What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5011130 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5011130?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,569.88 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,648.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011130?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12595500-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5011130 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5011130?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,569.88 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,648.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011130?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12595500-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 34 Nordon Place, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5011130 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5011130. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23/1/2025 (after refund of the bond	$6,569.88	Rent arrears to 23/1/2025 (after refund of the bond
Water rates	$1,648.58	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
This order amends the order issued on 20 January 2025, only insofar as the correct named tenants are Lynette Erasmus and Joshua Erasmus jointly (and not Lynette Erasmus only as the original order incorrectly states.
The application for rehearing filed by Lynette Erasmus is dismissed and the stay of proceedings lifted.
The tenancy of Lynette Erasmus and Joshua Erasmus at Unit/Flat 2, 34 Nordon Place, Remuera, Auckland 1050 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm on Friday 24 January 2025.
Lynette Erasmus and Joshua Erasmus are to pay the landlords $8,244.46 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings. Both tenants are named on the tenancy agreement, and both attended the hearings, with the support of two family members.
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
As rent was more than 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, and the arrears had increased substantially at the date of hearing on 5/12/2024, the tenancy was terminated on 12 December 2024. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The order also directed the bond centre to refund the bond to the landlord and ordered the tenants to pay outstanding water arrears and the filing fee.
Lynette Erasmus applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had not been provided a sufficient time to provide her side of the story at the hearing and the amounts ordered were potentially incorrect. She also alleged privacy and administrative breaches.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Ms Erasmus has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The issues raised at the hearing were properly canvassed. No cross application had been filed and the Tribunal explained why there was no set off. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the tenant had been sent reminders of the ongoing failures to pay the rent and water arrears. Despite the allegation that this was bullying and harassment, a responsible landlord is required to keep a tenant updated as to breaches that have occurred and the likely consequences if those breaches are not remedied.
The suggestion that the tenants were charged for water they did not use is unfounded. The water care bill clearly shows that this property and an adjoining property have separate water meters, and as required, the tenants were only charged for actual water usage at her property.
The property manager explained that after the re-hearing application was filed, the tenants asked for an updated arrears summary. As the IT system used had the tenancy ending on 12/12/2024 as per the order of 5/12/2024, and the bond had now been refunded, the system generated a lower account balance than was correct. That letter does not change the premise that the amounts ordered are confirmed by the rent and water summaries provided at each of the hearings. It was further confirmed today that the amount ordered as compensation payable to the tenant in December 2023, has also been properly deducted, as required.
In summary, the Tribunal is confident that the arrears ordered are correct. This order simply updates those amounts as of Friday 24 January 2025 when the tenancy will now end.
While a conditional termination order was discussed as a final concession/pathway to resolve the issues, the tenants confirmed that they did not want to stay on at the property. The amounts ordered above are therefore the final amounts owing at the end of the tenancy, which is now to be Friday 24 January.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is approved as the application is successful. The public interest does not support name suppression for the tenants.
At the landlords request this order is amended to record that the tenancy was a joint tenancy and therefore both tenants are jointly responsible for the compensation ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5011130. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23/1/2025 (after refund of the bond	$6,569.88	Rent arrears to 23/1/2025 (after refund of the bond
Water rates	$1,648.58	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
This order amends the order issued on 20 January 2025, only insofar as the correct named tenants are Lynette Erasmus and Joshua Erasmus jointly (and not Lynette Erasmus only as the original order incorrectly states.
The application for rehearing filed by Lynette Erasmus is dismissed and the stay of proceedings lifted.
The tenancy of Lynette Erasmus and Joshua Erasmus at Unit/Flat 2, 34 Nordon Place, Remuera, Auckland 1050 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm on Friday 24 January 2025.
Lynette Erasmus and Joshua Erasmus are to pay the landlords $8,244.46 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings. Both tenants are named on the tenancy agreement, and both attended the hearings, with the support of two family members.
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
As rent was more than 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, and the arrears had increased substantially at the date of hearing on 5/12/2024, the tenancy was terminated on 12 December 2024. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The order also directed the bond centre to refund the bond to the landlord and ordered the tenants to pay outstanding water arrears and the filing fee.
Lynette Erasmus applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had not been provided a sufficient time to provide her side of the story at the hearing and the amounts ordered were potentially incorrect. She also alleged privacy and administrative breaches.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Ms Erasmus has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The issues raised at the hearing were properly canvassed. No cross application had been filed and the Tribunal explained why there was no set off. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the tenant had been sent reminders of the ongoing failures to pay the rent and water arrears. Despite the allegation that this was bullying and harassment, a responsible landlord is required to keep a tenant updated as to breaches that have occurred and the likely consequences if those breaches are not remedied.
The suggestion that the tenants were charged for water they did not use is unfounded. The water care bill clearly shows that this property and an adjoining property have separate water meters, and as required, the tenants were only charged for actual water usage at her property.
The property manager explained that after the re-hearing application was filed, the tenants asked for an updated arrears summary. As the IT system used had the tenancy ending on 12/12/2024 as per the order of 5/12/2024, and the bond had now been refunded, the system generated a lower account balance than was correct. That letter does not change the premise that the amounts ordered are confirmed by the rent and water summaries provided at each of the hearings. It was further confirmed today that the amount ordered as compensation payable to the tenant in December 2023, has also been properly deducted, as required.
In summary, the Tribunal is confident that the arrears ordered are correct. This order simply updates those amounts as of Friday 24 January 2025 when the tenancy will now end.
While a conditional termination order was discussed as a final concession/pathway to resolve the issues, the tenants confirmed that they did not want to stay on at the property. The amounts ordered above are therefore the final amounts owing at the end of the tenancy, which is now to be Friday 24 January.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is approved as the application is successful. The public interest does not support name suppression for the tenants.
At the landlords request this order is amended to record that the tenancy was a joint tenancy and therefore both tenants are jointly responsible for the compensation ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011130 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 34 Nordon Place, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011130 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 34 Nordon Place, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions