What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4477681 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4477681?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4477681?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4477681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9355992-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4477681 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4477681?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4477681?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4477681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9355992-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Apartment 2014, 1 Courthouse Lane, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4477681 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by audio call on Microsoft Teams due to the landlord living in Australia and the health of the other parties.

All parties attended the hearing.

The tenant filed her application on 11 January 2023. Her claim is in substance a claim for return of the bond. She also alleged that Mr Taylor falsely nominated himself as a “tenant” and got the bond released without the tenant’s permission.

Mr Taylor filed an application, in which somewhat perplexingly he labelled himself as the “tenant” and the tenant as the “landlord”. His application sought rent arrears in excess of $4,000.00.

I consider the main issue is who owes what to whom if anything.

The critical thing is determining the tenancy’s end date.

The tenant provided an email trail in which it was evident that the tenancy would end earlier than contracted for with the landlord’s consent. However, the tenant no longer had access to text messages that would have assisted with ascertaining the precise end date.

The landlord confirmed that the tenancy ended on about 20 August 2022. The tenant and the landlord agreed that the Tribunal should adopt that date, and I do so.

The total rent due for the tenancy was $6,480.00. The tenant paid rent and bond totalling $6,094.29. She therefore is owed $385.71.

The tenant did not seek an order for return of the overpayment. The tenant was grateful for the landlord’s good faith in agreeing that the tenancy ended early on 20 August 2022, despite the tenant struggling to prove that date because she had lost access to her text messages about that.

Mr Taylor’s claim falls away. His claim is at odds with the landlord’s instructions, which mean the tenant overpaid rather than underpaid once the bond is factored in.

During the hearing, the tenant expressed outrage because she believes that not only did Mr Taylor get the bond refunded by falsely claiming he was a “tenant”, but also that Mr Taylor authorised Enerco to debit her bank account for water use at the premises without her authority.

Mr Taylor denies any impropriety.

The Tribunal is not required to rule on these matters because the substance of the tenant’s claim is disposed of with the above orders.

The tenant may wish to approach Enerco if it has debited her account for any water usage after 20 August 2022.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by audio call on Microsoft Teams due to the landlord living in Australia and the health of the other parties.

All parties attended the hearing.

I consider the main issue is who owes what to whom if anything.

The critical thing is determining the tenancy’s end date.

The landlord confirmed that the tenancy ended on about 20 August 2022. The tenant and the landlord agreed that the Tribunal should adopt that date, and I do so.

The total rent due for the tenancy was $6,480.00. The tenant paid rent and bond totalling $6,094.29. She therefore is owed $385.71.

Mr Taylor’s claim falls away. His claim is at odds with the landlord’s instructions, which mean the tenant overpaid rather than underpaid once the bond is factored in.

Mr Taylor denies any impropriety.

The Tribunal is not required to rule on these matters because the substance of the tenant’s claim is disposed of with the above orders.

The tenant may wish to approach Enerco if it has debited her account for any water usage after 20 August 2022.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4477681 — Rent arrears at Apartment 2014, 1 Courthouse Lane, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4477681 — Rent arrears at Apartment 2014, 1 Courthouse Lane, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions