What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356843 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 5356843?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356843?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12996185-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356843 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 5356843?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356843?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12996185-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356843 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356843 — net $5,678.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2.2.2020	$5,650.00	Rent arrears to 2.2.2020
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,678.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,678.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] must pay Piping Lane Limited $5,678.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Kim, counsel for the landlord, and [The tenant/s], both attended the hearing, by video conference and teleconference respectively.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, legal fees in relation to rent arrears issues and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden of proof and evidence
The party making the claim must prove the claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
When parties differ in their evidence about an issue, it is up to each party to provide additional supporting evidence of their own position.

What date did the tenancy end?

The parties differed about the end date of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 2 February 2020 and pointed to an email from the tenant to the landlord confirming he would move out on 31 January 2020, then indicating the tenant had not vacated the property until after 31 January 2020 and vacated on 2 February 2020.
The tenant confirmed he had given the landlord notice to move out on 31 January 2020 but said he had moved out prior to this date as the landlord had needed a staircase to be repaired by the neighbour and he had to move out before this.
The landlord’s counsel said there had been ongoing correspondence between their firm, or the landlord, and the tenant, who is also a lawyer, for some time, at least the last few years, which included them confirming the tenancy ended on 2 February 2020. They said the tenant had never corrected the end date of the tenancy in any correspondence with them or the landlord.
The tenant did not provide any evidence supporting his assertion that the tenancy ended before 2 February 2020 and did not correct the landlord’s lawyers when they wrote to the tenant on 23 November 2022 confirming the tenancy ended on 2 February 2020. Nor did the tenant correct the landlord about this in subsequent communication. As such, based on the evidence provided, I find it more likely than not that the tenancy ended on 2 February 2020. Rent arrears
The landlord has provided rent records which set out the rent arrears total for each year of the tenancy separately. At the end of 2018, the rent summary sheet showed the tenant was in credit by $650.00. At the end of 2019, the rent summary showed the tenant owed $12,350.00 in rent. At the end of the tenancy up to 2 February 2020, the rent summary sheet showed the tenant owed $2,600.00 in rent. Therefore, there was net total rent arrears owing by the tenant to the landlord in the amount of $14,300 as at the end of the tenancy on 2 February 2020. The bond of $1,300.00, received by the landlord, further reduced the rent arrears to $13,000.00.
The landlord provided evidence that further payments were made by the tenant towards rent arrears owing, in the amount of $7,350.00 after the tenancy ended, that had not been reflected in their rent summary, which would bring the rent arrears owing down to $5,650.00. The tenant confirmed he had made these further payments in the amount of $7,350.00 but said further that there were 2 cash payments he made to the landlord in the amounts of $3,800.00 and $2,250.00 (for sheep he sold), also towards the rent arrears. The landlord’s counsel said he had no knowledge of any cash payments made by the tenant to the landlord and pointed out the tenant had not emailed or written to the landlord or their lawyers about these cash payments in an attempt to reduce the debt they said he owed, nor had the tenant provided any evidence about these two cash payments.
The tenant said he did not obtain any receipts for these 2 cash payments but said the landlord cycled to his house to collect the first cash payment and then the second cash payment was the proceeds of a sale of the tenant’s sheep, that he gave to the landlord. The tenant said he decided to stop payments after a time, considering he had paid all that he owed, and believed the landlord owed him around $50.00 to $75.00 he had overpaid the landlord.
The tenant did not provide any additional supporting evidence either, by way of emails, texts or letters confirming these cash payments to the landlord, for example. I note the landlord’s lawyer’s letter to the tenant of 23 November 2022, a copy of which was provided, set out the amount claimed by the landlord in rent arrears and attached a schedule of payments made by the tenant to date. Thus, the tenant had an opportunity to correct this schedule of payments to account for the cash payments he believed he made to the landlord, but did not. As such, the tenant has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence for his position about making 2 cash payments to the landlord and so I find the landlord’s rent arrears amount is to be preferred based on the evidence provided.
Therefore, I find the tenant owes the landlord $5,650.00 in rent to 2 February 2020. Legal fees claim
The landlord claimed $2,040.00 as a ‘reasonable contribution’ towards legal fees they had paid relating to the rent arrears issue with the tenant.
The landlord provided copies of 3 invoices from their lawyer, totalling $4,085.00 and said they only claimed a portion of this.
The landlord’s lawyer said the landlord felt they had to engage counsel as the tenant had initially raised concerns and a possible defence to paying the claim due to the application of the Limitation Act 2010.
The landlord then referred to the debt collection clause in the tenancy agreement and said this allowed for the landlord to claim legal fees in relation to the rent arrears claim and pointed to section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) as supporting this.
The tenant confirmed he had initially raised issues relating to the Limitation Act 2010 with the landlord and their lawyers but confirmed he did not raise this issue at the hearing, as he believed he did not owe the landlord any money, but rather the landlord owed him around $50.00 or $75.00.
For clarity, whilst there is generally a 6-year limitation period from the date a rent arrears claim first arises, section 47 of the Limitation Act 2010 provides: (1) This section applies if the claimant proves that, after the start date of a claim’s primary period, longstop period, or Part 3 period, the defendant— (a) acknowledged to the claimant in writing a liability to, or the right or title of, the claimant; or (b) made a payment to the claimant in respect of a liability to, or the right or title of, the claimant. (2)If this section applies, the claimant is deemed for the purposes only of this Act to have a fresh claim on the day after the date, or the latest of the dates, on which an acknowledgment or part payment was given or made.
As the tenant acknowledged making a part payment to the landlord in April 2024, which was the last payment received by the landlord, the limitation period will run from that date, pursuant to section 47 of the Limitation Act 2010.
The landlord’s lawyer relied on the debt collection clause in the tenancy agreement which provides: “If at the end of the tenancy there is an unsatisfied debt by way of money order, the tenant agrees that the tenant be liable to pay for all costs of recover of the money order, which costs shall be collected by a debt collection agency. Costs payable by the debtor shall include legal fees, commissions, fees and disbursements, and/or court filing fees and disbursements.”
The landlord’s lawyer, in response to my questions, acknowledged there was not currently a money order in place, prior to the hearing, but said ‘money order’ had not been clearly defined and submitted the parties’ intention was to provide for the landlord to collect costs in the event of the tenant defaulting with rent payments.
The tenant reiterated that he did not believe he should be responsible for the landlord’s legal fees, as he did not owe the landlord anything.
Section 102(5) of the RTA provides that “The Tribunal may make an order to give effect, in whole or in part, to a provision in a tenancy agreement requiring one party (the debtor) to reimburse the other party (the creditor) for any reasonable expenses or commissions paid or incurred by the creditor in recovering, or attempting to recover, any overdue payment that the debtor owes to the creditor under an order of the Tribunal.”
However, here there was no provision in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenant to reimburse the landlord for any reasonable expenses or costs incurred by the landlord in recovering the overdue rent payment. The parties specifically provided in the tenancy agreement that the costs of recovery, which included legal fees, were only to be reimbursed by the tenant in the event there was an “unsatisfied debt by way of money order”. As there was no such money order in place when the legal fees claimed were incurred, the debt collection clause in the tenancy agreement does not apply and so I dismiss this claim. Filing fee
Because Piping Lane Limited has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenant requested name suppression. As each party has had a measure of success with the claims, with the landlord’s claim for legal fees being dismissed, I grant name suppression to the tenant. Further, based on the evidence provided, particularly of the tenant’s work circumstances also, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing his name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See sections 95A(1) and 95A (4) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356843 — net $5,678.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2.2.2020	$5,650.00	Rent arrears to 2.2.2020
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,678.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,678.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] must pay Piping Lane Limited $5,678.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Kim, counsel for the landlord, and [The tenant/s], both attended the hearing, by video conference and teleconference respectively.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, legal fees in relation to rent arrears issues and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden of proof and evidence
The party making the claim must prove the claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
When parties differ in their evidence about an issue, it is up to each party to provide additional supporting evidence of their own position.

What date did the tenancy end?

The parties differed about the end date of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 2 February 2020 and pointed to an email from the tenant to the landlord confirming he would move out on 31 January 2020, then indicating the tenant had not vacated the property until after 31 January 2020 and vacated on 2 February 2020.
The tenant confirmed he had given the landlord notice to move out on 31 January 2020 but said he had moved out prior to this date as the landlord had needed a staircase to be repaired by the neighbour and he had to move out before this.
The landlord’s counsel said there had been ongoing correspondence between their firm, or the landlord, and the tenant, who is also a lawyer, for some time, at least the last few years, which included them confirming the tenancy ended on 2 February 2020. They said the tenant had never corrected the end date of the tenancy in any correspondence with them or the landlord.
The tenant did not provide any evidence supporting his assertion that the tenancy ended before 2 February 2020 and did not correct the landlord’s lawyers when they wrote to the tenant on 23 November 2022 confirming the tenancy ended on 2 February 2020. Nor did the tenant correct the landlord about this in subsequent communication. As such, based on the evidence provided, I find it more likely than not that the tenancy ended on 2 February 2020. Rent arrears
The landlord has provided rent records which set out the rent arrears total for each year of the tenancy separately. At the end of 2018, the rent summary sheet showed the tenant was in credit by $650.00. At the end of 2019, the rent summary showed the tenant owed $12,350.00 in rent. At the end of the tenancy up to 2 February 2020, the rent summary sheet showed the tenant owed $2,600.00 in rent. Therefore, there was net total rent arrears owing by the tenant to the landlord in the amount of $14,300 as at the end of the tenancy on 2 February 2020. The bond of $1,300.00, received by the landlord, further reduced the rent arrears to $13,000.00.
The landlord provided evidence that further payments were made by the tenant towards rent arrears owing, in the amount of $7,350.00 after the tenancy ended, that had not been reflected in their rent summary, which would bring the rent arrears owing down to $5,650.00. The tenant confirmed he had made these further payments in the amount of $7,350.00 but said further that there were 2 cash payments he made to the landlord in the amounts of $3,800.00 and $2,250.00 (for sheep he sold), also towards the rent arrears. The landlord’s counsel said he had no knowledge of any cash payments made by the tenant to the landlord and pointed out the tenant had not emailed or written to the landlord or their lawyers about these cash payments in an attempt to reduce the debt they said he owed, nor had the tenant provided any evidence about these two cash payments.
The tenant said he did not obtain any receipts for these 2 cash payments but said the landlord cycled to his house to collect the first cash payment and then the second cash payment was the proceeds of a sale of the tenant’s sheep, that he gave to the landlord. The tenant said he decided to stop payments after a time, considering he had paid all that he owed, and believed the landlord owed him around $50.00 to $75.00 he had overpaid the landlord.
The tenant did not provide any additional supporting evidence either, by way of emails, texts or letters confirming these cash payments to the landlord, for example. I note the landlord’s lawyer’s letter to the tenant of 23 November 2022, a copy of which was provided, set out the amount claimed by the landlord in rent arrears and attached a schedule of payments made by the tenant to date. Thus, the tenant had an opportunity to correct this schedule of payments to account for the cash payments he believed he made to the landlord, but did not. As such, the tenant has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence for his position about making 2 cash payments to the landlord and so I find the landlord’s rent arrears amount is to be preferred based on the evidence provided.
Therefore, I find the tenant owes the landlord $5,650.00 in rent to 2 February 2020. Legal fees claim
The landlord claimed $2,040.00 as a ‘reasonable contribution’ towards legal fees they had paid relating to the rent arrears issue with the tenant.
The landlord provided copies of 3 invoices from their lawyer, totalling $4,085.00 and said they only claimed a portion of this.
The landlord’s lawyer said the landlord felt they had to engage counsel as the tenant had initially raised concerns and a possible defence to paying the claim due to the application of the Limitation Act 2010.
The landlord then referred to the debt collection clause in the tenancy agreement and said this allowed for the landlord to claim legal fees in relation to the rent arrears claim and pointed to section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) as supporting this.
The tenant confirmed he had initially raised issues relating to the Limitation Act 2010 with the landlord and their lawyers but confirmed he did not raise this issue at the hearing, as he believed he did not owe the landlord any money, but rather the landlord owed him around $50.00 or $75.00.
For clarity, whilst there is generally a 6-year limitation period from the date a rent arrears claim first arises, section 47 of the Limitation Act 2010 provides: (1) This section applies if the claimant proves that, after the start date of a claim’s primary period, longstop period, or Part 3 period, the defendant— (a) acknowledged to the claimant in writing a liability to, or the right or title of, the claimant; or (b) made a payment to the claimant in respect of a liability to, or the right or title of, the claimant. (2)If this section applies, the claimant is deemed for the purposes only of this Act to have a fresh claim on the day after the date, or the latest of the dates, on which an acknowledgment or part payment was given or made.
As the tenant acknowledged making a part payment to the landlord in April 2024, which was the last payment received by the landlord, the limitation period will run from that date, pursuant to section 47 of the Limitation Act 2010.
The landlord’s lawyer relied on the debt collection clause in the tenancy agreement which provides: “If at the end of the tenancy there is an unsatisfied debt by way of money order, the tenant agrees that the tenant be liable to pay for all costs of recover of the money order, which costs shall be collected by a debt collection agency. Costs payable by the debtor shall include legal fees, commissions, fees and disbursements, and/or court filing fees and disbursements.”
The landlord’s lawyer, in response to my questions, acknowledged there was not currently a money order in place, prior to the hearing, but said ‘money order’ had not been clearly defined and submitted the parties’ intention was to provide for the landlord to collect costs in the event of the tenant defaulting with rent payments.
The tenant reiterated that he did not believe he should be responsible for the landlord’s legal fees, as he did not owe the landlord anything.
Section 102(5) of the RTA provides that “The Tribunal may make an order to give effect, in whole or in part, to a provision in a tenancy agreement requiring one party (the debtor) to reimburse the other party (the creditor) for any reasonable expenses or commissions paid or incurred by the creditor in recovering, or attempting to recover, any overdue payment that the debtor owes to the creditor under an order of the Tribunal.”
However, here there was no provision in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenant to reimburse the landlord for any reasonable expenses or costs incurred by the landlord in recovering the overdue rent payment. The parties specifically provided in the tenancy agreement that the costs of recovery, which included legal fees, were only to be reimbursed by the tenant in the event there was an “unsatisfied debt by way of money order”. As there was no such money order in place when the legal fees claimed were incurred, the debt collection clause in the tenancy agreement does not apply and so I dismiss this claim. Filing fee
Because Piping Lane Limited has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenant requested name suppression. As each party has had a measure of success with the claims, with the landlord’s claim for legal fees being dismissed, I grant name suppression to the tenant. Further, based on the evidence provided, particularly of the tenant’s work circumstances also, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing his name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See sections 95A(1) and 95A (4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356843 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356843 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What date did the tenancy end?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What date did the tenancy end?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions