What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4896323 about?

The tribunal order states: Huiquan Shang and Cui Tong must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, as

How much money was awarded in case 4896323?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4896323?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4896323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11069165-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4896323 about?

The tribunal order states: Huiquan Shang and Cui Tong must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, as

How much money was awarded in case 4896323?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4896323?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4896323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11069165-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

24 Tawa Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4896323 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4896323 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 October 2023	$3,200.00	Rent arrears to 28 October 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. We were assisted by an interpreter.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Mr Shang stated that he ought not to have to pay the rent claimed for reasons that include: (a) The tenancy agreement was unlawful and could not be enforced because it stated that the bond was paid on 28 August 2003 rather than 2023; and (b) The tenancy agreement was unlawful and could not be enforced because it put the fixed term as ending on 2 March 2023, rather than 2 March 2024; and (c) The landlord’s details, such as the email address, in the tenancy agreement is different to the details in the application; and (d) The tenants did not receive notice that the bond had been lodged; and (e) The bond form says the bond is for the whole house but the tenant rented only one room; and (f) The signature at the bottom of the tenancy agreement was not authorised by the company landlord; and (g) The tenancy agreement did not include all the required tenant details; and (h) The tenancy agreement has to be accurate to be legal and enforceable; and (i) The rent was too expensive; and (j) The tenant disagreed with the landlord’s description of the circumstances surrounding his eviction.

I am ordering the tenants to pay the rent arrears for reasons that include: (a) The rent record proves the amount owing and the tenants do not dispute the rent record; and (b) There were mistakes made in the tenancy agreement re the dates but these mistakes were clerical errors that did not go to the heart of the tenancy agreement and therefore did not make it unenforceable; and (c) Although I could not understand from the evidence given at today’s hearing whether the tenants had been advised that their bond had been lodged, the fact is that the bond had been lodged. Whether or not the landlord advised the tenant of its lodgement is not relevant to a claim for rent arrears; and (d) I accept that the tenancy agreement did not include all the details of the tenants but this agreement was signed by the tenant. The omission does not impact on the validity and enforceability of the agreement; and (e) I accept the evidence that the premises rented was half a house comprising two bedrooms and a bathroom. That the premises were described as a whole house again is irrelevant as to rent arrears; and (f) I accept that the landlord is represented by Mr T who is the sole director of the landlord company. He therefore legitimately signed the tenancy agreement; and (g) Whether or not the rent was too expensive is not relevant to a claim for rent arrears. The tenant has not filed a claim in the tribunal regarding market rent; and (h) Again, disagreement as to the circumstances leading to the police eviction is not relevant to this claim.

As well as the rent arrears, I am ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful in the claim against them.

I am allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of their name, again because they were wholly successful in their claim against the tenants. C ter Haar 12 November 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4896323 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 October 2023	$3,200.00	Rent arrears to 28 October 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

Huiquan Shang and Cui Tong must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, as calculated in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. We were assisted by an interpreter.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Mr Shang stated that he ought not to have to pay the rent claimed for reasons that include: (a) The tenancy agreement was unlawful and could not be enforced because it stated that the bond was paid on 28 August 2003 rather than 2023; and (b) The tenancy agreement was unlawful and could not be enforced because it put the fixed term as ending on 2 March 2023, rather than 2 March 2024; and (c) The landlord’s details, such as the email address, in the tenancy agreement is different to the details in the application; and (d) The tenants did not receive notice that the bond had been lodged; and (e) The bond form says the bond is for the whole house but the tenant rented only one room; and (f) The signature at the bottom of the tenancy agreement was not authorised by the company landlord; and (g) The tenancy agreement did not include all the required tenant details; and (h) The tenancy agreement has to be accurate to be legal and enforceable; and (i) The rent was too expensive; and (j) The tenant disagreed with the landlord’s description of the circumstances surrounding his eviction.
I am ordering the tenants to pay the rent arrears for reasons that include: (a) The rent record proves the amount owing and the tenants do not dispute the rent record; and (b) There were mistakes made in the tenancy agreement re the dates but these mistakes were clerical errors that did not go to the heart of the tenancy agreement and therefore did not make it unenforceable; and (c) Although I could not understand from the evidence given at today’s hearing whether the tenants had been advised that their bond had been lodged, the fact is that the bond had been lodged. Whether or not the landlord advised the tenant of its lodgement is not relevant to a claim for rent arrears; and (d) I accept that the tenancy agreement did not include all the details of the tenants but this agreement was signed by the tenant. The omission does not impact on the validity and enforceability of the agreement; and (e) I accept the evidence that the premises rented was half a house comprising two bedrooms and a bathroom. That the premises were described as a whole house again is irrelevant as to rent arrears; and (f) I accept that the landlord is represented by Mr T who is the sole director of the landlord company. He therefore legitimately signed the tenancy agreement; and (g) Whether or not the rent was too expensive is not relevant to a claim for rent arrears. The tenant has not filed a claim in the tribunal regarding market rent; and (h) Again, disagreement as to the circumstances leading to the police eviction is not relevant to this claim.
As well as the rent arrears, I am ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful in the claim against them.
I am allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of their name, again because they were wholly successful in their claim against the tenants. C ter Haar 12 November 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4896323 — Rent arrears at 24 Tawa Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4896323 — Rent arrears at 24 Tawa Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

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