What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5104275 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 5104275?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,543.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5104275?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5104275?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11351400-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5104275 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 5104275?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,543.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5104275?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5104275?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11351400-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5104275 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5104275 — net $2,290.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 January 2025	$4,543.43	Rent arrears to 24 January 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,290.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,290.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Dionne Mya Dargaville must pay [The landlord/s] $2,290.43 immediately, as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 to the Landlord immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages and compensation for the following: -Termination without grounds. -Unlawful entry. -Harassment.
It also appears that the tenant may be applying for a rehearing of a Mediator’s Order.
The landlord filed a cross application and seeks rent arrears. Rehearing of Mediator’s Order
On 28 November 2024, the Tribunal sealed a Mediator’s Order under application 5050506.
The tenant agreed to pay $2,000 on Thursday 28 November 2024 and a further $2,635.00 on Thursday 5 December 2024.
If any payment was not received within 2 working days of the due date, the tenancy was to end immediately with vacant possession to the landlord.
The tenant applied for a stay of the Order and the Adjudicator found it implicit that the tenant is seeking a rehearing of the matter under s 105 of the RTA.
The stay was granted and expires at 5.00pm today.
However, the tenant confirmed at the hearing today that she agrees with the Mediator’s Order and is not seeking a rehearing.
This part of the claim is therefore dismissed Termination without grounds
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says she paid $1,900 on 29 November and $2,536.00 on 9 December. The tenant says that her employer had finance issues which meant that rent was paid late and not for the full amount owing. The tenant says the landlord sent her a notice telling her she had to leave by 13 December.
I find that the tenant breached the Mediator’s Order therefore the landlord is entitled to enforce it. The tenant failed to make the payments as required under the Order which means that the tenancy terminated immediately (see section 5)a) of the Mediator’s Order).
The landlord was within their rights to send an email to the tenant on 10 December 2024 informing her of the termination. Instead of immediate possession, they gave the tenant until 9.00am on 13 December 2024 to vacate, but she failed to do so and stopped paying rent.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry
Dionne Mya Dargaville claims the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance, or for the purpose of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking samples for such testing. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says the landlord came to the premises on 13 December, she walked into the house, and she said she was there for the keys. The tenant provided a photograph of a covered in car port which she says the landlord walked through.
The tenant also says a meth tester arrived over 3 hours later than notified but she concedes that he did not come inside.
Firstly, I find no evidence that the meth tester entered the premises unlawfully, so this part of the claim is dismissed.
The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence that the landlord came inside the premises. The landlord says they stood on the door-step but did not enter. The definition of ‘premises’ in this section of the RTA does not include land or facilities therefore the landlord was within their rights to walk through the car port to the front door.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Harassment
Dionne Mya Dargaville claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person." MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant says the landlord kept sending her emails and phoning her about leaving the premises and she felt harassed. The tenant says she also felt harassed when the landlord notified her the premises were to be tested for meth.
I find no evidence of any harassment by the landlord. I am satisfied the landlord was simply carrying out their usual procedures once the tenant breached the Mediator’s Order and the tenancy terminated.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Rent arrears
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. Filing fee
Because Dionne Mya Dargaville has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord introduced claims for previous Tribunal fees but as this was not part of this application, this was not considered. Name suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression.
Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
As the landlord has been wholly successful, they are entitled to an order for suppression as of right. The application is granted.
The tenant has not been successful in her claims or in defence of the claim against her therefore she is not entitled to an order for suppression as of right. In the circumstances of this case and having regard to section 95A(4) RTA, the tenant request for name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5104275 — net $2,290.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 January 2025	$4,543.43	Rent arrears to 24 January 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,290.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,290.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Dionne Mya Dargaville must pay [The landlord/s] $2,290.43 immediately, as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 to the Landlord immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages and compensation for the following: -Termination without grounds. -Unlawful entry. -Harassment.
It also appears that the tenant may be applying for a rehearing of a Mediator’s Order.
The landlord filed a cross application and seeks rent arrears. Rehearing of Mediator’s Order
On 28 November 2024, the Tribunal sealed a Mediator’s Order under application 5050506.
The tenant agreed to pay $2,000 on Thursday 28 November 2024 and a further $2,635.00 on Thursday 5 December 2024.
If any payment was not received within 2 working days of the due date, the tenancy was to end immediately with vacant possession to the landlord.
The tenant applied for a stay of the Order and the Adjudicator found it implicit that the tenant is seeking a rehearing of the matter under s 105 of the RTA.
The stay was granted and expires at 5.00pm today.
However, the tenant confirmed at the hearing today that she agrees with the Mediator’s Order and is not seeking a rehearing.
This part of the claim is therefore dismissed Termination without grounds
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says she paid $1,900 on 29 November and $2,536.00 on 9 December. The tenant says that her employer had finance issues which meant that rent was paid late and not for the full amount owing. The tenant says the landlord sent her a notice telling her she had to leave by 13 December.
I find that the tenant breached the Mediator’s Order therefore the landlord is entitled to enforce it. The tenant failed to make the payments as required under the Order which means that the tenancy terminated immediately (see section 5)a) of the Mediator’s Order).
The landlord was within their rights to send an email to the tenant on 10 December 2024 informing her of the termination. Instead of immediate possession, they gave the tenant until 9.00am on 13 December 2024 to vacate, but she failed to do so and stopped paying rent.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry
Dionne Mya Dargaville claims the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance, or for the purpose of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking samples for such testing. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says the landlord came to the premises on 13 December, she walked into the house, and she said she was there for the keys. The tenant provided a photograph of a covered in car port which she says the landlord walked through.
The tenant also says a meth tester arrived over 3 hours later than notified but she concedes that he did not come inside.
Firstly, I find no evidence that the meth tester entered the premises unlawfully, so this part of the claim is dismissed.
The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence that the landlord came inside the premises. The landlord says they stood on the door-step but did not enter. The definition of ‘premises’ in this section of the RTA does not include land or facilities therefore the landlord was within their rights to walk through the car port to the front door.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Harassment
Dionne Mya Dargaville claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person." MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant says the landlord kept sending her emails and phoning her about leaving the premises and she felt harassed. The tenant says she also felt harassed when the landlord notified her the premises were to be tested for meth.
I find no evidence of any harassment by the landlord. I am satisfied the landlord was simply carrying out their usual procedures once the tenant breached the Mediator’s Order and the tenancy terminated.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Rent arrears
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. Filing fee
Because Dionne Mya Dargaville has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord introduced claims for previous Tribunal fees but as this was not part of this application, this was not considered. Name suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression.
Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
As the landlord has been wholly successful, they are entitled to an order for suppression as of right. The application is granted.
The tenant has not been successful in her claims or in defence of the claim against her therefore she is not entitled to an order for suppression as of right. In the circumstances of this case and having regard to section 95A(4) RTA, the tenant request for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5104275 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5104275 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions