What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5243753 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 5243753?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243753?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12027631-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5243753 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 5243753?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243753?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12027631-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5243753 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243753. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
together with the filing fee of	$27.00		] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
David Emtage must pay [The landlord/s] $1,944.43 immediately, being rent arrears to 10 May 2025 of $1,917.43 together with the filing fee of $27.00.
The landlord’s claims for electricity arrears and payment of a security invoice are dismissed.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by [company officers].
There was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the hearing today. The hearing therefore proceeded in the tenant’s absence. The landlord’s claims
This was a service tenancy. The landlord seeks rent arrears for the period 25 March to 10 May 2025.
The landlord is the owner of an industrial yard which had various onsite accommodation. However following notices from Auckland Council advising that only one of the onsite units had resource consent (the cottage), the landlord gave notice to the tenants living on site ending their tenancies.
Mr Emtage was one of the original tenants. However the landlord needed demolition and associated work done on the property and so offered Mr Emtage, who is a builder, work from 26 February 2025 to 18 March 2025. The key terms of the arrangement (for the purposes of this claim) were set out in a document dated 15 February 2025 as follows: a. Mr Emtage was to start work on 26 February 2025; b. Specific work was to be done on particular days in accordance with a proposed timeline, with the last work to be completed on 17 March 2025; c. Mr Emtage was to be paid an hourly rate for his work; and d. Mr Emtage could live in the cottage until 18 March 2025 and his accommodation would be free for the duration of the contract.
The landlord said that they were disappointed to find that Mr Emtage had not finished by the work by 18 March 2025. After discussing matters with him they agreed that he could continue to do work for the landlord but would need to pay $300.00 per week for his accommodation in the cottage.
The new arrangement was not documented in writing but I find that the parties agreed that Mr Emtage would pay rent in the amount of $300.00 from 18 March 2025. I am satisfied that the parties agreed because Mr Emtage did in fact make a payment of $300.00 to the landlord on that day and he also sent the landlord a text message on 3 April 2025 stating “I paid as agreed on the 18 th March 300 dollars in advance” and “the next was due on the 25 th ”.
Mr Emtage’s email appears to have been sent in response to a notice issued by the landlord on 3 April 2025 stating that the last day of the tenancy would be 15 April 2025. However that notice only gave the tenant 11 days’ notice. Mr Emtage accordingly did not leave on 15 April 2025.
The tenancy ended when the landlord served the tenant with a correct 14-day notice on 26 April 2025 in accordance with section 53(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The last day of the tenancy was to be 11 May 2025 and the tenant left on that date.
The landlord provided a rent summary showing that rent was in arrears in the amount of $1800 by 6 May 2025. The landlord cannot claim rent for the day the tenant left (11 May 2025) as the tenant was not there for the full day. The landlord therefore seeks the additional four days (7 – 10 May 2025) being $171.43. The total claimed is $1,971.43.
The landlord’s claim is proved. Electricity
The landlord claimed the sum of $408.93 for electricity and produced invoices for the amounts claimed.
I am not satisfied that the parties had agreed that the tenant would be liable for electricity charges in addition to the $300.00 weekly payments. The landlord did not provide the tenant with monthly electricity invoices for payment as would usually be expected and there is no mention of electricity payments in any of the correspondence between the parties.
The landlord’s claim for electricity is not proved and is dismissed. Security invoice
The landlord said that when they gave the tenant notice ending the tenancy on 3 April 2025 they had expected that the tenant would vacate. They were unaware that they were required to give the tenant 14 days’ notice under section 53(1) RTA.
When the tenant did not vacate by 11 April 2025 the landlord engaged a security company to serve the tenant with a trespass notice. The notice was issued on or about 23 April 2025.
The landlord claims the sum of $126.37 charged by the security company as proved by invoice.
In my view the landlord had no basis on which to issue a trespass notice. Until the tenant had been served with effective notice that had expired he remained the lawful occupier of the tenancy premises.
The tenant is not liable to pay the security invoice. This claim is dismissed. The tenant’s claims
The tenant had filed claims against the landlord alleging that the landlord: a. Breached section 53(1) RTA by giving less than 14 days’ notice; b. The landlord harassed him and breached his right to quiet enjoyment; c. The landlord cut off the power supply on two occasions; d. The unit did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards; and e. The landlord failed to let him know when he was coming onto the property.
For completeness I note that the landlord advised at the hearing today that they disputed the tenant’s claims and had wanted to present evidence refuting the tenant’s claims.
However the tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time or request an adjournment and so the tenant’s claims are dismissed on that basis. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00.
The landlord has applied for an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the substantially successful party (see section 95A RTA).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243753. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
together with the filing fee of	$27.00		] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
David Emtage must pay [The landlord/s] $1,944.43 immediately, being rent arrears to 10 May 2025 of $1,917.43 together with the filing fee of $27.00.
The landlord’s claims for electricity arrears and payment of a security invoice are dismissed.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by [company officers].
There was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the hearing today. The hearing therefore proceeded in the tenant’s absence. The landlord’s claims
This was a service tenancy. The landlord seeks rent arrears for the period 25 March to 10 May 2025.
The landlord is the owner of an industrial yard which had various onsite accommodation. However following notices from Auckland Council advising that only one of the onsite units had resource consent (the cottage), the landlord gave notice to the tenants living on site ending their tenancies.
Mr Emtage was one of the original tenants. However the landlord needed demolition and associated work done on the property and so offered Mr Emtage, who is a builder, work from 26 February 2025 to 18 March 2025. The key terms of the arrangement (for the purposes of this claim) were set out in a document dated 15 February 2025 as follows: a. Mr Emtage was to start work on 26 February 2025; b. Specific work was to be done on particular days in accordance with a proposed timeline, with the last work to be completed on 17 March 2025; c. Mr Emtage was to be paid an hourly rate for his work; and d. Mr Emtage could live in the cottage until 18 March 2025 and his accommodation would be free for the duration of the contract.
The landlord said that they were disappointed to find that Mr Emtage had not finished by the work by 18 March 2025. After discussing matters with him they agreed that he could continue to do work for the landlord but would need to pay $300.00 per week for his accommodation in the cottage.
The new arrangement was not documented in writing but I find that the parties agreed that Mr Emtage would pay rent in the amount of $300.00 from 18 March 2025. I am satisfied that the parties agreed because Mr Emtage did in fact make a payment of $300.00 to the landlord on that day and he also sent the landlord a text message on 3 April 2025 stating “I paid as agreed on the 18 th March 300 dollars in advance” and “the next was due on the 25 th ”.
Mr Emtage’s email appears to have been sent in response to a notice issued by the landlord on 3 April 2025 stating that the last day of the tenancy would be 15 April 2025. However that notice only gave the tenant 11 days’ notice. Mr Emtage accordingly did not leave on 15 April 2025.
The tenancy ended when the landlord served the tenant with a correct 14-day notice on 26 April 2025 in accordance with section 53(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The last day of the tenancy was to be 11 May 2025 and the tenant left on that date.
The landlord provided a rent summary showing that rent was in arrears in the amount of $1800 by 6 May 2025. The landlord cannot claim rent for the day the tenant left (11 May 2025) as the tenant was not there for the full day. The landlord therefore seeks the additional four days (7 – 10 May 2025) being $171.43. The total claimed is $1,971.43.
The landlord’s claim is proved. Electricity
The landlord claimed the sum of $408.93 for electricity and produced invoices for the amounts claimed.
I am not satisfied that the parties had agreed that the tenant would be liable for electricity charges in addition to the $300.00 weekly payments. The landlord did not provide the tenant with monthly electricity invoices for payment as would usually be expected and there is no mention of electricity payments in any of the correspondence between the parties.
The landlord’s claim for electricity is not proved and is dismissed. Security invoice
The landlord said that when they gave the tenant notice ending the tenancy on 3 April 2025 they had expected that the tenant would vacate. They were unaware that they were required to give the tenant 14 days’ notice under section 53(1) RTA.
When the tenant did not vacate by 11 April 2025 the landlord engaged a security company to serve the tenant with a trespass notice. The notice was issued on or about 23 April 2025.
The landlord claims the sum of $126.37 charged by the security company as proved by invoice.
In my view the landlord had no basis on which to issue a trespass notice. Until the tenant had been served with effective notice that had expired he remained the lawful occupier of the tenancy premises.
The tenant is not liable to pay the security invoice. This claim is dismissed. The tenant’s claims
The tenant had filed claims against the landlord alleging that the landlord: a. Breached section 53(1) RTA by giving less than 14 days’ notice; b. The landlord harassed him and breached his right to quiet enjoyment; c. The landlord cut off the power supply on two occasions; d. The unit did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards; and e. The landlord failed to let him know when he was coming onto the property.
For completeness I note that the landlord advised at the hearing today that they disputed the tenant’s claims and had wanted to present evidence refuting the tenant’s claims.
However the tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time or request an adjournment and so the tenant’s claims are dismissed on that basis. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00.
The landlord has applied for an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the substantially successful party (see section 95A RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243753 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243753 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions