What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4903095?

The tribunal order states: Delton Lee Charles Rimaha must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities

How much money was awarded in case 4903095?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903095?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903095?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10874350-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4903095?

The tribunal order states: Delton Lee Charles Rimaha must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities

How much money was awarded in case 4903095?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903095?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903095?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10874350-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 11, 445 Jackson Street, Petone, Lower Hutt 5012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4903095 — Rent arrears

Order

Delton Lee Charles Rimaha must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $846.76 immediately, being rent arrears to 25 September 2024.
The application for name suppression by the landlord of the tenant’s name is declined.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing, as ordered above. Initially the rent arrears were $1,000 but the tenant has been making payments towards the debt of $10 per week. Application for name suppression of the tenant
The landlord applies for name suppression of the tenant.
Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
I cannot do better to summarise the relevant law that applies by referring to the very well written decision of Adjudicator Woodhouse in Kainga Ora v Rangitakatu. 1
Adjudicator Woodhouse commenced his decision in that case by observing that: 2 There is a statutory expectation in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal are published on an internet site as soon as practicable, unless there is good reason not to publish. 3 In 2020 Parliament introduced changes to the RTA to provide an ability for the Tribunal to order name suppression, with the new suppression provision introduced at section 95A. 4
To set the scene, he then traversed the history of s 95A and the general law regarding name suppression, noting the principle of open justice, a principle which dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case “except in very special circumstances”. 5
He referred to the High Court decision of Lewis v Wilson & Horton, 6 where the Court confirmed the question then becomes whether the facts in the case are sufficient to displace the presumption of open reporting, so as to support name suppression. He then referred to G v Attorney General, 7 where Hansen J described name suppression in civil cases as “rare”.

Should name suppression be ordered in favour of the tenant?

The question is whether, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, I should order that the name of the tenant not be published.
The tenant himself has not sought name suppression.
No reasons in support of the request for name suppression have been offered, other than the basic request for name suppression to be ordered.
Even if the reasoning were that to publish the name could mean that in the future, the tenant was denied future rental opportunities, I am not satisfied that this would be enough in and of itself.
There is a public interest in publication of orders where a party has simply not paid a debt. The tenant in this case has not even appeared to challenge this debt. He has in fact already been chipping away at it by paying $10 per week. He must 1 [2021] NZTT Porirua 4309535 2 At [6] and [7] 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, Section 115B. 4 Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020. 5 See Victim X v Television New Zealand Ltd 1973 NZLR 220. 6 [2000] 3 NZLR 546 7 High Court Dunedin, CP 57/96 15.4.99 therefore accept he owes it. He may well not be bothered about name suppression.
I accept that the debt in question in small, being under $1,000, however, there is nothing that has been placed before me that would convince me that having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, the name of the tenant should not be published. The application for name suppression is declined.

Order

Delton Lee Charles Rimaha must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $846.76 immediately, being rent arrears to 25 September 2024.
The application for name suppression by the landlord of the tenant’s name is declined.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing, as ordered above. Initially the rent arrears were $1,000 but the tenant has been making payments towards the debt of $10 per week. Application for name suppression of the tenant
The landlord applies for name suppression of the tenant.
Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
I cannot do better to summarise the relevant law that applies by referring to the very well written decision of Adjudicator Woodhouse in Kainga Ora v Rangitakatu. 1
Adjudicator Woodhouse commenced his decision in that case by observing that: 2 There is a statutory expectation in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal are published on an internet site as soon as practicable, unless there is good reason not to publish. 3 In 2020 Parliament introduced changes to the RTA to provide an ability for the Tribunal to order name suppression, with the new suppression provision introduced at section 95A. 4
To set the scene, he then traversed the history of s 95A and the general law regarding name suppression, noting the principle of open justice, a principle which dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case “except in very special circumstances”. 5
He referred to the High Court decision of Lewis v Wilson & Horton, 6 where the Court confirmed the question then becomes whether the facts in the case are sufficient to displace the presumption of open reporting, so as to support name suppression. He then referred to G v Attorney General, 7 where Hansen J described name suppression in civil cases as “rare”.

Should name suppression be ordered in favour of the tenant?

The question is whether, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, I should order that the name of the tenant not be published.
The tenant himself has not sought name suppression.
No reasons in support of the request for name suppression have been offered, other than the basic request for name suppression to be ordered.
Even if the reasoning were that to publish the name could mean that in the future, the tenant was denied future rental opportunities, I am not satisfied that this would be enough in and of itself.
There is a public interest in publication of orders where a party has simply not paid a debt. The tenant in this case has not even appeared to challenge this debt. He has in fact already been chipping away at it by paying $10 per week. He must 1 [2021] NZTT Porirua 4309535 2 At [6] and [7] 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, Section 115B. 4 Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020. 5 See Victim X v Television New Zealand Ltd 1973 NZLR 220. 6 [2000] 3 NZLR 546 7 High Court Dunedin, CP 57/96 15.4.99 therefore accept he owes it. He may well not be bothered about name suppression.
I accept that the debt in question in small, being under $1,000, however, there is nothing that has been placed before me that would convince me that having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, the name of the tenant should not be published. The application for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903095 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 11, 445 Jackson Street, Petone, Lower Hutt 5012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903095 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 11, 445 Jackson Street, Petone, Lower Hutt 5012

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should name suppression be ordered in favour of the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should name suppression be ordered in favour of the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions