Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5202632 — Rent arrears
Decided 25 Jun 2025 · Published 25 Jun 2025 · Application 5202632
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
- Veronica Peters must pay [The landlord/s] $608.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,221.43 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Storage costs$210.00 Locksmith$180.00 Accommodation costs$570.00 Total award$2,208.43 Bond (paid but not with the current landlord)$1,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$608.43
Reasons
- Both parties attended the continuation hearing, conducted remotely.
- The landlord initially sought and received a possession order after the tenant failed to vacate at termination. The claims for compensation were adjourned for further hearing time.
- All claims have now been heard. A brief window after the last hearing was timetabled for further evidence. The landlord provided further documents. Nothing was received from the tenant who had challenged the rent summary based on earlier payments.
- A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
- The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Background
- The landlord purchased the premises on 17 January 2025, via a mortgagee sale. Westpac New Zealand Limited was the vendor.
- This tenancy was in place and continued into the new ownership. The previous owner, Carey Goodwin entered into the tenancy agreement with this tenant on 9 October 2024. A bond of $1600.00 was taken but no record of this bond exists at the Bond Centre. It is assumed Mr Goodwin failed to lodge the bond. Rent was due one week in advance.
- A letter from Mr Goodwin, dated 15 March 2025, confirmed bond and payments due and confirmed a completed Supplier form had been submitted to the Ministry of Social Development. A later letter from WINZ confirms ongoing repayments by the tenant towards advances for rent and bond.
- In determining bond and rent I have preferred the terms of the tenancy agreement over any prior letter to WINZ with higher amounts. That letter is considered a less definitive record of monies contractually due.
- The new owner wanted the premises as her residence.
- A valid notice to terminate was served on the tenant on 17 January 2025. The end of the tenancy was to be 21 March 2025. The tenant did not vacate as required and this application was lodged.
- An immediate possession order was made on 10 April 2025. By mutual agreement of the parties, vacant possession was expected after Sunday 13 April 2025.
- A complicating aspect of this tenancy has been the mortgagee sale. Such a process will often involve an uncooperative owner. That appears so here. There was no transition of this tenancy to the new owner and no adequate records of any prior rent paid or bond received are available.
- It appears such potential problems were anticipated by the purchaser (or her advisor) as in the Sale and Purchase Agreement an attempt to add an additional handwritten clause (26.4) was made. It was later deleted and initialled. It is difficult to read it exactly as it has been struck out, but the wording appears to attempt to make the Vendor and tenant responsible to sort out tenancy/bond matters between themselves.
- This is important as I consider it more likely than not that a bond of $1600.00 was paid by the tenant. That bond should have been lodged with the Bond Centre and available to the landlord here. It was not lodged. That does not mean, in my mind, that the tenant should have lost the benefit of her bond such that the debt at the end of the tenancy does not include it. I consider it was for the purchaser to adjust any purchase price after the rejection of the additional clause sought, reflecting the risk anticipated without such a clause. A bond of $1,600.00 has been applied against the debt in this order.
Does the tenant owe rent?
- In short, yes. This is another ownership transition issue that has created some confusion. The rent week and the purchase date are different. Effectively, the purchase date was five days into a rent week. The landlord has understandably determined rent as owing from 17 January 2025, but the unanswered question is whether the vendor or previous owner received the weekly rent as due five days earlier.
- An opportunity for the tenant to provide historic banking records was provided but not taken up. It may be that she had not paid any rent. However, I have, on balance, decided to treat rent prior to 17 January 2025 as paid, effectively meaning rent arrears are calculated from 22 January 2025 – the first complete rent week with the new owner. I conclude this based on the next nine weeks rent being paid consistently and in full (noting weeks 10-11 were not paid).
- This means rent due from 22 January 2025 to 13 April 2025 was $5,271.43. Rent paid was $4050.00. This means rent arrears of $1,221.43 are due to the landlord.
Is the tenant liable for other costs incurred by the landlord?
- Section 40((1)(e)(i) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires the tenant quit the premises on the termination of the tenancy. This means after 21 March 2025 the tenant should have left. She did not and an application to this Tribunal and subsequent possession order was required before she did leave.
- Such a failure, to quit the premises here, without reasonable excuse, is an unlawful act that can attract exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00. The landlord did not seek exemplary damages bur rather compensation for consequential costs incurred by her due to the tenant’s failure to quit.
- As previously noted, the owner intended to move in. In anticipation of vacant possession from 21 March 2025, movers of the owner’s stored possessions were booked, and her accommodation ended.
- The consequence of the failure of the tenant was a cancellation of the movers, leaving further storage costs with the owner. Fresh accommodation was arranged. Both actions were unexpected and a direct consequence of the tenant’s failure to leave.
- I heard from the owner on the distress and expenses she has incurred. The actual costs inflated further because after actual vacant possession there was a further delay in relocating the stored items, due to scheduling constraints of the contractor.
- The tenant remaining after 21 March 2025 is not considered belligerence but reflective of a lack of alternative options. That granted, her cost avoidance shifted other costs onto the owner. I consider the owner is entitled to compensation for such costs. She also sought general damages for emotional stress. It is rare for the Tribunal to make such awards in these circumstances. Some expectation of difficulties in taking up ownership after a mortgagee sale process will often be reflected in the purchase price. I make no specific order for emotional stress.
- In determining appropriate compensation I have considered the overall circumstances of this tenancy, its operation, transition and ending. I have determined a three-week period of costs for storage and accommodation as incurred by the owner should be compensated. This equates to $70 and $190 per week respectively, totalling $780.00 compensation. This is awarded.
Did the tenant return the keys?
- On Monday 14 April 2025 the owner went to the premises. The tenant had vacated and removed most items but failed to leave the keys. There was an exchange between them via text but after several hours the owner had not been provided with the keys. The keys had been retained by another person helping the tenant shift.
- The owner called out a locksmith at a cost of $180.00. She sought this cost compensated.
- The tenant is responsible for returning all keys to the landlord (see section 40(1)(a)(e)(iv) RTA). The failure to do some in a timely manner left the owner with no choice and I consider the engaging of the locksmith was justified in the circumstances. That means the tenant is liable to compensate the cost incurred and $180.00 is awarded. Filing fee
- The applicant has been substantially successful. Therefore, I must award the filing fee cost. Suppression
- Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
- The landlord requested suppression in its application. As she has been substantially successful this is ordered.