What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4781777?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4781777?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781777?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4781777?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10288307-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4781777?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4781777?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781777?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4781777?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10288307-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Keith Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4781777 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The parties attended the hearing by remote teleconference. The landlord was represented by counsel, Mr Greg Woollaston.
This is a tenant application against the landlord.
The tenant seeks compensation from the landlord for a variety of issues relating to a failure to maintain.
The purpose of todays’ telephone hearing was to determine whether the tenant has a valid claim against Mr Chris Prier, the landlord.
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 tenant) 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 may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
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.
Counsel for the Mr Prier seeks to have the claim made against his client struck out for want of jurisdiction. They say that he is not the “landlord” for the purposes of these proceedings and has no personal liability towards the tenant.
In an affidavit sworn 12 March 2024 Mr Prier states that he is a director of 7 El Prado Drive Limited. He further states that at no time has he owned or held himself out as owning any legal or vested interest in the property at 7 El Prado Drive Limited. He does not accept that there is jurisdiction attaching to him personally.
In this case, the application filed in the Tribunal is clearly filed against Mr Chris Prier in his personal capacity.
D u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g t h e t e n a n t c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h e application is being brought personally against Mr Prier. She stated that she was unaware that he was acting in his capacity as a company director.
Counsel for the landlord confirmed that the company 7 El Prado Drive Limited purchased the property at 27 Keith Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North on 14 February 2020. I have also sighted the Record of Title for the tenancy address confirming the registered owner as 7 El Prado Drive Limited.
An email dated 29 May 2020 was sent to the tenant advising the details of the company as new landlord. Bank account details were also provided for payment of rent. The tenant paid her rent into the company bank account of 7 El Prado Drive Limited. All emails sent by Mr Prier have been signed off in his capacity as a director of either 7 El Prado Drive Limited or Amorini NZ Limited.
Email correspondence dated 29 May 2020 noted that “Chris will arrange a new tenancy agreement”. It was confirmed during the hearing that no written tenancy agreement was signed by the parties. That is unfortunate, and my view the landlord has been somewhat remiss not tidying matters up with a formal written tenancy agreement after the change of ownership when it became apparent that there was a tenant residing at the property. Findings:
In my view Mr Prier was clearly acting as a director and accordingly has no personal liability in this matter. The application should have been filed in the name of the company rather than Mr Prier in his personal capacity. Mr Prier is also not an agent. The tenant confirmed during the hearing that her application is against Mr Prier in his personal capacity. It was clear at the outset that the application has been bought in the wrong name.
Accordingly, the tenant’s application must be dismissed.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act
The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as the application is unsuccessful.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The parties attended the hearing by remote teleconference. The landlord was represented by counsel, Mr Greg Woollaston.
This is a tenant application against the landlord.
The tenant seeks compensation from the landlord for a variety of issues relating to a failure to maintain.
The purpose of todays’ telephone hearing was to determine whether the tenant has a valid claim against Mr Chris Prier, the landlord.
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 tenant) 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 may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
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.
Counsel for the Mr Prier seeks to have the claim made against his client struck out for want of jurisdiction. They say that he is not the “landlord” for the purposes of these proceedings and has no personal liability towards the tenant.
In an affidavit sworn 12 March 2024 Mr Prier states that he is a director of 7 El Prado Drive Limited. He further states that at no time has he owned or held himself out as owning any legal or vested interest in the property at 7 El Prado Drive Limited. He does not accept that there is jurisdiction attaching to him personally.
In this case, the application filed in the Tribunal is clearly filed against Mr Chris Prier in his personal capacity.
D u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g t h e t e n a n t c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h e application is being brought personally against Mr Prier. She stated that she was unaware that he was acting in his capacity as a company director.
Counsel for the landlord confirmed that the company 7 El Prado Drive Limited purchased the property at 27 Keith Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North on 14 February 2020. I have also sighted the Record of Title for the tenancy address confirming the registered owner as 7 El Prado Drive Limited.
An email dated 29 May 2020 was sent to the tenant advising the details of the company as new landlord. Bank account details were also provided for payment of rent. The tenant paid her rent into the company bank account of 7 El Prado Drive Limited. All emails sent by Mr Prier have been signed off in his capacity as a director of either 7 El Prado Drive Limited or Amorini NZ Limited.
Email correspondence dated 29 May 2020 noted that “Chris will arrange a new tenancy agreement”. It was confirmed during the hearing that no written tenancy agreement was signed by the parties. That is unfortunate, and my view the landlord has been somewhat remiss not tidying matters up with a formal written tenancy agreement after the change of ownership when it became apparent that there was a tenant residing at the property. Findings:
In my view Mr Prier was clearly acting as a director and accordingly has no personal liability in this matter. The application should have been filed in the name of the company rather than Mr Prier in his personal capacity. Mr Prier is also not an agent. The tenant confirmed during the hearing that her application is against Mr Prier in his personal capacity. It was clear at the outset that the application has been bought in the wrong name.
Accordingly, the tenant’s application must be dismissed.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act
The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as the application is unsuccessful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781777 — Tenancy dispute at 27 Keith Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781777 — Tenancy dispute at 27 Keith Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions