What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4519012?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4519012?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4519012?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4519012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9207514-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4519012?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4519012?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4519012?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4519012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9207514-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1129 Te Aroha-Gordon Road, RD 1, Manawaru 3391 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4519012 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4519012 — net $2,670.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 May 2023	$2,650.00	Rent arrears to 12 May 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,670.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,670.44

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
On 29 April 2023, the tenant gave 14 days’ notice to terminate their employment and tenancy, which ended on 12 May 2023.
Emelza Athilie Winters must pay RSK Farming Limited $2, 670.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy is a service tenancy which commenced on 30 March 2022. The property is a three-bedroom house, and the rent was $250.00 per week, deducted fortnightly from the tenant’s wages. In October 2022, the tenant was injured while at work, and after 09 December 2023, the tenant received 80% of their wages from ACC. The last rent payment made was that deducted from her wages by the landlord on 09 December 2023. ACC deducted other payments but did not deduct the rent. There is no dispute that no rent payments were made by the tenant to the landlord after 09 December 2022. It has been raised whether the landlord was under the ACC provisions obligated to top up the tenants’ wages. I have no evidence before me concerning this matter, and I proceed on the basis that the landlord was not.
On 07 March 2023, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination of the tenancy for rent arrears of at least 21 days, see section 55(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). The matter was listed for an in-person hearing on 11 May 2023. On that date, the tenant advised that they were unable to attend in person, and an attempt was made to conclude the matter by telephone.
During the hearing on 11 May 2023, it was confirmed, however, that on 29 April 2023, the tenant had given notice to terminate her employment, effective 01 May 2023, and was in the process of vacating the property. As the service agreement provided that an employee could give 14 days’ notice to end their employment, and as the employment and tenancy were linked, the notice also ended the landlord and tenant relationship.
The matter was adjourned for an in person hearing and on 03 June 2023 set down for 21 July 2023. On 18 May 2023, the landlord provided a rent summary, not previously provided with the application, and advised that they had further claims for damage.
Concerning the additional claims for damage no evidence has been produced and they are dismissed.
The tenant states that they left the property on or about 05 May 2023. However, the 14 days’ notice required under the service agreement expired on 12 May 2023. It is agreed that the tenant is liable for rent until that date. At the previous hearing and then again today, I stated that the end of the tenancy was 15 May 2023; however, this is incorrect, as 14 days from 29 April 2023 is, in fact, 12 May 2023.
The rent due for the period 30 March 2022 to 12 May 2022 was $ 14,607.14. The amount deducted from the tenant’s wages until 09 December was $9,500.00, leaving an outstanding balance of $5,107.14. The tenant, however, had two boarders, who are also employees of the landlord but not under a tenancy service agreement, who paid $100.00 a week each directly to the landlord. One boarder paid from 02 February 2023, and the other from 02 March 2023. Up until 12 May 2023, the boarders had paid the landlord $1,428.57 and $1,028.5, a total of $2,457.14. These payments have not been included in the rent summary. The two boarders / employees remained at the property, one recently moving out on 20 July 2023, the other still resides at the property.
It is agreed that the amount paid by the boarders to the landlord for the period to 12 May 2023 should be deducted from the outstanding amount owed by the tenant. The equation is as follows: rent due of $ 14,607.14 to 12 May 2023 minus the rent deducted directly from the tenant’s wages of $9,500.00, minus the $ 2,457.14 paid by the boarders directly to the landlord. The balance owing by the tenant to the end of the tenancy on 12 May 2023 is therefore $ 2,650.00.
Despite having received notice to terminate the employment / tenancy, having knowledge that the tenant had vacated, and having other employees who reside at the property, the landlord has chosen to delay entering and taking possession on the basis that some of the tenant’s possessions remain at the property. In my view, following the notice on 29 April 2023, and the hearing on 11 May 2023, the landlord ought to have known that they were entitled to possession on 12 May 2023. The parties agree that any of the tenant’s possessions remaining at the property should be removed immediately. Costs
As the landlord has been partly successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although the landlord has been substantially successful, they do not seek suppression. The tenant seeks suppression. There are however no grounds to suppress the tenants name or address of the tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4519012 — net $2,670.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 May 2023	$2,650.00	Rent arrears to 12 May 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,670.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,670.44

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
On 29 April 2023, the tenant gave 14 days’ notice to terminate their employment and tenancy, which ended on 12 May 2023.
Emelza Athilie Winters must pay RSK Farming Limited $2, 670.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy is a service tenancy which commenced on 30 March 2022. The property is a three-bedroom house, and the rent was $250.00 per week, deducted fortnightly from the tenant’s wages. In October 2022, the tenant was injured while at work, and after 09 December 2023, the tenant received 80% of their wages from ACC. The last rent payment made was that deducted from her wages by the landlord on 09 December 2023. ACC deducted other payments but did not deduct the rent. There is no dispute that no rent payments were made by the tenant to the landlord after 09 December 2022. It has been raised whether the landlord was under the ACC provisions obligated to top up the tenants’ wages. I have no evidence before me concerning this matter, and I proceed on the basis that the landlord was not.
On 07 March 2023, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination of the tenancy for rent arrears of at least 21 days, see section 55(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). The matter was listed for an in-person hearing on 11 May 2023. On that date, the tenant advised that they were unable to attend in person, and an attempt was made to conclude the matter by telephone.
During the hearing on 11 May 2023, it was confirmed, however, that on 29 April 2023, the tenant had given notice to terminate her employment, effective 01 May 2023, and was in the process of vacating the property. As the service agreement provided that an employee could give 14 days’ notice to end their employment, and as the employment and tenancy were linked, the notice also ended the landlord and tenant relationship.
The matter was adjourned for an in person hearing and on 03 June 2023 set down for 21 July 2023. On 18 May 2023, the landlord provided a rent summary, not previously provided with the application, and advised that they had further claims for damage.
Concerning the additional claims for damage no evidence has been produced and they are dismissed.
The tenant states that they left the property on or about 05 May 2023. However, the 14 days’ notice required under the service agreement expired on 12 May 2023. It is agreed that the tenant is liable for rent until that date. At the previous hearing and then again today, I stated that the end of the tenancy was 15 May 2023; however, this is incorrect, as 14 days from 29 April 2023 is, in fact, 12 May 2023.
The rent due for the period 30 March 2022 to 12 May 2022 was $ 14,607.14. The amount deducted from the tenant’s wages until 09 December was $9,500.00, leaving an outstanding balance of $5,107.14. The tenant, however, had two boarders, who are also employees of the landlord but not under a tenancy service agreement, who paid $100.00 a week each directly to the landlord. One boarder paid from 02 February 2023, and the other from 02 March 2023. Up until 12 May 2023, the boarders had paid the landlord $1,428.57 and $1,028.5, a total of $2,457.14. These payments have not been included in the rent summary. The two boarders / employees remained at the property, one recently moving out on 20 July 2023, the other still resides at the property.
It is agreed that the amount paid by the boarders to the landlord for the period to 12 May 2023 should be deducted from the outstanding amount owed by the tenant. The equation is as follows: rent due of $ 14,607.14 to 12 May 2023 minus the rent deducted directly from the tenant’s wages of $9,500.00, minus the $ 2,457.14 paid by the boarders directly to the landlord. The balance owing by the tenant to the end of the tenancy on 12 May 2023 is therefore $ 2,650.00.
Despite having received notice to terminate the employment / tenancy, having knowledge that the tenant had vacated, and having other employees who reside at the property, the landlord has chosen to delay entering and taking possession on the basis that some of the tenant’s possessions remain at the property. In my view, following the notice on 29 April 2023, and the hearing on 11 May 2023, the landlord ought to have known that they were entitled to possession on 12 May 2023. The parties agree that any of the tenant’s possessions remaining at the property should be removed immediately. Costs
As the landlord has been partly successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although the landlord has been substantially successful, they do not seek suppression. The tenant seeks suppression. There are however no grounds to suppress the tenants name or address of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4519012 — Rent arrears at 1129 Te Aroha-Gordon Road, RD 1, Manawaru 3391

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4519012 — Rent arrears at 1129 Te Aroha-Gordon Road, RD 1, Manawaru 3391

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions