How much money was awarded in case 4631010?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $592.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4631010?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4631010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9273462-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4631010?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $592.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4631010?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4631010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9273462-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8 Gazeley Avenue, Silverdale, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4631010 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4631010 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 4631010 — net $613.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$592.86	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$613.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$613.30

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

The tenancy of Lenard Christopher Koha and Ariana Lark at 8 Gazeley Avenue, Silverdale, Hamilton 3216 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Wednesday 9 August 2023.

The Bond Centre is to pay $613.30 from the bond of $$2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately, as calculated in the table below.

The balance of the bond of $1,386.70 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Koha stated at the beginning of the hearing that he had the authority to represent Ms Lark.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and payment from the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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.

In this case I find the landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.

The grounds have been established and the tenancy must be terminated. Rent records have been provided which prove the amount owing as at today’s date as ordered above.

Further to this, because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord.

With regard to the suppression of the parties’ names s95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

I am suppressing [The landlord/s]’s name because they applied for it and were wholly successful in their claim.

As explained at today’s hearing I am not using my discretion to suppress the tenants’ names because there appear not to be any particular extenuating circumstances which outweigh the public interest in allowing their names to be published. C ter Haar 09 August 2023

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4631010 — net $613.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$592.86	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$613.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$613.30

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Lenard Christopher Koha and Ariana Lark at 8 Gazeley Avenue, Silverdale, Hamilton 3216 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Wednesday 9 August 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay $613.30 from the bond of $$2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately, as calculated in the table below.
The balance of the bond of $1,386.70 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Koha stated at the beginning of the hearing that he had the authority to represent Ms Lark.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and payment from the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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.
In this case I find the landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The grounds have been established and the tenancy must be terminated. Rent records have been provided which prove the amount owing as at today’s date as ordered above.
Further to this, because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord.
With regard to the suppression of the parties’ names s95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I am suppressing [The landlord/s]’s name because they applied for it and were wholly successful in their claim.
As explained at today’s hearing I am not using my discretion to suppress the tenants’ names because there appear not to be any particular extenuating circumstances which outweigh the public interest in allowing their names to be published. C ter Haar 09 August 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4631010 — Rent arrears at 8 Gazeley Avenue, Silverdale, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4631010 — Rent arrears at 8 Gazeley Avenue, Silverdale, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions