What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4959794?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (3008709-008) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4959794?

Water Rates: $283.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959794?

The primary dispute was Water Rates.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959794?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11384064-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4959794?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (3008709-008) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4959794?

Water Rates: $283.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959794?

The primary dispute was Water Rates.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959794?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11384064-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Shearman Grove, Tauranga South, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4959794 — Water Rates

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4959794. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$283.94		6. At the second hearing, the parties agreed that the tenant would pay the landlord $283.94 for water rates arrears and that the landlord would withdraw its re…

Both parties attended video hearings on 31 October 2024 and 28 January 2025.

I record that the owner attended the first hearing, but not the second hearing.

The landlord was represented by Megan O’Callaghan and Jade Collins.

The tenancy commenced on 13 October 2015 and ended on 16 September 2024.

The tenant claims were for; • Retaliatory notice. • Failure to maintain. • Release of the bond.

At the second hearing, the parties agreed that the tenant would pay the landlord $283.94 for water rates arrears and that the landlord would withdraw its remaining claims. An order will be made by the Tribunal regarding the water rates on that basis.

The tenants’ application to the Tribunal was filed on 2 August 2024.

For reasons that will become apparent, I consider it important to set out some correspondence between the parties.

On 26 August 2024, the tenants sent an email to the landlord. “Please find attached 28 days notice of termination. Can you please approach the landlord and ask if it would be possible to shorten the period to 21 days making the last day 16 th of September.”

On 27 August 2024, the landlord replied: “ More than happy to have a chat with the owner to see if this is possible.”

Later on 27 August 2024, the landlord sent a further email to the tenant as follows; “ The landlord has agreed to release you early on the 16 th of September2024 - Can you please confirm if the Tribunal hearing will also be withdrawn otherwise we will need to put in a counterclaim”.

The tenant replied on 28 August 2024; “Thank you for your message. That will now make the last day of the tenancy the 16 th of September 2024. We will withdraw the application.”

Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case.

Saying that this was a settlement between the parties that should be complied with, is consistent with a fairness and merits approach. It seems more likely than not that the intention of the landlord was to agree to an earlier termination date on the basis of the withdrawal of the tenants’ claim.

The tenant said in evidence that their offer to withdraw the proceedings related to the retaliatory notice application only. There is nothing in the correspondence to support that proposition and the tenant continued with the application for retaliatory notice at the hearing. The statement by the tenant that the application would be withdrawn, is made without conditions or any indication that other claims may be pursued by the tenant.

I further record that any claim relating to retaliatory notice by the landlord would have become a moot claim once the tenant gave notice of termination of the tenancy on 26 August 2024. The Tribunal does not consider moot claims (see The Trustees of the Link Trust No 1 v BC 68782[2022] NZHC 151).

The tenant application is accordingly dismissed.

Both parties applied for name suppression. Neither party can be said to have been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the applications for suppression orders are dismissed. There will be an order that the tenant pay $283.94 to the landlord with the balance of the bond released to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4959794. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$283.94		6. At the second hearing, the parties agreed that the tenant would pay the landlord $283.94 for water rates arrears and that the landlord would withdraw its re…

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (3008709-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For My Sang Yip: $283.94 Volker Deckers and Pamela Sasso Fernandez: $2,316.06

Reasons

Both parties attended video hearings on 31 October 2024 and 28 January 2025.
I record that the owner attended the first hearing, but not the second hearing.
The landlord was represented by Megan O’Callaghan and Jade Collins.
The tenancy commenced on 13 October 2015 and ended on 16 September 2024.
The tenant claims were for; • Retaliatory notice. • Failure to maintain. • Release of the bond.
At the second hearing, the parties agreed that the tenant would pay the landlord $283.94 for water rates arrears and that the landlord would withdraw its remaining claims. An order will be made by the Tribunal regarding the water rates on that basis.
The tenants’ application to the Tribunal was filed on 2 August 2024.
For reasons that will become apparent, I consider it important to set out some correspondence between the parties.
On 26 August 2024, the tenants sent an email to the landlord. “Please find attached 28 days notice of termination. Can you please approach the landlord and ask if it would be possible to shorten the period to 21 days making the last day 16 th of September.”
On 27 August 2024, the landlord replied: “ More than happy to have a chat with the owner to see if this is possible.”
Later on 27 August 2024, the landlord sent a further email to the tenant as follows; “ The landlord has agreed to release you early on the 16 th of September2024 - Can you please confirm if the Tribunal hearing will also be withdrawn otherwise we will need to put in a counterclaim”.
The tenant replied on 28 August 2024; “Thank you for your message. That will now make the last day of the tenancy the 16 th of September 2024. We will withdraw the application.”
Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case.
Saying that this was a settlement between the parties that should be complied with, is consistent with a fairness and merits approach. It seems more likely than not that the intention of the landlord was to agree to an earlier termination date on the basis of the withdrawal of the tenants’ claim.
The tenant said in evidence that their offer to withdraw the proceedings related to the retaliatory notice application only. There is nothing in the correspondence to support that proposition and the tenant continued with the application for retaliatory notice at the hearing. The statement by the tenant that the application would be withdrawn, is made without conditions or any indication that other claims may be pursued by the tenant.
I further record that any claim relating to retaliatory notice by the landlord would have become a moot claim once the tenant gave notice of termination of the tenancy on 26 August 2024. The Tribunal does not consider moot claims (see The Trustees of the Link Trust No 1 v BC 68782[2022] NZHC 151).
The tenant application is accordingly dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. Neither party can be said to have been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the applications for suppression orders are dismissed. There will be an order that the tenant pay $283.94 to the landlord with the balance of the bond released to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959794 — Water Rates at 16 Shearman Grove, Tauranga South, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959794 — Water Rates at 16 Shearman Grove, Tauranga South, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions