What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4954416 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4954416?

Compensation: $3,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4954416?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4954416?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11141188-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4954416 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4954416?

Compensation: $3,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4954416?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4954416?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11141188-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Fitzgerald Avenue, Kaponga, Hawera 4679 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4954416 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4954416 — net $3,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for farm workers living at premises	$3,200.00	Compensation for farm workers living at premises
__________________________________________________________________________________ 49544162 Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 49544162 Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,227.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,227.00

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
Barry James Moore, Jocelyn Mary Moore, Gregory John Campbell, Catherine Anne Campbell (Tirohanga Partnership) must pay Dennis Gordon Bellamy $3,227.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears and the tenant’s claim for a rent refund based on overpayment are dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for compensation for locks, a plumber (laundry wall) and carpet cleaning and curtain replacement are withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. J Moore and C Campbell attended for the partnership.
The landlord seeks rent arrears but withdraws its claims for compensation for locks, a plumber (laundry wall) and carpet cleaning and curtain replacement.
The tenant has two claims. He says 1) he has not been given the full benefit of the work he has done in return for rent and if all work is taken into account he is due a refund; and 2) the landlord put farm workers into his home so, at times, he lost the full use of the house and he seeks compensation from rent paid for this. Burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove that their version of events took place on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, where Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 background
There is no written tenancy agreement. The parties agree that the tenancy began on 5 April 2019 and ended in May 2024. The landlord says it ended on 9 May 2024. The tenant considered that it may have ended on 12 May, but was willing to accept 9 May as the end date.
The parties agree that the rent was agreed to be $200 per week at the start of the tenancy. Rent arrears and rent refund
During the course of the tenancy the parties agree that the tenant undertook milking in return for rent: I heard that 4 milkings were to be a week’s rent. This made the sum owed per milking to be $50.
The landlord seeks significant rent arrears that they say accumulated over a long period of time.
The tenant says that the landlord’s calculations are wrong because they have not accounted for all the milkings he has done, including milkings from 2020/21.
He also says he did not receive certain payments the landlord says was made to him (rather than credited to his rent) in relation to milking done, but the landlord provided evidence of payments he challenged being paid. I find the landlord has the best evidence here, in the form of bank information, that show that certain payments were made to the tenant for milking.
However, a dispute remains over the amount of milking that has been done. The records that have been presented to me by both parties in respect of milking is very limited.
I find that on the basis of all the evidence before me, both the landlord’s claim for rent arrears and the tenant’s claim for a rent credit/refund based on milking must fail. The evidence presented by both parties is insufficient to suitably satisfy me on the civil burden of proof as to the correct amount of arrears or credit.
The landlord and tenant claims for under/over payment of rent are therefore dismissed. Additional occupant – Non-exclusive use of home
The tenant says he was charged $200 per week as rent by the landlord but the landlord, at times, put farm workers in the house to live with him.
The first farm worker lived with him from July 2022 to July 2023 and a second person lived with him from September 2023 to November 2023. The landlord does not dispute this but says that the tenant agreed to the farm workers living with him.
The tenant says he had no choice but to accept the farm workers come and live with him. The tenant seeks compensation of $3,200 being $50 per week for the time the workers lived with him. The tenant says he experienced problems with getting payments for power from the workers.
The landlord says that if the tenant did not agree to have the farm workers live with him then his tenancy would have ended because they needed a place to put their farm workers. They say that the farm workers would not agree to have sums for power taken from their wages and it was up to the tenant and the worker to sort something out.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that putting the tenant in the position of having to agree to have an additional occupant or have their tenancy terminated and then putting farm workers in the tenant’s home amounts to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Further, a tenant is also entitled to vacant possession (section 37, RTA). By putting farm workers into the home the tenant was renting meant that he no longer had vacant possession.
By entering into such an arrangement, the landlord has also, in any event, breached section 137 RTA which sets out that no person shall enter into an arrangement that evades the provisions of the RTA.
I heard from the landlord that the house was a three-person house. Given that the tenant was to pay $200 for a whole house and then the rent remained the same but he had to share the house with another person, given the period of time concerned, I find that the tenant’s claim for compensation of $3,200 to be a reasonable reflection of his loss and award this sum. Suppression and filing fee
The tenant has been partially successful and so I award the tenant the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord seeks name suppression but has not been wholly or substantially successful.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord’s names and identifying details outweighs the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders but that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.
Accordingly, the landlord’s applications for suppression is declined.
The tenant does not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4954416 — net $3,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for farm workers living at premises	$3,200.00	Compensation for farm workers living at premises
__________________________________________________________________________________ 49544162 Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 49544162 Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,227.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,227.00

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
Barry James Moore, Jocelyn Mary Moore, Gregory John Campbell, Catherine Anne Campbell (Tirohanga Partnership) must pay Dennis Gordon Bellamy $3,227.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears and the tenant’s claim for a rent refund based on overpayment are dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for compensation for locks, a plumber (laundry wall) and carpet cleaning and curtain replacement are withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. J Moore and C Campbell attended for the partnership.
The landlord seeks rent arrears but withdraws its claims for compensation for locks, a plumber (laundry wall) and carpet cleaning and curtain replacement.
The tenant has two claims. He says 1) he has not been given the full benefit of the work he has done in return for rent and if all work is taken into account he is due a refund; and 2) the landlord put farm workers into his home so, at times, he lost the full use of the house and he seeks compensation from rent paid for this. Burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove that their version of events took place on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, where Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 background
There is no written tenancy agreement. The parties agree that the tenancy began on 5 April 2019 and ended in May 2024. The landlord says it ended on 9 May 2024. The tenant considered that it may have ended on 12 May, but was willing to accept 9 May as the end date.
The parties agree that the rent was agreed to be $200 per week at the start of the tenancy. Rent arrears and rent refund
During the course of the tenancy the parties agree that the tenant undertook milking in return for rent: I heard that 4 milkings were to be a week’s rent. This made the sum owed per milking to be $50.
The landlord seeks significant rent arrears that they say accumulated over a long period of time.
The tenant says that the landlord’s calculations are wrong because they have not accounted for all the milkings he has done, including milkings from 2020/21.
He also says he did not receive certain payments the landlord says was made to him (rather than credited to his rent) in relation to milking done, but the landlord provided evidence of payments he challenged being paid. I find the landlord has the best evidence here, in the form of bank information, that show that certain payments were made to the tenant for milking.
However, a dispute remains over the amount of milking that has been done. The records that have been presented to me by both parties in respect of milking is very limited.
I find that on the basis of all the evidence before me, both the landlord’s claim for rent arrears and the tenant’s claim for a rent credit/refund based on milking must fail. The evidence presented by both parties is insufficient to suitably satisfy me on the civil burden of proof as to the correct amount of arrears or credit.
The landlord and tenant claims for under/over payment of rent are therefore dismissed. Additional occupant – Non-exclusive use of home
The tenant says he was charged $200 per week as rent by the landlord but the landlord, at times, put farm workers in the house to live with him.
The first farm worker lived with him from July 2022 to July 2023 and a second person lived with him from September 2023 to November 2023. The landlord does not dispute this but says that the tenant agreed to the farm workers living with him.
The tenant says he had no choice but to accept the farm workers come and live with him. The tenant seeks compensation of $3,200 being $50 per week for the time the workers lived with him. The tenant says he experienced problems with getting payments for power from the workers.
The landlord says that if the tenant did not agree to have the farm workers live with him then his tenancy would have ended because they needed a place to put their farm workers. They say that the farm workers would not agree to have sums for power taken from their wages and it was up to the tenant and the worker to sort something out.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that putting the tenant in the position of having to agree to have an additional occupant or have their tenancy terminated and then putting farm workers in the tenant’s home amounts to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Further, a tenant is also entitled to vacant possession (section 37, RTA). By putting farm workers into the home the tenant was renting meant that he no longer had vacant possession.
By entering into such an arrangement, the landlord has also, in any event, breached section 137 RTA which sets out that no person shall enter into an arrangement that evades the provisions of the RTA.
I heard from the landlord that the house was a three-person house. Given that the tenant was to pay $200 for a whole house and then the rent remained the same but he had to share the house with another person, given the period of time concerned, I find that the tenant’s claim for compensation of $3,200 to be a reasonable reflection of his loss and award this sum. Suppression and filing fee
The tenant has been partially successful and so I award the tenant the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord seeks name suppression but has not been wholly or substantially successful.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord’s names and identifying details outweighs the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders but that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.
Accordingly, the landlord’s applications for suppression is declined.
The tenant does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4954416 — Tenancy dispute at 2 Fitzgerald Avenue, Kaponga, Hawera 4679

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4954416 — Tenancy dispute at 2 Fitzgerald Avenue, Kaponga, Hawera 4679

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions