What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229731 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 5229731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229731?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11876428-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229731 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 5229731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229731?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11876428-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Room suppressed], 61 Carrington Street, Lower Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229731 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details that includes the tenant’s room number but excludes the general address. Therefore, the general address and name of the property is not subject to a restriction on publication.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears and a possession order is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must hear an application made by the landlord. The landlord seeks termination and possession of a tenancy at a room at the “Carrington Motel” that the tenant occupies. This application was heard alongside applications 5229780 and 5229772. Separate orders have been issued for each application.
A representative, Mr Bank of Strada Holdings Limited, attended the Tribunal on behalf of the owner. Evidence that Guanming Zhu consented to Mr Bank appearing on his behalf was filed.
Mr Bank says he has been managing the property on behalf of the landlord since August 2024. The owner/landlord is a trust and the property manager says that the sole trustees name is Guanming Zhu.
I permitted Mr Bank to appear for Guanming Zhu because of his property management involvement described above - a property management business is likely to be regarded as a landlord pursuant to the definition of a landlord contained within s 2, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as identified in Abdulla Moussa Ragab Hamouda v Gralin property Management (Auckland Central) Limited [2024] NZDC 16642. Further, and in any event, he says that Guanming Zhu does not have sufficient command of English to take part in the proceedings and he also has a personal family issue which means he cannot attend today. Therefore, I am satisfied that Guanming Zhu is unable to appear in person or unable to present his case adequately (as per s 93(5) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)) so this is sufficient to permit Mr Bank to represent Guanming Zhu in any event.
[The tenant/s] did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied she has had notice of it as she has contacted the Tribunal about it in connection with a possible cross application. Therefore, I proceeded in her absence today. Civil burden of proof and the application
As explained, as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”.
Importantly, as noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
I asked Mr Bank to clarify the basis for this application. I explained that it was not for the Tribunal to locate and identify any possible applicable sections of the RTA and then to apply them, but it was for the landlord to make the application to tell the Tribunal the basis for his application.
Mr Banks explained that he was proceeding only on the basis that he was seeking possession on the basis of a notice to terminate that had been provided to the tenant.
I took time to ensure this was the only basis for the application because other issues (such as the condition of the property) were raised during in the hearing and because rent arrears were referred to as part of the landlord’s claim. This was necessary as I wanted to be completely sure that I was addressing everything the landlord wanted considered as part of the application.
It is not for the Tribunal to formulate the basis of an application for any party and, if Mr Bank wanted the Tribunal to consider the application based on any other ground it was open for the landlord to have made the application that way. The premises
I have set out above how the tenant occupies a room at the premises which is also known as the Carrington Motel.
Section 4 RTA sets out that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes unless specifically excluded by section 5.
Section 2(1) RTA defines the landlord as a grantor of a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms residential premises, premises, rent, tenancy and tenancy agreement are defined in section 2 RTA as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful premises includes (other than in relation to a boarding house tenancy, in which case the definition in section 66B applies)— (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land rent means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
Considering the definitions in section 2 RTA I am satisfied that there is a residential tenancy and so, unless excluded, the provisions of the RTA will apply. [The tenant/s] was to pay rent for the right to occupy her room.
Section 10 RTA sets out that that if a party considers the RTA not to apply it is for that party to establish the facts upon which it is contended that the RTA does not apply. I asked Mr Bank if the landlord considered whether an exclusion to the RTA applied here because he had expressed in the application that the occupation of the premises was week to week (although I note for completeness that a rent summary filed by the landlord alleges rent liability from 1 August 2024, so [The tenant/s], on the basis of the landlord’s evidence alone, has been in the property for a substantial period for time).
Mr Bank did not seek to put forward or rely on any exclusion in the RTA for the landlord. Further, he says that he also does not regard the premises as being a boarding house. I note that section 66B RTA has been held to be an enabling rather than a deeming provision: just because a particular tenancy might fall within the definition of “boarding house tenancy” does not mean it has to be regarded as such Cutlers Ltd v Thompson DC Ōtepoti Dunedin CIV-2013- 012-410, 4 November 2013).
He says the landlord considers that [The tenant/s] has a periodic tenancy. On the basis of the evidence before me, I have no reason to doubt this. Possession
The landlord suggested that [The tenant/s] was not still occupying the premises but that the possession order was sought anyway in case she came back.
This application was heard alongside another application for a different occupant in a different room at the same premises and I heard from that occupant that [The tenant/s] had in fact left.
As set out above, the landlord does not seek rent arrears from [The tenant/s] despite it being included in the application. Instead, the landlord seeks possession simply on the basis of a letter telling [The tenant/s] that her occupancy is terminated.
This letter was sent on 3 February 2025 and it seeks termination on 11 February 2025.
This application for a possession order is dismissed because: a. where a periodic tenancy is in place, a tenancy cannot be terminated by a notice such as the one the landlord gave on 3 February 2025 to [The tenant/s]. For a landlord to terminate a periodic tenancy by way of notice, the law requires (as at 3 February 2025 when this notice was given), 90 days’ notice to be given (see section 51(1), RTA). 42 days’ notice can be given in certain specified situations (section 51(2), RTA) - but where the shorter period is said to apply the reason must be given (section 51(3)(ca)). b. The notice given here did not comply with section 51 RTA because it did not give [The tenant/s] sufficient notice. The notice is simply invalid. c. The Tribunal will not grant a possession order based on an invalid notice.
Further, the landlord made the application on the basis that [The tenant/s] lived at room [room number suppressed]. As set out above, I heard at the hearing how another occupier in fact lived in room [room number suppressed]. Mr Banks was dismissive in his approach when asked about this – stating he believed [The tenant/s] was supposed to be in [another room] “and we will work with that”. I would therefore have dismissed the application in any event on the basis that I was not sufficiently certain that the correct room had been identified at all by the landlord and that the application did not specify the right room. I find it more likely than not that she did not occupy room 4 given it is not disputed that another person occupies in that room.
Finally, and although nothing turns on this given the findings above, in any event, I am also not satisfied that [The tenant/s] remains in occupation at all.
The landlord did not pursue rent arrears, so this is dismissed. Suppression
The landlord’s claim has been dismissed. The landlord does not seek suppression of its identifying details in its application.
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 (s 95A(4) RTA).
The tenant did not attend but the landlord’s application did not succeed. Having her name published could impact on the tenant’s ability to locate another property. If she had attended the hearing she could have requested suppression and I would have awarded this pursuant to s 95A(1) RTA.
Subject to the limitation on the address set out below, I therefore award [The tenant/s] suppression of her name and identifying details on my own initiative.
However, while I supress her room number, I do not suppress the general address or property name. This is because it is in the public interest to know the location of this premises given the nature of this tenancy, the nature of this application and the issues raised. Further, the landlord says problems they are experiencing at the premises are widely known: if this is the case the publication of the landlord’s name will likely identify the premises generally in any event. The landlord does not seek name suppression and it is also in the public interest that the landlord’s name is published given the nature of the premises and the issues raised. I consider that publishing the location / general name of the premises while suppressing the room number and the tenant’s name sufficiently protects the tenant while balancing the public interest.
As set out above, the landlord did not seek name suppression in its application, so I have not awarded this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229731 — Rent arrears at [Room suppressed], 61 Carrington Street, Lower

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229731 — Rent arrears at [Room suppressed], 61 Carrington Street, Lower

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