What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5245831?

The tribunal order states: Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited is granted

How much money was awarded in case 5245831?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $766.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245831?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12041925-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5245831?

The tribunal order states: Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited is granted

How much money was awarded in case 5245831?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $766.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245831?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12041925-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40A Raihara Street, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245831 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245831 — net $793.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$766.25	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$793.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$793.25

Order

Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited is granted possession of the premises at 40A Raihara Street, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405 immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay $793.25 from the bond of $1,040.00 to Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited immediately as calculated in the table below.
The balance of the bond of $246.75 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenants sought to be represented by Reginald Ropiha. That application was initially declined by the Tribunal as no application under s.93 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) for representation had been filed by the tenant. After a short space of time, it became apparent that for pragmatic reasons, the hearing could proceed more conveniently if Mr. Ropiha was allowed to represent the tenants. There was no opposition to that occurring from the landlord.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, release of the bond and reimbursement of the two filing fees under the two applications noted in the intituling to this order.
The landlord’s evidence was that the tenancy ended on 24 May 2025, which is less than 90 days ago. The basis for the termination was the serving of a 90 day termination notice on the tenants. The notice was dated 24 February 2025 and recorded that the final date for the tenancy would be 24 May 2025.
The requirements of section 64(1) RTA are satisfied. That section provides that on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person (the emphasis is mine). Where the application is made out the Tribunal does not retain any discretion.
The submission of the tenant’s representative were that the tenants lacked mental capacity now and lacked capacity when they entered the tenancy agreement in September 2016. He said that the tenancy agreement was therefore invalid.
I note that the tenancy agreement appears to have been signed by both the tenants. Rent has been paid by the tenants throughout this tenancy, with only brief periods where they have been in arrears.
In New Zealand, the presumption of mental capacity applies. Individuals are presumed to have mental capacity until proven otherwise. No evidence supporting the proposition that the tenants did not have mental capacity was provided to the Tribunal. It is not sufficient to simply assert that the tenants lacked capacity at any relevant time Appropriate evidence is required. That being the situation, I must proceed on the basis that the tenants did have mental capacity to enter into the tenancy agreement.
During the course of the hearing Mr. Ropiha said that the tenants had now left the premises. He said that they had left the premises last week.
Having made the finding that the tenants have at all times had the relevant mental capacity, I find that the requirements of section 64(1) RTA satisfied and out of an abundance of caution an order is made granting possession of the premises to the landlord immediately.

How much is owed for rent ?

I proposed dealing with the rent issue on the basis that the tenants left the premises on Monday 23 June 2025. The arrears on the date when tenancy ended were $766.25. Exemplary Damages
Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 24 May 2025, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises on 24 May 2025, nor was any reasonable excuse for that failure provided. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
No evidence was proffered by the tenant to suggest that they had remained at the premises after 24 May 2025, unintentionally. That they have remained at the premises for approximately one month more reinforces evidence of their intention.
The effect of the unlawful act on the landlord has been to deprive the landlord of rent during that time. The order for rent arrears made by the Tribunal means that that matter has already been addressed. No further evidence on that issue was provided by the landlord.
It is in the interests of this landlord and landlords generally to have tenants comply with termination notices. The tenant had been given 90 days within which to obtain alternative accommodation.
Having considered the matters above, an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale is appropriate. The tenants are ordered to pay exemplary damages of $250.00.
As Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee. I have ordered the reimbursement of one filing fee only.
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
In the present case, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenants’ names and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245831 — net $793.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$766.25	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$793.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$793.25

Order

Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited is granted possession of the premises at 40A Raihara Street, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405 immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay $793.25 from the bond of $1,040.00 to Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited immediately as calculated in the table below.
The balance of the bond of $246.75 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenants sought to be represented by Reginald Ropiha. That application was initially declined by the Tribunal as no application under s.93 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) for representation had been filed by the tenant. After a short space of time, it became apparent that for pragmatic reasons, the hearing could proceed more conveniently if Mr. Ropiha was allowed to represent the tenants. There was no opposition to that occurring from the landlord.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, release of the bond and reimbursement of the two filing fees under the two applications noted in the intituling to this order.
The landlord’s evidence was that the tenancy ended on 24 May 2025, which is less than 90 days ago. The basis for the termination was the serving of a 90 day termination notice on the tenants. The notice was dated 24 February 2025 and recorded that the final date for the tenancy would be 24 May 2025.
The requirements of section 64(1) RTA are satisfied. That section provides that on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person (the emphasis is mine). Where the application is made out the Tribunal does not retain any discretion.
The submission of the tenant’s representative were that the tenants lacked mental capacity now and lacked capacity when they entered the tenancy agreement in September 2016. He said that the tenancy agreement was therefore invalid.
I note that the tenancy agreement appears to have been signed by both the tenants. Rent has been paid by the tenants throughout this tenancy, with only brief periods where they have been in arrears.
In New Zealand, the presumption of mental capacity applies. Individuals are presumed to have mental capacity until proven otherwise. No evidence supporting the proposition that the tenants did not have mental capacity was provided to the Tribunal. It is not sufficient to simply assert that the tenants lacked capacity at any relevant time Appropriate evidence is required. That being the situation, I must proceed on the basis that the tenants did have mental capacity to enter into the tenancy agreement.
During the course of the hearing Mr. Ropiha said that the tenants had now left the premises. He said that they had left the premises last week.
Having made the finding that the tenants have at all times had the relevant mental capacity, I find that the requirements of section 64(1) RTA satisfied and out of an abundance of caution an order is made granting possession of the premises to the landlord immediately.

How much is owed for rent ?

I proposed dealing with the rent issue on the basis that the tenants left the premises on Monday 23 June 2025. The arrears on the date when tenancy ended were $766.25. Exemplary Damages
Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 24 May 2025, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises on 24 May 2025, nor was any reasonable excuse for that failure provided. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
No evidence was proffered by the tenant to suggest that they had remained at the premises after 24 May 2025, unintentionally. That they have remained at the premises for approximately one month more reinforces evidence of their intention.
The effect of the unlawful act on the landlord has been to deprive the landlord of rent during that time. The order for rent arrears made by the Tribunal means that that matter has already been addressed. No further evidence on that issue was provided by the landlord.
It is in the interests of this landlord and landlords generally to have tenants comply with termination notices. The tenant had been given 90 days within which to obtain alternative accommodation.
Having considered the matters above, an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale is appropriate. The tenants are ordered to pay exemplary damages of $250.00.
As Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee. I have ordered the reimbursement of one filing fee only.
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
In the present case, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenants’ names and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245831 — Rent arrears at 40A Raihara Street, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245831 — Rent arrears at 40A Raihara Street, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent ?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent ?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions