How much money was awarded in case 5026308?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5026308?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5026308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11401625-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5026308?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5026308?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5026308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11401625-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

251 St Andrews Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5026308 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5026308 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5026308. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
sTenant Rent arrears to 19 August 2024	$3,000.00		sTenant Rent arrears to 19 August 2024
Filing fee	$27.00		Filing fee

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

Hilrick Tyrone Louw must immediately pay [The applicant/s] $3027.00 as calculated in the table below. DescriptionLandlordsTenant Rent arrears to 19 August 2024$3,000.00 Filing fee$27.00 Total award$3027.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely. I note that Mr Louw answered the phone when called and stated that he had not received notice of the hearing. He also stated that he wished to continue with the hearing rather than adjourn it to a later date.

The background to the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is that on 6 June 2024, the tenancy was vested in Mr Louw’s name by way of a Temporary Tenancy Order issued by the Family Court. This was as a result of Mr Louw being a victim of family violence.

On 13 August 2024 the tenant gave short notice of termination purporting to end the tenancy on 19 August 2024. On 15 August 2024 the landlords agreed to this short notice provided that the tenant’s belongings were removed by 5pm on 19 August 2024. There were also instructions regarding how any remaining belongings in the premises would be dealt with.

On 22 August 2024 the landlords reiterated those terms because they had not heard back from Mr Louw. By return email Mr Louw confirmed the terms and then asked how the rent arrears would be dealt with.

The parties then agreed that the rent arrears would be reduced from $6,100.00 to $3,000.00 provided Mr Louw released the $1,700.00 bond to the landlords.

The landlords now make a claim for that $3,000.00.

Section 56B(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that in a situation of family violence, for 2 weeks beginning after the date of the withdrawal of one tenant, the rent payable for the premises is reduced in the following way: • The rent payable for the 2 week period, is the rent that is normally payable, divided by the number of tenants before the withdrawal, times the number of remaining tenants.

In this case that would mean the rent payable by Mr Louw for the period 7 June 2024 to 21 June 2024 is half of $1,700.00 – that is, $850.00.

Mr Louw’s position is that this calculation applies to the $3,000.00 agreed between the parties, which would mean that there is now $2,150.00 owing in rent arrears. He says it ought not to be calculated against the actual rent arrears of $5,100.00 (which includes payment of the bond to the landlord).

I find that the calculation described as above ought to have been calculated against the actual $5,100.00 in rent arrears, and not against the agreed rent arrears of $3,000.00.

I say this largely because the purpose of the s56B(5) will have been to allow the tenant remaining in the tenancy a measured reduction towards paying rent for a finite period of 2 weeks.

It would go against the intended purpose of the RTA should the landlords now be required to reduce the rent a further $850.00 having already reduced it by $2,100.00.

Mr Louw also sent information which he says shows that the landlords had agreed not to go to the Tenancy Tribunal.

My perusal of the information sent by both parties is that that agreement related to Mr Louw abiding by the terms of the agreement set out in the emails of 15 August 2024 and again on 22 August 2024.

There was no mention of rent arrears at that time and so the landlords could not have agreed not to go to the Tribunal if Mr Louw did not pay his rent arrears.

In any event s81(1)(b) RTA provides that any agreement between parties to a tenancy agreement, to exclude or limit the right of any person to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, shall be of no effect. C ter Haar 04 February 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5026308. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
sTenant Rent arrears to 19 August 2024	$3,000.00		sTenant Rent arrears to 19 August 2024
Filing fee	$27.00		Filing fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Hilrick Tyrone Louw must immediately pay [The applicant/s] $3027.00 as calculated in the table below. DescriptionLandlordsTenant Rent arrears to 19 August 2024$3,000.00 Filing fee$27.00 Total award$3027.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely. I note that Mr Louw answered the phone when called and stated that he had not received notice of the hearing. He also stated that he wished to continue with the hearing rather than adjourn it to a later date.
The background to the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is that on 6 June 2024, the tenancy was vested in Mr Louw’s name by way of a Temporary Tenancy Order issued by the Family Court. This was as a result of Mr Louw being a victim of family violence.
On 13 August 2024 the tenant gave short notice of termination purporting to end the tenancy on 19 August 2024. On 15 August 2024 the landlords agreed to this short notice provided that the tenant’s belongings were removed by 5pm on 19 August 2024. There were also instructions regarding how any remaining belongings in the premises would be dealt with.
On 22 August 2024 the landlords reiterated those terms because they had not heard back from Mr Louw. By return email Mr Louw confirmed the terms and then asked how the rent arrears would be dealt with.
The parties then agreed that the rent arrears would be reduced from $6,100.00 to $3,000.00 provided Mr Louw released the $1,700.00 bond to the landlords.
The landlords now make a claim for that $3,000.00.
Section 56B(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that in a situation of family violence, for 2 weeks beginning after the date of the withdrawal of one tenant, the rent payable for the premises is reduced in the following way: • The rent payable for the 2 week period, is the rent that is normally payable, divided by the number of tenants before the withdrawal, times the number of remaining tenants.
In this case that would mean the rent payable by Mr Louw for the period 7 June 2024 to 21 June 2024 is half of $1,700.00 – that is, $850.00.
Mr Louw’s position is that this calculation applies to the $3,000.00 agreed between the parties, which would mean that there is now $2,150.00 owing in rent arrears. He says it ought not to be calculated against the actual rent arrears of $5,100.00 (which includes payment of the bond to the landlord).
I find that the calculation described as above ought to have been calculated against the actual $5,100.00 in rent arrears, and not against the agreed rent arrears of $3,000.00.
I say this largely because the purpose of the s56B(5) will have been to allow the tenant remaining in the tenancy a measured reduction towards paying rent for a finite period of 2 weeks.
It would go against the intended purpose of the RTA should the landlords now be required to reduce the rent a further $850.00 having already reduced it by $2,100.00.
Mr Louw also sent information which he says shows that the landlords had agreed not to go to the Tenancy Tribunal.
My perusal of the information sent by both parties is that that agreement related to Mr Louw abiding by the terms of the agreement set out in the emails of 15 August 2024 and again on 22 August 2024.
There was no mention of rent arrears at that time and so the landlords could not have agreed not to go to the Tribunal if Mr Louw did not pay his rent arrears.
In any event s81(1)(b) RTA provides that any agreement between parties to a tenancy agreement, to exclude or limit the right of any person to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, shall be of no effect. C ter Haar 04 February 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5026308 — Rent arrears at 251 St Andrews Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5026308 — Rent arrears at 251 St Andrews Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions