What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360201 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 5360201?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360201?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13025453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360201 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 5360201?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360201?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13025453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10 Shropshire Avenue, Wilton, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5360201 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a part heard hearing. On 7 November 2025, the hearing was adjourned to allow the tenant to receive the results of a review being conducted by Ministry of Social Development (MSD) into this complaint on behalf of the tenant.
The landlord, Te Toi Mahana (TTM), is a social housing provider. The tenant’s rent is paid directly from MSD to the social housing provider each week.
The tenant’s rent is based on income related assessments carried out by MSD. If there is to be a change in rental payment MSD advises TTM and TTM must action the changes their end and notify MSD.
The following is a summary of the relevant points as established in the MSD review: a) On 15 June 2024 MSD notified TTM of an increase in the tenants rent to $188.00 weekly from $160.00 weekly. b) On 31 October 2024 MSD sent further communication to TTM asking if the rent will increase as TTM had not actioned the rent increase at their end. c) On 13 November 2024 TTM updated the rent charged in their system to $188.00 weekly and asked that the increase be backdated to 15 August 2024. MSD declined to back date and started the new weekly rental on 19 th November 2024. d) The reason given for not back dating the rent increase is that MSD stated that it was TTM’s responsibility to determine, advise and give notice to a tenant of the amount and the date the income – related rent will change. MSD found that TTM had failed to do this and therefore it is their responsibility and not MSD. e) MSD says they acted to increase the rent on the date the information was received from TTM (13 November 2024) and based their rent payments accordingly. f) TTM updated their system stating that the rent increase was to take effect on 15 August 2024. The rent arrears have come about as a result of the earlier date and not the date that MSD started to pay the increased rent. g) The tenant says it is not her responsibility to follow up with TTM on changes to the rental increases and it was their tardiness that has cause the rent arrears. Standard of proof:
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.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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. Rent arrears:
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which they say prove the amount owing.
The rent arrears stem from the rent increase from $160.00 to $188.00. The rent is paid solely by MSD. MSD found that TTM was at fault in not following through on their obligations once an income related rent increase had been advised and that failure was the reason they declined to back date the rent increase.
In these circumstances I do not find that the tenant is responsible for the rent arrears and the landlord has not proven their claim for rent arrears.
The landlord claim is dismissed.
As I have found that the tenant is not at fault for the rent arrears, I am suppressing her name and details. I note the landlord sought suppression but as they have been unsuccessful, I am declining suppression.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a part heard hearing. On 7 November 2025, the hearing was adjourned to allow the tenant to receive the results of a review being conducted by Ministry of Social Development (MSD) into this complaint on behalf of the tenant.
The landlord, Te Toi Mahana (TTM), is a social housing provider. The tenant’s rent is paid directly from MSD to the social housing provider each week.
The tenant’s rent is based on income related assessments carried out by MSD. If there is to be a change in rental payment MSD advises TTM and TTM must action the changes their end and notify MSD.
The following is a summary of the relevant points as established in the MSD review: a) On 15 June 2024 MSD notified TTM of an increase in the tenants rent to $188.00 weekly from $160.00 weekly. b) On 31 October 2024 MSD sent further communication to TTM asking if the rent will increase as TTM had not actioned the rent increase at their end. c) On 13 November 2024 TTM updated the rent charged in their system to $188.00 weekly and asked that the increase be backdated to 15 August 2024. MSD declined to back date and started the new weekly rental on 19 th November 2024. d) The reason given for not back dating the rent increase is that MSD stated that it was TTM’s responsibility to determine, advise and give notice to a tenant of the amount and the date the income – related rent will change. MSD found that TTM had failed to do this and therefore it is their responsibility and not MSD. e) MSD says they acted to increase the rent on the date the information was received from TTM (13 November 2024) and based their rent payments accordingly. f) TTM updated their system stating that the rent increase was to take effect on 15 August 2024. The rent arrears have come about as a result of the earlier date and not the date that MSD started to pay the increased rent. g) The tenant says it is not her responsibility to follow up with TTM on changes to the rental increases and it was their tardiness that has cause the rent arrears. Standard of proof:
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.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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. Rent arrears:
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which they say prove the amount owing.
The rent arrears stem from the rent increase from $160.00 to $188.00. The rent is paid solely by MSD. MSD found that TTM was at fault in not following through on their obligations once an income related rent increase had been advised and that failure was the reason they declined to back date the rent increase.
In these circumstances I do not find that the tenant is responsible for the rent arrears and the landlord has not proven their claim for rent arrears.
The landlord claim is dismissed.
As I have found that the tenant is not at fault for the rent arrears, I am suppressing her name and details. I note the landlord sought suppression but as they have been unsuccessful, I am declining suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360201 — Rent arrears at 10 Shropshire Avenue, Wilton, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360201 — Rent arrears at 10 Shropshire Avenue, Wilton, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions