What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4981368?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4981368?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4981368?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4981368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11637733-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4981368?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4981368?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4981368?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4981368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11637733-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 1, 50 Kinross Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4981368 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Michelle Shortcliffe attended in person.
Felix Xu attended the hearing for the landlord.
Ms Shortcliffe’s application is in her own name. However, she was never a tenant at the premises. Ms Shortcliffe is one of the tenant’s mothers.
Mr Xu says that Ms Shortcliffe was living at the premises when the Tribunal terminated the tenancy last year, but the tenants had moved out by then.
Ms Shortcliffe wants to represent her son and another tenant. She has submitted a signed authority dated 30 September 2022 that is headed “Registration for supply”. It states, “We feel As a care of Duty authorise MICHELLE property MANAGEMENT.
An earlier document Ms Shortcliffe filed, states: To those Concerned. confirmation with Reason for Michelle Property Management The main reason the ex tenant tobias shaw & myself authorised Michelle Shortcliffe” (JP signed attached) michelle property management to Liaise on our behalf was that Silverfern Property Management ltd (Felix) sent a water-bill one year old” their reason (attached) they had problems with their system. Which (attached) we out of our goodwill agreed to pay off while paying the current water bill. Since then our shared tenancy 1/50 Kinross st Blockhouse Bay Auckland- The Manager (felix released the previous tenant TOBIAS SHAW from tenancy by excepting part payment Only “to water” ” this action enabled tobias to leave tenancy without notice to tenancy Contract or remaining tenant/s & foreard Rent Arrears The Manager now in breech realises his mistake so now demanding full remaining water still in (agreement) from myself, shows up unannounced scaring new “boarders telling them to leave. prompting several attempts via email to contact him directly on phone (no number advertised with their company) ignored while Unknown to us, tribunal was in application mediation- NO NOTIFACTION of mediation or hearing after that was given-including tribunal denying any court date which was 30th April -(4799877) which ruled in (felix) favour) in application now for rehearing by Michelle Property On my behalf. from the forward motion by SILVERFEN (felix) of misleading breeching imposing defamation aggravation intimidation inflicted on myself my family, tenancy even in water agreement time communication. NOW updates authorisation to liase on my behalf & MAIN CONTACT for any all tribunal tenancy matters forthwith.
Under s 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the Tribunal has the power to allow a party to be represented. Section 93(5), and (6) provide: (5) The following parties may be represented by a representative who is approved by the Tribunal: (a) the Crown... ... (e) any other person, if the Tribunal is satisfied that for sufficient cause that person is unable to appear in person or is unable to present his or her case adequately. (6) Where a representative of a party is proposed for the Tribunal’s approval, the Tribunal shall satisfy itself that the person proposed has sufficient knowledge of the case and sufficient authority to bind the party.
Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal asked Ms Shortcliffe to arrange for the tenants to fill out the Tribunal’s application for representation form. That form assists the Tribunal to decide whether it should grant a party permission to be represented. However, the tenants have not filled out the application.
On what I heard today, I am not satisfied the tenants are both unable to appear in person or remotely or are unable to present a case adequately. Nor am I satisfied that Ms Shortcliffe has sufficient authority to represent the tenants. I had hoped that at least one of the tenants would attend today but they did not. I asked Ms Shortcliffe if the Tribunal could telephone her son for his input, but she says he no longer has a New Zealand cell phone number.
I am not going to grant permission for Ms Shortcliffe to represent the tenants because the necessary grounds have not been made out.
Further, despite Ms Shortcliffe’s submissions, I could not discern an intelligible claim supported by evidence in the application. Therefore, I am going to dismiss the application.
Ms Shortcliffe indicated she may make further application, possibly for a rehearing of a Tribunal hearing last year.
The tenants should reflect upon whether any further application is warranted. Properly based claims are welcome. However, the Tribunal may make an order for costs if proceedings “are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought”. 1
If Ms Shortcliffe brings any further applications in respect to this tenancy, it would be desirable for the tenants, whom she purports to represent, to fill out the Tribunal’s Request for Representation form and for the tenants to attend any hearings, preferably in person, and if not in person, then remotely.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Michelle Shortcliffe attended in person.
Felix Xu attended the hearing for the landlord.
Ms Shortcliffe’s application is in her own name. However, she was never a tenant at the premises. Ms Shortcliffe is one of the tenant’s mothers.
Mr Xu says that Ms Shortcliffe was living at the premises when the Tribunal terminated the tenancy last year, but the tenants had moved out by then.
Ms Shortcliffe wants to represent her son and another tenant. She has submitted a signed authority dated 30 September 2022 that is headed “Registration for supply”. It states, “We feel As a care of Duty authorise MICHELLE property MANAGEMENT.
An earlier document Ms Shortcliffe filed, states: To those Concerned. confirmation with Reason for Michelle Property Management The main reason the ex tenant tobias shaw & myself authorised Michelle Shortcliffe” (JP signed attached) michelle property management to Liaise on our behalf was that Silverfern Property Management ltd (Felix) sent a water-bill one year old” their reason (attached) they had problems with their system. Which (attached) we out of our goodwill agreed to pay off while paying the current water bill. Since then our shared tenancy 1/50 Kinross st Blockhouse Bay Auckland- The Manager (felix released the previous tenant TOBIAS SHAW from tenancy by excepting part payment Only “to water” ” this action enabled tobias to leave tenancy without notice to tenancy Contract or remaining tenant/s & foreard Rent Arrears The Manager now in breech realises his mistake so now demanding full remaining water still in (agreement) from myself, shows up unannounced scaring new “boarders telling them to leave. prompting several attempts via email to contact him directly on phone (no number advertised with their company) ignored while Unknown to us, tribunal was in application mediation- NO NOTIFACTION of mediation or hearing after that was given-including tribunal denying any court date which was 30th April -(4799877) which ruled in (felix) favour) in application now for rehearing by Michelle Property On my behalf. from the forward motion by SILVERFEN (felix) of misleading breeching imposing defamation aggravation intimidation inflicted on myself my family, tenancy even in water agreement time communication. NOW updates authorisation to liase on my behalf & MAIN CONTACT for any all tribunal tenancy matters forthwith.
Under s 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the Tribunal has the power to allow a party to be represented. Section 93(5), and (6) provide: (5) The following parties may be represented by a representative who is approved by the Tribunal: (a) the Crown... ... (e) any other person, if the Tribunal is satisfied that for sufficient cause that person is unable to appear in person or is unable to present his or her case adequately. (6) Where a representative of a party is proposed for the Tribunal’s approval, the Tribunal shall satisfy itself that the person proposed has sufficient knowledge of the case and sufficient authority to bind the party.
Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal asked Ms Shortcliffe to arrange for the tenants to fill out the Tribunal’s application for representation form. That form assists the Tribunal to decide whether it should grant a party permission to be represented. However, the tenants have not filled out the application.
On what I heard today, I am not satisfied the tenants are both unable to appear in person or remotely or are unable to present a case adequately. Nor am I satisfied that Ms Shortcliffe has sufficient authority to represent the tenants. I had hoped that at least one of the tenants would attend today but they did not. I asked Ms Shortcliffe if the Tribunal could telephone her son for his input, but she says he no longer has a New Zealand cell phone number.
I am not going to grant permission for Ms Shortcliffe to represent the tenants because the necessary grounds have not been made out.
Further, despite Ms Shortcliffe’s submissions, I could not discern an intelligible claim supported by evidence in the application. Therefore, I am going to dismiss the application.
Ms Shortcliffe indicated she may make further application, possibly for a rehearing of a Tribunal hearing last year.
The tenants should reflect upon whether any further application is warranted. Properly based claims are welcome. However, the Tribunal may make an order for costs if proceedings “are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought”. 1
If Ms Shortcliffe brings any further applications in respect to this tenancy, it would be desirable for the tenants, whom she purports to represent, to fill out the Tribunal’s Request for Representation form and for the tenants to attend any hearings, preferably in person, and if not in person, then remotely.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4981368 — Rent arrears at Flat 1, 50 Kinross Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4981368 — Rent arrears at Flat 1, 50 Kinross Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

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