What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4892094 about?

The tribunal order states: Necole Brown-Collins must pay [The landlord/s] $5,864.29 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4892094?

Rent Arrears: $6,664.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892094?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10426381-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4892094 about?

The tribunal order states: Necole Brown-Collins must pay [The landlord/s] $5,864.29 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4892094?

Rent Arrears: $6,664.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892094?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10426381-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4892094 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892094 — net $5,864.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$6,664.29	Rent arrears
Net award	$5,864.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,864.29

Order

Necole Brown-Collins must pay [The landlord/s] $5,864.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 June 2024 by teleconference.
The tenancy of the premises commenced on 21 February 2023.
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal. The tenancy was to end at 11.59 am on 24 March 2024.
The landlord seeks rent arrears and release of the bond.
The tenant has counterclaimed seeking damages for unlawful entry and breach of her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
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 and the tenant 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.
The landlord says that despite the Tribunal ordering the termination of the tenancy, the tenant failed to leave the premises. The landlord applied to the District Court to have the tenant evicted. That eviction took place on 28 March 2024 with the assistance of a court bailiff.
The rent summary provided by the landlord shows that the rent arrears as of 28 March 2024 were $6,664.29. The last rent payment having been made by the tenant on 27 November 2023. On being asked why the tenant had not paid rent, the tenant said that the door had been damaged and the landlord had failed to repair it. That is not grounds for the tenant simply stopping her payment of rent. The tenant is ordered to pay rent arrears of $6,664.29.
The tenant evidence with regards to her counterclaim was a little vague.
The tenant initially said that the landlord and another “uniformed” person arrived at the door of the premises on 23 March 2024 and tried to remove the door handles and block the door.
The landlord says that he did not go to the premises on 23 March 2024. The landlord said that the uniformed person with him on 28 March 2024 was a court bailiff. The tenant then said that the date when she saw the two men might have been 28 March 2024.
In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the landlord. I do not think that there was an unlawful entry by the landlord, nor a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, quite the contrary. The tenant’s occupation had already been terminated by the Tribunal and the bailiff and landlord were acting pursuant to authority provided by both the District Court and the Tenancy Tribunal. The tenant claims are dismissed.
The tenant should contact the landlord directly to discuss any items of personal property that may be held by the landlord in storage.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the tenant application for suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892094 — net $5,864.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$6,664.29	Rent arrears
Net award	$5,864.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,864.29

Order

Necole Brown-Collins must pay [The landlord/s] $5,864.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 June 2024 by teleconference.
The tenancy of the premises commenced on 21 February 2023.
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal. The tenancy was to end at 11.59 am on 24 March 2024.
The landlord seeks rent arrears and release of the bond.
The tenant has counterclaimed seeking damages for unlawful entry and breach of her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
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 and the tenant 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.
The landlord says that despite the Tribunal ordering the termination of the tenancy, the tenant failed to leave the premises. The landlord applied to the District Court to have the tenant evicted. That eviction took place on 28 March 2024 with the assistance of a court bailiff.
The rent summary provided by the landlord shows that the rent arrears as of 28 March 2024 were $6,664.29. The last rent payment having been made by the tenant on 27 November 2023. On being asked why the tenant had not paid rent, the tenant said that the door had been damaged and the landlord had failed to repair it. That is not grounds for the tenant simply stopping her payment of rent. The tenant is ordered to pay rent arrears of $6,664.29.
The tenant evidence with regards to her counterclaim was a little vague.
The tenant initially said that the landlord and another “uniformed” person arrived at the door of the premises on 23 March 2024 and tried to remove the door handles and block the door.
The landlord says that he did not go to the premises on 23 March 2024. The landlord said that the uniformed person with him on 28 March 2024 was a court bailiff. The tenant then said that the date when she saw the two men might have been 28 March 2024.
In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the landlord. I do not think that there was an unlawful entry by the landlord, nor a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, quite the contrary. The tenant’s occupation had already been terminated by the Tribunal and the bailiff and landlord were acting pursuant to authority provided by both the District Court and the Tenancy Tribunal. The tenant claims are dismissed.
The tenant should contact the landlord directly to discuss any items of personal property that may be held by the landlord in storage.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the tenant application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892094 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892094 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions