What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4893960?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Miracle Amosa and Shannon Fuatino Maumasi at 96 Edmonton

How much money was awarded in case 4893960?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $351.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $212.69 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4893960?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4893960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10500084-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4893960?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Miracle Amosa and Shannon Fuatino Maumasi at 96 Edmonton

How much money was awarded in case 4893960?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $351.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $212.69 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4893960?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4893960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10500084-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

96 Edmonton Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4893960 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4893960. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 25/06/2024	$351.71	9. As of today’s date, the tenants still owe the landlord $351.71 rent arrears, $212.69 water rates arrears and the balance of the bond of $1,340.07.
Water rates (To 01/05/2024	$212.69	Water rates (To 01/05/2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenancy of Miracle Amosa and Shannon Fuatino Maumasi at 96 Edmonton Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 is terminated, and possession is granted to Charlton Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Weifen Wang & Chunyu Jiang (Jassilora Investments Ltd), at 11:59pm on Tuesday 25 June 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay $584.84 of the $1,339.93 bond (6215014-014) to Charlton Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Weifen Wang & Chunyu Jiang (Jassilora Investments Ltd) immediately.
The balance of the bond of $755.09 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
Miracle Amosa, Shannon and Fuatino Maumasi owe Charlton Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Weifen Wang & Chunyu Jiang (Jassilora Investments Ltd) $584.84 calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The two tenants and the landlord have confirmed an agreement to remove Arwyn Toia from the tenancy agreement and from any liability for the costs awarded in this Order and/or for any costs associated with this tenancy going forward.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent and water, arrears and partial refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent was, at the date on which the application was filed, at least 21 days in arrears; unless it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies.
The tenants’ rent was more than 21 days in arrears when the landlord made its application to the Tribunal on 21 May 2024 requesting termination of the tenancy and possession of the premise.
The landlord issued the tenants with two 14-day notices. The first was on 20 May 2024 and the second was on 27 May 2024. The rent arrears were not paid at the end of these 14-day notice periods. In fact, as of 16 June 2024, the rent was in arrears of $3,126.00.
Mr Amosa was overseas when the mediation scheduled for 17 June 2024 went ahead. He had asked his brother to act as his representative. The mediator reported that Mr Amosa brother was unnecessarily rude and insulting during the telephone mediation, the mediator had not been provided with any documentation requesting Mr Amosa’s brother be approved by the Tribunal to act as Mr Amosa’s representative, so the mediation was adjourned without any agreement being reached between the parties.
Post the failed mediation, the tenants sent a repayment proposal to the landlord, which was not agreed to by the landlord. The landlord continued with its application to the Tribunal because, in addition to the ongoing rent arrear breach of the tenancy agreement, the tenants are in further breach of the tenancy agreement by: a. Having a Pitbull in the house, which the landlord became aware of during the most recent property inspection, when the tenancy agreement expressly prohibits the tenants having pets in the premise without the landlord’s permission. No such permission has been sought or given. The Pitbull was loose in the house when the property manager arrived for the inspection and was moved from room to room as she undertook the inspection; b. Having Mr Amosa’s brother staying at the premise and not addressing him verbally abusing and intimidating the property manager when she undertook the most recent property inspection by referring to her a “fucking white bitch” and making other abusive comments that she found intimidating, especially alongside the presence of the Pitbull in the house. Consequently, the property manager is now too frightened to go to the premise alone to exercise her lawful right of entry and it is not fiscally tenable for multiple property managers to have to go to each property inspection for protection; c. Not having paid the full bond amount of $2,680.00 as recorded in the tenancy agreement and failing to pay the balance of the bond of $1,340.07 to the landlord.
As of today’s date, the tenants still owe the landlord $351.71 rent arrears, $212.69 water rates arrears and the balance of the bond of $1,340.07.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because: a. The rent was in 21 days of arrears at the date the landlord’s application was made to the Tribunal; b. The tenants were issued with two 14 days notices to remedy the rent arrears and they failed to do so; c. After the 14-day notices were issued the tenants continued to let the rent arrears increase to a point they were at $3,126.00 on 16 June 2024; d. The tenants were still in rent arrears today; e. The tenants have committed numerous other breaches of their tenancy agreement and their statutory obligations; f. The tenants have only commenced their tenancy on 4 March 2024, have spent most of their tenancy to date in rent arrears, have never paid the full bond amount to the landlord and have continued to commit other tenancy agreement breaches and statutory breaches of the RTA; and g. I am not satisfied the tenants ongoing breaches of their obligations to the landlord will cease.
The tenants’ tenancy is therefore terminated as at 11:59pm tonight. The landlord has confirmed the tenants will be evicted on 3 July 2024 if they have not given up vacant possession of the property to the landlord on 2 July 2024. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because Charlton Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Weifen Wang & Chunyu Jiang (Jassilora Investments Ltd) has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Appeal rights
Mr Amosa has indicated that he intends to apply to the District Court to appeal my eviction Order and a stay of the Order until the appeal is heard.
I have informed Mr Amosa that section 117(11) of the RTA provides: “Where the appeal relates to an order terminating the tenancy made on the ground of non-payment of rent, a stay of proceedings shall not be granted unless the application for stay is supported by a receipt or other written evidence tending to show that the rent was not in fact in arrear at the date of the hearing before the Tribunal”.
The landlord has provided an up to date rent summary at today’s hearing and that rent summary shows the tenants were still in rent arrears at the date of the hearing. Therefore, the District Court cannot grant an application for a stay of the eviction Order.
In addition, the amount ordered is under $1,000.00. Section 117(2)(b) provides: “No appeal shall lie against an order, or the failure to make an order, for the payment of money where the amount that would be in dispute on appeal is less than $1,000.00”.
The Order is for less than $1,000.00.
I have also confirmed to Mr Amosa that he is still within his legal rights to make an application for an appeal against this Order and for a stay of the eviction Order if he so choses, and that he has 10 working days from today to do so.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4893960. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 25/06/2024	$351.71	9. As of today’s date, the tenants still owe the landlord $351.71 rent arrears, $212.69 water rates arrears and the balance of the bond of $1,340.07.
Water rates (To 01/05/2024	$212.69	Water rates (To 01/05/2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenancy of Miracle Amosa and Shannon Fuatino Maumasi at 96 Edmonton Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 is terminated, and possession is granted to Charlton Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Weifen Wang & Chunyu Jiang (Jassilora Investments Ltd), at 11:59pm on Tuesday 25 June 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay $584.84 of the $1,339.93 bond (6215014-014) to Charlton Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Weifen Wang & Chunyu Jiang (Jassilora Investments Ltd) immediately.
The balance of the bond of $755.09 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
Miracle Amosa, Shannon and Fuatino Maumasi owe Charlton Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Weifen Wang & Chunyu Jiang (Jassilora Investments Ltd) $584.84 calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The two tenants and the landlord have confirmed an agreement to remove Arwyn Toia from the tenancy agreement and from any liability for the costs awarded in this Order and/or for any costs associated with this tenancy going forward.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent and water, arrears and partial refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent was, at the date on which the application was filed, at least 21 days in arrears; unless it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies.
The tenants’ rent was more than 21 days in arrears when the landlord made its application to the Tribunal on 21 May 2024 requesting termination of the tenancy and possession of the premise.
The landlord issued the tenants with two 14-day notices. The first was on 20 May 2024 and the second was on 27 May 2024. The rent arrears were not paid at the end of these 14-day notice periods. In fact, as of 16 June 2024, the rent was in arrears of $3,126.00.
Mr Amosa was overseas when the mediation scheduled for 17 June 2024 went ahead. He had asked his brother to act as his representative. The mediator reported that Mr Amosa brother was unnecessarily rude and insulting during the telephone mediation, the mediator had not been provided with any documentation requesting Mr Amosa’s brother be approved by the Tribunal to act as Mr Amosa’s representative, so the mediation was adjourned without any agreement being reached between the parties.
Post the failed mediation, the tenants sent a repayment proposal to the landlord, which was not agreed to by the landlord. The landlord continued with its application to the Tribunal because, in addition to the ongoing rent arrear breach of the tenancy agreement, the tenants are in further breach of the tenancy agreement by: a. Having a Pitbull in the house, which the landlord became aware of during the most recent property inspection, when the tenancy agreement expressly prohibits the tenants having pets in the premise without the landlord’s permission. No such permission has been sought or given. The Pitbull was loose in the house when the property manager arrived for the inspection and was moved from room to room as she undertook the inspection; b. Having Mr Amosa’s brother staying at the premise and not addressing him verbally abusing and intimidating the property manager when she undertook the most recent property inspection by referring to her a “fucking white bitch” and making other abusive comments that she found intimidating, especially alongside the presence of the Pitbull in the house. Consequently, the property manager is now too frightened to go to the premise alone to exercise her lawful right of entry and it is not fiscally tenable for multiple property managers to have to go to each property inspection for protection; c. Not having paid the full bond amount of $2,680.00 as recorded in the tenancy agreement and failing to pay the balance of the bond of $1,340.07 to the landlord.
As of today’s date, the tenants still owe the landlord $351.71 rent arrears, $212.69 water rates arrears and the balance of the bond of $1,340.07.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because: a. The rent was in 21 days of arrears at the date the landlord’s application was made to the Tribunal; b. The tenants were issued with two 14 days notices to remedy the rent arrears and they failed to do so; c. After the 14-day notices were issued the tenants continued to let the rent arrears increase to a point they were at $3,126.00 on 16 June 2024; d. The tenants were still in rent arrears today; e. The tenants have committed numerous other breaches of their tenancy agreement and their statutory obligations; f. The tenants have only commenced their tenancy on 4 March 2024, have spent most of their tenancy to date in rent arrears, have never paid the full bond amount to the landlord and have continued to commit other tenancy agreement breaches and statutory breaches of the RTA; and g. I am not satisfied the tenants ongoing breaches of their obligations to the landlord will cease.
The tenants’ tenancy is therefore terminated as at 11:59pm tonight. The landlord has confirmed the tenants will be evicted on 3 July 2024 if they have not given up vacant possession of the property to the landlord on 2 July 2024. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because Charlton Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Weifen Wang & Chunyu Jiang (Jassilora Investments Ltd) has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Appeal rights
Mr Amosa has indicated that he intends to apply to the District Court to appeal my eviction Order and a stay of the Order until the appeal is heard.
I have informed Mr Amosa that section 117(11) of the RTA provides: “Where the appeal relates to an order terminating the tenancy made on the ground of non-payment of rent, a stay of proceedings shall not be granted unless the application for stay is supported by a receipt or other written evidence tending to show that the rent was not in fact in arrear at the date of the hearing before the Tribunal”.
The landlord has provided an up to date rent summary at today’s hearing and that rent summary shows the tenants were still in rent arrears at the date of the hearing. Therefore, the District Court cannot grant an application for a stay of the eviction Order.
In addition, the amount ordered is under $1,000.00. Section 117(2)(b) provides: “No appeal shall lie against an order, or the failure to make an order, for the payment of money where the amount that would be in dispute on appeal is less than $1,000.00”.
The Order is for less than $1,000.00.
I have also confirmed to Mr Amosa that he is still within his legal rights to make an application for an appeal against this Order and for a stay of the eviction Order if he so choses, and that he has 10 working days from today to do so.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4893960 — Rent arrears at 96 Edmonton Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4893960 — Rent arrears at 96 Edmonton Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions