What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4705729 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4705729?

Packing And Storage Costs: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,276.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4705729?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4705729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10439323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4705729 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4705729?

Packing And Storage Costs: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,276.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4705729?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4705729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10439323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4705729 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4705729 — net $3,546.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,276.43	Rent arrears
Packing and storage costs	$270.00	ring the substantial merits and justice of the claim, I order the tenant to pay $270.00 for the packing and storing of the tenant goods.
Net award	$3,546.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,546.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4705729 — net $3,546.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,276.43	Rent arrears
Packing and storage costs	$270.00	ring the substantial merits and justice of the claim, I order the tenant to pay $270.00 for the packing and storing of the tenant goods.
Net award	$3,546.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,546.43

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,546.43 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 June 2024.
The [property managers] was appointed as the property manager for the tenant by order of the Family Court pursuant to the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 on 22 November 2023. [redacted] appeared on behalf of the [property managers].
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and statements. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the landlords to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner. Background
The tenant and his family moved to New Zealand in or about 2012.They became tenants of the landlords at a different property to the premises in question in this hearing.
In 2019 the tenant and his wife separated and the tenant was subsequently made redundant from his employment. The landlord said that the tenant said that he had no place to live and no income.
The landlord’s had a house on their farm. The address being [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).The landlord agreed to the tenant living there at no cost.
Once the tenant became employed, the landlord said that it was agreed that the tenant could remain at the premises with a weekly rent of $165.00. The landlord said that the tenancy commenced on 27 March 2021.The rent summary provided suggests that the tenant started to pay rent on 4 November 2021.
Section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) defines of “tenancy” in part, as the right to occupy premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. In light of that definition, if there was a tenancy, then that tenancy did not commence until 4 November 2021 when rent became payable.
The tenant has raised the issue of jurisdiction. The tenant says that there was no tenancy agreement written or verbal. The tenant also says that he was a boarder and not a tenant.
Section 13 RTA requires any tenancy agreement to be in writing. The parties agree that there was no written agreement. That is not the end of the matter however. Section 13C RTA provides that “notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other enactment, no tenancy agreement, or variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.”
The tenant commenced making a regular weekly payment to the landlord on 4 November 2021. Payments were made every week until the last payment was made on 11 January 2023.
The tenant said that the payment was for board.
The premises consisted of 5 bedrooms. The tenant had the exclusive use of one bedroom. The landlords occasionally used a room. The landlord’s usual place of residence was elsewhere. A caretaker used a bedroom occasionally. Usually the tenant had the exclusive use of all of the shared areas of the house.
This was not a boarding house as the number of tenants is such that it does not meet the definition contained in the RTA.
Was the tenant a boarder? The term “boarder” was defined in Arkless v McLean TT 2772 & 2773-97, 1-12-97-1 as being “a person who lives with the owner or legal occupier of the premises and who therefore has a licence from the owner or the occupier to be there....The most common incidence of this situation is where a family take some person in to live with them in their house.”
The living arrangement described by the landlord does not meet the definition of boarder. The owner was not present at the premises frequently and the premises were not the principal place of residence of the landlord (thereby excluding the exception at s.5(1)(n) RTA).
In those circumstances, I consider that the living arrangement was a tenancy and that the weekly payments by the tenant were rent. Abandonment
On 15 January 2023, the tenant suffered a significant medical event. The tenant spent a substantial period of time in an intensive care unit. The medical event has had a long term effect on the tenant. The tenant has not returned to the premises and now resides in a residential care facility.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has abandoned the premises.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where it is satisfied that the tenant has abandoned the premises and the rent is in arrears. The term “ abandonment” is not defined in the RTA. In the context of s.61 RTA, it seems to mean going away without intending to return (see Evans v Cantwell TT 920/90 Christchurch).
The unfortunate circumstances of this matter are such that I do not consider that any element of irresponsibility can be directed to the tenant. The medical event was such that he was not capable of arranging for rent to be paid nor of giving notice to the landlord.
Where the Tribunal finds that a periodic tenancy has been abandoned, the tenant will be liable for rent for a 28 day period after the date on which the Tribunal considers that the landlord became aware that the tenant had abandoned the premises or ought reasonably to have become aware of that fact.
I record that no new tenancy was entered into during the relevant period (see s.61(3)(a)(ii) RTA).
In the circumstances of this case, I consider that the premises have been abandoned. In as much as the tenant was able to form an intent, there was no intention by the tenant to return to the premises and the rent was and remains in arrears.
The question for consideration is when the landlord first became aware or ought to have been aware that the tenant had abandoned the premises.
The landlord accepts that she was advised of the medical event suffered by the tenant soon after it occurred. The landlord says that they advise received was such that they were not sure if the severity of the event was such that the tenant would return to the premises. That seems to be reasonable in the circumstances as they knew them to be.
On 10 May 2023, the landlord spoke to the tenant’s ex-wife. The landlord said that the conversation was such that it became clear to them at that point that the tenant would not be returning. I consider 10 May 2023 to be the first date when the landlord knew or ought to have known that the tenant would not be returning to the premises and was the effective date of abandonment. The RTA provides that the tenant is to remain liable for rent for a further 28 days after that date. The tenant is liable for rent through until 7 June 2023.
The rent arrears summary shows the rent arrears on 7 June 2023 as $3,276.43 and the tenant is ordered to pay that sum to the landlord.
The landlord claims compensation for packing and storing the tenant’s belongings. The landlord says that this took them 10 hours. The Tribunal generally considers an hourly rate for landlord labour of $27.00.
[The property managers] on behalf of the tenant says that they did not authorise this expenditure, but said that they were happy for the landlord to move the tenant belongings to the garage.
Considering the overall fairness of the proposition and exercising the jurisdiction in a manner likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute (see s.85 RTA) and considering the substantial merits and justice of the claim, I order the tenant to pay $270.00 for the packing and storing of the tenant goods.
The landlord said that they wished to claim compensation for damage. No supporting evidence was provided by the landlord. The claim was filed with the Tribunal in 2023. In my view the landlord has had more than sufficient time to file any evidence that they may have wished to and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord claim for removal of the tenant belongings has been overtaken by time as the belongings have now all been removed. The claim is dismissed.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.
The hearing included detailed evidence relating to the tenant’s medical event. The public interest in this matter does not outweigh the interests of either the landlord or tenant and suppression of the tenant name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4705729 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4705729 — 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