What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5080858?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mallalay Ahmadi and Yalda Ahmadi at 17 Whakapono Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 5080858?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,123.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080858?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11471334-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5080858?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mallalay Ahmadi and Yalda Ahmadi at 17 Whakapono Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 5080858?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,123.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080858?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11471334-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Whakapono Avenue, Baverstock, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5080858 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080858 — net $2,150.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,123.57	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,150.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,150.57

The tenancy of Mallalay Ahmadi and Yalda Ahmadi at 17 Whakapono Avenue, Baverstock, Hamilton 3200 is terminated, and possession is granted to Executive Property Managers Limited As Agent For D Cowley & J Keston, at

59 am on Monday 3 March 2025.

The Bond Centre is to pay $2,150.57 from the bond of $2,200.00 (6254178- 008) to Executive Property Managers Limited As Agent For D Cowley & J Keston immediately.

The balance of the bond of $49.43 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 February 2025.

The tenant Yalda Ahmadi confirmed that she also represented her mother Mallalay Ahmadi.

The tenancy commenced on 2 March 2021.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

The first issue for consideration by the Tribunal is whether Yalda Ahmadi is correctly named in these proceedings as a party.

Yalda Ahmadi says that she was a joint tenant under the Tenancy Agreement.

On 17 January 2023, Yalda Ahmadi sent an email to the landlord. She said that she would be moving out and asked if there was any particular procedure that she had to adopt.

The landlord said that he received the tenant’s email, but refused the request. He said that either the tenancy could end or that Yalda Ahmadi would remain as a tenant. Yalda Ahmadi did not want to terminate the tenancy.

At the time of the tenant’s request, this was a periodic tenancy. A request by one of a number of joint tenants, to vary the tenancy by allowing them to leave, would be a variation to an existing tenancy agreement.

Section 13B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that every variation shall be in writing and signed by both landlord and tenant. No written variation was prepared or signed. There was no obligation on the landlord to provide the tenant with legal advice as to the appropriate steps to take, although that may well have been a more helpful course of action.

Having reviewed the evidence on this issue, I find that no variation to the original tenancy agreement has been agreed to. No variation had been put in writing or signed. The tenant Yalda Ahmadi remains a party to the tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) RTA.

In this case, I find the landlord has served notices on the tenants as required by the RTA, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.

The grounds have been established and the tenancy must be terminated. Rent records have been provided which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, as ordered above.

As Executive Property Managers Limited As Agent For D Cowley & J Keston has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the tenants’ application is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080858 — net $2,150.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,123.57	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,150.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,150.57

Order

The tenancy of Mallalay Ahmadi and Yalda Ahmadi at 17 Whakapono Avenue, Baverstock, Hamilton 3200 is terminated, and possession is granted to Executive Property Managers Limited As Agent For D Cowley & J Keston, at
59 am on Monday 3 March 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay $2,150.57 from the bond of $2,200.00 (6254178- 008) to Executive Property Managers Limited As Agent For D Cowley & J Keston immediately.
The balance of the bond of $49.43 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 February 2025.
The tenant Yalda Ahmadi confirmed that she also represented her mother Mallalay Ahmadi.
The tenancy commenced on 2 March 2021.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The first issue for consideration by the Tribunal is whether Yalda Ahmadi is correctly named in these proceedings as a party.
Yalda Ahmadi says that she was a joint tenant under the Tenancy Agreement.
On 17 January 2023, Yalda Ahmadi sent an email to the landlord. She said that she would be moving out and asked if there was any particular procedure that she had to adopt.
The landlord said that he received the tenant’s email, but refused the request. He said that either the tenancy could end or that Yalda Ahmadi would remain as a tenant. Yalda Ahmadi did not want to terminate the tenancy.
At the time of the tenant’s request, this was a periodic tenancy. A request by one of a number of joint tenants, to vary the tenancy by allowing them to leave, would be a variation to an existing tenancy agreement.
Section 13B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that every variation shall be in writing and signed by both landlord and tenant. No written variation was prepared or signed. There was no obligation on the landlord to provide the tenant with legal advice as to the appropriate steps to take, although that may well have been a more helpful course of action.
Having reviewed the evidence on this issue, I find that no variation to the original tenancy agreement has been agreed to. No variation had been put in writing or signed. The tenant Yalda Ahmadi remains a party to the tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) RTA.
In this case, I find the landlord has served notices on the tenants as required by the RTA, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The grounds have been established and the tenancy must be terminated. Rent records have been provided which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, as ordered above.
As Executive Property Managers Limited As Agent For D Cowley & J Keston has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the tenants’ application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080858 — Rent arrears at 17 Whakapono Avenue, Baverstock, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080858 — Rent arrears at 17 Whakapono Avenue, Baverstock, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions