What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5176712 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 5176712?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176712?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176712?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11758143-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5176712 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 5176712?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176712?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176712?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11758143-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5176712 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the respondent, the last three digits being 212, was called twice, without any response. As the respondent was served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord applicant has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of a tenancy. During the hearing, the owner landlord also raised a compensation claim related to bond refunds, as outlined below. The Law
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that an ‘agent’ in relation to any person who is a landlord or tenant, means an agent of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant; and includes an employee of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant.
Section 2 RTA provides that the definition of ‘landlord’ includes an agent of the landlord.
Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided. Background
The applicant owner/landlord provided a tenancy agreement which named a former owner of the property as landlord and named the tenant as Haven Living Management Limited (“HLM”). The landlord said their Family Trust purchased the property on 24 June 2021 from a holding company named in the tenancy agreement as landlord, which they thought could have been involved with HLM. The owner indicated they ‘inherited’ the tenancy with the purchase of the property. The owner explained they then had a verbal agreement with Alex Hitchcock from HLM that HLM would rent (sub-let) the property out to other tenants with guaranteed income to the landlord owner for one year, and HLM would pay rent to the owner. The owner then expected to receive rental income from the tenants to whom HLM sub-let the property until 24 June 2022, which they did.
The owner said that, after 24 June 2022, another representative from HLM, called Jason, asked if they could carry on managing the property on the owner’s behalf for free. The landlord said he agreed verbally to this, on the condition that all the paperwork was put in the owner’s name as landlord. The owner then considered that Haven Living Management Limited became property managers after 24 June 2022 and said they were definitely not tenants of the owner. As HLM continued to pay rent on behalf of tenants and provide inspection reports to them for a while after this, the owner did not ask for copies of any tenancy agreement or bond lodgement forms. The owner said they later discovered that HLM had been putting the tenancy agreements and bond lodgement forms into the name of HLM only as landlord, in their agreements with other tenants who lived at the property. The owner was unsure as to what happened with the payment of the bond that was the subject of the tenancy agreement, as it is not held by the Bond Centre in the owner’s name. This was confirmed by the Bond Centre.
The owner said they have had difficulties getting any response from HLM about their claims, as they get referred by HLM back to Alex Hitchcock, whom they cannot reach and who does not respond to them.
The owner said the property was finally returned to their possession, by one of the tenants that HLM dealt with, on 28 August 2024, but there were rent arrears owing as at 28 August 2024 of $3,079.75 from HLM.
Given the evidence that the owner did not regard HLM as a tenant after 24 June 2022 but then considered HLM as property managers for the owner, given HLM was finding other tenants for the property, was remitting rent to the owner and providing routine inspection reports to the owner, I find it likely that HLM was acting as the landlord’s agent after 24 June 2022.
The owner claimed further that HLM owed them $1,790.55, as partial bond refunds HLM received from the Bond Centre, on the owner’s behalf, for which HLM did not pay them, being $345.00 from one tenancy and $1,445.55 from another tenancy. The owner claimed compensation for this in the amount of $1,790.55.
The owner also claimed for exemplary damages, on the basis that HLM failed to lodge 3 successive bonds for incoming tenants and for the distress the owners have experienced in dealing with these ongoing issues. There was no evidence provided to detail these claims further.
The owner acknowledged that, after 24 June 2022, they did not consider HLM as a tenant but, pursuant to a verbal agreement, considered HLM was their property manager, and thus acted as the owner’s agent, then. Given this, and the confusion about the roles of tenant and property manager in this situation, I find there is insufficient evidence to show that HLM was in fact a tenant rather than a property manager after 24 June 2022. I note the rent summary provided by the owner indicated that the ‘tenant’ HLM was significantly in credit with rent payments around 24 June 2022. As such, I dismiss the owner’s claim for rent arrears.
Given the owner’s stated relationship with HLM as property manager in relation to the owner’s claim for $1,790.55 for remittance of partial bond refunds related to other tenancies, which the owner said they did not receive from HLM, I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with such a claim, as this claim is not one covered pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as a residential tenancy dispute, further to section 4 RTA. Given the evidence, I consider this to likely be a contractual agency claim as between the owner and their agent property managers, which is not a residential tenancy dispute. This claim may be more appropriately dealt with by another Tribunal, such as the Disputes Tribunal, for example.
The owner’s claim for exemplary damages for HLM’s failure to lodge the bond on behalf of other tenants, similarly, is a situation where, as HLM were acting as property manager for the owner, and thus as the owner’s agent, then, in the owner’s view, this is also outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A tenant who alleges a landlord fails to lodge a bond on their behalf has standing to make such a claim in the Tribunal. However, the owner here does not. Filing fee
Given the above findings, I must dismiss the owner’s claims against HLM. As the owner has not been successful with the claim, I do not reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The owner asked for name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to 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.
The circumstances described by the owner indicated a highly confusing situation with the property, which raised many questions about whether HLM was a tenant or property manager/agent, as the boundaries of this appeared blurred from the evidence provided. Whilst another jurisdiction may be more appropriate to deal with some of the owner’s claims, I find these claims were filed by the owner in good faith, as the owner said they were uncertain of the law and of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find the landlord/owner’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. Therefore, I order that the landlord owner’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the respondent, the last three digits being 212, was called twice, without any response. As the respondent was served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord applicant has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of a tenancy. During the hearing, the owner landlord also raised a compensation claim related to bond refunds, as outlined below. The Law
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that an ‘agent’ in relation to any person who is a landlord or tenant, means an agent of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant; and includes an employee of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant.
Section 2 RTA provides that the definition of ‘landlord’ includes an agent of the landlord.
Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided. Background
The applicant owner/landlord provided a tenancy agreement which named a former owner of the property as landlord and named the tenant as Haven Living Management Limited (“HLM”). The landlord said their Family Trust purchased the property on 24 June 2021 from a holding company named in the tenancy agreement as landlord, which they thought could have been involved with HLM. The owner indicated they ‘inherited’ the tenancy with the purchase of the property. The owner explained they then had a verbal agreement with Alex Hitchcock from HLM that HLM would rent (sub-let) the property out to other tenants with guaranteed income to the landlord owner for one year, and HLM would pay rent to the owner. The owner then expected to receive rental income from the tenants to whom HLM sub-let the property until 24 June 2022, which they did.
The owner said that, after 24 June 2022, another representative from HLM, called Jason, asked if they could carry on managing the property on the owner’s behalf for free. The landlord said he agreed verbally to this, on the condition that all the paperwork was put in the owner’s name as landlord. The owner then considered that Haven Living Management Limited became property managers after 24 June 2022 and said they were definitely not tenants of the owner. As HLM continued to pay rent on behalf of tenants and provide inspection reports to them for a while after this, the owner did not ask for copies of any tenancy agreement or bond lodgement forms. The owner said they later discovered that HLM had been putting the tenancy agreements and bond lodgement forms into the name of HLM only as landlord, in their agreements with other tenants who lived at the property. The owner was unsure as to what happened with the payment of the bond that was the subject of the tenancy agreement, as it is not held by the Bond Centre in the owner’s name. This was confirmed by the Bond Centre.
The owner said they have had difficulties getting any response from HLM about their claims, as they get referred by HLM back to Alex Hitchcock, whom they cannot reach and who does not respond to them.
The owner said the property was finally returned to their possession, by one of the tenants that HLM dealt with, on 28 August 2024, but there were rent arrears owing as at 28 August 2024 of $3,079.75 from HLM.
Given the evidence that the owner did not regard HLM as a tenant after 24 June 2022 but then considered HLM as property managers for the owner, given HLM was finding other tenants for the property, was remitting rent to the owner and providing routine inspection reports to the owner, I find it likely that HLM was acting as the landlord’s agent after 24 June 2022.
The owner claimed further that HLM owed them $1,790.55, as partial bond refunds HLM received from the Bond Centre, on the owner’s behalf, for which HLM did not pay them, being $345.00 from one tenancy and $1,445.55 from another tenancy. The owner claimed compensation for this in the amount of $1,790.55.
The owner also claimed for exemplary damages, on the basis that HLM failed to lodge 3 successive bonds for incoming tenants and for the distress the owners have experienced in dealing with these ongoing issues. There was no evidence provided to detail these claims further.
The owner acknowledged that, after 24 June 2022, they did not consider HLM as a tenant but, pursuant to a verbal agreement, considered HLM was their property manager, and thus acted as the owner’s agent, then. Given this, and the confusion about the roles of tenant and property manager in this situation, I find there is insufficient evidence to show that HLM was in fact a tenant rather than a property manager after 24 June 2022. I note the rent summary provided by the owner indicated that the ‘tenant’ HLM was significantly in credit with rent payments around 24 June 2022. As such, I dismiss the owner’s claim for rent arrears.
Given the owner’s stated relationship with HLM as property manager in relation to the owner’s claim for $1,790.55 for remittance of partial bond refunds related to other tenancies, which the owner said they did not receive from HLM, I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with such a claim, as this claim is not one covered pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as a residential tenancy dispute, further to section 4 RTA. Given the evidence, I consider this to likely be a contractual agency claim as between the owner and their agent property managers, which is not a residential tenancy dispute. This claim may be more appropriately dealt with by another Tribunal, such as the Disputes Tribunal, for example.
The owner’s claim for exemplary damages for HLM’s failure to lodge the bond on behalf of other tenants, similarly, is a situation where, as HLM were acting as property manager for the owner, and thus as the owner’s agent, then, in the owner’s view, this is also outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A tenant who alleges a landlord fails to lodge a bond on their behalf has standing to make such a claim in the Tribunal. However, the owner here does not. Filing fee
Given the above findings, I must dismiss the owner’s claims against HLM. As the owner has not been successful with the claim, I do not reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The owner asked for name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to 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.
The circumstances described by the owner indicated a highly confusing situation with the property, which raised many questions about whether HLM was a tenant or property manager/agent, as the boundaries of this appeared blurred from the evidence provided. Whilst another jurisdiction may be more appropriate to deal with some of the owner’s claims, I find these claims were filed by the owner in good faith, as the owner said they were uncertain of the law and of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find the landlord/owner’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. Therefore, I order that the landlord owner’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176712 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176712 — Rent arrears

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