What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208832 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 5208832?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208832?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12164111-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208832 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 5208832?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208832?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12164111-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4a/5 Chapel Street, Greymouth 7805 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208832 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

This was the second case management hearing for this case. At the last hearing, Chapel Corner Limited was substituted as the landlord and Nick Hoogwerf was added as a respondent.

This a sad case of a tenant who was enticed to enter a tenancy agreement and to become the tenant of extremely sub-standard accommodation in Greymouth. The accommodation did not match the depiction of the premises shown to the tenant online. He did not live in Greymouth at the time and so he could not view it. The accommodation, which formed part of larger premises, was eventually declared by the local authority to unsanitary and unhabitable.

The purpose of this hearing was to allow the Tribunal to consider who, in addition to the landlord named on the tenancy agreement, should be named as respondents to the tenant’s application.

The tenant’s dealings were with Nick Hoogwerf who appeared to be acting on behalf of Chapel Corner Limited although I note that he is not an officer of that company. Donna Miers, his mother, is the sole director and shareholder of the company.

If Mr Hoogwerf had the company’s authority to act for it, that would make him an agent of the company. As such, he can be treated as a landlord under s2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. If he was acting without authority, he would be guilty of breach of warranty of authority and he would be personally liable.

Calls to all parties at the time of the hearing (including to Donna Miers) went to voicemail. Because the tenant did not attend the hearing, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled, the application must be dismissed. It is possible that the tenant has chosen not to pursue this application because the likelihood of recovering any compensation from the respondents is slim. Mr Hoogwerf and Ms Miers have a history of nefarious conduct.

Reasons

This was the second case management hearing for this case. At the last hearing, Chapel Corner Limited was substituted as the landlord and Nick Hoogwerf was added as a respondent.

The purpose of this hearing was to allow the Tribunal to consider who, in addition to the landlord named on the tenancy agreement, should be named as respondents to the tenant’s application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208832 — Tenancy dispute at 4a/5 Chapel Street, Greymouth 7805

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208832 — Tenancy dispute at 4a/5 Chapel Street, Greymouth 7805

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions