What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5073028?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is granted limited to the Tribunal’s order dated 20

How much money was awarded in case 5073028?

ED HOWEVER That This Order Is Stayed…: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5073028?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5073028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11393359-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5073028?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is granted limited to the Tribunal’s order dated 20

How much money was awarded in case 5073028?

ED HOWEVER That This Order Is Stayed…: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5073028?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5073028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11393359-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

529 Settlement Road, Otira, Westland 7875 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5073028 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5073028. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ED HOWEVER that this order is stayed until 11.59pm on Friday 7 February 2025 on the condition that the tenants pay rent	$4,000.00		ED HOWEVER that this order is stayed until 11.59pm on Friday 7 February 2025 on the condition that the tenants pay rent

Order

The application for rehearing is granted limited to the Tribunal’s order dated 20 January 2025 terminating the tenancy and granting possession to the landlord. No rehearing is granted of the money order for rent arrears.
This order replaces the Tribunal’s orders dated 20 January and 24 January 2025 in relation to the orders terminating the tenancy, granting possession to the landlord, and declining to stay the possession order.
The tenancy of Steven Martin and Sheree Martin at 529 Settlement Road, Otira, Westland 7875 is terminated, and possession is granted to Lester Michael Rowntree immediately PROVIDED HOWEVER that this order is stayed until
59pm on Friday 7 February 2025 on the condition that the tenants pay rent arrears of $4,000.00 by then being the amount of rent arrears determined by the Tribunal to be owed by the tenants to 26 January 2025.
If the amount of rent owing is paid in full by 7 February 2025 the tenancy will continue. If not, the stay will lapse, and the landlord will have immediate possession.

Reasons

I conducted a hearing today by phone to determine whether to grant the tenants a rehearing of the Tribunal’s order dated 20 January 2025.
The tenants attended. My call to the landlord went to voicemail.
The tenants accept that there are rent arrears well in excess of 21 days. They have calculated an amount of $5991.40 less a bond of $600.00 they say was paid but never lodged by the landlord with the Bond Centre. Also, they say there is an amount of $300.00 for rent in advance.
I have not granted a rehearing of the rent arrears order because I reduced the landlord’s claim for rent considerably as he failed to mitigate his loss by making an earlier application. A rehearing on that issue could well have a negative result for the tenants as another adjudicator might not be so willing to reduce the rent claim by the amount I did.
Usually, when a rehearing is granted, a new hearing is set before another adjudicator. However, that is not a hard and fast rule.
I have decided to rehear the application myself because I am familiar with the case and the Greymouth District Court is serviced from Christchurch. Only a few adjudicators travel there for hearings.
I have granted the tenants a rehearing limited to the issue of the order made terminating the tenancy and granting possession to the landlord.
Mrs Martin made the valid point that she should have been named as a tenant party but was not. Mr Rowntree accepted that at the first hearing.
While service on one joint tenant is deemed service on the other, there are circumstances here that mean an injustice may have occurred by Mrs Martin not having notice of the hearing.
Mrs Martin told me she could have made an appointment with Work and Income to see whether the rent arrears could be paid, in which case the Tribunal might have been able to exercise its limited discretion not to terminate the tenancy.
There are other factors here too. The landlord’s management of the tenancy has been somewhat shambolic. He admitted that he was ‘very disorganised’ which I recorded in my first order. Had he acted more professionally during the tenancy the situation with outstanding rent might not have arisen. For that reason, I reduced his rent claim for his failure to mitigate his loss.
The fact remains that the landlord has grounds to terminate the tenancy. But I am persuaded to give the tenants the chance to arrange for their rent to be paid in full.
I have therefore made a new conditional termination order (Mr Rowntree did not attend the hearing so I could not hear his views on that). The conditional termination order is stayed until 7 February 2025. If the rent arrears are not paid in full by then the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises and will be able to enforce the order if the tenants do not vacate.
If the outstanding rent of $4,000.00 is paid in full, the stay will remain in place and the tenancy will continue. The tenants also are liable for rent between 27 January 2025 and now. If they have not already paid that amount, they should do so immediately.
The tenants need to be aware that they must pay their rent when due. Further rent arrears would also certainly result in an order terminating the tenancy if the landlord were to apply in the future.
There were other issues raised in the application which I did not need to address in my first order. Needless to say, it is in everyone’s best interests that the parties try and co-operate. Tenancies can be terminated for a variety of reasons. There has been a history of conflict with this tenancy, which the landlord has failed to address appropriately. That situation needs to stop otherwise it is inevitable that the tenancy will be back before the Tribunal before long.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5073028. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ED HOWEVER that this order is stayed until 11.59pm on Friday 7 February 2025 on the condition that the tenants pay rent	$4,000.00		ED HOWEVER that this order is stayed until 11.59pm on Friday 7 February 2025 on the condition that the tenants pay rent

Order

The application for rehearing is granted limited to the Tribunal’s order dated 20 January 2025 terminating the tenancy and granting possession to the landlord. No rehearing is granted of the money order for rent arrears.
This order replaces the Tribunal’s orders dated 20 January and 24 January 2025 in relation to the orders terminating the tenancy, granting possession to the landlord, and declining to stay the possession order.
The tenancy of Steven Martin and Sheree Martin at 529 Settlement Road, Otira, Westland 7875 is terminated, and possession is granted to Lester Michael Rowntree immediately PROVIDED HOWEVER that this order is stayed until
59pm on Friday 7 February 2025 on the condition that the tenants pay rent arrears of $4,000.00 by then being the amount of rent arrears determined by the Tribunal to be owed by the tenants to 26 January 2025.
If the amount of rent owing is paid in full by 7 February 2025 the tenancy will continue. If not, the stay will lapse, and the landlord will have immediate possession.

Reasons

I conducted a hearing today by phone to determine whether to grant the tenants a rehearing of the Tribunal’s order dated 20 January 2025.
The tenants attended. My call to the landlord went to voicemail.
The tenants accept that there are rent arrears well in excess of 21 days. They have calculated an amount of $5991.40 less a bond of $600.00 they say was paid but never lodged by the landlord with the Bond Centre. Also, they say there is an amount of $300.00 for rent in advance.
I have not granted a rehearing of the rent arrears order because I reduced the landlord’s claim for rent considerably as he failed to mitigate his loss by making an earlier application. A rehearing on that issue could well have a negative result for the tenants as another adjudicator might not be so willing to reduce the rent claim by the amount I did.
Usually, when a rehearing is granted, a new hearing is set before another adjudicator. However, that is not a hard and fast rule.
I have decided to rehear the application myself because I am familiar with the case and the Greymouth District Court is serviced from Christchurch. Only a few adjudicators travel there for hearings.
I have granted the tenants a rehearing limited to the issue of the order made terminating the tenancy and granting possession to the landlord.
Mrs Martin made the valid point that she should have been named as a tenant party but was not. Mr Rowntree accepted that at the first hearing.
While service on one joint tenant is deemed service on the other, there are circumstances here that mean an injustice may have occurred by Mrs Martin not having notice of the hearing.
Mrs Martin told me she could have made an appointment with Work and Income to see whether the rent arrears could be paid, in which case the Tribunal might have been able to exercise its limited discretion not to terminate the tenancy.
There are other factors here too. The landlord’s management of the tenancy has been somewhat shambolic. He admitted that he was ‘very disorganised’ which I recorded in my first order. Had he acted more professionally during the tenancy the situation with outstanding rent might not have arisen. For that reason, I reduced his rent claim for his failure to mitigate his loss.
The fact remains that the landlord has grounds to terminate the tenancy. But I am persuaded to give the tenants the chance to arrange for their rent to be paid in full.
I have therefore made a new conditional termination order (Mr Rowntree did not attend the hearing so I could not hear his views on that). The conditional termination order is stayed until 7 February 2025. If the rent arrears are not paid in full by then the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises and will be able to enforce the order if the tenants do not vacate.
If the outstanding rent of $4,000.00 is paid in full, the stay will remain in place and the tenancy will continue. The tenants also are liable for rent between 27 January 2025 and now. If they have not already paid that amount, they should do so immediately.
The tenants need to be aware that they must pay their rent when due. Further rent arrears would also certainly result in an order terminating the tenancy if the landlord were to apply in the future.
There were other issues raised in the application which I did not need to address in my first order. Needless to say, it is in everyone’s best interests that the parties try and co-operate. Tenancies can be terminated for a variety of reasons. There has been a history of conflict with this tenancy, which the landlord has failed to address appropriately. That situation needs to stop otherwise it is inevitable that the tenancy will be back before the Tribunal before long.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5073028 — Rent arrears at 529 Settlement Road, Otira, Westland 7875

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5073028 — Rent arrears at 529 Settlement Road, Otira, Westland 7875

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions