What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4941897 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names [Tenant 1], [Tenant 2], [Tenant 3]

How much money was awarded in case 4941897?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4941897?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4941897?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11565208-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4941897 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names [Tenant 1], [Tenant 2], [Tenant 3]

How much money was awarded in case 4941897?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4941897?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4941897?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11565208-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

29D Glanmire Road, Newlands, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4941897 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names [Tenant 1], [Tenant 2], [Tenant 3] and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Nirvana Trust (Trustees: George Sproule, Treadwells Trustees 20 Limited) $3,715.00 immediately, being rent arrears as at 7 March 2025.
The landlord application to deem all four tenants joint and severally liable for the above debt is dismissed.
No other orders are made.

Reasons

There have been a number of hearings and the matter was adjourned open after the final hearing to allow the tenancy to end on Saturday 22 February 2025 as intended and for the landlord to vary this application, if necessary, for any vacated claims pertaining to the tenants as named in this order. I have reviewed the subsequent submissions and I have concluded any other claims should be mutually resolved or the subject of separate, fresh application(s).
The background to this dispute has been outlined previously but for completeness I reproduce content from the 16 January 2025 adjourning order.
The tenancy began on 17 February 2024 and was for a fixed term until 22 February 2025. [Tenant 1] and Virusha Soobramoney signed the original tenancy agreement. There were two other named tenants on the agreement who do not appear to have signed it. [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 3] replaced these two tenants who exited the tenancy. [Tenant 1] and Virusha Sobramoney remained as original tenants. The four tenants during the period of rent arrears were: a. Virusha Soobramoney b. [Tenant 1] c. [Tenant 2] d. [Tenant 3]
The landlord claims that the tenants owe significant rent arrears. It claims these arrears accrued between May and September 2024. The detailed rent summary confirms this. The total has since been reduced by the release of Virusha’s share of the bond and recent time payments from her to the landlord. The landlord confirmed rent arrears as $3,715.00 as at 7 March 2025.
The landlord claims the arrears accrued due to Virusha not paying her portion of the rent during this period. The landlord has chosen to file this claim against all four tenants, stating they are jointly and severally liable for the debt.
The remaining tenants do not challenge the rent arrears quantum but do challenge joint and several liability for the debt due to the operation of the tenancy and events or actions relating to, and since, the exit of Virusha.
In the application the landlord wrote, “the arrears are solely due to Virusha failing to pay her $345 share of the weekly rent since May 16. The amount is increasing each week.”
Given the rent arrears amount is not disputed, the question is who is liable? The tenancy agreement
A fixed-term tenancy agreement commenced 17 February 2024. That agreement named four tenants. On the same day, two of those tenants (not named in this order) are recorded as exiting, leaving Virusha and [Tenant 1]. The other two named tenants here are recorded as new tenants in a variation, dated 28 February 2024.
The separate variation agreement was signed. It is copied below: Amendment to tenancy agreement Effective from 17/2/2024, the above mentioned landlord(s) and tenant(s) agree to the following: The following individuals will be removed from tenancy: [Previous tenants] The following individuals will be added as tenants to the tenancy: [Tenants 2 and 3] The new tenant(s) acknowledge that they have seen and read a copy of the entire original tenancy agreement and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions set forth in the original tenancy agreement. The landlord(s) and remaining tenants also agree to the following change:
The tenant must not host AirBnB or similar short term rental guests in the property.
The tenants are jointly and severally liable for any debt collection costs and expenses that may arise from the landlord’s enforcement of any Tenancy Tribunal order.
The tenant must not assign or sublet the property. Upon signing, all parties agree that this Amendment shall be legally binding and incorporated into the above-referenced tenancy agreement.
I heard that Virusha has previously asked the landlord for permission for her mother to stay (she was a tenant before this tenancy agreement was signed). The understanding of the landlord was that this was for a short visit and granted. It appears she stayed for an extended period. The general confusion regarding the arrangement might have been avoided if the tenants, being joint and severally liable, had actually been the collective who decided this.
This is not the only instance of where the landlord has acted directly with one tenant. It was usual practise for each tenant to pay their share of the rent to the landlord each week. There was no tenant aggregation to pay the rent as a single sum. So while the tenancy agreement states a weekly amount, this was paid in part, individually.
There was an impression of a lack of collectiveness typically expected or seen in a fixed-term tenancy agreement. Here, the early exit of two tenants around the commencement of the fixed-term was resolved by the landlord advertising, rather than the remaining tenants. Any tenant role appeared to be allowing access for a viewing after a landlord referral.
When Virusha wanted to leave the tenancy, she again approached the landlord. He accepted she could leave but told her she would be liable for the rent until a replacement tenant moved in. She accepted this and has been paying towards this debt since.
The other tenants were not involved in the release or agreement. Given the separate way rent was paid, the exit of Virusha and the reduction to the total rent paid per week was not immediately apparent to the others. The failure to involve the other tenants also meant that possible recourse to the Dispute Tribunal about any liability was not available in a timely manner.
One possibly confusing aspect of the MyRent messaging, in a situation here when four tenants are paying rent separately but the system is tracking rent as a sum of all four, is the alerts regarding late rent are sent to all tenants. The default message (a real example is below) may reasonably have limited notice on one tenant who is paying their rent as due. Disregarding it would not be unreasonable, allowing for an assumption it relates to another tenant or should be disregarded as it was already paid.
However, on 6 July 2024, in a message to all tenants, the landlord wrote: Hi All Virusha has not paid rent since mid May and has left the flat without finding a replacement tenant. She has indicated she would pay back the rent shortfall, but as yet no payments have been received. I appreciate that you have been paying your share of the rent and that it is not fair that you should cover Virusha's non payment, but I want to inform you that all parties on the tenancies agreement are joint and severally Liable for the rent and that I do plan to recover any rental losses once the final amount is clear. I will continue advertising the room, but it would be useful (and in everyone's interest) if someone in the flat could volunteer to have their name on the ad in order to manage the viewings, and also respond promptly in the event that someone has contacted me directly seeking to confirm a possible viewing time. Thanks George
This appears to be the first reference to the growing potential liability for Virusha’s rent. The landlord acknowledges in the message it was unfair. In my mind, more so because of the lack of involvement of the other tenants in the origin and structure of the exit to date.
By this time, some two months have passed since Virusha left.
The landlord lodged this application on 17 July 2024. Discussion
Both the original tenancy agreement and variation make it clear that the tenants are joint and severally liable.
This is consistent with the general principle that tenants are jointly liable for breaches by other tenants (Harrison v Shields (DC Dunedin, MP435/00, 2 September 2002, Judge MacAskill)).
The concept of joint liability is entrenched in the common law. Joint liability means that each party under a joint obligation is liable for breaches of the obligation by the other parties. I accept that residential co-tenants often do not know that they are "joint tenants" and, even if they do know, they usually do not understand the legal implications of joint liability in the absence of legal advice.
This does not change the legal position. Here there is a joint tenancy at common law.
However, when considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
Typically, if the tenants have a dispute between themselves as to who actually owes the debt then this is a matter they can pursue between themselves in a different jurisdiction (often this is the Disputes Tribunal as mentioned above). The landlord’s approach, subsequent delay in notification to the others, and the belief the exiting tenant had moved overseas hindered timely recourse if such a path was sought.
Essentially, while this tenancy operates under an overarching fixed-term tenancy, the practical operation is one where the landlord interacts directly with each tenant on key tenancy aspects. Landlord permissions were granted when such permissions should have involved or been referred to the collective of tenants; later sought to be jointly liable. In some ways, the operation of this house appears more akin to a room-by-room tenancy.
I do not consider the landlord had nefarious intent in the operation. It has required him to take a more active role than might be expected in a typical fixed-term tenancy entered into by a willing collective of tenants. However, the “umbrella” of the fixed-term agreements extends potential liability protection for the landlord.
I consider the landlord’s expression to the remaining tenants of the unfairness of the liability for Virusha’s rent arrears in his 6 July 2024 message is apt.
Essentially, the landlord released the exiting tenant unilaterally with an agreement with her she would pay the rent arrears. She agreed to this and has been making payments, albeit slower than the landlord desires. Such a specific agreement might also be considered to negate the more general joint and several liability. Regardless, this application sought to fast track that repayment by invoking joint liability. I consider making the other tenants liable here would be unconscionable. Given the circumstances in this instance, several liability (that is, all parties are liable for just their own respective obligations) is the more appropriate designation.
I assign the rent arrears to the one tenant as named. The three other tenants are not liable.
On a final note, I record that the Tribunal received a message from Virusha where she expresses her concerns regarding what she says are harassing behaviours from both the landlord and other tenants. She also commits to consolidating the debt she owes. This order should negate the need for such interactions but is a further consequence of a flawed approach to managing the exit of one tenant and the subsequent collection of the rent arrears. As an aside, the contact from her confirms she has more than likely been aware of the application and hearings. Her actual involvement in these might have been to the collective benefit and avoided some of the adverse interactions she has cited. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has not been successful, I decline suppression. I have chosen to exercise my own initiative and order the suppression of the three remaining tenants. I consider their response has been justified and any publication of their names would be disproportionate. With no obvious public interest, I place more weighting on their interests and order name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4941897 — Rent arrears at 29D Glanmire Road, Newlands, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4941897 — Rent arrears at 29D Glanmire Road, Newlands, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions