What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229780 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 5229780?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229780?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11876399-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229780 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 5229780?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229780?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11876399-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Room suppressed], 61 Carrington Street, Lower Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229780 — 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 details. Therefore, the general address and name of the property is not subject to a restriction on publication.
BY CONSENT: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Room suppressed], 61 Carrington Street, Lower Vogeltown, New Plymouth 4310 is terminated, and possession is granted to Guanming Zhu As The Trustee For The G Zhu & C Gu Family Trust (Strada Holdings Limited As Agent) at 11.59pm on Sunday 22 June 2025.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. 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 5229731 and 5229772. Separate orders have been created for each party.
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 (RTA) 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) RTA) so this is sufficient to permit Mr Bank to represent Guanming Zhu in any event.
[The tenant/s] attended the hearing. He says he only recently got notice of the hearing when it was placed on his door. However, I heard from Mr Bank that he had been to the property and seen that there was unopened post at the premises (so [The tenant/s] had likely received it but not opened it). In any event, the issues before the Tribunal today are not complex so I consider that the tenant has had sufficient opportunity to consider the application and therefore I proceeded 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.
During the hearing I asked Mr Bank to clarify the basis for the landlord’s 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 the application is made on the basis of abandonment alone and there was in fact no claim being pursued in relation to rent arrears (despite a claim for the recovery of significant arrears being included on the application).
Mr Bank appeared at times frustrated by my asking for this confirmation. However, I considered this to be necessary as I wanted to be completely sure that I was addressing everything Mr Bank wanted considered as part of his application. The application was not altogether clear given the documents filed in support and the circumstances of the case being the high alleged rent arrears, the position taken by the tenant that he was still living at the premises (as set out below, not challenged to any real degree or with any evidence by the landlord), the fact that Mr Bank referred to a letter from the Council regarding the safety of the premises and the alleged conduct of those living at the property.
Despite these issues the application did not seek to terminate the tenancy on these bases in any way.
At times Mr Bank appeared exasperated that people were living in, what he says, is an unsafe property and questioned who would be to blame if something happened. Of course, premises that may be unfit or have regulatory issues will always be very concerning. However, the evidence placed before the Tribunal to this extent was very limited (and also, as stated above did not form part of the application to terminate). Mr Bank at times referred to this issue being commonly known in the area. However, the Tribunal is limited to evidence placed before it. In any event, as set out above, it is not for the Tribunal to formulate the basis of an application for any party and, if the landlord wanted the Tribunal to consider the application based on the state of the premises (or any other basis or ground) then it was open for the landlord to make the application that way and produce evidence to support that.
The landlord has specifically selected the basis for the application below as being abandonment and Mr Bank tells me this on the basis of legal advice. 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 (it is disputed whether he had to pay $450 or $500 a week but nothing turns on this in this application) for the right to occupy his 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 here that the rent summary filed by the landlord shows rent liability from 1 August 2024. Therefore, [The tenant/s], on the basis of the landlord’s evidence alone, has been in the property for a substantial period for time and [The tenant/s] referred to being there for even longer - over 2 and a half years.
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 and filed written information to that effect. 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. Termination and possession
As set out above, Mr Bank explained that the landlord was only seeking possession of [The tenant/s]’s room by way of abandonment. [The tenant/s] says he still lives in his room but he admitted that at present he is not paying rent. He says he is still looking for somewhere else to live.
Under section 61(1) RTA the Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date.
Importantly, a tenancy is considered abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, does not intend returning or to fulfil their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
Mr Bank took the view the property had been abandoned simply on the basis that [The tenant/s] was not paying rent. He had no other evidence of abandonment, and it was not seriously suggested that [The tenant/s] had left or was not living there. Non-payment of rent alone does not amount to abandonment.
However, I do not need to determine this issue because once the evidence was heard, ultimately the parties were able to agree together that the tenancy would terminate, and possession would be returned to the landlord at 11.59pm on Sunday 22 June 2025.
I therefore make this order to terminate the tenancy and grant possession to the landlord on this basis at this date and time by consent.
As set out above, Mr Bank confirmed he was not seeking rent arrears despite these being outlined in his application. The application for rent arrears is therefore dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
The landlord has had limited success because the application included a claim for significant rent arrears but the landlord decided not to pursue this. The success is limited to a negotiated outcome. I therefore decline to award the filing fee.
[The tenant/s] seeks suppression. The landlord does not.
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. Further, 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 RTA).
Although possession has been awarded to the landlord this was as a result of an order made by consent that the parties agreed together. This is an outcome that could have been obtained at a mediation which is an otherwise confidential process.
Subject to that limitation set out below concerning the address, I therefore award [The tenant/s] suppression of his name and identifying details as requested. This is because it is in the public interest that the parties can make agreements to resolve disputes.
However, while I supress [The tenant/s]’s 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 and the issues raised. Further, the landlord says this the 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 tenant/s]’s name and room number 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 5229780 — Rent arrears at [Room suppressed], 61 Carrington Street, Lower

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229780 — 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