What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4542332?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4542332?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4542332?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4542332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9351913-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4542332?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4542332?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4542332?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4542332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9351913-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23C Bracken Road, Newlands, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4542332 — Rent arrears

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Karron Mary Robina Forrester must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $15,030.15 immediately, being rent arrears to 29 August 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearings on 7 and 29 August 2023. The tenant was permitted to have a representative, Mr Brown.
The landlord applied for rent arrears on 3 April 2023.
At the first hearing, the tenant said no notice of a rent increase from $53.00 to $505.00 per week in late 2022 was received.
Following that hearing, the landlord provided: • A notice of rent increase to $505.00 per week starting on 28 December 2022, dated 11 October 2022. • A reminder that the rent was increasing to $505.00 per week from 28 December 2022, dated 30 November 2022. • A notice of a rent decrease to $179.00 per week starting from 31 May 2023, dated 30 May 2023.
The tenant continued to pay the previous income related rent of $53.00 despite the rent increase in December 2022. This increased the existing arrears - the rent having been in arrears since about July 2019. When the rent was decreased to $179.00 per week in May 2023, the tenant increased her rent payments from $53.00 per week to the new income related rent.
The documents provided by the landlord show that a notice of rent increase from $53.00 to $505.00 was given as required by the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) in October 2022. The tenant was given about 77 days’ notice of the new rent starting on 28 December 2022.
The landlord also sent reminder letters to the tenant on 17 January 2023 and 20 February 2023, warning that there were increasing rent arrears ($6,533.15 and $9,003.15, respectively) and providing contact details in case more time was needed to pay. The landlord’s representative said there were also notes on the file recording that the tenant was being urged to get in touch, including by leaving voicemails.
At the second hearing the tenant said her neighbours had been stealing her post and the landlord knew about this. There had been a burglary and damage at the property which the landlord had done nothing about. It was said that the tenant did not have a phone and none of the previous case managers had said anything about arrears.
No corroborating evidence was provided for the claim that the neighbours were stealing the tenant’s post at the material time. As pointed out by the landlord’s representative, the tenant appears to have received the notice of a decrease in the rent, because her weekly rent payments were adjusted accordingly. If neighbours were stealing from a letterbox, something of that seriousness should have been reported to the Police, and there would be some evidential support for the allegation.
As to the tenant’s ability to be contacted by telephone, there is evidence on the file that the tenant has been using Mr Brown’s mobile number for the mediation and the Tribunal hearings. The landlord also gave this mobile number in the application filed on 3 April 2023. The tenancy agreement, which dates back to April 2019, provides a different telephone number for the tenant.
The claim that the tenant did not have a phone at the end of 2022, when the rent increase was given, but had a phone before then, and has been using her friend’s phone more recently, stretches credulity. It is difficult to reconcile the landlord representative’s evidence of phone calls and voicemails with the tenant’s account. I find it unlikely that the tenant knew absolutely nothing about the rent arrears.
The landlord had to give written notice of the rent increase to $505.00 per week. Section 136 of the Act provides that the notice can be sent by post to the tenancy address, which is what the landlord did. A notice sent by post is deemed to be served on the fourth working day after the date on which it is posted. The letter was properly addressed. I find that the tenant has not disproved service of the notice to increase the rent.
Even if (contrary to my view) none of the notices and reminder notices about the rent increase and rent arrears were received by the tenant, I do not accept that this means the rent remained at $53.00 per week until 31 May 2023.
The purpose of the notice is to let the tenant know the rent is increasing. For tenancies in the private market, this is important because it gives the tenant an opportunity to challenge the notice if the rent has been increased above the market rent by a substantial amount (section 25 of the Act). In respect of an income related rent, the notice gives the tenant an opportunity to apply for a review of the income related rent. MSD may review any income related rent, at any time, to determine whether at some earlier time some other income related rent was appropriate. If satisfied that at some earlier time a lower income related rent was appropriate, MSD must make any necessary refund (section 116 of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992).
In this sense, the landlord was merely the messenger, giving notice that MSD had changed the income related rent. The tenant is still able to seek a review of that rent on application to MSD - the landlord suggested that the rent had increased in late 2022 because the tenant had not provided details of her income, despite requests, so that the rent reverted to the market rate. In the meantime, the tenant is liable for the income related rent that has been calculated.
The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. I find that the tenant is liable for the claimed rent arrears.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Karron Mary Robina Forrester must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $15,030.15 immediately, being rent arrears to 29 August 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearings on 7 and 29 August 2023. The tenant was permitted to have a representative, Mr Brown.
The landlord applied for rent arrears on 3 April 2023.
At the first hearing, the tenant said no notice of a rent increase from $53.00 to $505.00 per week in late 2022 was received.
Following that hearing, the landlord provided: • A notice of rent increase to $505.00 per week starting on 28 December 2022, dated 11 October 2022. • A reminder that the rent was increasing to $505.00 per week from 28 December 2022, dated 30 November 2022. • A notice of a rent decrease to $179.00 per week starting from 31 May 2023, dated 30 May 2023.
The tenant continued to pay the previous income related rent of $53.00 despite the rent increase in December 2022. This increased the existing arrears - the rent having been in arrears since about July 2019. When the rent was decreased to $179.00 per week in May 2023, the tenant increased her rent payments from $53.00 per week to the new income related rent.
The documents provided by the landlord show that a notice of rent increase from $53.00 to $505.00 was given as required by the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) in October 2022. The tenant was given about 77 days’ notice of the new rent starting on 28 December 2022.
The landlord also sent reminder letters to the tenant on 17 January 2023 and 20 February 2023, warning that there were increasing rent arrears ($6,533.15 and $9,003.15, respectively) and providing contact details in case more time was needed to pay. The landlord’s representative said there were also notes on the file recording that the tenant was being urged to get in touch, including by leaving voicemails.
At the second hearing the tenant said her neighbours had been stealing her post and the landlord knew about this. There had been a burglary and damage at the property which the landlord had done nothing about. It was said that the tenant did not have a phone and none of the previous case managers had said anything about arrears.
No corroborating evidence was provided for the claim that the neighbours were stealing the tenant’s post at the material time. As pointed out by the landlord’s representative, the tenant appears to have received the notice of a decrease in the rent, because her weekly rent payments were adjusted accordingly. If neighbours were stealing from a letterbox, something of that seriousness should have been reported to the Police, and there would be some evidential support for the allegation.
As to the tenant’s ability to be contacted by telephone, there is evidence on the file that the tenant has been using Mr Brown’s mobile number for the mediation and the Tribunal hearings. The landlord also gave this mobile number in the application filed on 3 April 2023. The tenancy agreement, which dates back to April 2019, provides a different telephone number for the tenant.
The claim that the tenant did not have a phone at the end of 2022, when the rent increase was given, but had a phone before then, and has been using her friend’s phone more recently, stretches credulity. It is difficult to reconcile the landlord representative’s evidence of phone calls and voicemails with the tenant’s account. I find it unlikely that the tenant knew absolutely nothing about the rent arrears.
The landlord had to give written notice of the rent increase to $505.00 per week. Section 136 of the Act provides that the notice can be sent by post to the tenancy address, which is what the landlord did. A notice sent by post is deemed to be served on the fourth working day after the date on which it is posted. The letter was properly addressed. I find that the tenant has not disproved service of the notice to increase the rent.
Even if (contrary to my view) none of the notices and reminder notices about the rent increase and rent arrears were received by the tenant, I do not accept that this means the rent remained at $53.00 per week until 31 May 2023.
The purpose of the notice is to let the tenant know the rent is increasing. For tenancies in the private market, this is important because it gives the tenant an opportunity to challenge the notice if the rent has been increased above the market rent by a substantial amount (section 25 of the Act). In respect of an income related rent, the notice gives the tenant an opportunity to apply for a review of the income related rent. MSD may review any income related rent, at any time, to determine whether at some earlier time some other income related rent was appropriate. If satisfied that at some earlier time a lower income related rent was appropriate, MSD must make any necessary refund (section 116 of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992).
In this sense, the landlord was merely the messenger, giving notice that MSD had changed the income related rent. The tenant is still able to seek a review of that rent on application to MSD - the landlord suggested that the rent had increased in late 2022 because the tenant had not provided details of her income, despite requests, so that the rent reverted to the market rate. In the meantime, the tenant is liable for the income related rent that has been calculated.
The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. I find that the tenant is liable for the claimed rent arrears.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4542332 — Rent arrears at 23C Bracken Road, Newlands, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4542332 — Rent arrears at 23C Bracken Road, Newlands, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions