What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5027397?

The tribunal order states: Taranaki Trevor Scanlon must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5027397?

Rent Arrears: $634.58 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $151.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5027397?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5027397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11366860-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5027397?

The tribunal order states: Taranaki Trevor Scanlon must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5027397?

Rent Arrears: $634.58 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $151.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5027397?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5027397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11366860-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 11G, 8 White Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5027397 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5027397 — net $785.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 9.9.24	$634.58	Rent arrears as at 9.9.24
Rubbish removal	$151.37	Rubbish removal
Net award	$785.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$785.95

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy as ordered above.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered is proved. Non-Publication and suppression

The landlord has sought an order for non-publication of this determination or for an order for suppression of the tenant’s name.

The Tribunal has the ability to make an order for non-publication of its final written decisions under section 115B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That section provides that every written decision of the Tribunal must be published on an Internet site as soon as acting able unless there is good reason not to publish it.

S 115B (4) provides that “good reason” means: (a) Non-publication is necessary because of a suppression order or a statutory requirement that affects publication or continued publication (b) The decision falls into a category of decisions that are of limited public value (c) Taking into account the presumption in subsection (1) in favour of publication, the Tribunal nevertheless determines that the decision or any part of it should not be published because publication or the effect of publication would be contrary to the interests of justice.

The grounds advanced by the landlord in support of the application for non- publication are that there is already a stigma associated with a tenant having had the landlord as a prior landlord and so publication of an order against the tenant is a double stigma.

There was no objective or independent corroborative evidence supporting that bald assertion. The tenant himself has made no request for non-publication and there is not even any supporting documentation provided other than the bare assertion that there might be some element of stigma or prejudice.

In Hudson and another v Trunk Property Ltd, 1 a party alleged that there could be media interest in the decision if it was published. It was determined by the Tribunal however that media interest is not in and of itself grounds for non- publication, and further, that there was no objective evidence put forward in 1

6.15, Setefano, 14/03410/MK & 15/00562/AK support of the claims and nor was there any other reason put forward is as to why there should be non-publication.

The landlord has not convinced me that there is good reason not to publish this decision. Other than a bald assertion, there is no objective evidence supporting the assertion or any other reason advanced as to why publication would not be in the interests of justice.

The landlord seeks an order for suppression of the tenant’s name.

Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of any party that has wholly or substantially succeeded make an order that the decision not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name of any party not be published.

The tenant has not made any application for suppression of his name but the terms of s 95A(4) allow an application to be made by another party to the proceeding.

Once again however, the landlord has provided no objective or corroborative evidence supporting the assertion of likely prejudice to the tenant, or developed any submission as to why it is in the public interest for there to be an order for suppression of the tenant’s name.

I therefore decline to make any order for suppression or non-publication of the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5027397 — net $785.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 9.9.24	$634.58	Rent arrears as at 9.9.24
Rubbish removal	$151.37	Rubbish removal
Net award	$785.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$785.95

Order

Taranaki Trevor Scanlon must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $785.95 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy as ordered above.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The amounts ordered is proved. Non-Publication and suppression
The landlord has sought an order for non-publication of this determination or for an order for suppression of the tenant’s name.
The Tribunal has the ability to make an order for non-publication of its final written decisions under section 115B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That section provides that every written decision of the Tribunal must be published on an Internet site as soon as acting able unless there is good reason not to publish it.
S 115B (4) provides that “good reason” means: (a) Non-publication is necessary because of a suppression order or a statutory requirement that affects publication or continued publication (b) The decision falls into a category of decisions that are of limited public value (c) Taking into account the presumption in subsection (1) in favour of publication, the Tribunal nevertheless determines that the decision or any part of it should not be published because publication or the effect of publication would be contrary to the interests of justice.
The grounds advanced by the landlord in support of the application for non- publication are that there is already a stigma associated with a tenant having had the landlord as a prior landlord and so publication of an order against the tenant is a double stigma.
There was no objective or independent corroborative evidence supporting that bald assertion. The tenant himself has made no request for non-publication and there is not even any supporting documentation provided other than the bare assertion that there might be some element of stigma or prejudice.
In Hudson and another v Trunk Property Ltd, 1 a party alleged that there could be media interest in the decision if it was published. It was determined by the Tribunal however that media interest is not in and of itself grounds for non- publication, and further, that there was no objective evidence put forward in 1
6.15, Setefano, 14/03410/MK & 15/00562/AK support of the claims and nor was there any other reason put forward is as to why there should be non-publication.
The landlord has not convinced me that there is good reason not to publish this decision. Other than a bald assertion, there is no objective evidence supporting the assertion or any other reason advanced as to why publication would not be in the interests of justice.
The landlord seeks an order for suppression of the tenant’s name.
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of any party that has wholly or substantially succeeded make an order that the decision not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name of any party not be published.
The tenant has not made any application for suppression of his name but the terms of s 95A(4) allow an application to be made by another party to the proceeding.
Once again however, the landlord has provided no objective or corroborative evidence supporting the assertion of likely prejudice to the tenant, or developed any submission as to why it is in the public interest for there to be an order for suppression of the tenant’s name.
I therefore decline to make any order for suppression or non-publication of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5027397 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 11G, 8 White Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5027397 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 11G, 8 White Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions