What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034430 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 5034430?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034430?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11433949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034430 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 5034430?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034430?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11433949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034430 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034430. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as at 22/01/2025	$2,220.00		Rent arrears as at 22/01/2025
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.
Gypsy Anderson and Wendy Van Hout to pay [The landlord/s] $2,247.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord and Ms Anderson attended the hearing on 22 January 2025, which was held by teleconference. The Tribunal was unable to contact Ms Van Hout. Several attempts were made to contact Ms Van Hout on the contact number provided in the application but without success. I was satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice had been completed and that Ms Van Hout ought to be aware of the hearing. I deemed it reasonable to proceed with the hearing in Ms Van Hout’s absence.
This matter concerns a dispute over rent liability following the departure of one of the joint tenants, Ms Anderson, from the rental premises. Ms Anderson and Ms Van Hout were joint tenants under a tenancy agreement with the landlord. Ms Anderson decided to move out and claims she gave notice to both Ms Van Hout and the landlord of her departure. She also states that she and Ms Van Hout agreed that Ms Van Hout would take over the tenancy and that her share of the bond would be refunded to her.
The landlord acknowledges Ms Anderson’s notice and had prepared a variation agreement to formalise Ms Van Hout as the sole tenant. Under this arrangement, Ms Anderson would receive her share of the bond from Tenancy Services, and Ms Van Hout would be required to pay the additional amount to make up the total bond. However, Ms Van Hout failed to sign the variation agreement. As a result, the tenancy was never formally varied, and Ms Anderson remained named on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord is now seeking rent arrears from both Ms Anderson and Ms Van Hout. Ms Anderson argues that she is not liable since she had reached a private arrangement with Ms Van Hout, while the landlord asserts that because the formal process to transfer the tenancy was not completed, Ms Anderson remains responsible.
Issues to be determined: a. Is Ms Anderson still legally responsible for the rent arrears? b. Does the private arrangement between Ms Anderson and Ms Van Hout affect Ms Anderson’s liability under the tenancy agreement? Findings
Ms Anderson remains jointly and severally liable for the rent arrears. • This was a joint tenancy, meaning all tenants were equally responsible for fulfilling the obligations under the tenancy agreement, including rent payments. All tenants in a joint tenancy remain responsible for rent unless the tenancy is formally terminated or varied. • Ms Anderson did not complete the formal process required to remove herself from the tenancy. The variation agreement prepared by the landlord was never signed, and Ms Van Hout did not pay the necessary bond to replace Ms Anderson’s share. As a result, Ms Anderson remains legally bound to the tenancy agreement and responsible for unpaid rent.
The private arrangement between Ms Anderson and Ms Van Hout does not affect Ms Anderson’s legal liability to the landlord. • While Ms Anderson and Ms Van Hout may have reached a private agreement that Ms Van Hout would take over the tenancy, this does not override the legal requirements under the RTA. • Any change in tenancy responsibilities must be agreed upon by the landlord and properly documented. A private agreement between tenants does not release one party from liability. • Since Ms Anderson’s name remained on the tenancy agreement, the landlord has the legal right to seek unpaid rent from her.
The landlord has provided a rent summary which proves the rent arrears owing as ordered above. Filing fee and suppression order
As Ms Anderson has not been wholly successful in her claim, I decline to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee. Section 102 RTA.
Furthermore, under section 95 of the RTA, suppression of a party’s name or identifying details is generally granted only when a party wholly or substantially succeeds in their claim. As Ms Anderson has not met this threshold, suppression is not granted. There are no other grounds before the Tribunal that would warrant a different determination.
Conversely, the landlord has wholly succeeded in their claim. Accordingly, the tenants are ordered to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. Suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details are granted, as the landlord was the successful party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034430. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as at 22/01/2025	$2,220.00		Rent arrears as at 22/01/2025
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.
Gypsy Anderson and Wendy Van Hout to pay [The landlord/s] $2,247.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord and Ms Anderson attended the hearing on 22 January 2025, which was held by teleconference. The Tribunal was unable to contact Ms Van Hout. Several attempts were made to contact Ms Van Hout on the contact number provided in the application but without success. I was satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice had been completed and that Ms Van Hout ought to be aware of the hearing. I deemed it reasonable to proceed with the hearing in Ms Van Hout’s absence.
This matter concerns a dispute over rent liability following the departure of one of the joint tenants, Ms Anderson, from the rental premises. Ms Anderson and Ms Van Hout were joint tenants under a tenancy agreement with the landlord. Ms Anderson decided to move out and claims she gave notice to both Ms Van Hout and the landlord of her departure. She also states that she and Ms Van Hout agreed that Ms Van Hout would take over the tenancy and that her share of the bond would be refunded to her.
The landlord acknowledges Ms Anderson’s notice and had prepared a variation agreement to formalise Ms Van Hout as the sole tenant. Under this arrangement, Ms Anderson would receive her share of the bond from Tenancy Services, and Ms Van Hout would be required to pay the additional amount to make up the total bond. However, Ms Van Hout failed to sign the variation agreement. As a result, the tenancy was never formally varied, and Ms Anderson remained named on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord is now seeking rent arrears from both Ms Anderson and Ms Van Hout. Ms Anderson argues that she is not liable since she had reached a private arrangement with Ms Van Hout, while the landlord asserts that because the formal process to transfer the tenancy was not completed, Ms Anderson remains responsible.
Issues to be determined: a. Is Ms Anderson still legally responsible for the rent arrears? b. Does the private arrangement between Ms Anderson and Ms Van Hout affect Ms Anderson’s liability under the tenancy agreement? Findings
Ms Anderson remains jointly and severally liable for the rent arrears. • This was a joint tenancy, meaning all tenants were equally responsible for fulfilling the obligations under the tenancy agreement, including rent payments. All tenants in a joint tenancy remain responsible for rent unless the tenancy is formally terminated or varied. • Ms Anderson did not complete the formal process required to remove herself from the tenancy. The variation agreement prepared by the landlord was never signed, and Ms Van Hout did not pay the necessary bond to replace Ms Anderson’s share. As a result, Ms Anderson remains legally bound to the tenancy agreement and responsible for unpaid rent.
The private arrangement between Ms Anderson and Ms Van Hout does not affect Ms Anderson’s legal liability to the landlord. • While Ms Anderson and Ms Van Hout may have reached a private agreement that Ms Van Hout would take over the tenancy, this does not override the legal requirements under the RTA. • Any change in tenancy responsibilities must be agreed upon by the landlord and properly documented. A private agreement between tenants does not release one party from liability. • Since Ms Anderson’s name remained on the tenancy agreement, the landlord has the legal right to seek unpaid rent from her.
The landlord has provided a rent summary which proves the rent arrears owing as ordered above. Filing fee and suppression order
As Ms Anderson has not been wholly successful in her claim, I decline to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee. Section 102 RTA.
Furthermore, under section 95 of the RTA, suppression of a party’s name or identifying details is generally granted only when a party wholly or substantially succeeds in their claim. As Ms Anderson has not met this threshold, suppression is not granted. There are no other grounds before the Tribunal that would warrant a different determination.
Conversely, the landlord has wholly succeeded in their claim. Accordingly, the tenants are ordered to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. Suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details are granted, as the landlord was the successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034430 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034430 — Rent arrears

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