How much money was awarded in case 4650089?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,710.00 awarded to landlord; Screen Door: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4650089?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4650089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9522847-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4650089?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,710.00 awarded to landlord; Screen Door: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4650089?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4650089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9522847-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4A Portal Crescent, Beerescourt, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4650089 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4650089 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4650089 — net $7,920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 October 2023	$8,710.00	Rent arrears to 25 October 2023
Repairs: screen door	$150.00	Repairs: screen door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,920.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,920.44

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 4A Portal Crescent, Beerescourt, Hamilton 3200 is terminated, and possession is granted to Dr. Netram Sharma and Reena Sharma, at midnight on Wednesday 25 October 2023.

[The tenant/s] must pay Dr. Netram Sharma and Reena Sharma $7,920.44 immediately

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Dr. Netram Sharma and Reena Sharma immediately.

Reasons

Both parties appeared.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears of more than 21 days, compensation for damage to a screen door, compensation for the tenant allegedly subletting the property, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Termination for rent arrears

The landlord is seeking termination of the tenancy for rent arrears under section 55(1)(a) of the Act. Under this provision the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if satisfied that the rent was at least 21 days in arrears at the time the application was filed. In this case, the application was filed on 08 August 2023, and the rent was more than 21 days in arrears at the time.

Section 55(1A) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may a conditional termination order if it is satisfied that the tenant will pay the arrears within a specified time, and it is unlikely that the tenant will find themselves in rent arrears again.

The tenant may also avoid termination under section 55(2) providing that the breach has been remedied, that the landlord has been compensated for their loss, and it would be unlikely that the tenant would commit a similar breach.

The tenant seeks to avoid termination. In this case section 55(2) cannot be considered as the rent arrears have not been remedied and remain outstanding. Therefore, discussions have focused on section 55(1A) of the Act.

The tenant resides at the property with a flatmate who helps with the rent and living expenses. The flatmate receives a benefit. One tenant works, the other is also on a benefit. Although the rent is modest, $480.00, and has not increased since the commencement of the tenancy in 2020, the tenant has struggled to pay the rent since January 2023. The tenant states that they have exhausted all available avenues to clear the arrears and now intend seeking earlier release of their Kiwi Saver fund on hardship grounds, although an application has not yet been made. The tenant states that once the arrears are cleared, they intend setting up an automatic payment and have sought budgeting advice.

The landlord does not support a conditional termination. The landlord states that there have been previous undertakings made by the tenant to clear the arrears have not been honoured. The landlord state they have no confidence that, even if the tenant can access their Kiwi Saver funds, they will be able to meet their obligations to pay rent going forward. The landlord state that they are retired and rely on the rent for income; that they cannot financially afford to carry the tenant any longer, and that the arrears have caused them considerable stress.

Regrettably, I am not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to exercise the discretion under section 55(1A) to order a conditional termination. The rent summary shows no rent payments were made in January 2023. One payment out of every three were made between February 2023 and May 2023. Rent was paid more frequently in August 2023, but then tapered off again in September and October. As of the date of hearing the tenant is more that sixteen weeks in rent arrears. The tenant has had ten months to rectify the matter. The tenant is clearly struggling to pay the rent. I accept the landlord’s concern that even if the rent arrears were cleared, with no guarantee that the funds will be released, there is a high likelihood that the tenant will face a similar situation in the future.

I am satisfied that the rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed on 08 August 2023. There are insufficient grounds to order a conditional termination. The tenancy is terminated, and possession granted to the landlord on Wednesday 25 October 2023. With the agreement of the parties, I award rent arrears to the date of hearing, and to the end of the tenancy. Damage

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to a mesh screen door, which occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The cost to repair the screen is $150.00. The claim is not disputed. The tenant agrees that the screen was new and undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant states that the damage was caused by their cat, which they are not allowed to keep under the agreement. The tenant is liable for damage caused by animals kept at the property. I award the amount sought. As the screen was new at the commencement of the tenancy. I make no deduction for betterment or depreciation. Subletting

The landlord claims that the tenant has sublet the property without their consent.

The landlord states that the agreement contains an express term that the tenant is not to sublet the property. The property has two bedrooms. The tenants are in a relationship and share a bedroom. The agreement does not specify the number of occupants allowed.

Section 44(1) of the Act provides that a tenancy agreement may contain a term which prohibits the tenant subletting or parting with possession of the premises, which includes part of the premised, during the tenancy. Section 44(2) provides that in the absence of any such prohibition the tenant may sublet with the prior written consent of the landlord. any damages for loss suffered by the landlord, a tenant who breached these provisions commits an unlawful act, and in addition to damages for actual loss, may be liable for exemplary damages.

The tenant states that there is no formal agreement between themselves and the flatmate, that each occupant contributes to rent and the general living expenses. The tenant state that they introduced the flatmate to the landlord during an inspection shortly after the commencement of the tenancy. There is no dispute that the landlord had actual knowledge of the presence of the flatmate. The landlord did not raise it as an issue, did not serve any breach notices requiring the flatmate to leave, or bring the matter to the Tribunal. The landlord states that they had no issue with the flatmate staying until the tenant faulted with their rent in January 2023, after which they formed the view that the tenant might be profiting at their expense.

The tenant questions whether the landlord, having not previously raised any issue, should now be able to bring a claim. The tenant is raising estoppel. Estoppel is a legal principle preventing someone, in this case the landlord, from arguing something contrary to what has been agreed or implied by a previous action or statement. I agree. Having previously acquiesced to the presence of the flatmate and not sought to withdraw consent, I am of the view that the landlord should be barred from prosecuting this claim. If there was evidence that the landlord had previously taken steps to revoke consent the outcome may have been different. The claim is dismissed. Costs

Because Dr. Netram Sharma, Reena Sharma has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord seeks name suppression. As the landlord has been substantially successful, they are granted name suppression.

The tenant seeks name suppression. The tenant has however not been wholly or substantially successful.

Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.

One of the tenants state they have previously been the victim of a home invasion, the result of which has been a post traumatic type disorder and heighted sensitivity to matters arising out of the tenancy, and these proceedings. After considering the matter I am satisfied that there are grounds to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) and order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4650089 — net $7,920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 October 2023	$8,710.00	Rent arrears to 25 October 2023
Repairs: screen door	$150.00	Repairs: screen door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,920.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,920.44

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Dr. Netram Sharma and Reena Sharma $7,920.44 immediately

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Dr. Netram Sharma and Reena Sharma immediately.

Reasons

Both parties appeared.

The landlord claims that the tenant has sublet the property without their consent.

Because Dr. Netram Sharma, Reena Sharma has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord seeks name suppression. As the landlord has been substantially successful, they are granted name suppression.

The tenant seeks name suppression. The tenant has however not been wholly or substantially successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4650089 — Rent arrears at 4A Portal Crescent, Beerescourt, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4650089 — Rent arrears at 4A Portal Crescent, Beerescourt, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions