What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4735330?

The tribunal order states: Rangiteaorere Potiki Tutakangahau Tukiwaho and Sharday Moana Te Awhitu

How much money was awarded in case 4735330?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,032.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4735330?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4735330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10021840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4735330?

The tribunal order states: Rangiteaorere Potiki Tutakangahau Tukiwaho and Sharday Moana Te Awhitu

How much money was awarded in case 4735330?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,032.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4735330?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4735330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10021840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14A Dignan Street, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4735330 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4735330 — net $1,672.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 October 2024	$4,032.50	2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy which is $4,052.94.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,672.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,672.94

All parties attended the hearing. Mr Quan Shu appeared on behalf of Arent1 Limited. This company is his own property management business and he is the property owner. The application was initially made in the name of the company only. At the hearing, with the consent of the parties, Mr Shu was also personally added as a party.

Mr Shu says Arent 1 Limited are the property managers with the day to day management of the tenancy and he is the owner and I am satisfied this is the case. The bond is held solely in its name. Mr Shu’s name and Arent 1 Limited’s name are both on the tenancy agreement which states the landlord to be “Marshall Shu, CEO of Arent1 Limited”. Marshall is Mr Stu’s English name. I am therefore satisfied that Mr Shu and Arent 1 Limited are both landlords.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outstanding power, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants raised a number of issues that they had experienced at the property during their tenancy. As explained in the hearing, if the tenants have breaches they want to pursue they will need to file a separate counter- application.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy which is $4,052.94. This sum is proven and is ordered.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord says the tenants should pay power of $20 per week. He says it has not been paid for the tenancy. The sum sought is $265.71. Limited proof to support the claim is provided.

The landlord has provided their own undated invoice claiming $80 each month for July, August and September. The landlord has provided one power bill for the month of September. The landlord first said that the sums claimed had been calculated using a check meter. When I asked about this further he changed his view to say that the sums were actually fixed sums that had been agreed with the tenant verbally.

The tenancy agreement is only inclusive of water.

The tenants say they thought power was included in the rent. They say that it was included in the advertisement they responded to. A copy of this advert was provided, and it supports the tenants’ position.

The tenants’ say that they paid their bond and then the tenancy agreement was sent to them. The tenants say that a few months into the tenancy the landlord tried to get them to put their name on the power bill. This would mean that the tenants were responsible for the power used by the other unit that is also on the premises. The tenants were concerned about their liability for the power, including power that pre-dated their tenancy which they say had not been paid, and so refused to do this.

The tenants provided a copy of an email from someone writing on behalf of the landlord. The message is not clear in its wording, but appears to suggest a variation to the tenancy agreement that they needed to pay $20 a week in power. The landlords say the agreement was verbal. The tenants say this was not the case. They always thought power was included as a result of the advertisement. They became frustrated by the management of the tenancy, including the power, so stopped paying rent.

I dismiss the landlord’s claim for power. Even assuming the tenants are liable for power, the landlord has not satisfied me that the tenants and the landlord verbally agreed, or agreed otherwise that there would be a flat rate for the tenants to pay $20 a week. I therefore cannot make an award on this basis.

Alternatively, the landlord has not provided sufficient records to establish that the sum claimed reflects the power actually used by the tenants (section 39(3), RTA).

During the hearing I expressed my concern that the landlord wanted the tenants to put the power account, shared with another property, in their own name. The tenants were right to assert that they would not do this. Where there are shared properties with one power account it is the landlord who must manage the power account.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4735330 — net $1,672.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 October 2024	$4,032.50	2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy which is $4,052.94.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,672.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,672.94

Order

Rangiteaorere Potiki Tutakangahau Tukiwaho and Sharday Moana Te Awhitu Toetoe Barrett must pay Quan Shu, Arent1 Limited $1,672.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (3250841-007) to Quan Shu, Arent1 Limited immediately.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. Mr Quan Shu appeared on behalf of Arent1 Limited. This company is his own property management business and he is the property owner. The application was initially made in the name of the company only. At the hearing, with the consent of the parties, Mr Shu was also personally added as a party.
Mr Shu says Arent 1 Limited are the property managers with the day to day management of the tenancy and he is the owner and I am satisfied this is the case. The bond is held solely in its name. Mr Shu’s name and Arent 1 Limited’s name are both on the tenancy agreement which states the landlord to be “Marshall Shu, CEO of Arent1 Limited”. Marshall is Mr Stu’s English name. I am therefore satisfied that Mr Shu and Arent 1 Limited are both landlords.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outstanding power, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants raised a number of issues that they had experienced at the property during their tenancy. As explained in the hearing, if the tenants have breaches they want to pursue they will need to file a separate counter- application.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy which is $4,052.94. This sum is proven and is ordered.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord says the tenants should pay power of $20 per week. He says it has not been paid for the tenancy. The sum sought is $265.71. Limited proof to support the claim is provided.
The landlord has provided their own undated invoice claiming $80 each month for July, August and September. The landlord has provided one power bill for the month of September. The landlord first said that the sums claimed had been calculated using a check meter. When I asked about this further he changed his view to say that the sums were actually fixed sums that had been agreed with the tenant verbally.
The tenancy agreement is only inclusive of water.
The tenants say they thought power was included in the rent. They say that it was included in the advertisement they responded to. A copy of this advert was provided, and it supports the tenants’ position.
The tenants’ say that they paid their bond and then the tenancy agreement was sent to them. The tenants say that a few months into the tenancy the landlord tried to get them to put their name on the power bill. This would mean that the tenants were responsible for the power used by the other unit that is also on the premises. The tenants were concerned about their liability for the power, including power that pre-dated their tenancy which they say had not been paid, and so refused to do this.
The tenants provided a copy of an email from someone writing on behalf of the landlord. The message is not clear in its wording, but appears to suggest a variation to the tenancy agreement that they needed to pay $20 a week in power. The landlords say the agreement was verbal. The tenants say this was not the case. They always thought power was included as a result of the advertisement. They became frustrated by the management of the tenancy, including the power, so stopped paying rent.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for power. Even assuming the tenants are liable for power, the landlord has not satisfied me that the tenants and the landlord verbally agreed, or agreed otherwise that there would be a flat rate for the tenants to pay $20 a week. I therefore cannot make an award on this basis.
Alternatively, the landlord has not provided sufficient records to establish that the sum claimed reflects the power actually used by the tenants (section 39(3), RTA).
During the hearing I expressed my concern that the landlord wanted the tenants to put the power account, shared with another property, in their own name. The tenants were right to assert that they would not do this. Where there are shared properties with one power account it is the landlord who must manage the power account.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4735330 — Rent arrears at 14A Dignan Street, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4735330 — Rent arrears at 14A Dignan Street, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions