How much money was awarded in case 5014848?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $483.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5014848?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014848?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11227591-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5014848?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $483.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5014848?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014848?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11227591-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5014848 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5014848 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5014848 — net $510.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$483.81	Water rates
Net award	$510.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$510.81

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

The tenancy of Taslim Shah at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 8pm Sunday 12 January 2025.

Taslim Shah must pay [The landlord/s] $510.81 no later than 10 January 2025, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Three calls to the tenant were made. The calls appeared to be answered and then ended immediately.

This hearing was a continuation after the last hearing was adjourned due to the tenant only appearing briefly. The adjourning order noted:

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via video. The tenant did not join and a call out was made. The call was answered by the tenant while he was riding his motor bike. The hearing adjourned for five minutes for him to find somewhere better to join. The subsequent calls were unsatisfactory and eventually the tenant dropped off.

The first tenant failure was to not join the video conference per the Notice of Hearing. That would have avoided the subsequent problem. Secondly, given the serious outcome (termination) if the landlord is successful, the failure to be in a location suitable to join is concerning. The landlord has provided a significant document bundle in support of the application and the tenant will have seen that.

However, I believe it appropriate to give the tenant a final chance to be heard. Whether that occurs is on him. No further adjournments will be made for such a reason and an order will follow the next hearing. If he is concerned about being contacted, he should make a written submission prior so that may at least be considered.

No prior written submission from the tenant was received before today.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for multiple and ongoing breaches by the tenant of his obligations. This intention has been well signalled through this application as well as directly to the tenant by the landlord.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The tenant has breached a number of his obligations.

The landlord has served fourteen 14-day notices on the tenant. The landlord provided the last seven breach notices, commencing 16 July 2024. These have raised issues regarding unauthorised alterations, damage, cleaning, ongoing clutter, a pet dog on the premises without permission, disturbance (once). The tenant did not remedy the majority of breaches within the required period. A number of breaches continue.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because while no single “smoking gun” exists, there are numerous ongoing failures that have not been addressed by the tenant as requested. The tenant actions in altering structures as well as drilling holes in a tiled bathroom floor to allow flooded water to drain have caused damage that has not been remedied and the landlord has genuine concerns regarding such damage and their own liability.

The landlord is a social housing provider and enters into arrangements with property owners such as here to provide social housing. The concerns of the owner regarding the damage are acknowledged. Part of the consideration of any inequity to the landlord if I was to refuse to terminate is their broader need to access such properties to provide social housing. Trust is a vital component in such arrangements.

The termination date was struck after discussion with the landlord. It was confirmed that they will work with the tenant to find another home, if he wishes to avail himself of that. They have staff working early in January 2025 and 12 January 2025 was, on balance, determined as realistic to allow the tenant to access other housing and move. Water rates

The application also sought an order for water rates of $1120.22 and a lock replacement cost of $158.13. The tenant paid both of these in October 2024.

The landlord provided a summary that claimed a further $483.81 for water rates. The method of calculating this was not clear based on the prior claim for $1120.22 as paid. Two subsequent invoices for $111.47 and $182.41 did not add up to that amount (being $293.88). Post hearing, I reviewed the summary and invoices as provided. The difference of $189.93 is accounted for by the invoiced amount of the same amount for the period April-June 2023 not being included in the $1120.22 as initially sought.

I am now satisfied the claim of $483.81 reflects unpaid water invoices presented to the tenant in a timely manner and it is awarded. The date for payment is deferred in the order given the prior clearance in October of what was tabled at that time as the total water rates owing. Filing Fee

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. 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 landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5014848 — net $510.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$483.81	Water rates
Net award	$510.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$510.81

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

The tenancy of Taslim Shah at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 8pm Sunday 12 January 2025.

Taslim Shah must pay [The landlord/s] $510.81 no later than 10 January 2025, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Three calls to the tenant were made. The calls appeared to be answered and then ended immediately.

This hearing was a continuation after the last hearing was adjourned due to the tenant only appearing briefly. The adjourning order noted:

No prior written submission from the tenant was received before today.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant has breached a number of his obligations.

The application also sought an order for water rates of $1120.22 and a lock replacement cost of $158.13. The tenant paid both of these in October 2024.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014848 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014848 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions