What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4924374 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4924374?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4924374?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4924374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10741828-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4924374 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4924374?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4924374?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4924374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10741828-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

6 Daniel Street, Newtown, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4924374 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

There was an existing flat of six tenants. When one of the six moved out the landlord advertised for a new tenant. Mr Goggin applied, signed a tenancy agreement, and lived in the room from August 2021 – February 2023. The parties agreed the tenant would rent a specified room for $230 a week. The tenant has filed an application for the refund of $12,460.00 because he paid more rent than the other tenants. He wants the Tribunal to consider this on the grounds of rent equality.

The tenant submitted that the landlord discriminated against him when she allowed other tenants in the same house to pay a lower rent or even no rent. He said the Tribunal should make new precedent based on his ethical rent argument. He said there was gross unfairness during the tenancy because of the rent inequality.

The landlord submitted that the tenant agreed to pay $230 rent for the room. She did not agree he was treated unfairly. She said the rooms had different rents because of their size. Mr Goggin rented the largest room which was advertised at $230 a week. She said there was no discrimination.

I find there is no part of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which allows me to make an order in favour of a tenant because of rent inequality. I am not persuaded there was discrimination in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993 as provided for by section 12 RTA. I have no ability under the RTA to create a new ground of discrimination of an individual in a flat who pays different rent from the others. This claim is dismissed.

The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because he is not the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

I note the tenant tried to increase his claim by about $40,000 in the 24 hours before the hearing. This was not allowed. The tenant tried to amend his claim during the hearing by saying his bond was not lodged. This was not allowed either.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4924374 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Daniel Street, Newtown, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4924374 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Daniel Street, Newtown, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions