What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4693489 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4693489?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4693489?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4693489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10768796-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4693489 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4693489?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4693489?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4693489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10768796-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

619 St Aubyn Street West, Saint Leonards, Hastings 4120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4693489 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the Bond of $660.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenant.
The Tribunal orders suppressions of the parties’ names and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
A hearing was held on 24 January 2024 at which the tenant appeared in person and the landlord appeared by teleconference. That hearing was adjourned because the tenant had brought to the hearing, evidence which the landlord had not been provided with.
That evidence was provided to the landlord before this hearing.
The tenancy ended on 23 October 2017. On 12 October 2023 the landlord bought this application seeking compensation for damage to the premises and for loss of plants and garden features.
The landlord accepts that the things for which she is seeking compensation, necessarily happened well before the tenancy ended.
Section 77 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is subject to the Limitation Act 2010.
Under section 11 of the Limitation Act, “It is a defence to a money claim if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is at least six years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based (the claim’s primary period).”
I am satisfied that the acts or omissions on which the claim was based occurred more than 6 years before the date on which the claim was filed and was outside the primary period.
If a claim is made outside the primary period but the landlord had late knowledge of the claim, then the claim may be filed 3 years after the late knowledge period (s.11(2) and (3) Limitation Act).
Under s. 14 Limitation Act, “A claim’s late knowledge date is the date (after the close of the start date of the claim’s primary period) on which the claimant gained knowledge (or, if earlier, the date on which the claimant ought reasonably to have gained knowledge)...” of all of the relevant circumstances.
As the landlord was resident overseas, she was required to have appointed an agent in New Zealand. The evidence is that the landlord appointed a mutual acquaintance of the parties to look after her interests regarding the tenancy.
As a matter of agency law anything the agent is aware of, the landlord is deemed to be aware of.
I find that through her agent, the landlord knew or ought to have known about the acts and omissions on which her claim was based, during the tenancy.
Finally, even if the landlord were entitled to say that she did not know and ought not have known about those acts or omissions until the tenancy had ended on 23 October 2023, she had actual knowledge of them then, which would then be the “late knowledge date” as defined in s.14 Limitation Act.
Section 11(3) of the Limitation Act provides that, “It is a defence to a money claim to which this subsection applies if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is at least three years after the late knowledge date (the claims late knowledge period.)
The application was filed outside that late knowledge period.
For those reasons I find that the Tribunal is unable to consider the claim and therefore it must be dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

A hearing was held on 24 January 2024 at which the tenant appeared in person and the landlord appeared by teleconference. That hearing was adjourned because the tenant had brought to the hearing, evidence which the landlord had not been provided with.

That evidence was provided to the landlord before this hearing.

The tenancy ended on 23 October 2017. On 12 October 2023 the landlord bought this application seeking compensation for damage to the premises and for loss of plants and garden features.

The landlord accepts that the things for which she is seeking compensation, necessarily happened well before the tenancy ended.

Section 77 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is subject to the Limitation Act 2010.

Under section 11 of the Limitation Act, “It is a defence to a money claim if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is at least six years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based (the claim’s primary period).”

I am satisfied that the acts or omissions on which the claim was based occurred more than 6 years before the date on which the claim was filed and was outside the primary period.

If a claim is made outside the primary period but the landlord had late knowledge of the claim, then the claim may be filed 3 years after the late knowledge period (s.11(2) and (3) Limitation Act).

Under s. 14 Limitation Act, “A claim’s late knowledge date is the date (after the close of the start date of the claim’s primary period) on which the claimant gained knowledge (or, if earlier, the date on which the claimant ought reasonably to have gained knowledge)...” of all of the relevant circumstances.

As the landlord was resident overseas, she was required to have appointed an agent in New Zealand. The evidence is that the landlord appointed a mutual acquaintance of the parties to look after her interests regarding the tenancy.

As a matter of agency law anything the agent is aware of, the landlord is deemed to be aware of.

I find that through her agent, the landlord knew or ought to have known about the acts and omissions on which her claim was based, during the tenancy.

Finally, even if the landlord were entitled to say that she did not know and ought not have known about those acts or omissions until the tenancy had ended on 23 October 2023, she had actual knowledge of them then, which would then be the “late knowledge date” as defined in s.14 Limitation Act.

Section 11(3) of the Limitation Act provides that, “It is a defence to a money claim to which this subsection applies if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is at least three years after the late knowledge date (the claims late knowledge period.)

The application was filed outside that late knowledge period.

For those reasons I find that the Tribunal is unable to consider the claim and therefore it must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4693489 — Tenancy dispute at 619 St Aubyn Street West, Saint Leonards, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4693489 — Tenancy dispute at 619 St Aubyn Street West, Saint Leonards, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions