What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4867981 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,946.54 (6502615-001) to

How much money was awarded in case 4867981?

Consent Order Award: $1,946.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4867981?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4867981?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10679913-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4867981 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,946.54 (6502615-001) to

How much money was awarded in case 4867981?

Consent Order Award: $1,946.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4867981?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4867981?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10679913-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2817 River Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4867981 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4867981. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Consent order award	$1,946.54		Consent order award

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Mr Murdoch and Mr Jones attended the hearing. The Tribunal was unable to contact Ms Oliver.

I proceeded with the hearing in Ms Oliver’s absence as I was satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice had been completed.

This matter was initially heard by the Tribunal on 22 February 2024 (applications 4757676, 4805700).

The landlord filed the current application seeking rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that it was no longer pursuing rent arrears but was only seeking the balance of the bond to pay the invoices ($1,604.75 and $339.25) that are still outstanding for the flood restoration and repairs due to flooding at the property.

The tenants noted that it was clear from the previous Tribunal order that Ms Oliver was responsible for the flooding at the property as well as other breaches.

The previous Tribunal order dated 27 February 2024 stated:

The evidence from both parties was that the flooding was caused by Ms Oliver deliberately disconnecting the hose of her washing machine while it was operating. Further, the majority (if not all) of the rubbish left at the end of the tenancy belonged to Ms Oliver, who was said to be illegally occupying a studio that was not consented for residential use. The tenants had returned their keys and garage remotes, but Ms Oliver had not done so, causing the locksmith’s costs.

The tenants submitted that Ms Oliver was the cause of these breaches, and they should not be held liable for losses caused by someone else.

The difficulty with this argument is that all three tenants signed the tenancy agreement, and therefore, jointly promised to comply with it. The District Court has held that this creates a joint tenancy at common law and has confirmed that the obligations of tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) are also imposed jointly. A tenant who owes a joint obligation is liable for breaches of the same obligation by a co- tenant, even if they are not personally at fault (Harrison v Shields (DC Dunedin, NP435/00, 2 September 2002, Judge MacAskill)).

The tenants expressed their disappointment and frustration with the Tribunal’s application of the law of joint liability where joint tenants are jointly and severally liable under the terms of their tenancy agreement. They have received independent legal advice and consider the law of joint liability should only be used in circumstances where the landlord or property manager is unable to ascertain who's responsible for costs or damage which was not the situation in their case.

I empathise with the tenants’ circumstances. However, the landlord has asked for a joint order and pursuant to the law of joint and several liability all joint tenants would be liable for the whole debt, and the bond would be released accordingly to go towards the debt, irrespective of who paid it or who was at fault. As previously noted, if the tenants have a dispute between themselves as to who actually owes the debt then this is a matter they can pursue in the Disputes Tribunal.

After discussion, the parties came to an agreement reflected in the above order. The parties acknowledged that this agreement was in full and final settlement of the landlord’s claim.

Regrettably, there has been a delay in sending this order to the parties. I mistakenly thought the order had been sent some time ago. I apologise for this oversight and any inconvenience this may have caused the parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4867981. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Consent order award	$1,946.54		Consent order award

Order

By consent, the Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,946.54 (6502615-001) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited - Pukekohe As Agent For Kelly & Kieran Harlick immediately.
This agreement is in full and final settlement of this claim.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Mr Murdoch and Mr Jones attended the hearing. The Tribunal was unable to contact Ms Oliver.
I proceeded with the hearing in Ms Oliver’s absence as I was satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice had been completed.
This matter was initially heard by the Tribunal on 22 February 2024 (applications 4757676, 4805700).
The landlord filed the current application seeking rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that it was no longer pursuing rent arrears but was only seeking the balance of the bond to pay the invoices ($1,604.75 and $339.25) that are still outstanding for the flood restoration and repairs due to flooding at the property.
The tenants noted that it was clear from the previous Tribunal order that Ms Oliver was responsible for the flooding at the property as well as other breaches.
The previous Tribunal order dated 27 February 2024 stated:
The evidence from both parties was that the flooding was caused by Ms Oliver deliberately disconnecting the hose of her washing machine while it was operating. Further, the majority (if not all) of the rubbish left at the end of the tenancy belonged to Ms Oliver, who was said to be illegally occupying a studio that was not consented for residential use. The tenants had returned their keys and garage remotes, but Ms Oliver had not done so, causing the locksmith’s costs.
The tenants submitted that Ms Oliver was the cause of these breaches, and they should not be held liable for losses caused by someone else.
The difficulty with this argument is that all three tenants signed the tenancy agreement, and therefore, jointly promised to comply with it. The District Court has held that this creates a joint tenancy at common law and has confirmed that the obligations of tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) are also imposed jointly. A tenant who owes a joint obligation is liable for breaches of the same obligation by a co- tenant, even if they are not personally at fault (Harrison v Shields (DC Dunedin, NP435/00, 2 September 2002, Judge MacAskill)).
The tenants expressed their disappointment and frustration with the Tribunal’s application of the law of joint liability where joint tenants are jointly and severally liable under the terms of their tenancy agreement. They have received independent legal advice and consider the law of joint liability should only be used in circumstances where the landlord or property manager is unable to ascertain who's responsible for costs or damage which was not the situation in their case.
I empathise with the tenants’ circumstances. However, the landlord has asked for a joint order and pursuant to the law of joint and several liability all joint tenants would be liable for the whole debt, and the bond would be released accordingly to go towards the debt, irrespective of who paid it or who was at fault. As previously noted, if the tenants have a dispute between themselves as to who actually owes the debt then this is a matter they can pursue in the Disputes Tribunal.
After discussion, the parties came to an agreement reflected in the above order. The parties acknowledged that this agreement was in full and final settlement of the landlord’s claim.
Regrettably, there has been a delay in sending this order to the parties. I mistakenly thought the order had been sent some time ago. I apologise for this oversight and any inconvenience this may have caused the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4867981 — Rent arrears at 2817 River Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4867981 — Rent arrears at 2817 River Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions