How much money was awarded in case 5163312?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Locksmith: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,672.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5163312?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5163312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11696598-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5163312?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Locksmith: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,672.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5163312?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5163312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11696598-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

35 Middleton Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5163312 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5163312 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 5163312 — net $4,922.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 3 February 2025	$7,672.86	Rent arrears as at 3 February 2025
Locksmith	$155.25	Locksmith
Filing fee for 4986168	$27.00	Filing fee for 4986168
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,922.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,922.11

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Five Am Property Management Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Winward Family Trust, Scott Chu $4,922.11 immediately, calculated as in the table below.

The Bond Centre to immediately pay the bond of $2960.00 to Five Am Property Management Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Winward Family Trust, Scott Chu.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was held remotely.

The landlord has made an application against the tenants and I shall take each of the matters claimed in turn. Rent arrears

The rent record provided shows that as at 3 February 2025, the date on which the tenants were evicted, the tenants owed $7,672.86 in rent. They are required to pay this amount. Water charges

The landlord claims $749.89 in outstanding water charges.

At today’s hearing the tenants advised that there had been a water leak at the premises and that they had informed the owner about this.

The claim for water charges was withdrawn from today’s hearing and the landlord says he will claim it again in a further application against the tenants relating to other issues such as rubbish disposal and the cost of towing a car.

The withdrawal of this claim will allow the tenants an opportunity to provide evidence regarding the leak for the next application. Locksmith fees

The tenants were evicted and so the landlord is entitled to change the locks and to pass this cost to the tenants. I accept the invoiced amount of $155.25 as being reasonable. Eviction costs

The landlord claims $258.00 as the cost from the Court of evicting the tenants.

This is a cost flowing from the tenants’ breach of their obligations and so is recoverable. However, it is a cost that is automatically included by the District Court’s process when the landlord seeks to enforce an order through the District Court. On this basis, I do not award it today to avoid potential duplication of the cost. Filing fee reimbursements

The landlord was substantially successful in this claim and so I am ordering the tenants to reimburse them the filing fee.

I am also ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee for application 4986168 because I accept that, although ordered, this has not yet been paid. Suppression of the tenants’ names

Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

One tenant has applied for suppression of her name. Having considered her evidence I am allowing that application. I do so largely because I accept that she did her best to pay her portion of the rent. When she was let down by the other tenant in terms of rent payment, she then went to considerable effort to cover the whole of the rent per week plus an extra amount to pay towards the arrears.

I accept that this was a herculean task at which she was very likely to fail, with the end result being an eviction.

I consider that the eviction has been a sufficiently significant consequence for this tenant, and that there is very little public interest in having her name published. Publication will make it much harder for her to find another rental property and I consider that would be too much for a tenant who has, in general, paid her portion of the rent and made good strides towards paying arrears.

As stated at the hearing, I am unable to separate the tenants in terms of suppression and so both tenants’ names will be suppressed. Note

I note that both parties have stated that they will make a further application to the Tribunal against the other.

They are to ensure that both applications are linked so that they may be heard together. C ter Haar 09 April 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5163312 — net $4,922.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 3 February 2025	$7,672.86	Rent arrears as at 3 February 2025
Locksmith	$155.25	Locksmith
Filing fee for 4986168	$27.00	Filing fee for 4986168
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,922.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,922.11

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Five Am Property Management Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Winward Family Trust, Scott Chu $4,922.11 immediately, calculated as in the table below.
The Bond Centre to immediately pay the bond of $2960.00 to Five Am Property Management Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Winward Family Trust, Scott Chu.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was held remotely.
The landlord has made an application against the tenants and I shall take each of the matters claimed in turn. Rent arrears
The rent record provided shows that as at 3 February 2025, the date on which the tenants were evicted, the tenants owed $7,672.86 in rent. They are required to pay this amount. Water charges
The landlord claims $749.89 in outstanding water charges.
At today’s hearing the tenants advised that there had been a water leak at the premises and that they had informed the owner about this.
The claim for water charges was withdrawn from today’s hearing and the landlord says he will claim it again in a further application against the tenants relating to other issues such as rubbish disposal and the cost of towing a car.
The withdrawal of this claim will allow the tenants an opportunity to provide evidence regarding the leak for the next application. Locksmith fees
The tenants were evicted and so the landlord is entitled to change the locks and to pass this cost to the tenants. I accept the invoiced amount of $155.25 as being reasonable. Eviction costs
The landlord claims $258.00 as the cost from the Court of evicting the tenants.
This is a cost flowing from the tenants’ breach of their obligations and so is recoverable. However, it is a cost that is automatically included by the District Court’s process when the landlord seeks to enforce an order through the District Court. On this basis, I do not award it today to avoid potential duplication of the cost. Filing fee reimbursements
The landlord was substantially successful in this claim and so I am ordering the tenants to reimburse them the filing fee.
I am also ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee for application 4986168 because I accept that, although ordered, this has not yet been paid. Suppression of the tenants’ names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
One tenant has applied for suppression of her name. Having considered her evidence I am allowing that application. I do so largely because I accept that she did her best to pay her portion of the rent. When she was let down by the other tenant in terms of rent payment, she then went to considerable effort to cover the whole of the rent per week plus an extra amount to pay towards the arrears.
I accept that this was a herculean task at which she was very likely to fail, with the end result being an eviction.
I consider that the eviction has been a sufficiently significant consequence for this tenant, and that there is very little public interest in having her name published. Publication will make it much harder for her to find another rental property and I consider that would be too much for a tenant who has, in general, paid her portion of the rent and made good strides towards paying arrears.
As stated at the hearing, I am unable to separate the tenants in terms of suppression and so both tenants’ names will be suppressed. Note
I note that both parties have stated that they will make a further application to the Tribunal against the other.
They are to ensure that both applications are linked so that they may be heard together. C ter Haar 09 April 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5163312 — Rent arrears at 35 Middleton Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5163312 — Rent arrears at 35 Middleton Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions