What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5014029?

The tribunal order states: Maria Batistich, Tim Wihone and Aiden Wihone-Batistich must pay Eves Realty

How much money was awarded in case 5014029?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5014029?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11015271-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5014029?

The tribunal order states: Maria Batistich, Tim Wihone and Aiden Wihone-Batistich must pay Eves Realty

How much money was awarded in case 5014029?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5014029?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11015271-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Bernard Street, Chedworth, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5014029 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Mr Norman attended for the landlord. Ms Batistich attended on behalf of the tenants.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and payment of the bond relying on s55(1)(aa) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). I set out the section in full below.

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.

The rent has been in arrears since July, apart from one short period when it was up to date, and there were arrears from time to time previously. The landlord has served three breach notices under s55(1)(aa) but I find that the second notice, dated 6 August, does not comply with the section because the rent remained in arrears since the previous notice.

The section refers to three separate occasions of rent arrears and that means, in my view, that the rent has been brought up to date between the notices and then fallen into arrears again. The section is aimed at tenants who repeatedly fall into arrears, not those who remain in arrears. Sections 55(1)(a) and 56 are available for that second situation.

The tenants have now brought the rent up to date and the landlord sought an order that if they do not keep the rent up to date for the next 90 days, the tenancy will be terminated. The Tribunal cannot make such an order. It can make an outright termination order, which for the reasons just explained, it cannot do in this case. Or it can make a conditional order where there are rent arrears.

That said, if there were rent arrears today, I would have been willing to deal with the application under s56 by applying s85 of the Act that allows the Tribunal to decide cases without giving effect to legal forms and technicalities.

The tenants intend keeping the rent up to date from now on, and they are on notice that if the landlord returns to the Tribunal for rent arrears, the outcome of the application may well be different from the outcome today.

The landlord was justified in bringing this application and so I have awarded them the filing fee.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Mr Norman attended for the landlord. Ms Batistich attended on behalf of the tenants.

The landlord was justified in bringing this application and so I have awarded them the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014029 — Rent arrears at 33 Bernard Street, Chedworth, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014029 — Rent arrears at 33 Bernard Street, Chedworth, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions