What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4665284 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,639.48 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4665284?

Cleaning: $348.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,914.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $299.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4665284?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4665284?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9667298-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4665284 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,639.48 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4665284?

Cleaning: $348.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,914.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $299.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4665284?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4665284?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9667298-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4665284 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4665284 — net $1,639.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,914.29	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$348.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$299.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$97.75	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,639.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,639.48

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,639.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Only, one of the tenants, [Tenant 1] attended the hearing who I refer to as Tenant A. I refer to her co-tenant, [Tenant 2], as Tenant B.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord’s representative confirmed that an agreement was reached to allow the tenants to end their fixed term tenancy early. To that end, Tenant A moved out. It appears that Tenant B did not move out on the date agreed and, while remaining in occupation, she did not pay rent which increased the arrears owed.
The landlord says the tenancy ended on 28 May 2023 once Tenant B vacated the premises. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Tenant A says that Tenant B is responsible for the state in which the premises were left and for the cleaning costs incurred by the landlord. I cannot determine who is responsible and disputes between tenants are outside this Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Both tenants were jointly and severally liable for their obligations as tenants and are, therefore, both responsible if the premises are not reasonably clean and tidy when the last tenant leaves and the tenancy ends. If Tenant A argues that she left the premises reasonably clean and tidy when she vacated and that the cleaning costs incurred by the landlord are attributable to Tenant B, she may pursue B for reimbursement of those costs in the Disputes Tribunal.
The landlord and Tenant A also agree that Tenant B did not remove all her belongings from the premises, and she authorised the landlord to deliver the items to her at a new address which they did. They are entitled to recover those removal costs.
Tenant B did not return her key. Therefore, the landlord had to change the locks.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Are the tenants entitled to name suppression?

The landlord and Tenant A submit that most of the claims have come about because Tenant B failed to comply with her tenant obligations and she is responsible for the costs. Therefore, the landlord and Tenant A ask that I suppress the tenants’ names as well as the landlord’s name and identifying details. The main reason for this is so that the publication of Tenant A’s name in particular does not affect her ability to apply for future rentals, because she should not be blamed for her co-tenant’s conduct.
As mentioned above, the Tribunal cannot determine liability for disputes between tenants. Any such claims can only be determined in the Disputes Tribunal. However, the issue is whether name suppression ought to be granted on the application of the landlord and Tenant A in the meantime.
Section 95A RTA sets out the grounds for name suppression as follows: S95A (1)— “The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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.” and S95A (4)— “The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to 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.”
The Tribunal in Kainga Ora Homes and Communities v Rangitakatu [2021] NZTT 4309535 discusses the principles and factors to consider when determining suppression applications. The Tribunal referred to the often-cited principle of open justice which dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case except in very special circumstances. Generally, open reporting of justice is in the public interest. However, the High Court in TV3 Network Services Ltd v Broadcasting Standards Authority [1995] 2 NZLR 720 has drawn attention “... to the distinction between matters properly within the public interest, in the sense of being of legitimate concern to the public, and those which are merely interesting to the public on a human level — between what is interesting to the public and what it is in the public interest to be made known.”
Therefore, in determining the application for suppression, I must balance the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest and bear in mind the principle that there should be open reporting of justice.
In this case the landlord has substantially succeeded. The amount of money is not insignificant but nor is it a substantial amount. Usually, larger amounts owed to the landlord would be in the public interest.
Other factors of relevance are that the parties agreed to end the fixed term tenancy following a full and frank discussion about rent arrears accumulating. Tenant A says that she lost her job and had difficulty affording rent. However up until late April 2023, the rent had been paid on time and was in credit. This is not a case, often seen in the Tribunal, where a tenant is in arrears and fails to communicate with the landlord to resolve the issue.
While, Tenant A may well have a claim for a greater contribution of the cost from Tenant B, I cannot determine the liabilities between them. However, I note that the landlord supports Tenant A and seems to agree that she is less blameworthy.
I have considered whether only Tenant A’s name ought to be suppressed. However, that may be unfair to Tenant B, when any claim against her in the Disputes Tribunal has not been determined. Therefore, I consider both tenant names would need to be suppressed, not just one.
After carefully considering the circumstances, I find that publication of the tenants’ names in this case is not in the public interest and the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest. Therefore, name suppression is granted to the tenants. The landlord also applied for and is granted suppression because they have substantially succeeded with their claims. They are also entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4665284 — net $1,639.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,914.29	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$348.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$299.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$97.75	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,639.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,639.48

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,639.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Only, one of the tenants, [Tenant 1] attended the hearing who I refer to as Tenant A. I refer to her co-tenant, [Tenant 2], as Tenant B.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord’s representative confirmed that an agreement was reached to allow the tenants to end their fixed term tenancy early. To that end, Tenant A moved out. It appears that Tenant B did not move out on the date agreed and, while remaining in occupation, she did not pay rent which increased the arrears owed.
The landlord says the tenancy ended on 28 May 2023 once Tenant B vacated the premises. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Tenant A says that Tenant B is responsible for the state in which the premises were left and for the cleaning costs incurred by the landlord. I cannot determine who is responsible and disputes between tenants are outside this Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Both tenants were jointly and severally liable for their obligations as tenants and are, therefore, both responsible if the premises are not reasonably clean and tidy when the last tenant leaves and the tenancy ends. If Tenant A argues that she left the premises reasonably clean and tidy when she vacated and that the cleaning costs incurred by the landlord are attributable to Tenant B, she may pursue B for reimbursement of those costs in the Disputes Tribunal.
The landlord and Tenant A also agree that Tenant B did not remove all her belongings from the premises, and she authorised the landlord to deliver the items to her at a new address which they did. They are entitled to recover those removal costs.
Tenant B did not return her key. Therefore, the landlord had to change the locks.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Are the tenants entitled to name suppression?

The landlord and Tenant A submit that most of the claims have come about because Tenant B failed to comply with her tenant obligations and she is responsible for the costs. Therefore, the landlord and Tenant A ask that I suppress the tenants’ names as well as the landlord’s name and identifying details. The main reason for this is so that the publication of Tenant A’s name in particular does not affect her ability to apply for future rentals, because she should not be blamed for her co-tenant’s conduct.
As mentioned above, the Tribunal cannot determine liability for disputes between tenants. Any such claims can only be determined in the Disputes Tribunal. However, the issue is whether name suppression ought to be granted on the application of the landlord and Tenant A in the meantime.
Section 95A RTA sets out the grounds for name suppression as follows: S95A (1)— “The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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.” and S95A (4)— “The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to 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.”
The Tribunal in Kainga Ora Homes and Communities v Rangitakatu [2021] NZTT 4309535 discusses the principles and factors to consider when determining suppression applications. The Tribunal referred to the often-cited principle of open justice which dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case except in very special circumstances. Generally, open reporting of justice is in the public interest. However, the High Court in TV3 Network Services Ltd v Broadcasting Standards Authority [1995] 2 NZLR 720 has drawn attention “... to the distinction between matters properly within the public interest, in the sense of being of legitimate concern to the public, and those which are merely interesting to the public on a human level — between what is interesting to the public and what it is in the public interest to be made known.”
Therefore, in determining the application for suppression, I must balance the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest and bear in mind the principle that there should be open reporting of justice.
In this case the landlord has substantially succeeded. The amount of money is not insignificant but nor is it a substantial amount. Usually, larger amounts owed to the landlord would be in the public interest.
Other factors of relevance are that the parties agreed to end the fixed term tenancy following a full and frank discussion about rent arrears accumulating. Tenant A says that she lost her job and had difficulty affording rent. However up until late April 2023, the rent had been paid on time and was in credit. This is not a case, often seen in the Tribunal, where a tenant is in arrears and fails to communicate with the landlord to resolve the issue.
While, Tenant A may well have a claim for a greater contribution of the cost from Tenant B, I cannot determine the liabilities between them. However, I note that the landlord supports Tenant A and seems to agree that she is less blameworthy.
I have considered whether only Tenant A’s name ought to be suppressed. However, that may be unfair to Tenant B, when any claim against her in the Disputes Tribunal has not been determined. Therefore, I consider both tenant names would need to be suppressed, not just one.
After carefully considering the circumstances, I find that publication of the tenants’ names in this case is not in the public interest and the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest. Therefore, name suppression is granted to the tenants. The landlord also applied for and is granted suppression because they have substantially succeeded with their claims. They are also entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4665284 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4665284 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants entitled to name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants entitled to name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions