What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4975154?

The tribunal order states: The order dated 15 October 2024 is recalled and reissued.

How much money was awarded in case 4975154?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,055.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4975154?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4975154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10970186-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4975154?

The tribunal order states: The order dated 15 October 2024 is recalled and reissued.

How much money was awarded in case 4975154?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,055.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4975154?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4975154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10970186-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

73 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4975154 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4975154 — net $2,862.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 October 2024	$780.00	Rent arrears to 15 October 2024
Water rates	$2,055.55	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,862.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,862.55

Order

The order dated 15 October 2024 is recalled and reissued.
Kilisitina Demelza Nafe owes The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Quan Thi Le $2,862.55 (“the debt”).
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, rent arrears, water rates and the filing fee.
If the tenant fails to pay rent, rent arrears or water rates within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 73 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 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 filing fee within 2 working days of the due date, the filing fee will be payable immediately.

Reasons

On 15 October 2024, I issued an order in respect of this matter. Due to an administrative error, I omitted to include the filing fee of $27.00 in the table calculating the total debt owed by the tenant. The purpose of this order is to recall and reissue the order dated 15 October 2024 to correct this error and correctly record the debt to be paid by the tenant.
The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. The landlord asked the Tribunal to make a conditional termination order on behalf of the tenant.

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. See section 56(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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) RTA.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court set out a range of factors relevant to the assessment whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate under section 56(1)(c) RTA. These were:
The history of the tenancy.
Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.
Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.
The conduct of the landlord.
The gravity of the breach.
Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenant breached their obligations by not paying rent or water rates invoices when due. On 8 August 2024, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, requiring the tenant to pay $840.00 for rent arrears and $1,852.00 for outstanding water rates. The breach was not remedied within the required period.
Applying the factors noted in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The tenancy began on 12 January 2022. The tenant has frequently been in and out of arrears throughout the tenancy. The tenant has also frequently been behind in their payment of water rates. At its highest, rent arrears totalled $4,786.00 on 22 February 2024. b. The outstanding water rates have steadily increased throughout the tenancy and are now at a point where a total of $2,055.55 is owing. c. The landlord has served a total of 12 14-day notices for rent arrears or outstanding water rates on the tenant throughout the tenancy. There has been a persistent failure by the tenant despite repeated warnings. d. There was a mediation between the parties scheduled earlier in the year, which the tenant did not attend. e. The landlord gave evidence that they have engaged in multiple discussions with the tenant about the arrears and outstanding water rates. The tenant tends to agree to a payment plan, but only follows through for a short period of time. f. The frequency of missed payments for rent and water rates indicates that the tenant is not likely to comply with their obligations in the future. g. I consider the tenant’s breach to be deliberate, rather than inadvertent. The tenant has had multiple warnings and requests by the landlord to pay rent and water rates when due, yet consistently fails to do so. h. The landlord has made significant efforts to resolve the matter outside of the Tribunal. i. The payment of rent is a fundamental obligation in a tenancy. The persistent failure by the tenant to pay rent increases the seriousness of the breach.
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. This is because the tenant has recently made two substantial lump sum payments of $3,000.00 on 30 August 2024 and $2,500.00 on 4 October 2024. These payments have brought the arrears down significantly. The tenant has also been consistently making fortnightly payments of $100.00 towards the outstanding water rates. The landlord stated that they wanted to try to work with the tenant to keep the tenancy. 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. Filing fee
Because The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Quan Thi Le has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4975154 — net $2,862.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 October 2024	$780.00	Rent arrears to 15 October 2024
Water rates	$2,055.55	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,862.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,862.55

Order

The order dated 15 October 2024 is recalled and reissued.
Kilisitina Demelza Nafe owes The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Quan Thi Le $2,862.55 (“the debt”).
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, rent arrears, water rates and the filing fee.
If the tenant fails to pay rent, rent arrears or water rates within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 73 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 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 filing fee within 2 working days of the due date, the filing fee will be payable immediately.

Reasons

On 15 October 2024, I issued an order in respect of this matter. Due to an administrative error, I omitted to include the filing fee of $27.00 in the table calculating the total debt owed by the tenant. The purpose of this order is to recall and reissue the order dated 15 October 2024 to correct this error and correctly record the debt to be paid by the tenant.
The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. The landlord asked the Tribunal to make a conditional termination order on behalf of the tenant.

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. See section 56(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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) RTA.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court set out a range of factors relevant to the assessment whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate under section 56(1)(c) RTA. These were:
The history of the tenancy.
Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.
Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.
The conduct of the landlord.
The gravity of the breach.
Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenant breached their obligations by not paying rent or water rates invoices when due. On 8 August 2024, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, requiring the tenant to pay $840.00 for rent arrears and $1,852.00 for outstanding water rates. The breach was not remedied within the required period.
Applying the factors noted in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The tenancy began on 12 January 2022. The tenant has frequently been in and out of arrears throughout the tenancy. The tenant has also frequently been behind in their payment of water rates. At its highest, rent arrears totalled $4,786.00 on 22 February 2024. b. The outstanding water rates have steadily increased throughout the tenancy and are now at a point where a total of $2,055.55 is owing. c. The landlord has served a total of 12 14-day notices for rent arrears or outstanding water rates on the tenant throughout the tenancy. There has been a persistent failure by the tenant despite repeated warnings. d. There was a mediation between the parties scheduled earlier in the year, which the tenant did not attend. e. The landlord gave evidence that they have engaged in multiple discussions with the tenant about the arrears and outstanding water rates. The tenant tends to agree to a payment plan, but only follows through for a short period of time. f. The frequency of missed payments for rent and water rates indicates that the tenant is not likely to comply with their obligations in the future. g. I consider the tenant’s breach to be deliberate, rather than inadvertent. The tenant has had multiple warnings and requests by the landlord to pay rent and water rates when due, yet consistently fails to do so. h. The landlord has made significant efforts to resolve the matter outside of the Tribunal. i. The payment of rent is a fundamental obligation in a tenancy. The persistent failure by the tenant to pay rent increases the seriousness of the breach.
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. This is because the tenant has recently made two substantial lump sum payments of $3,000.00 on 30 August 2024 and $2,500.00 on 4 October 2024. These payments have brought the arrears down significantly. The tenant has also been consistently making fortnightly payments of $100.00 towards the outstanding water rates. The landlord stated that they wanted to try to work with the tenant to keep the tenancy. 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. Filing fee
Because The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Quan Thi Le has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4975154 — Rent arrears at 73 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4975154 — Rent arrears at 73 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions