What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4655369 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4655369?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655369?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9966929-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4655369 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4655369?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655369?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9966929-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1893A State Highway 23, Whatawhata, RD 12, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 4655369 — Rent arrears

Reasons

The second hearing took place in Whangarei today, 16 February 2024.

Mr Hutchings attended the hearing in person. Mr Nair attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal.

Mr Hutchings talked about the history of the tenancy from his perspective.

Mr Hutchings submitted that: a. He began paying rent as soon as he moved into the property in 2007. He disputed Mr Nair’s statement that he did not start paying rent until March 2008. b. His rent was $900.00 per month from the beginning of his tenancy. He denied that the rent was ever $1,300.00 or $1,400.00 per month. He submitted that if Mr Nair did receive those amounts it is because it included payments from other tenants. c. He paid his rent in cash. He would put his rent, together with the cash rent that he received from other tenants on Mr Nair’s behalf, in an envelope, which Mr Nair collected every month. d. Over the years he carried out work on the property, including installing a kitchen and assisting with the conversion of some of the buildings to create the Glentui Travelers Lodge. e. He was effectively the manager of the Lodge for the period that it operated. f. When he incurred costs for building materials or provisions for the lodge, he would deduct those costs from the rent that he owed. He prepared a monthly (handwritten) statement / reconciliation that he put in the envelope with the money for Mr Nair to collect. g. He continued to make cash payments to Mr Nair right through to the end of the tenancy in June 2023.

Mr Nair is the applicant in these proceedings. He must prove his claim to the standard of ‘more likely than not’.

Mr Nair’s claim is based on his rent record. The record shows rent arrears of $19,810.00 to January 2020.

For the following reasons my finding is that the claim is not proven: a. It is not proven that the agreed rent was initially $1,300.00 per month, or that there was an agreement that it would increase to $1,400.00. There is no written tenancy agreement. Even if Mr Nair could prove that he in fact received monthly payments of $1,400.00 and $1,300.00 over the 2008- 2014 period, this could be a mix of payments by Mr Hutchings and payments by other occupants. b. Numerous people have occupied buildings on the property for varying amounts of time over a period of 15 years, including a period when part of the property was operated a short-stay lodge. Mr Hutchings received rent payments from those people on behalf of Mr Nair, most of which (according to Mr Hutchings) were cash payments. There is no way of calculating how much money Mr Nair received, let alone how much of that money was payment for Mr Hutchings’ tenancy. c. Mr Hutchings deducted the cost of materials from his rent. The total amount of these deductions is unknown and there is no record available. d. Mr Nair’s accountant is based in Singapore. The rent record that they prepared is entirely based on information that they received from Mr Nair. Mr Nair did not provide any originating records to show how he worked out Mr Hutchings’ arrears from month to month.

The claim is not proven, and it must be dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The second hearing took place in Whangarei today, 16 February 2024.
Mr Hutchings attended the hearing in person. Mr Nair attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal.
Mr Hutchings talked about the history of the tenancy from his perspective.
Mr Hutchings submitted that: a. He began paying rent as soon as he moved into the property in 2007. He disputed Mr Nair’s statement that he did not start paying rent until March 2008. b. His rent was $900.00 per month from the beginning of his tenancy. He denied that the rent was ever $1,300.00 or $1,400.00 per month. He submitted that if Mr Nair did receive those amounts it is because it included payments from other tenants. c. He paid his rent in cash. He would put his rent, together with the cash rent that he received from other tenants on Mr Nair’s behalf, in an envelope, which Mr Nair collected every month. d. Over the years he carried out work on the property, including installing a kitchen and assisting with the conversion of some of the buildings to create the Glentui Travelers Lodge. e. He was effectively the manager of the Lodge for the period that it operated. f. When he incurred costs for building materials or provisions for the lodge, he would deduct those costs from the rent that he owed. He prepared a monthly (handwritten) statement / reconciliation that he put in the envelope with the money for Mr Nair to collect. g. He continued to make cash payments to Mr Nair right through to the end of the tenancy in June 2023.
Mr Nair is the applicant in these proceedings. He must prove his claim to the standard of ‘more likely than not’.
Mr Nair’s claim is based on his rent record. The record shows rent arrears of $19,810.00 to January 2020.
For the following reasons my finding is that the claim is not proven: a. It is not proven that the agreed rent was initially $1,300.00 per month, or that there was an agreement that it would increase to $1,400.00. There is no written tenancy agreement. Even if Mr Nair could prove that he in fact received monthly payments of $1,400.00 and $1,300.00 over the 2008- 2014 period, this could be a mix of payments by Mr Hutchings and payments by other occupants. b. Numerous people have occupied buildings on the property for varying amounts of time over a period of 15 years, including a period when part of the property was operated a short-stay lodge. Mr Hutchings received rent payments from those people on behalf of Mr Nair, most of which (according to Mr Hutchings) were cash payments. There is no way of calculating how much money Mr Nair received, let alone how much of that money was payment for Mr Hutchings’ tenancy. c. Mr Hutchings deducted the cost of materials from his rent. The total amount of these deductions is unknown and there is no record available. d. Mr Nair’s accountant is based in Singapore. The rent record that they prepared is entirely based on information that they received from Mr Nair. Mr Nair did not provide any originating records to show how he worked out Mr Hutchings’ arrears from month to month.
The claim is not proven, and it must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655369 — Rent arrears at 1893A State Highway 23, Whatawhata, RD 12, Hamilton

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655369 — Rent arrears at 1893A State Highway 23, Whatawhata, RD 12, Hamilton

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions