How much money was awarded in case 4598797?

Compensation: Bond paid by Preeti Ku…: $380.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Bond psid by Pranav Ud…: $420.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4598797?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4598797?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9396601-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4598797?

Compensation: Bond paid by Preeti Ku…: $380.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Bond psid by Pranav Ud…: $420.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4598797?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4598797?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9396601-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 2, 32 Carbine Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4598797 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4598797 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4598797 — net $840.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bond paid by Preeti Kumar	$380.00	Bond paid by Preeti Kumar
Compensation: Bond psid by Pranav Udas	$420.00	Bond psid by Pranav Udas
Filing fee reimbursement: 4598797 - Pranav Udas	$20.44	4598797 - Pranav Udas
Filing fee reimbursement: 4598349 - Preeti Kumar	$20.44	4598349 - Preeti Kumar
Net award	$840.87
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$840.87

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both Tenants names and identifying details.

Taiaha Trust Jeremy Christian, Carbine Managements Limited Chanidu Ratwatte and Barfoot & Thompson Limited Jagroop Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $840.87 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. There were two tenants, Preethi Kumar, and Pranav Udas and Chanidu Ratwatte who was the “head tenant” and the owners of the property under Taiaha Trust, Jeremy Christian, Joseph Christian, and Nancy Christian.

The tenants are claiming the refund of their bonds, over paid rent, filing fee and exemplary damages falsely the property as a residential property, increasing the rent within 12 months. Background:

The property is an 852 square meter site with a 4-bedroom house and a 3- bedroom cottage on it. It is zoned as commercial not residential.

The property at 32 and 32 A Carbine Road, Mount Wellington is owned by Taiaha Trust (the Trust). The Trust gave Carbine Managements Limited the property management rights over the property.

Carbine management Ltd (CM) is owned by Chanidu Ratwatte (Chanidu).

The Trust provided the Tribunal with copies of Deed to Lease documents dated 14 March 2022.

The Deed of Lease sets out that CM has full access to the property and is responsible for all maintenance and agrees to pay the lease sum of $1580.00 to the Trust by Monday 11am every week.

CM was required to keep records of maintenance and of all tenants on the property.

CM advertised the property for rent on “marketplace.” The tenants asked the advertisement and entered into an agreement to rent a room each in the property.

Both tenants paid rent in advance to the Chanidu as property manager of CM and bond at the start of the tenancy. Preethi paid $380.00 directly to CM, via Chanidu and Pranav $420.00. The tenant’s bond was not lodged with the bond centre.

Neither tenant is claiming exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, so I do not need to consider this further.

The tenants are claiming in their applications that the landlord is the Trust and CM and/or Chanidu.

The Trust and Chanidu had a break down in their working professional relationship and the management of the Trust property was cancelled.

On cancelation of the CM management, Chanidu sent the tenants bond and rent through to the Trust.

This is not in dispute. The Trust has got the tenants bond money. The Trust says they are not refunding the bond money as Chanidu, and CM owe them money and they are retaining the bond money to offset their losses.

The bond money is the tenant’s money and not CM, Chanidu or the Trusts money. The money must immediately be returned to the tenants by the Trust.

The Trust claims that there are damages to the property, and they can retain the money to cover the damages. The Tribunal had not received a counter claim from the Trust or CM, therefore there is no claim against the bond money.

Once the Trust took the property back from CM they engaged with the tenants. Pranav and Preethi were asked to pay more rent up front to continue staying on in the property. The Trust received an extra $210.00 from Pranav in rent.

CM confirmed in the hearing that he had paid the tenants rent to the Trust and therefore Pranav has overpaid the Trust by $210.00. Pranav seeks to be refunded the $210.00 extra he paid to the Trust.

I find the Trust has been overpaid rent from Pranav and they should repay Pranav $210.00.

During the hearing I explained to the tenants that any further claims relating to the property as advertised to them cannot be considered with the Trust. If the tenants wish to pursue further claims against the property, then they need to file an application naming Cm and or Chanidu as the landlord.

Because [The applicant/s] and Preethi Kumar has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4598797 — net $840.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bond paid by Preeti Kumar	$380.00	Bond paid by Preeti Kumar
Compensation: Bond psid by Pranav Udas	$420.00	Bond psid by Pranav Udas
Filing fee reimbursement: 4598797 - Pranav Udas	$20.44	4598797 - Pranav Udas
Filing fee reimbursement: 4598349 - Preeti Kumar	$20.44	4598349 - Preeti Kumar
Net award	$840.87
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$840.87

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both Tenants names and identifying details.
Taiaha Trust Jeremy Christian, Carbine Managements Limited Chanidu Ratwatte and Barfoot & Thompson Limited Jagroop Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $840.87 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. There were two tenants, Preethi Kumar, and Pranav Udas and Chanidu Ratwatte who was the “head tenant” and the owners of the property under Taiaha Trust, Jeremy Christian, Joseph Christian, and Nancy Christian.
The tenants are claiming the refund of their bonds, over paid rent, filing fee and exemplary damages falsely the property as a residential property, increasing the rent within 12 months. Background:
The property is an 852 square meter site with a 4-bedroom house and a 3- bedroom cottage on it. It is zoned as commercial not residential.
The property at 32 and 32 A Carbine Road, Mount Wellington is owned by Taiaha Trust (the Trust). The Trust gave Carbine Managements Limited the property management rights over the property.
Carbine management Ltd (CM) is owned by Chanidu Ratwatte (Chanidu).
The Trust provided the Tribunal with copies of Deed to Lease documents dated 14 March 2022.
The Deed of Lease sets out that CM has full access to the property and is responsible for all maintenance and agrees to pay the lease sum of $1580.00 to the Trust by Monday 11am every week.
CM was required to keep records of maintenance and of all tenants on the property.
CM advertised the property for rent on “marketplace.” The tenants asked the advertisement and entered into an agreement to rent a room each in the property.
Both tenants paid rent in advance to the Chanidu as property manager of CM and bond at the start of the tenancy. Preethi paid $380.00 directly to CM, via Chanidu and Pranav $420.00. The tenant’s bond was not lodged with the bond centre.
Neither tenant is claiming exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, so I do not need to consider this further.
The tenants are claiming in their applications that the landlord is the Trust and CM and/or Chanidu.
The Trust and Chanidu had a break down in their working professional relationship and the management of the Trust property was cancelled.
On cancelation of the CM management, Chanidu sent the tenants bond and rent through to the Trust.
This is not in dispute. The Trust has got the tenants bond money. The Trust says they are not refunding the bond money as Chanidu, and CM owe them money and they are retaining the bond money to offset their losses.
The bond money is the tenant’s money and not CM, Chanidu or the Trusts money. The money must immediately be returned to the tenants by the Trust.
The Trust claims that there are damages to the property, and they can retain the money to cover the damages. The Tribunal had not received a counter claim from the Trust or CM, therefore there is no claim against the bond money.
Once the Trust took the property back from CM they engaged with the tenants. Pranav and Preethi were asked to pay more rent up front to continue staying on in the property. The Trust received an extra $210.00 from Pranav in rent.
CM confirmed in the hearing that he had paid the tenants rent to the Trust and therefore Pranav has overpaid the Trust by $210.00. Pranav seeks to be refunded the $210.00 extra he paid to the Trust.
I find the Trust has been overpaid rent from Pranav and they should repay Pranav $210.00.
During the hearing I explained to the tenants that any further claims relating to the property as advertised to them cannot be considered with the Trust. If the tenants wish to pursue further claims against the property, then they need to file an application naming Cm and or Chanidu as the landlord.
Because [The applicant/s] and Preethi Kumar has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4598797 — Tenancy dispute at Room 2, 32 Carbine Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4598797 — Tenancy dispute at Room 2, 32 Carbine Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions