What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4538777 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties' names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4538777?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4538777?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4538777?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10136302-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4538777 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties' names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4538777?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4538777?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4538777?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10136302-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8 Butler Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4538777 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4538777. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
uly 2023, amended by Order dated 5 July 2023, is discharged. 3. [The applicant/s] is entitled to retain the bond paid fo	$1,800.00		uly 2023, amended by Order dated 5 July 2023, is discharged. 3. [The applicant/s] is entitled to retain the bond paid fo

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4538777. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
uly 2023, amended by Order dated 5 July 2023, is discharged. 3. [The applicant/s] is entitled to retain the bond paid fo	$1,800.00		uly 2023, amended by Order dated 5 July 2023, is discharged. 3. [The applicant/s] is entitled to retain the bond paid fo

Order

The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties' names and identifying details.
The Tribunal's Order dated 3 July 2023, amended by Order dated 5 July 2023, is discharged.
[The applicant/s] is entitled to retain the bond paid for the tenancy of $1800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) which was paid to [The applicant/s] from the Bond Centre under the Tribunal's order dated 3 July 2023. Otherwise, the application is dismissed.
The Tribunal Orders by way of declaration that [The respondent/s] is not the tenant under the tenancy agreement for the premises dated 7 June 2022.
[The applicant/s] must pay [The respondent/s] legal costs of $3,718.98 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[The applicant/s] was represented by its [Property Manager]. [The trustee/s], trustee of the owner Trust also appeared.
[The respondent/s] was represented by his [Counsel]. [The respondent/s] attended the hearing.
The parties and counsel had the assistance of an interpreter. Background The proceedings
On 7 June 2022 a residential tenancy agreement was signed for the premises. The landlord was named as [The landlord/s]. The tenant was named as [The respondent/s].
The agreement was for a fixed term to 8 June 2023, at a rent of $600.00 per week. A bond of $1800 was paid and was lodged with the Bond Centre.
On 30 March 2023 the landlord bought an application for rent arrears and compensation after the tenancy had been ended.
Following a hearing at which only the landlord appeared, the Tribunal issued an Order dated 3 July 2023, requiring that the Bond Centre pay the bond to the landlord and that the tenant pay to the landlord $14,136.40. The compensation amount was subsequently amended to $12,189.07 by an Order of the Tribunal dated 5 July 2023.
On 15 September 2023, [The respondent/s] filed an application for rehearing on the grounds that he was not the tenant and had not been served with notice of the earlier hearing.
A hearing was held on 5 February 2024 by teleconference following which [The respondent/s]'s application for rehearing was granted.
This was a rehearing of [The applicant/s]'s claim. Issues
The one fundamental issue for determination is whether or not [The respondent/s] is the tenant under the tenancy agreement.
It is not disputed that the driver's licence used as identification by the tenant who signed the tenancy agreement, is [The respondent/s]'s drivers’ licence (since replaced).
[The respondent/s] says however that someone wrongfully obtained and used that identity document for the purpose of fraudulently representing himself as [The respondent/s] and signing the tenancy agreement.
The property manager who met the tenant at the signing of the tenancy agreement, met [The respondent/s] in person for the first time at this hearing and was able to confirm that while the two persons look somewhat similar, [The respondent/s] is not the person who signed the tenancy agreement.
For the record, [The respondent/s] gave formal evidence that he was not the signatory to the agreement, did not authorise any person to sign the agreement on his behalf and does not know who that signatory was. [The respondent/s]'s evidence is that he has never been to these premises.
Evidence was also given by a [witness] who appeared under witness summons. [Witness]’ evidence is that he lived at the premises for around four months from September to December 2022. He says he understood that the person who also lived at the premises and whom he knew as [The respondent/s] was the tenant under the tenancy.
[Witness] gave unequivocal evidence that [The respondent/s] is not the person he knew as [The respondent/s]. He says that he has never met or been aware of [The respondent/s] before this hearing.
The evidence shows some history of [The respondent/s] raising concerns with the police about fraudulent activity using his identification documents.
At the hearing the landlord, while accepting that [The respondent/s] was not the person who entered into the tenancy agreement, asserted that [The respondent/s] was irresponsible with his identity documents and should be accountable to the landlord for losses suffered due to the actions of the tenant. Findings
The Tribunal has jurisdiction under s.77(1) RTA, “....to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that—(a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.”
Under s.2 RTA “Tenant”, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes— (a) a prospective tenant; and (b) a former tenant; and (c) a lawful successor in title of a tenant to the premises; and (d) the personal representative of a deceased tenant; and (e) an agent of a tenant
[The respondent/s] is not a party to the tenancy agreement so cannot be a grantee of the tenancy. He does not fit within any of the extended definitions given.
The evidence satisfies me that when signing the tenancy agreement, the tenant was not acting with [The respondent/s]’s knowledge, authority or consent.
Simply, [The respondent/s] has nothing to do with this tenancy and cannot be made the subject of any orders concerning it.
I have not heard from the parties in detail about their respective views as to who is the most responsible for the tenant having been able to pass himself off as [The respondent/s], to secure the tenancy. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction that would make findings about those matters relevant to its decision. The parties are not parties to a residential tenancy agreement.
The tenant entered into the tenancy agreement representing himself as [The respondent/s], using a copy of [The respondent/s]’s driver’s license.
This is not a situation where an Order has properly been made against a party, but wrongfully enforced against someone else with the same name. That being so, while the landlord may have valid claims, the Order should not stand, as it is made against this respondent.
The Tribunal having found that the landlord's claims against the tenant had substance, the landlord should be entitled to keep the tenant’s bond, which causes no prejudice to [The respondent/s]. Costs
At the end of the hearing I gave the parties the opportunity to provide submissions on costs. Those submissions have been filed.
The Tribunal cannot award costs except in certain circumstances. Those circumstances include where a party is represented by counsel or where proceedings ought not have been brought.
[The respondent/s] claims costs, essentially on the ground that [The applicant/s] ought to have accepted, from the point of the hearing to determine [The respondent/s]; application for rehearing, that [The respondent/s] was not the tenant and that there was no basis for this application to be pursued.
[The applicant/s] contends that the landlord is the victim and should not be further penalised.
The rehearing hearing took place by videoconference. Counsel for [The respondent/s] says that the property manager was in a position to ascertain at that hearing that respondent was not the person who signed the tenancy agreement. The property manager says that [The respondent/s] and that person look quite similar and the quality of the video did not enable her to be certain about that.
I have no basis on which to assess those opposing contentions. The Order itself notes: “Because the issue relates significantly to identity, the re-hearing will need to be held face to face.”
In my view that suggests the adjudicator conducting the hearing did not consider that hearing sufficient to enable certain identification of [The respondent/s] by [The applicant/s].
The property manager is correct in noting that at this hearing. As soon as she saw [The respondent/s] in person, she confirmed that he was not the tenant who signed the agreement.
Both parties have suffered significant loss as a result of the tenant's actions. The initial application by the landlord was properly brought.
In my view an award of costs should only be considered if there was a point before this hearing, at which [The applicant/s] ought reasonably have realised that its application should not be pursued but has continued, causing costs that were unnecessary.
In my view that is the case here.
While the property manager had not seen [The respondent/s] in person before this hearing, there was ample evidence provided to show that [The respondent/s] was not the signatory to the agreement. A letter from the investigating police officer dated 15 November 2023 records: “Both the property owner and [The respondent/s] are the victims in this matter and both have suffered from the actions of a dishonest individual. I am hoping to find this individual and hold them accountable.”
At this hearing, [The applicant/s] pursued an argument that because the landlord had suffered loss, the Tribunal should find [The respondent/s] liable for that loss for having been irresponsible with the security of his identity documents.
That is not a sustainable argument, and I am persuaded that [The applicant/s] intended to pursue the claim, even if satisfied that [The respondent/s] was not the signatory to the agreement.
Well before this hearing there was ample evidence on which [The applicant/s] could have accepted the police assessment of the position and discontinued its application against [The respondent/s].
For that reason, I find that [The applicant/s] should make a contribution towards [The respondent/s]'s costs.
Counsel for [The respondent/s] has provided evidence of legal costs incurred by [The respondent/s] since the rehearing hearing, totalling $6,500.00plus GST as well as flight costs for [The respondent/s] to attend this hearing, of $268.98.
As noted, there have been other instances of [The respondent/s]'s identity documents having been misused. In my view, [The respondent/s] will benefit from the work undertaken by his counsel in relation related to identification of the tenant, for purposes other than responding to this application. [The applicant/s] should not be responsible for those costs.
My assessment is that a contribution of $3,000.00 plus GST towards [The respondent/s]'s legal costs and reimbursement of [The respondent/s]'s travel expenses would be appropriate.
No Order is made regarding the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4538777 — Rent arrears at 8 Butler Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4538777 — Rent arrears at 8 Butler Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions