What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5192872 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 810, 140 Hobson Street, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5192872?

Rent Arrears: $1,448.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192872?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192872?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11779525-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5192872 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 810, 140 Hobson Street, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5192872?

Rent Arrears: $1,448.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192872?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192872?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11779525-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 810, 140 Hobson Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5192872 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5192872 — net $1,156.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 May 2025	$1,448.57	Rent arrears to 1 May 2025
Net award	$1,156.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,156.57

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 810, 140 Hobson Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland 1010, HomeGround Apartments is terminated, and possession is granted to Auckland City Mission Housing Limited, at 11.59 pm on Sunday 4 May 2025.

[The tenant/s] must pay Auckland City Mission Housing Limited $1,156.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $292.00 (6459900-002) to Auckland City Mission Housing Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant did not answer either of the calls made at the scheduled time on the number provided to the Tribunal.

Ms Goyal attended on behalf of the landlord.

Ms Goyal stated that both notices of hearing were attached to the tenant’s door, the first on 17 March 2025 and the second on 14 April 2025.

Because I am satisfied the tenant has been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 and the tenant has not requested an adjournment, the hearing was conducted in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing as of today’s date is $1,448.57. Name suppression

Ms Goyal seeks name suppression on behalf of the landlord and the tenant.

Ms Goyal stated that Auckland City Mission is social housing provider who make extensive efforts to work with tenants before seeking termination of the tenancy. She stated that seeking termination in this case could be damaging to Auckland City Mission’s reputation in the eyes of their clients, some of whom are vulnerable.

The statutory provisions that apply are as follows: 95Proceedings usually to be in public (1)Except as provided in subsections (1A) and (2), the proceedings of the Tribunal shall be conducted in public. 95ASuppression orders (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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.

There is a presumption under section 95 of the RTA that proceedings will be in public and that Tribunal Orders will be published including the parties’ identities. This presumption is displaced by section 95A, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest.

The public interest in this case is that law is administered, and is seen to be administered openly and fairly and without favour or prejudice.

Ms Goyal’s submission for name suppression is not one regarding any sensitive issues and is not supported by the law. In my view it would serve only to create a false distinction between Auckland City Mission as a social housing provider and other social housing providers, or between social housing providers and other landlords.

No reason has been given why Auckland City Mission’s reputation is any different to any other landlord, or why the public or tenants in particular, should think less of Auckland City Mission or any other landlord as a result of them enforcing their rights under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986. Afterall it is the Tribunal and not a landlord that terminates tenancies.

There is no statutory provision that places social housing providers in a different category of landlord to non-social housing providers. I consider it would be contrary to the interests of justice to create a suggestion of such a distinction.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5192872 — net $1,156.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 May 2025	$1,448.57	Rent arrears to 1 May 2025
Net award	$1,156.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,156.57

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 810, 140 Hobson Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland 1010, HomeGround Apartments is terminated, and possession is granted to Auckland City Mission Housing Limited, at 11.59 pm on Sunday 4 May 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay Auckland City Mission Housing Limited $1,156.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $292.00 (6459900-002) to Auckland City Mission Housing Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant did not answer either of the calls made at the scheduled time on the number provided to the Tribunal.
Ms Goyal attended on behalf of the landlord.
Ms Goyal stated that both notices of hearing were attached to the tenant’s door, the first on 17 March 2025 and the second on 14 April 2025.
Because I am satisfied the tenant has been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 and the tenant has not requested an adjournment, the hearing was conducted in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing as of today’s date is $1,448.57. Name suppression
Ms Goyal seeks name suppression on behalf of the landlord and the tenant.
Ms Goyal stated that Auckland City Mission is social housing provider who make extensive efforts to work with tenants before seeking termination of the tenancy. She stated that seeking termination in this case could be damaging to Auckland City Mission’s reputation in the eyes of their clients, some of whom are vulnerable.
The statutory provisions that apply are as follows: 95Proceedings usually to be in public (1)Except as provided in subsections (1A) and (2), the proceedings of the Tribunal shall be conducted in public. 95ASuppression orders (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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.
There is a presumption under section 95 of the RTA that proceedings will be in public and that Tribunal Orders will be published including the parties’ identities. This presumption is displaced by section 95A, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest.
The public interest in this case is that law is administered, and is seen to be administered openly and fairly and without favour or prejudice.
Ms Goyal’s submission for name suppression is not one regarding any sensitive issues and is not supported by the law. In my view it would serve only to create a false distinction between Auckland City Mission as a social housing provider and other social housing providers, or between social housing providers and other landlords.
No reason has been given why Auckland City Mission’s reputation is any different to any other landlord, or why the public or tenants in particular, should think less of Auckland City Mission or any other landlord as a result of them enforcing their rights under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986. Afterall it is the Tribunal and not a landlord that terminates tenancies.
There is no statutory provision that places social housing providers in a different category of landlord to non-social housing providers. I consider it would be contrary to the interests of justice to create a suggestion of such a distinction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192872 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 810, 140 Hobson Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192872 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 810, 140 Hobson Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions