What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4984179?

The tribunal order states: Kua Makona Maria Reihana and Taamangarangi Waire Beazley must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4984179?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4984179?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4984179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11007533-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4984179?

The tribunal order states: Kua Makona Maria Reihana and Taamangarangi Waire Beazley must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4984179?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4984179?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4984179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11007533-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

218 Island Block Road, Island Block, RD 2, Te Kauwhata Tenancy Tribunal Case 4984179 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Kua Makona Maria Reihana and Taamangarangi Waire Beazley must pay Adam (Pham) King $1800.00 from the bond, being rent arrears to 11 September 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay from the bond $1,800.00 (5957051-002) to Adam (Pham) King immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (5957051-002) to Kua Makona Maria Reihana And Taamangarangi Waire Beazley immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.

The landlord had applied for termination and rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. By the date of this hearing the tenancy had ended.

This was a fixed-term tenancy to 12 July 2025. One tenant left during the tenancy. There was further confusion about this tenancy structure and operation but a new tenancy formed from 12 September 2024. That ended the tenants rent liability on 11 September 2024. The remaining tenant’s possession were moved into a smaller premises to facilitate the new tenancy.

The landlord appears to have acted unilaterally in establishing a new tenancy as he did. That said, the alternative of waiting until today would have left the tenants with a greater rent arrears. There was some confusion regarding the swapping out of one tenant with another as proposed.

Both parties have contributed to the situation but as at today the outstanding issue to be resolved is the disposal, or return, of one tenant’s possessions. These have been moved into a smaller premises at the same address.

The tenant is to advise the landlord by the end of tomorrow Wednesday 30 October 2024 of what she wants done with the items still at the address.

When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.

I have considered s 85 RTA in this order. The landlord has not followed the correct processes for such a situation as evolved here, but the tenants accept the approach has reduced the possible rent arrears. Both parties have been confused regarding joint and several liability for rent and the bond as existed in this agreement. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.

The landlord requested suppression in his application. As he has not been wholly or substantially successful, suppression is not ordered.

Order

Kua Makona Maria Reihana and Taamangarangi Waire Beazley must pay Adam (Pham) King $1800.00 from the bond, being rent arrears to 11 September 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.

The landlord had applied for termination and rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. By the date of this hearing the tenancy had ended.

The tenant is to advise the landlord by the end of tomorrow Wednesday 30 October 2024 of what she wants done with the items still at the address.

The landlord requested suppression in his application. As he has not been wholly or substantially successful, suppression is not ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4984179 — Rent arrears at 218 Island Block Road, Island Block, RD 2, Te Kauwhata

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4984179 — Rent arrears at 218 Island Block Road, Island Block, RD 2, Te Kauwhata

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions