What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5136672 about?

The tribunal order states: This matter is closed until the tenants are able to provide further information as

How much money was awarded in case 5136672?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5136672?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5136672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11407499-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5136672 about?

The tribunal order states: This matter is closed until the tenants are able to provide further information as

How much money was awarded in case 5136672?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5136672?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5136672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11407499-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 222 Tweed Street, Appleby, Invercargill 9812 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5136672 — Cleanliness

Order

This matter is closed until the tenants are able to provide further information as set out below. The tenants are granted a period of 6 weeks within which if they can provide this information, they can request that the application be brought back before to the Tribunal with new evidence in respect of the legal ownership of the property and if it was Thomas Haretuku , when he died, and the matter will be re-opened.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing, the landlord did not attend. Background:
This is a tenant application. The tenants saw an advertisement for a property to rent in Invercargill on “Facebook Marketplace” and on “The Rent Shop” website on 21 December 2024.
The tenants contacted the property manager from Facebook, and she provided them with the landlord’s email details. The tenants were told the landlord was Thomas Haretuku of 89A Concord Avenue, Mount Maunganui, email address thomasharetuku0@gmail.com.
The tenants and landlord had communications regarding the property. The tenants filed an online application for the property, they were “accepted” by the landlord, who then emailed a signed and completed Residential Tenancy Agreement to them. The Tenancy Agreement was signed and returned by the tenants to the landlord.
Despite requesting to view the property before signing the tenancy agreement and paying the bond and rent in advance, the tenants were denied a viewing. The reasons for not being able to view the property were that it was just before Christmas, the existing tenants were moving out and the landlord was in Australia.
However, the tenants walked around the outside of the property and saw what appeared to be cleaning products inside, indicating to them that the resident tenants were cleaning to move out.
The tenants paid two weeks rent in advance and 4 weeks bond, which equates to the sum of $2400.00. The commencement of the tenancy was 18 January 2025.
Once the bond and rent were paid the tenants were unable to get any further response from the landlord. The tenants had no further communication from the landlord.
On 19 th January 2025 , one day after the supposed commencement of the tenancy, the tenants received an email from Jatinder Singh, (email jatinder1039singh@gmail.com), who claimed to be writing on behalf of the Haretuku’s family. Mr Singh’s email claimed that Thomas Haretuku had died the week before as a result of a car accident. Furthermore, that the family were now going to sell the property and refunded the tenants from the sale of the property.
The tenants have filed complaints with the New Zealand Police, Tenancy Tribunal and Facebook marketplace.
An issue I have at this stage of the proceedings is whether there is jurisdiction for the Tenancy Tribunal to hear the claim. The reason I am considering if we have jurisdiction relates to whether this is a dispute between a landlord and tenant.
A landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986(RTA), in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the tenancy agreement.
Was the “landlord” Thomas Haretuku, a person that was able to “grant” a tenancy of the premises under the Tenancy Agreement?
At this stage rather than making a determination of the issues I would like the tenants to provide further information if they are able.
The additional information I require is: -Who is the legal owner of the property? -If Thomas Haretuku was the legal owner at the time of the tenancy agreement, when did he die and what proof do you have of his death? -If Thomas Haretuku is deceased, is Jatinder Singh a legal representative of the landlord? -If not, is there a legal representative for Thomas Haretuku?
Once I have received this additional information, I will be able to progress the matter further, and set the matter down for a further hearing.
The tenants are to email the additional information to remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz attaching the file number.

Order

This matter is closed until the tenants are able to provide further information as set out below. The tenants are granted a period of 6 weeks within which if they can provide this information, they can request that the application be brought back before to the Tribunal with new evidence in respect of the legal ownership of the property and if it was Thomas Haretuku , when he died, and the matter will be re-opened.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing, the landlord did not attend. Background:
This is a tenant application. The tenants saw an advertisement for a property to rent in Invercargill on “Facebook Marketplace” and on “The Rent Shop” website on 21 December 2024.
The tenants contacted the property manager from Facebook, and she provided them with the landlord’s email details. The tenants were told the landlord was Thomas Haretuku of 89A Concord Avenue, Mount Maunganui, email address thomasharetuku0@gmail.com.
The tenants and landlord had communications regarding the property. The tenants filed an online application for the property, they were “accepted” by the landlord, who then emailed a signed and completed Residential Tenancy Agreement to them. The Tenancy Agreement was signed and returned by the tenants to the landlord.
Despite requesting to view the property before signing the tenancy agreement and paying the bond and rent in advance, the tenants were denied a viewing. The reasons for not being able to view the property were that it was just before Christmas, the existing tenants were moving out and the landlord was in Australia.
However, the tenants walked around the outside of the property and saw what appeared to be cleaning products inside, indicating to them that the resident tenants were cleaning to move out.
The tenants paid two weeks rent in advance and 4 weeks bond, which equates to the sum of $2400.00. The commencement of the tenancy was 18 January 2025.
Once the bond and rent were paid the tenants were unable to get any further response from the landlord. The tenants had no further communication from the landlord.
On 19 th January 2025 , one day after the supposed commencement of the tenancy, the tenants received an email from Jatinder Singh, (email jatinder1039singh@gmail.com), who claimed to be writing on behalf of the Haretuku’s family. Mr Singh’s email claimed that Thomas Haretuku had died the week before as a result of a car accident. Furthermore, that the family were now going to sell the property and refunded the tenants from the sale of the property.
The tenants have filed complaints with the New Zealand Police, Tenancy Tribunal and Facebook marketplace.
An issue I have at this stage of the proceedings is whether there is jurisdiction for the Tenancy Tribunal to hear the claim. The reason I am considering if we have jurisdiction relates to whether this is a dispute between a landlord and tenant.
A landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986(RTA), in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the tenancy agreement.
Was the “landlord” Thomas Haretuku, a person that was able to “grant” a tenancy of the premises under the Tenancy Agreement?
At this stage rather than making a determination of the issues I would like the tenants to provide further information if they are able.
The additional information I require is: -Who is the legal owner of the property? -If Thomas Haretuku was the legal owner at the time of the tenancy agreement, when did he die and what proof do you have of his death? -If Thomas Haretuku is deceased, is Jatinder Singh a legal representative of the landlord? -If not, is there a legal representative for Thomas Haretuku?
Once I have received this additional information, I will be able to progress the matter further, and set the matter down for a further hearing.
The tenants are to email the additional information to remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz attaching the file number.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5136672 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 222 Tweed Street, Appleby, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5136672 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 222 Tweed Street, Appleby, Invercargill 9812

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