What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4975333 about?

The tribunal order states: Online Rentals Limited T/As Ray White As Agent For Saini Investments Ltd

How much money was awarded in case 4975333?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4975333?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4975333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11066898-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4975333 about?

The tribunal order states: Online Rentals Limited T/As Ray White As Agent For Saini Investments Ltd

How much money was awarded in case 4975333?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4975333?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4975333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11066898-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4975333 — Unit Titles

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant sought a declaration of non-liability for demands for payments of parking fees imposed on the owner.

This tenancy commenced 16 November 2019 but in July this year parking became an issue. There were a series of emails between the parties. The landlord highlighted a tenancy agreement term regarding the shared driveway but could not evidence any provision of the body corporate rules until 8 August 2024. On that date, a copy was sent as an email attachment.

Section 16B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states at (2) that Body corporate operational rules made under the Unit Titles Act 2010, that affect a tenant of premises to which this section applies are taken to be terms of the tenancy agreement. Further, at (3) a tenancy agreement that creates or evidences the letting of premises to which this section applies must set out a statement of the rules referred to in (2).

Due to the landlord failure to provide the operational rules prior to any parking fees incurred, I do not consider the tenants liable for any such fee incurred prior to 8 August 2024. I have some regard to the tenant submissions regarding the validity of the fees but these have not had to be considered here. They may be useful for the owner if they choose to challenge the Body corporate fee directly. Filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. As advised to the landlord, where such fees are in dispute, the subsequent threat of the use of debt collection instead of an application to the Tribunal should be reconsidered. 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.

The tenants requested suppression in their application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant sought a declaration of non-liability for demands for payments of parking fees imposed on the owner.

The tenants requested suppression in their application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4975333 — Unit Titles

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4975333 — Unit Titles

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions