What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994489?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mary Maria Heta at 17 Gibboney Place, Pokeno 2402 is

How much money was awarded in case 4994489?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,330.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994489?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11158801-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994489?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mary Maria Heta at 17 Gibboney Place, Pokeno 2402 is

How much money was awarded in case 4994489?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,330.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994489?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11158801-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Gibboney Place, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4994489 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4994489 — net $1,677.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2/12/24	$4,330.00	Rent arrears to 2/12/24
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,677.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,677.00

Order

The tenancy of Mary Maria Heta at 17 Gibboney Place, Pokeno 2402 is terminated, and possession is granted to Duong Thi Thuy Do, at 6.00pm on Thursday 5 December 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 (6278198-003) to Duong Thi Thuy Do immediately.
Mary Maria Heta must pay Duong Thi Thuy Do $1,677.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied against the tenants Mary Heta and Keith Barrett, who I understand are siblings, and the application is in relation to the tenancy at 17 Gibboney Place, Pokeno.
The landlord’s application form records that she had lost the tenancy agreement or cannot get a copy. This has resulted in Tenancy Services not being able to assess that the parties actually have separate tenancy agreements in relation to separate premises.
During the hearing I requested the tenancy agreement. The landlord provided the one page of two separate tenancy agreements.
One tenancy agreement records Mary Heta as the sole tenant in relation to the tenancy address 17 Gibboney Place Pokeno. This agreement records rent as $670.00 per week and a bond amount of $2,680.00.
The other tenancy agreement records Keith Barrett as the sole tenant in relation to the tenancy address 17 A Gibboney Place, Pokeno. This agreement records rent as $490.00 per week and a bond amount of $1,960.00.
I understand the parties live separately in the respective premises but share one water meter.
The landlord has lodged the respective bonds as one bond with the Bond Centre.
The landlord has also provided two rent statements: a. one statement (a spreadsheet) records the parties respective rent payments separately. b. The other statement (the myRent statement) records the rent as if this is one tenancy. 17 A Gibboney Place – Mr Barrett’s tenancy
I consider I must dismiss the claim against Mr Barrett as the application for termination does not relate to his tenancy.
If the landlord seeks termination of Mr Barrett’s tenancy she should make a separate application against him in relation to his tenancy address.
The landlord must ensure that separate tenancies are treated separately. At times the landlord has done this, by serving 14 days notices on the parties separately, however in her rent records and in this application she has treated it as one tenancy, which it is not. Termination - 17 A Gibboney Place – Ms Heta’s tenancy
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the RTA”)
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord served notices to remedy a breach in respect of rent arrears on Ms Heta on 5 November 2024, 8 October 2024, 3 September 2024, 2 September 2024, 26 August 2024, 20 August 2024 and 12 August 2024. The tenant did not remedy the breach.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) RTA
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) RTA Possession
Ms Heta object’s to the making of a possession order on the basis of her customary rights.
I am bound to determine the dispute in accordance with the RTA which states that on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person. See section 64 of the RTA.
The High Court in Edwina Chmielowski v Fort Braggs Properties Limited HC AK CIV-2005-404-4618 [15 December 2005] involved an applicant claiming that she was subject only to Māori customary laws and under those laws she was entitled to possession of the property subject to the proceedings. The Tenancy Tribunal ordered possession be granted to the respondent pursuant to section 65 of the RTA. The applicant appealed this to the District Court which held that there were no meritorious reasons for challenging the respondent’s freehold title as registered proprietor. The applicant appealed to the High Court.
The High Court considered Te Tiriti/ the Treaty, particularly in relation to Crown government of the land and the grant to Māori of the same rights and duties of citizenship as non-Māori. The Court said these duties included compliance with the law. The Court held that for the Court to fail to give effect to the rights of the respondent under the Land Transfer Act (“the LTA”) (which is the law that relates to ownership of property) would itself be an infringement of the law and of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Court further held that the LTA is the law which the Court must apply, in due exercise of the responsibility to apply the law as was contemplated by the signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Court then gave effect to the respondent’s right to possession under the LTA and dismissed the appeal.
In this case the tenant did not claim that the landlord is not a registered owner under the LTA and in terminating the tenancy I must grant a possession order. Rent arrears
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing by Ms Heta as at 2 December 2024 is $4,330.00.
The rent arrears ordered are not disputed. Tenant’s claims
Ms Heta and Mr Barrett filed a cross application seeking that WINZ “take full and complete responsibility for the actions our landlord is currently feeling forced to apply”.
I understand Ms Heta has had some challenges in dealing with WINZ however the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make orders against WINZ.
It is the tenant’s responsibility to ensure her rent payments are paid when they are due and therefore it is her responsibility to ensure her WINZ support is organised to meet these payments.
I dismiss the tenant’s cross application. Bond
From the bond $2,680.00 is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the rent arrears. This is Ms Heta’s share of the bond held by the Bond Centre. The balance of the bond relates to Mr Barrett’s tenancy and is to remain with the Bond Centre. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
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. See Section 95A of the RTA.
The landlord sought name suppression, however I consider there is a public interest in ensuring landlord’s keep proper records and file applications in the Tribunal that accurately record the details of the tenancy. I therefore do not make a suppression order for the landlord.
Neither tenant sought name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4994489 — net $1,677.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2/12/24	$4,330.00	Rent arrears to 2/12/24
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,677.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,677.00

Order

The tenancy of Mary Maria Heta at 17 Gibboney Place, Pokeno 2402 is terminated, and possession is granted to Duong Thi Thuy Do, at 6.00pm on Thursday 5 December 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 (6278198-003) to Duong Thi Thuy Do immediately.
Mary Maria Heta must pay Duong Thi Thuy Do $1,677.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied against the tenants Mary Heta and Keith Barrett, who I understand are siblings, and the application is in relation to the tenancy at 17 Gibboney Place, Pokeno.
The landlord’s application form records that she had lost the tenancy agreement or cannot get a copy. This has resulted in Tenancy Services not being able to assess that the parties actually have separate tenancy agreements in relation to separate premises.
During the hearing I requested the tenancy agreement. The landlord provided the one page of two separate tenancy agreements.
One tenancy agreement records Mary Heta as the sole tenant in relation to the tenancy address 17 Gibboney Place Pokeno. This agreement records rent as $670.00 per week and a bond amount of $2,680.00.
The other tenancy agreement records Keith Barrett as the sole tenant in relation to the tenancy address 17 A Gibboney Place, Pokeno. This agreement records rent as $490.00 per week and a bond amount of $1,960.00.
I understand the parties live separately in the respective premises but share one water meter.
The landlord has lodged the respective bonds as one bond with the Bond Centre.
The landlord has also provided two rent statements: a. one statement (a spreadsheet) records the parties respective rent payments separately. b. The other statement (the myRent statement) records the rent as if this is one tenancy. 17 A Gibboney Place – Mr Barrett’s tenancy
I consider I must dismiss the claim against Mr Barrett as the application for termination does not relate to his tenancy.
If the landlord seeks termination of Mr Barrett’s tenancy she should make a separate application against him in relation to his tenancy address.
The landlord must ensure that separate tenancies are treated separately. At times the landlord has done this, by serving 14 days notices on the parties separately, however in her rent records and in this application she has treated it as one tenancy, which it is not. Termination - 17 A Gibboney Place – Ms Heta’s tenancy
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the RTA”)
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord served notices to remedy a breach in respect of rent arrears on Ms Heta on 5 November 2024, 8 October 2024, 3 September 2024, 2 September 2024, 26 August 2024, 20 August 2024 and 12 August 2024. The tenant did not remedy the breach.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) RTA
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) RTA Possession
Ms Heta object’s to the making of a possession order on the basis of her customary rights.
I am bound to determine the dispute in accordance with the RTA which states that on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person. See section 64 of the RTA.
The High Court in Edwina Chmielowski v Fort Braggs Properties Limited HC AK CIV-2005-404-4618 [15 December 2005] involved an applicant claiming that she was subject only to Māori customary laws and under those laws she was entitled to possession of the property subject to the proceedings. The Tenancy Tribunal ordered possession be granted to the respondent pursuant to section 65 of the RTA. The applicant appealed this to the District Court which held that there were no meritorious reasons for challenging the respondent’s freehold title as registered proprietor. The applicant appealed to the High Court.
The High Court considered Te Tiriti/ the Treaty, particularly in relation to Crown government of the land and the grant to Māori of the same rights and duties of citizenship as non-Māori. The Court said these duties included compliance with the law. The Court held that for the Court to fail to give effect to the rights of the respondent under the Land Transfer Act (“the LTA”) (which is the law that relates to ownership of property) would itself be an infringement of the law and of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Court further held that the LTA is the law which the Court must apply, in due exercise of the responsibility to apply the law as was contemplated by the signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Court then gave effect to the respondent’s right to possession under the LTA and dismissed the appeal.
In this case the tenant did not claim that the landlord is not a registered owner under the LTA and in terminating the tenancy I must grant a possession order. Rent arrears
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing by Ms Heta as at 2 December 2024 is $4,330.00.
The rent arrears ordered are not disputed. Tenant’s claims
Ms Heta and Mr Barrett filed a cross application seeking that WINZ “take full and complete responsibility for the actions our landlord is currently feeling forced to apply”.
I understand Ms Heta has had some challenges in dealing with WINZ however the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make orders against WINZ.
It is the tenant’s responsibility to ensure her rent payments are paid when they are due and therefore it is her responsibility to ensure her WINZ support is organised to meet these payments.
I dismiss the tenant’s cross application. Bond
From the bond $2,680.00 is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the rent arrears. This is Ms Heta’s share of the bond held by the Bond Centre. The balance of the bond relates to Mr Barrett’s tenancy and is to remain with the Bond Centre. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
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. See Section 95A of the RTA.
The landlord sought name suppression, however I consider there is a public interest in ensuring landlord’s keep proper records and file applications in the Tribunal that accurately record the details of the tenancy. I therefore do not make a suppression order for the landlord.
Neither tenant sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994489 — Rent arrears at 17 Gibboney Place, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994489 — Rent arrears at 17 Gibboney Place, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions