What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4840700 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord details are amended.

How much money was awarded in case 4840700?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,714.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4840700?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4840700?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10417840-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4840700 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord details are amended.

How much money was awarded in case 4840700?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,714.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4840700?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4840700?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10417840-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4840700 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4840700 — net $5,484.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 June 2024	$7,714.29	Rent arrears to 5 June 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,484.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,484.73

The landlord details are amended.

The tenants’ application is dismissed.

The tenancy of Gareth Anthony Wilson and Megan Jane Connor at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm on Wednesday 5 June 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,250.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Gareth Anthony Wilson and Megan Jane Connor must pay [The landlord/s] $5,484.73 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both owners were named as the landlord and they attended the hearing.

The tenants attended at the start of the hearing, but left about 10 minutes in. Mr Wilson had asked for a representative to help because of an “inability to read and write”. This was allowed on 7 May 2024 and Mr Wilson was told that the representative would also have to attend the hearing.

Mr Wilson then asked if his representative could attend the hearing by telephone. I did not allow this because the representative was allowed to help Mr Wilson with reading and writing. My direction was emailed to Mr Wilson on 15 May 2024.

On 31 May Mr Wilson emailed the registrar and set out that he wanted to appeal the decision about representation over the telephone, and he wanted an adjournment while waiting on the direction of a District Court Judge because: “currently an application is being made and we hope this decision will be put in front of district court judge and can make a decision on the papers”. The registrar advised the tenants that the hearing would proceed.

The tenants attended and said they had been advised by their representative to walk out if the hearing was going ahead. I allowed time for them to telephone the representative and check again, and they left after speaking with his assistant. I was very clear that the hearing of the landlord’s application would go ahead.

My reasons for not allowing an adjournment were that: • The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy was time sensitive • It would be unfair to delay a hearing when the tenants owe over $7,700 in rent • The tenants last paid rent on 21 March 2024 and the landlord is struggling to pay the mortgage • My instructions about a representative were clear and there was plenty of notice that I expected the representative to attend • I received nothing from the representative about an appeal.

The tenants’ application was dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Should the tenants pay for the utilities?

The parties agreed at the start of the tenancy that the landlord would arrange the power, gas and internet in his name and the tenants would pay the bills. Some bills were paid but there is an amount owing to 31 March 2024. Usually the tenants paid rent and some extra for the utilities. The landlord has not proved this claim because I cannot work out how much money the tenants have paid the landlord. The claim for power, gas, and internet charges is dismissed. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

I have allowed suppression for the landlord because the landlord is the most successful party.

The bond is refunded in full to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4840700 — net $5,484.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 June 2024	$7,714.29	Rent arrears to 5 June 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,484.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,484.73

Order

The landlord details are amended.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.
The tenancy of Gareth Anthony Wilson and Megan Jane Connor at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm on Wednesday 5 June 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,250.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Gareth Anthony Wilson and Megan Jane Connor must pay [The landlord/s] $5,484.73 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both owners were named as the landlord and they attended the hearing.
The tenants attended at the start of the hearing, but left about 10 minutes in. Mr Wilson had asked for a representative to help because of an “inability to read and write”. This was allowed on 7 May 2024 and Mr Wilson was told that the representative would also have to attend the hearing.
Mr Wilson then asked if his representative could attend the hearing by telephone. I did not allow this because the representative was allowed to help Mr Wilson with reading and writing. My direction was emailed to Mr Wilson on 15 May 2024.
On 31 May Mr Wilson emailed the registrar and set out that he wanted to appeal the decision about representation over the telephone, and he wanted an adjournment while waiting on the direction of a District Court Judge because: “currently an application is being made and we hope this decision will be put in front of district court judge and can make a decision on the papers”. The registrar advised the tenants that the hearing would proceed.
The tenants attended and said they had been advised by their representative to walk out if the hearing was going ahead. I allowed time for them to telephone the representative and check again, and they left after speaking with his assistant. I was very clear that the hearing of the landlord’s application would go ahead.
My reasons for not allowing an adjournment were that: • The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy was time sensitive • It would be unfair to delay a hearing when the tenants owe over $7,700 in rent • The tenants last paid rent on 21 March 2024 and the landlord is struggling to pay the mortgage • My instructions about a representative were clear and there was plenty of notice that I expected the representative to attend • I received nothing from the representative about an appeal.
The tenants’ application was dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Should the tenants pay for the utilities?

The parties agreed at the start of the tenancy that the landlord would arrange the power, gas and internet in his name and the tenants would pay the bills. Some bills were paid but there is an amount owing to 31 March 2024. Usually the tenants paid rent and some extra for the utilities. The landlord has not proved this claim because I cannot work out how much money the tenants have paid the landlord. The claim for power, gas, and internet charges is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I have allowed suppression for the landlord because the landlord is the most successful party.
The bond is refunded in full to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4840700 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4840700 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should the tenants pay for the utilities?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should the tenants pay for the utilities?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions