being in arrears and its 14 day notice allegedly not being remedied.

The previous order dated 27 March under application 4663811 does not have material bearing on the current application which is couched under section 56 for reason that the 14-day notice served on the tenant on 25 June 2024 has been remedied fully by the required period of 9 July 2024.

However, the rent is now in arrears of $520.00 as at 30 July 2024. This constitutes a week’s rent in arrears.

Despite no new 14 day notice to remedy being issued, I consider it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the tenant’s history of being in sporadic rent arrears and the previous order dated 27 March under application 4663811 which the Tribunal remarked, “there is a history of arrears at varying levels. Payment of rent needs to be a priority. The tenant should consider this to be his final warning in relation to rent arrears”.

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 due to his current employment situation and is unlikely to commit any further breach. I have granted a conditional termination. 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.

As stated in the previous order dated 27 March under application 4663811, the tenant must really consider this to be his final, final warning in relation to rent arrears.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927016. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
on 31 July 2024, being	$520.00		on 31 July 2024, being
for rent and	$520.00		for rent and

Order

Andrew Leggett owes Quintessential Property Management Limited Trading As Quinovic Riccarton $520.00 (“the debt”) being rent arrears to 30 July 2024.
Andrew Leggett must pay rent and the debt totalling $1,040.00 on 31 July 2024, being $520.00 for rent and $520.00 for the debt.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, and rent arrears.
If the tenant fails to pay rent and rent arrears on the due date: a. The tenancy at 8 Westcott Street, Dallington, Christchurch 8061 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for immediate 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 keep up with current rent payments.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 25 June 2024 to remedy the breach by 9 July 2024.
From the rent summary adduced by the landlord, the tenant did remedy the breach within the required period. The rent was no longer in arrears as at 9 July 2024.
The rent summary also indicates that the tenant paid the current rent on 10 July 2024 on the same date. So, as at 10 July 2024, the rent was paid up to 16 July 2024.
For the above reasons, I am unable to accede to the landlord’s request for immediate termination of the tenancy on grounds of the rent being in arrears and its 14 day notice allegedly not being remedied.
The previous order dated 27 March under application 4663811 does not have material bearing on the current application which is couched under section 56 for reason that the 14-day notice served on the tenant on 25 June 2024 has been remedied fully by the required period of 9 July 2024.
However, the rent is now in arrears of $520.00 as at 30 July 2024. This constitutes a week’s rent in arrears.
Despite no new 14 day notice to remedy being issued, I consider it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the tenant’s history of being in sporadic rent arrears and the previous order dated 27 March under application 4663811 which the Tribunal remarked, “there is a history of arrears at varying levels. Payment of rent needs to be a priority. The tenant should consider this to be his final warning in relation to rent arrears”.
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 due to his current employment situation and is unlikely to commit any further breach. I have granted a conditional termination. 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.
As stated in the previous order dated 27 March under application 4663811, the tenant must really consider this to be his final, final warning in relation to rent arrears.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927016 — Rent arrears at 8 Westcott Street, Dallington, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927016 — Rent arrears at 8 Westcott Street, Dallington, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions