What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4789047 about?

The tribunal order states: Alan Duc and Moon Trinh must pay [The tenant/s] $320.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4789047?

Pest Control: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4789047?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4789047?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10164282-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4789047 about?

The tribunal order states: Alan Duc and Moon Trinh must pay [The tenant/s] $320.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4789047?

Pest Control: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4789047?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4789047?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10164282-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15 Galbraith Avenue, Beerescourt, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4789047 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4789047 — net $320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Pest control invoice	$300.00	Pest control invoice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$320.44
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$320.44

Order

Alan Duc and Moon Trinh must pay [The tenant/s] $320.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not appear, and I am satisfied that they received the notice of the hearing. The hearing continued in their absence.
The tenant sought refund of the bond, compensation for a pest control invoice, refund of overpaid rent and reimbursement of the filling fee.
The tenancy began on 15 June 2022 and ended on 13 December 2023 after the tenant gave written notice terminating the tenancy.
The tenant sought reimbursement for an overpayment of rent. The tenant said that they were threatened with eviction and told that if they paid $15,000.00, they would be able to stay at the premises until 29 of January 2024.
The tenant had made lump sum payments to the landlord to make up this amount. This was recorded in the rent record as individual weekly rental payments of $880.00 credits to the 29 January 2024.
The tenancy ended on 13 December 2023 leaving a rent surplus to be refunded.
The landlord repaid the tenant $6080.00 dollars in January 2024.The tenant believed that this total was not correct seeking a further $1382.85 rent refund based on a belief that a part bond payment was owed to her.
On 6 April 2023, the Tribunal made a conditional termination order which the tenant was to pay a lump sum on the 26 of April 2023. The tenant said that they complied with this order and the landlord rent record shows payment of $5200.00 on 26 April 2023 and a total of $940.00 being paid on 28 April 2023.
The tenant claimed that the amount described as rent arrears in the order dated 6 April 2023 also included a part payment of bond that she owed.
The landlords rent record shows the bond as being $3520.00 however the Tribunal records show that $1840.00 was deposited with the bond centre.
The conditional termination order of 6 April 2023 was made with the consent of the tenant. At the that hearing the tenant was responsible for raising the claim that the amount claimed as the rent arrears included an amount owed by her as bond. The correct procedure if the tenant believed that a miscarriage of justice had occurred was to appeal that order. The Tribunal has no ability to reopen another order.
As explained in the hearing if the balance of the bond paid by her was held as a credit in the tenancy ledger, then this would have been credited against any outstanding rent and the tenant would have had the benefit of that payment this way.
The claim for a refund of overpaid rent is dismissed.
The tenant was concerned that her name had been published causing her an inability to obtain housing. She believed that she had been blacklisted because an eviction process had been started against her, but she was never evicted.
It was explained that the Tenancy Tribunal does publish their orders but Tribunal orders in relation to this tenancy show a termination of the tenancy or an eviction. There was only a conditional termination order made. The Tribunal does not have access to any “blacklist” of tenant’s names and cannot advise on the process bailiffs follow when proceeding with an eviction.
The tenant sought reimbursement for payment of a pest control invoice from S.W.A.T pest control, dated 22 December 2022.
A copy of a text conversation dated 9 December 2022 was provided, where the landlord asked if the tenant could arrange insect spray for them. The invoice was paid on 19 January 2023.
A landlord has a responsibility to maintain a premises in a reasonable state of repair and pest control is part of this. See section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is evidence that the landlord requested the tenant to have the house sprayed. The landlord did not appear at the hearing to reply to the claim or offer any evidence. The amount is awarded as claimed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
The tenant was substantially successful with her application and name suppression is awarded.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4789047 — net $320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Pest control invoice	$300.00	Pest control invoice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$320.44
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$320.44

Order

Alan Duc and Moon Trinh must pay [The tenant/s] $320.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not appear, and I am satisfied that they received the notice of the hearing. The hearing continued in their absence.
The tenant sought refund of the bond, compensation for a pest control invoice, refund of overpaid rent and reimbursement of the filling fee.
The tenancy began on 15 June 2022 and ended on 13 December 2023 after the tenant gave written notice terminating the tenancy.
The tenant sought reimbursement for an overpayment of rent. The tenant said that they were threatened with eviction and told that if they paid $15,000.00, they would be able to stay at the premises until 29 of January 2024.
The tenant had made lump sum payments to the landlord to make up this amount. This was recorded in the rent record as individual weekly rental payments of $880.00 credits to the 29 January 2024.
The tenancy ended on 13 December 2023 leaving a rent surplus to be refunded.
The landlord repaid the tenant $6080.00 dollars in January 2024.The tenant believed that this total was not correct seeking a further $1382.85 rent refund based on a belief that a part bond payment was owed to her.
On 6 April 2023, the Tribunal made a conditional termination order which the tenant was to pay a lump sum on the 26 of April 2023. The tenant said that they complied with this order and the landlord rent record shows payment of $5200.00 on 26 April 2023 and a total of $940.00 being paid on 28 April 2023.
The tenant claimed that the amount described as rent arrears in the order dated 6 April 2023 also included a part payment of bond that she owed.
The landlords rent record shows the bond as being $3520.00 however the Tribunal records show that $1840.00 was deposited with the bond centre.
The conditional termination order of 6 April 2023 was made with the consent of the tenant. At the that hearing the tenant was responsible for raising the claim that the amount claimed as the rent arrears included an amount owed by her as bond. The correct procedure if the tenant believed that a miscarriage of justice had occurred was to appeal that order. The Tribunal has no ability to reopen another order.
As explained in the hearing if the balance of the bond paid by her was held as a credit in the tenancy ledger, then this would have been credited against any outstanding rent and the tenant would have had the benefit of that payment this way.
The claim for a refund of overpaid rent is dismissed.
The tenant was concerned that her name had been published causing her an inability to obtain housing. She believed that she had been blacklisted because an eviction process had been started against her, but she was never evicted.
It was explained that the Tenancy Tribunal does publish their orders but Tribunal orders in relation to this tenancy show a termination of the tenancy or an eviction. There was only a conditional termination order made. The Tribunal does not have access to any “blacklist” of tenant’s names and cannot advise on the process bailiffs follow when proceeding with an eviction.
The tenant sought reimbursement for payment of a pest control invoice from S.W.A.T pest control, dated 22 December 2022.
A copy of a text conversation dated 9 December 2022 was provided, where the landlord asked if the tenant could arrange insect spray for them. The invoice was paid on 19 January 2023.
A landlord has a responsibility to maintain a premises in a reasonable state of repair and pest control is part of this. See section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is evidence that the landlord requested the tenant to have the house sprayed. The landlord did not appear at the hearing to reply to the claim or offer any evidence. The amount is awarded as claimed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
The tenant was substantially successful with her application and name suppression is awarded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4789047 — Tenancy dispute at 15 Galbraith Avenue, Beerescourt, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4789047 — Tenancy dispute at 15 Galbraith Avenue, Beerescourt, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions