How much money was awarded in case 5131056?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5131056?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5131056?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11562168-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5131056?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5131056?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5131056?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11562168-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5131056 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5131056 about?

The tribunal order states: Name suppression and identifying details are ordered in favour of all parties.

Order

Name suppression and identifying details are ordered in favour of all parties.
The tenants must now pay their weekly rent to the bank account number directed by [The landlord/s], on the next date their rent falls due for payment after the date of this order. For the sake of clarity, this will not capture payments made today.
The tenants are not liable to make further payments of rent for the period from 23 December 2024 to today to [The landlord/s].
A copy of this order should be provided to the Disputes Tribunal by [The landlord/s] when the hearing of his claim against [The property management company] takes place.

Reasons

[The landlord/s] is the registered owner of seven units located at [Tenancy address suppressed]. Six of those units are tenanted to the above-named tenants.
The background to this matter is set out in a decision of the High Court dated [Redacted] arising out of a caveat lodged on the title to the property by [The landlord/s] mother. She had alleged that she was a beneficial owner in the property, having provided the finds for its purchase.
The caveat she lodged has now lapsed, following the High Court order and a subsequent order dated [Redacted].
In the meantime, a [Third party] has also filed a caveat on the title of the property. According to [The landlord/s], he is a business colleague of his father and an ex business partner of [The landlord/s]. I was provided with no information as to the basis of [The third party]’s interest, other than a copy of the caveat, which simply records that [The third party] considers [The landlord/s] holds the property on an implied trust for him.
[The landlord/s] says he has instructed his lawyers to lapse [The third party]’s caveat.
In October 2024 [The landlord/s] entered into a property management agreement with [The property management company]. [The property management company] is the trading name of [The property management company].
On 27 November 2024, [Law firm], the lawyer for [The third party], sent a letter to [The property management company] to tell it to stop paying rent to [The landlord/s].
On 23 December 2024, [The landlord/s] asked all the tenants to pay their rent to him.
Correspondence was exchanged between the lawyers acting for the parties and nothing could be resolved.
[The property management company] is in a difficult position. They have two parties, each claiming themselves to be the rightful owner of the property.
[The property management company] made a decision on sound legal advice to make no payments to either party. They appear to be holding the money in trust for the rightful owner.
I consider the steps [The property management company] took to cease any rent payment to any party to be sound and entirely reasonable in the circumstances.
[The third party] appeared at the hearing today but made no submissions.
[The landlord/s] has filed a Disputes Tribunal claim against [The property management company] to recover the rent, and it will be for the Referee in that jurisdiction to decide who is entitled to the money [The property management company] currently holds by way of rent. [The property management company’s representative], who appeared for [The property management company], advised me that the property management agreement was for two years. It appears he may have grounds to bring a counterclaim in the Disputes Tribunal claim, but that is a matter for him after taking legal advice and I make no comment about the merits of that claim.
If there is to be further High Court litigation in relation to [The third party]’s caveat, then the Disputes Tribunal referee may well decide to wait the outcome of that.
In the meantime, with that complex background having been established, the issue I have to decide is to who the tenants should be paying their rent.
The landlord under each agreement is described as [The landlord/s]. [The property management company] is referred to as his agent. He has terminated that agency/property management agreement (rightly or wrongly). Regardless of the merits of the termination, the tenants must now pay rent to [The landlord/s], if they are requested by him to do so.
[The tenant/s] explained to the Tribunal the considerable stress the tenants had all been subject to, as a result of these proceedings. I have great sympathy for their position. This issue is not of their making. They should not be required to pay any double rent or additional rent payments to [The landlord/s] from when he first asked them to pay him the rent to today. They have paid that rent already to [The property management company].
From this point, they should direct all enquiries and issues regarding the property to [The landlord/s], as the owner.
As all parties have had a measure of success, name suppression is ordered in favour of all parties.

Order

Name suppression and identifying details are ordered in favour of all parties.

The tenants must now pay their weekly rent to the bank account number directed by [The landlord/s], on the next date their rent falls due for payment after the date of this order. For the sake of clarity, this will not capture payments made today.

The tenants are not liable to make further payments of rent for the period from 23 December 2024 to today to [The landlord/s].

A copy of this order should be provided to the Disputes Tribunal by [The landlord/s] when the hearing of his claim against [The property management company] takes place.

Reasons

[The landlord/s] is the registered owner of seven units located at [Tenancy address suppressed]. Six of those units are tenanted to the above-named tenants.

The background to this matter is set out in a decision of the High Court dated [Redacted] arising out of a caveat lodged on the title to the property by [The landlord/s] mother. She had alleged that she was a beneficial owner in the property, having provided the finds for its purchase.

The caveat she lodged has now lapsed, following the High Court order and a subsequent order dated [Redacted].

In the meantime, a [Third party] has also filed a caveat on the title of the property. According to [The landlord/s], he is a business colleague of his father and an ex business partner of [The landlord/s]. I was provided with no information as to the basis of [The third party]’s interest, other than a copy of the caveat, which simply records that [The third party] considers [The landlord/s] holds the property on an implied trust for him.

[The landlord/s] says he has instructed his lawyers to lapse [The third party]’s caveat.

In October 2024 [The landlord/s] entered into a property management agreement with [The property management company]. [The property management company] is the trading name of [The property management company].

On 27 November 2024, [Law firm], the lawyer for [The third party], sent a letter to [The property management company] to tell it to stop paying rent to [The landlord/s].

On 23 December 2024, [The landlord/s] asked all the tenants to pay their rent to him.

Correspondence was exchanged between the lawyers acting for the parties and nothing could be resolved.

[The property management company] is in a difficult position. They have two parties, each claiming themselves to be the rightful owner of the property.

[The property management company] made a decision on sound legal advice to make no payments to either party. They appear to be holding the money in trust for the rightful owner.

I consider the steps [The property management company] took to cease any rent payment to any party to be sound and entirely reasonable in the circumstances.

[The third party] appeared at the hearing today but made no submissions.

[The landlord/s] has filed a Disputes Tribunal claim against [The property management company] to recover the rent, and it will be for the Referee in that jurisdiction to decide who is entitled to the money [The property management company] currently holds by way of rent. [The property management company’s representative], who appeared for [The property management company], advised me that the property management agreement was for two years. It appears he may have grounds to bring a counterclaim in the Disputes Tribunal claim, but that is a matter for him after taking legal advice and I make no comment about the merits of that claim.

If there is to be further High Court litigation in relation to [The third party]’s caveat, then the Disputes Tribunal referee may well decide to wait the outcome of that.

In the meantime, with that complex background having been established, the issue I have to decide is to who the tenants should be paying their rent.

The landlord under each agreement is described as [The landlord/s]. [The property management company] is referred to as his agent. He has terminated that agency/property management agreement (rightly or wrongly). Regardless of the merits of the termination, the tenants must now pay rent to [The landlord/s], if they are requested by him to do so.

[The tenant/s] explained to the Tribunal the considerable stress the tenants had all been subject to, as a result of these proceedings. I have great sympathy for their position. This issue is not of their making. They should not be required to pay any double rent or additional rent payments to [The landlord/s] from when he first asked them to pay him the rent to today. They have paid that rent already to [The property management company].

From this point, they should direct all enquiries and issues regarding the property to [The landlord/s], as the owner.

As all parties have had a measure of success, name suppression is ordered in favour of all parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5131056 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5131056 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions