What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4777603 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $966.60 immediately in compensation

How much money was awarded in case 4777603?

The reconciled net award was $966.60.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777603?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777603?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10154912-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4777603 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $966.60 immediately in compensation

How much money was awarded in case 4777603?

The reconciled net award was $966.60.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777603?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777603?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10154912-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 464 Adelaide Road, Berhampore, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4777603 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Representatives from [The landlord/s], [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] attended the hearing. There was no appearance for Mr Jack despite the cross application filed by him (number 4849672).

[The landlord/s] have applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The bond has been applied to the debt by consent but there is $946.16 remaining. Both [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] agree to pay a third of that debt, which they accept as tenant liability, being their shares.

Mr Jack has not responded to [The landlord/s]’s attempts to contact him regarding this debt. Further, his application simply appears to claim that [Tenant 2] is solely responsible for the rent arrears, however he was not present to explain or elaborate on his claim.

As Mr Jack has not attended the hearing, I must dismiss his application for want of prosecution and clarity. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

As two out of three tenants accept liability for the debt claimed by [The landlord/s], and Mr Jack has not attended to defend that claim, I make the order as sought. This is because tenants are jointly and severally liable for a tenancy debt. Both [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1] agree to pay their third and at the first instance [The landlord/s] have agreed to pursue the remaining debt directly with Mr Jack.

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Because [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1] consented to the order, I direct that their identifying details be supressed from the published order. As [The landlord/s] has been successful in their application I also direct that their details are redacted. 1 Given Mr Jack has not attended a hearing of his own application, his details are not to be suppressed.

Reasons

Representatives from [The landlord/s], [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] attended the hearing. There was no appearance for Mr Jack despite the cross application filed by him (number 4849672).

As Mr Jack has not attended the hearing, I must dismiss his application for want of prosecution and clarity. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777603 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 464 Adelaide Road, Berhampore,

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777603 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 464 Adelaide Road, Berhampore,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions