What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5026428 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $750.00 immediately being rent arrears

How much money was awarded in case 5026428?

The reconciled net award was $750.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5026428?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5026428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10991723-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5026428 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $750.00 immediately being rent arrears

How much money was awarded in case 5026428?

The reconciled net award was $750.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5026428?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5026428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10991723-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5026428 — Rent arrears

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking an order for rent arrears. But there are ancillary issues I must consider, one is whether this is a tenancy falling within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and if it is, what the rental for the premises would be?

Both parties appeared at the hearing today in [Event location suppressed]. The landlord is represented by [The property management company], and in particular [The landlord’s representative].

The evidence is that [The tenant/s] moved into the premises on 21 December 2019.

The premises are one flat in a block of four flats.

While I have not seen the title for the premises, [The tenant/s] tells me that the premises are owned by her brother [The tenant’s brother]. What is clear after hearing from [The tenant/s] and her sister [The tenant’s sister] (who appeared at the hearing with her), is that there is a significant ongoing conflict around ownership of the flats, and associated with that is funding for various works over time. But as I advised the [The tenant/s] and [The tenant’s sister] today, the Tenancy Tribunal cannot get involved with disputes around ownership of property, we only consider disputes between tenants and landlords under the RTA.

In any event, it is common ground between the parties that [The tenant/s] was offered her unit by her brother. While the arrangement appears to have been an informal one, rent is charged, it is residential premises, and so it falls within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

However, there is an important exclusion when the RTA will not apply, and that is found in section 5(1)(n), which excludes the RTA from applying when the landlord and tenant are family members, as is the case here. We refer to that as an ‘excluded tenancy’.

Despite that, there is an ability in the RTA for parties to ‘contract back in’ to the RTA when the tenancy would otherwise be an excluded tenancy, that is found in section 8 of the RTA. While that provision requires the contracting back in to be in writing, I am advised at the hearing today that both parties agree that the RTA should apply, and that being the case, I will accept by consent that the parties are landlord and tenant, and have contracted back into the RTA.

What this means is that the RTA applies to this tenancy.

What is the rental?

Unfortunately there is no written tenancy agreement.

[The tenant/s] considers that the rental for the property is $450.00.

However the landlord considers it is $525.00.

[The landlord’s representative] explained there was a rent increase notice sent on 21 March 2024 increasing the rent to $575.00 per week from May. We reviewed that increase notice at the hearing, and it looks to comply with section 24 of the RTA to be a valid rent increase notice.

However [The landlord’s representative] also explained that the parties agreed to a reduction of the rent to $525.00, so that must be the rent that applies.

Therefore I find the weekly rental from 22 May 2024 has been $525.00. Rent arrears owed

The landlord’s position is that the rent arrears on the day of the hearing are $750.00. The tenant agrees that is the case, so I order that amount by consent.

[The landlord’s representative] notes that there is another rent payment due today, so that means the tenant will need to pay the current rent AND the arrears of $750.00.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord applied for name suppression.

In large measure, the dispute today was resolved in a mediative way, and normally decisions settled in a mediation are confidential. That being the case, I order name suppression to apply for both parties.

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $750.00 immediately being rent arrears to 22 October 2024.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking an order for rent arrears. But there are ancillary issues I must consider, one is whether this is a tenancy falling within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and if it is, what the rental for the premises would be?
Both parties appeared at the hearing today in [Event location suppressed]. The landlord is represented by [The property management company], and in particular [The landlord’s representative].
The evidence is that [The tenant/s] moved into the premises on 21 December 2019.
The premises are one flat in a block of four flats.
While I have not seen the title for the premises, [The tenant/s] tells me that the premises are owned by her brother [The tenant’s brother]. What is clear after hearing from [The tenant/s] and her sister [The tenant’s sister] (who appeared at the hearing with her), is that there is a significant ongoing conflict around ownership of the flats, and associated with that is funding for various works over time. But as I advised the [The tenant/s] and [The tenant’s sister] today, the Tenancy Tribunal cannot get involved with disputes around ownership of property, we only consider disputes between tenants and landlords under the RTA.
In any event, it is common ground between the parties that [The tenant/s] was offered her unit by her brother. While the arrangement appears to have been an informal one, rent is charged, it is residential premises, and so it falls within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
However, there is an important exclusion when the RTA will not apply, and that is found in section 5(1)(n), which excludes the RTA from applying when the landlord and tenant are family members, as is the case here. We refer to that as an ‘excluded tenancy’.
Despite that, there is an ability in the RTA for parties to ‘contract back in’ to the RTA when the tenancy would otherwise be an excluded tenancy, that is found in section 8 of the RTA. While that provision requires the contracting back in to be in writing, I am advised at the hearing today that both parties agree that the RTA should apply, and that being the case, I will accept by consent that the parties are landlord and tenant, and have contracted back into the RTA.
What this means is that the RTA applies to this tenancy.

What is the rental?

Unfortunately there is no written tenancy agreement.
[The tenant/s] considers that the rental for the property is $450.00.
However the landlord considers it is $525.00.
[The landlord’s representative] explained there was a rent increase notice sent on 21 March 2024 increasing the rent to $575.00 per week from May. We reviewed that increase notice at the hearing, and it looks to comply with section 24 of the RTA to be a valid rent increase notice.
However [The landlord’s representative] also explained that the parties agreed to a reduction of the rent to $525.00, so that must be the rent that applies.
Therefore I find the weekly rental from 22 May 2024 has been $525.00. Rent arrears owed
The landlord’s position is that the rent arrears on the day of the hearing are $750.00. The tenant agrees that is the case, so I order that amount by consent.
[The landlord’s representative] notes that there is another rent payment due today, so that means the tenant will need to pay the current rent AND the arrears of $750.00.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord applied for name suppression.
In large measure, the dispute today was resolved in a mediative way, and normally decisions settled in a mediation are confidential. That being the case, I order name suppression to apply for both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5026428 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5026428 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the rental?

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the rental?

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions