What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4675291 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4675291?

Rent Arrears: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675291?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9541023-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4675291 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4675291?

Rent Arrears: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675291?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9541023-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4675291 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4675291 — net $1,620.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 October 2023	$2,700.00	Rent arrears to 19 October 2023
Net award	$1,620.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,620.00

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 Daniel Pihema at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on 19 October 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Daniel Pihema must pay [The landlord/s] $1,620.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. This attracts the application of section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The present rent arrears amount to 9 weeks rent not paid, largely through July and August.
The tenant says he felt there was a problem and so he had to go and live somewhere else. He did not pay rent because he moved out of the property because it was cold, the fire was not working and there was no oven. He says that he didn’t tell the landlord that he couldn’t stay there.
The tenant has not bought an application in respect of his grievance has not filed any documentation in connection with this application by way of a defence. The tenant did not provide evidence of informing the landlord that he was withholding the rent due to his grievances.
The landlord says that rent is separate and that the tenant has been compensated separately.
A termination application for rent arrears under section 55(1) RTA does not preclude consideration of an equitable set-off (see O’Shea v Brown, High Court, Auckland, AP 110-PL01, 14 December 2001). A tenant does not have to file a claim to establish an equitable set-off because it is a defence, not a claim: Connaught Restaurants Ltd v Indoor Leisure Ltd [1994] 4 ALL ER 834. If the tenant is entitled to set off, any such amount can be offset against rent payable for the purposes of a section 55 calculation.
However, the problem with the tenant’s position is that with this remedy he has unilaterally taken a risk in that he has a positive burden to prove the set-off. I am not satisfied the tenant has provided sufficient evidence for me to set aside the landlords rent arrears either in full or in part. I also find that a tenant should also tell a landlord if he is no longer paying rent due to not being able to live at the property in order to claim a set off. The tenant’s evidence was that he did not tell the landlord.
For this reason, I grant the landlords application.
This does not deny the tenant the opportunity to pursue his application with the Tribunal (which may take place as a face to face hearing). If the tenant wants to pursue an application in relation to his grievances it would be in his interest to lodge this as soon as possible.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties requested name suppression. Under s 95A(1) RTA a suppression order must be granted on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings. In the present case, the landlord has been wholly successful so I award the landlord suppression of its identifying details.
The tenant has not been successful. I have considered if I should grant the tenant a name suppression order having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under s 95A(4) RTA.
I am I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name outweighs the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
I decline the application for name suppression for the tenant for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order; b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal; c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the parties and the public interest the public interest outweighs the parties’ interests.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4675291 — net $1,620.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 October 2023	$2,700.00	Rent arrears to 19 October 2023
Net award	$1,620.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,620.00

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 Daniel Pihema at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on 19 October 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Daniel Pihema must pay [The landlord/s] $1,620.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. This attracts the application of section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The present rent arrears amount to 9 weeks rent not paid, largely through July and August.
The tenant says he felt there was a problem and so he had to go and live somewhere else. He did not pay rent because he moved out of the property because it was cold, the fire was not working and there was no oven. He says that he didn’t tell the landlord that he couldn’t stay there.
The tenant has not bought an application in respect of his grievance has not filed any documentation in connection with this application by way of a defence. The tenant did not provide evidence of informing the landlord that he was withholding the rent due to his grievances.
The landlord says that rent is separate and that the tenant has been compensated separately.
A termination application for rent arrears under section 55(1) RTA does not preclude consideration of an equitable set-off (see O’Shea v Brown, High Court, Auckland, AP 110-PL01, 14 December 2001). A tenant does not have to file a claim to establish an equitable set-off because it is a defence, not a claim: Connaught Restaurants Ltd v Indoor Leisure Ltd [1994] 4 ALL ER 834. If the tenant is entitled to set off, any such amount can be offset against rent payable for the purposes of a section 55 calculation.
However, the problem with the tenant’s position is that with this remedy he has unilaterally taken a risk in that he has a positive burden to prove the set-off. I am not satisfied the tenant has provided sufficient evidence for me to set aside the landlords rent arrears either in full or in part. I also find that a tenant should also tell a landlord if he is no longer paying rent due to not being able to live at the property in order to claim a set off. The tenant’s evidence was that he did not tell the landlord.
For this reason, I grant the landlords application.
This does not deny the tenant the opportunity to pursue his application with the Tribunal (which may take place as a face to face hearing). If the tenant wants to pursue an application in relation to his grievances it would be in his interest to lodge this as soon as possible.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties requested name suppression. Under s 95A(1) RTA a suppression order must be granted on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings. In the present case, the landlord has been wholly successful so I award the landlord suppression of its identifying details.
The tenant has not been successful. I have considered if I should grant the tenant a name suppression order having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under s 95A(4) RTA.
I am I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name outweighs the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
I decline the application for name suppression for the tenant for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order; b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal; c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the parties and the public interest the public interest outweighs the parties’ interests.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675291 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675291 — Rent arrears

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