What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4955894 about?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration: The tenancy is to continue solely in the name of [Tenant

How much money was awarded in case 4955894?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955894?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955894?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10801310-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4955894 about?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration: The tenancy is to continue solely in the name of [Tenant

How much money was awarded in case 4955894?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955894?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955894?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10801310-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4955894 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4955894. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
the name of [Tenant 1]: [Tenant 2] is removed as tenant from this tenancy. 2. I direct the Bond Centre to transfer the b	$2,200.00		the name of [Tenant 1]: [Tenant 2] is removed as tenant from this tenancy. 2. I direct the Bond Centre to transfer the b

[Tenant 1] attended the hearing as did [The landlord’s representatives] representing [The landlord/s].

This tenancy commenced as a fixed term in the names of [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] on 28 October 2021. It has continued on a periodic basis after that time. [Tenant 1] remains living there, [Tenant 2] vacated in 2022.

[Tenant 1] now seeks a declaration that the tenancy and bond are exclusively his. He has been solely responsible for the tenancy and rent since [Tenant 2] departed.

[Tenant 2] refuses to sign the documents the landlord requires to effect this change which have been presented to her by the landlord and lawyers representing [Tenant 1] and their children. This is her position although there is no evidence she wishes to reside in the property.

[Tenant 1] provided documentary and oral evidence establishing that he paid the bond himself when the tenancy commenced in 2021. He has also provided evidence that [Tenant 2] is prohibited from attending the property by order of the Family Court.

Having heard the evidence of the parties I am satisfied that the tenancy has been transferred by implied assignment from a joint tenancy to that solely of [Tenant 1] as tenant. I make this finding on the basis of the following evidence: a. [Tenant 2] has not occupied the property since October 2022, nor has she asserted any right to do so since that time. b. [Tenant 2] has not paid rent for the property since at least October 2022. c. [Tenant 2] has not challenged the status quo since leaving the property.

Pursuant to section 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), the term “tenancy” in relation to any residential premises means the right to occupy the premises, whether exclusively or otherwise, in consideration of rent. [Tenant 2] cannot be said to have exercised this tenancy within that definition for almost two years.

She has not challenged [Tenant 1]’s occupancy and therefore can be said to have impliedly assigned the tenancy to him.

When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 of the Act 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.

In consideration of section 85 of the Act I find it just that a declaration be made as to the actual terms of the current tenancy; one of those being that [Tenant 1] is the sole tenant.

Regarding the issue of the bond, I accept [Tenant 1]’s evidence that he paid the bond himself given [Tenant 2] had been adjudged bankrupt at the time. The payments came from his account which has been confirmed by the landlord. It is therefore just that the bond be accurately recorded at the Bond Centre as solely in his name.

Should the orders be supressed?

Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest.

Given the Family Court proceedings discussed in these matters I consider it just that all party details be suppressed from the published order. Accordingly, the unredacted order must not be published in any way by any person.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4955894. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
the name of [Tenant 1]: [Tenant 2] is removed as tenant from this tenancy. 2. I direct the Bond Centre to transfer the b	$2,200.00		the name of [Tenant 1]: [Tenant 2] is removed as tenant from this tenancy. 2. I direct the Bond Centre to transfer the b

Order

By way of declaration: The tenancy is to continue solely in the name of [Tenant 1]: [Tenant 2] is removed as tenant from this tenancy.
I direct the Bond Centre to transfer the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [Tenant 1] immediately.

Reasons

[Tenant 1] attended the hearing as did [The landlord’s representatives] representing [The landlord/s].
This tenancy commenced as a fixed term in the names of [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] on 28 October 2021. It has continued on a periodic basis after that time. [Tenant 1] remains living there, [Tenant 2] vacated in 2022.
[Tenant 1] now seeks a declaration that the tenancy and bond are exclusively his. He has been solely responsible for the tenancy and rent since [Tenant 2] departed.
[Tenant 2] refuses to sign the documents the landlord requires to effect this change which have been presented to her by the landlord and lawyers representing [Tenant 1] and their children. This is her position although there is no evidence she wishes to reside in the property.
[Tenant 1] provided documentary and oral evidence establishing that he paid the bond himself when the tenancy commenced in 2021. He has also provided evidence that [Tenant 2] is prohibited from attending the property by order of the Family Court.
Having heard the evidence of the parties I am satisfied that the tenancy has been transferred by implied assignment from a joint tenancy to that solely of [Tenant 1] as tenant. I make this finding on the basis of the following evidence: a. [Tenant 2] has not occupied the property since October 2022, nor has she asserted any right to do so since that time. b. [Tenant 2] has not paid rent for the property since at least October 2022. c. [Tenant 2] has not challenged the status quo since leaving the property.
Pursuant to section 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), the term “tenancy” in relation to any residential premises means the right to occupy the premises, whether exclusively or otherwise, in consideration of rent. [Tenant 2] cannot be said to have exercised this tenancy within that definition for almost two years.
She has not challenged [Tenant 1]’s occupancy and therefore can be said to have impliedly assigned the tenancy to him.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 of the Act 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.
In consideration of section 85 of the Act I find it just that a declaration be made as to the actual terms of the current tenancy; one of those being that [Tenant 1] is the sole tenant.
Regarding the issue of the bond, I accept [Tenant 1]’s evidence that he paid the bond himself given [Tenant 2] had been adjudged bankrupt at the time. The payments came from his account which has been confirmed by the landlord. It is therefore just that the bond be accurately recorded at the Bond Centre as solely in his name.

Should the orders be supressed?

Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest.
Given the Family Court proceedings discussed in these matters I consider it just that all party details be suppressed from the published order. Accordingly, the unredacted order must not be published in any way by any person.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955894 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955894 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the orders be supressed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the orders be supressed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions