How much money was awarded in case 5101951?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $4,444.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5101951?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11367393-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5101951?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $4,444.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5101951?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11367393-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

68 King Street, Marton, Marton 4710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5101951 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5101951 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 5101951 — net $2,431.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 28 January 2024	$4,444.29	Rent to 28 January 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,431.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,431.29

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 68 King Street, Marton, Marton 4710 is terminated, and possession is granted to Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Peter And Anne Russell, at 1pm on Wednesday 29 January 2025.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Peter And Anne Russell immediately.

[The tenant/s] must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Peter And Anne Russell $2,431.29 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord and one of the tenants (who I will call Mr MT) attended the telephone hearing today. Calls to the other tenant (Ms RT) went to voicemail.

The landlord originally applied for rent arrears. There have been developments since the application was filed on 9 December 2024. The landlord provided photographs which indicate that Ms RT vacated the premises in November 2024. There is evidence that she is now living in Northland. Mr MT has not been living at the premises for some time. He says Ms RT obtained a protection order against him. In August 2024 he was arrested and was in prison until 5 December 2024.

There were no rent arrears until 1 November 2024. The arrears were paid off on 25 November 2024 but started to accrue again. No rent has been paid since 25 November 2024.

As a matter of law, both tenants are jointly liable for the tenants’ obligations, including payment of rent. Indeed, this is confirmed by clause 26 (liability) of the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement.

Mr MT’s argument was essentially that he was forced to leave the premises due to the protection order and, when he was arrested in August 2024, the rent was not in arrears. He also explained that he took no steps to be removed from the periodic tenancy or to give notice to end the tenancy because he was concerned that his children would have nowhere to live.

The Tribunal is required to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case (section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The general principle of law is that tenants are jointly liable for their shared obligations. Both tenants contracted on that basis. The concern for their children is entirely understandable, but in not seeking to terminate, Mr MT must be taken to have decided to remain party to the tenancy agreement, and therefore to remain liable for the rent. I consider that the substantial merits and justice of the case are met by upholding the parties’ contract. I find the tenants jointly liable for the rent arrears.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date. A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.

The property may not have been abandoned in the strict legal sense, because Mr MT did not leave voluntarily. Ms RT could be seen as having abandoned the premises. On the available evidence, she is now living elsewhere with the children. As a practical matter, the premises have been abandoned.

Further, there are significant rent arrears. No rent has been paid since 25 November 2024.

Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy (sections 55 and 56(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The landlord’s application can be treated as having been varied without this causing prejudice to the tenants. The notice of hearing informed the tenants that both abandonment and termination of the tenancy had been raised and would be addressed at the hearing.

I am satisfied that it is appropriate to terminate the tenancy and to grant immediate possession to the landlord. Filing Fee and Suppression

The landlord’s application has been successful. I award the filing fee.

The tenant requested name suppression. Given that it has been necessary to refer to private/sensitive personal circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to suppress both tenants’ names (section 95A(4)).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5101951 — net $2,431.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 28 January 2024	$4,444.29	Rent to 28 January 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,431.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,431.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 68 King Street, Marton, Marton 4710 is terminated, and possession is granted to Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Peter And Anne Russell, at 1pm on Wednesday 29 January 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Peter And Anne Russell immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Peter And Anne Russell $2,431.29 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord and one of the tenants (who I will call Mr MT) attended the telephone hearing today. Calls to the other tenant (Ms RT) went to voicemail.
The landlord originally applied for rent arrears. There have been developments since the application was filed on 9 December 2024. The landlord provided photographs which indicate that Ms RT vacated the premises in November 2024. There is evidence that she is now living in Northland. Mr MT has not been living at the premises for some time. He says Ms RT obtained a protection order against him. In August 2024 he was arrested and was in prison until 5 December 2024.
There were no rent arrears until 1 November 2024. The arrears were paid off on 25 November 2024 but started to accrue again. No rent has been paid since 25 November 2024.
As a matter of law, both tenants are jointly liable for the tenants’ obligations, including payment of rent. Indeed, this is confirmed by clause 26 (liability) of the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement.
Mr MT’s argument was essentially that he was forced to leave the premises due to the protection order and, when he was arrested in August 2024, the rent was not in arrears. He also explained that he took no steps to be removed from the periodic tenancy or to give notice to end the tenancy because he was concerned that his children would have nowhere to live.
The Tribunal is required to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case (section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The general principle of law is that tenants are jointly liable for their shared obligations. Both tenants contracted on that basis. The concern for their children is entirely understandable, but in not seeking to terminate, Mr MT must be taken to have decided to remain party to the tenancy agreement, and therefore to remain liable for the rent. I consider that the substantial merits and justice of the case are met by upholding the parties’ contract. I find the tenants jointly liable for the rent arrears.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date. A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
The property may not have been abandoned in the strict legal sense, because Mr MT did not leave voluntarily. Ms RT could be seen as having abandoned the premises. On the available evidence, she is now living elsewhere with the children. As a practical matter, the premises have been abandoned.
Further, there are significant rent arrears. No rent has been paid since 25 November 2024.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy (sections 55 and 56(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The landlord’s application can be treated as having been varied without this causing prejudice to the tenants. The notice of hearing informed the tenants that both abandonment and termination of the tenancy had been raised and would be addressed at the hearing.
I am satisfied that it is appropriate to terminate the tenancy and to grant immediate possession to the landlord. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord’s application has been successful. I award the filing fee.
The tenant requested name suppression. Given that it has been necessary to refer to private/sensitive personal circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to suppress both tenants’ names (section 95A(4)).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101951 — Tenancy dispute at 68 King Street, Marton, Marton 4710

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101951 — Tenancy dispute at 68 King Street, Marton, Marton 4710

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions