How much money was awarded in case 5309179?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,057.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309179?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12396440-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5309179?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,057.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309179?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12396440-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Gloucester Street, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5309179 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309179 about?

The tribunal order states: All Things Property Limited As Agent For St Mary's Silverstream is granted

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309179 — net $4,513.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 September 2025	$7,057.15	Rent arrears to 11 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement: 5309179	$28.00	5309179
Filing fee reimbursement: 5309959	$28.00	5309959
Net award	$4,513.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,513.15

All Things Property Limited As Agent For St Mary's Silverstream is granted possession of the premises at 2 Gloucester Street, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019 at 11.59 pm on Thursday 11 September 2025.

[The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s application is dismissed.

All other claims are dismissed.

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay All Things Property Limited As Agent For St Mary's Silverstream $4,513.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord wants possession and to defend the claims made by the tenant. The tenant wants orders for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches by the landlord. The questions I have to decide include: • Should I allow an adjournment? • Should I make an order for possession? • How much does the tenant owe? • Should I make an order for suppression?

Should I allow an adjournment?

The tenant asked for an adjournment two days before the hearing. She was asked to provide supporting evidence. She provided photos but nothing from an independent person, such as a nurse or doctor, to confirm she was not well enough to attend the hearing. The adjournment was not allowed and the tenant was notified.

The tenant’s application 5336068 is dismissed because she did not attend the hearing.

Should I make an order for possession?

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

The tenancy ended on 7 August 2025 but the tenant has not moved out. The Landlord served a 90 day notice and I confirmed the notice was a valid notice in an order made on 9 July 2025.

The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) are that a possession order must be made within 90 days of the termination of the tenancy. These requirements are satisfied and a possession order is made.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. This claim is proved and allowed.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fees. The landlord filed two applications. The first was for possession and rent arrears. The second was for a direction the landlord was prevented from completing a work order. I find both were valid applications and the tenant should pay both fees.

Should I make an order for suppression?

The tenant made a written application for suppression in advance of the hearing. The landlord wants no suppression orders to be made. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.

The tenant was advised that the issue of suppression would be considered at the hearing. She did not attend the hearing. Orders have been made against her and she owes a significant amount of rent. The safety issues raised by the tenant will not be relevant when this order is published because she will not be living at the tenancy premises. I have weighed the interests and I find the public interest in her name is greater than any potential safety risk. This means both parties’ names will be published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309179 — net $4,513.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 September 2025	$7,057.15	Rent arrears to 11 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement: 5309179	$28.00	5309179
Filing fee reimbursement: 5309959	$28.00	5309959
Net award	$4,513.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,513.15

Order

All Things Property Limited As Agent For St Mary's Silverstream is granted possession of the premises at 2 Gloucester Street, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019 at 11.59 pm on Thursday 11 September 2025.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s]’s application is dismissed.
All other claims are dismissed.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay All Things Property Limited As Agent For St Mary's Silverstream $4,513.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord wants possession and to defend the claims made by the tenant. The tenant wants orders for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches by the landlord. The questions I have to decide include: • Should I allow an adjournment? • Should I make an order for possession? • How much does the tenant owe? • Should I make an order for suppression?

Should I allow an adjournment?

The tenant asked for an adjournment two days before the hearing. She was asked to provide supporting evidence. She provided photos but nothing from an independent person, such as a nurse or doctor, to confirm she was not well enough to attend the hearing. The adjournment was not allowed and the tenant was notified.
The tenant’s application 5336068 is dismissed because she did not attend the hearing.

Should I make an order for possession?

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 7 August 2025 but the tenant has not moved out. The Landlord served a 90 day notice and I confirmed the notice was a valid notice in an order made on 9 July 2025.
The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) are that a possession order must be made within 90 days of the termination of the tenancy. These requirements are satisfied and a possession order is made.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. This claim is proved and allowed.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fees. The landlord filed two applications. The first was for possession and rent arrears. The second was for a direction the landlord was prevented from completing a work order. I find both were valid applications and the tenant should pay both fees.

Should I make an order for suppression?

The tenant made a written application for suppression in advance of the hearing. The landlord wants no suppression orders to be made. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
The tenant was advised that the issue of suppression would be considered at the hearing. She did not attend the hearing. Orders have been made against her and she owes a significant amount of rent. The safety issues raised by the tenant will not be relevant when this order is published because she will not be living at the tenancy premises. I have weighed the interests and I find the public interest in her name is greater than any potential safety risk. This means both parties’ names will be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309179 — Rent arrears at 2 Gloucester Street, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309179 — Rent arrears at 2 Gloucester Street, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should I allow an adjournment?

Should I make an order for possession?

How much does the tenant owe?

Should I make an order for suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should I allow an adjournment?

Should I make an order for possession?

How much does the tenant owe?

Should I make an order for suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.