What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100232?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Keith Michel Barrett at 17A Gibboney Place, Pokeno, Pokeno

How much money was awarded in case 5100232?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,560.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100232?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100232?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11492173-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100232?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Keith Michel Barrett at 17A Gibboney Place, Pokeno, Pokeno

How much money was awarded in case 5100232?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,560.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100232?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100232?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11492173-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17A Gibboney Place, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100232 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100232 — net $5,627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 March 2025	$7,560.00	Rent arrears to 7 March 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,627.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,627.00

The tenancy of Keith Michel Barrett at 17A Gibboney Place, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 is terminated, and possession is granted to Duong Thi Thuy Do, at 7pm, Friday 7 March 2025.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 () to Duong Thi Thuy Do immediately.

Keith Michel Barrett must pay Duong Thi Thuy Do $5,627.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy should be terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $7,560.00. The tenant did not dispute the quantum but rather the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to make any orders. He pointed out some recent payments towards the rent arrears, but these are not significant. He explained his challenges in accessing financial support. Unfortunately, any such challenge is for him to resolve in a timely manner if possible. It is not a defence to the significant rent arrears here.

The tenant argued the any termination and possession order would be a breach with regards to Tu Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993 and the Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

This argument was advanced by the tenant in a previous hearing and subsequent order (NZTT 4994489, 4997728 dated 3 December 2024) that terminated that tenancy. This related to what commenced as a landlord application for a cojoined tenancy, but it was determined by the adjudicator that two tenancies existed. That order dealt with the neighbouring premises. The tenancy here was confirmed as a separate tenancy. That order also made a partial release of what was effectively at that time an aggregated bond lodged over the two tenancies. The balance remaining at the Bond Centre relates to this tenancy and it is released to the landlord per this order. That 3 December 2024 order succinctly addresses the considerations such a claim as made in this instance by the tenant requires. Some of the reasoning from that order are repeated below where applicable.

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.

There is no challenge from the tenant that the landlord is the owner as per the record of title. The landlord is entitled to the orders sought in her application here.

I am satisfied this is a residential tenancy and this Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this application. The rent was, at the date on which the application was filed, at least 21 days in arrear and a termination order should be made.

I am not satisfied any conditional order should be made per s 55(1A) RTA.

The tenancy is terminated per the above orders. Filing fee

Because Duong Thi Thuy Do has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100232 — net $5,627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 March 2025	$7,560.00	Rent arrears to 7 March 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,627.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,627.00

Order

The tenancy of Keith Michel Barrett at 17A Gibboney Place, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 is terminated, and possession is granted to Duong Thi Thuy Do, at 7pm, Friday 7 March 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 () to Duong Thi Thuy Do immediately.
Keith Michel Barrett must pay Duong Thi Thuy Do $5,627.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy should be terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $7,560.00. The tenant did not dispute the quantum but rather the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to make any orders. He pointed out some recent payments towards the rent arrears, but these are not significant. He explained his challenges in accessing financial support. Unfortunately, any such challenge is for him to resolve in a timely manner if possible. It is not a defence to the significant rent arrears here.
The tenant argued the any termination and possession order would be a breach with regards to Tu Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993 and the Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
This argument was advanced by the tenant in a previous hearing and subsequent order (NZTT 4994489, 4997728 dated 3 December 2024) that terminated that tenancy. This related to what commenced as a landlord application for a cojoined tenancy, but it was determined by the adjudicator that two tenancies existed. That order dealt with the neighbouring premises. The tenancy here was confirmed as a separate tenancy. That order also made a partial release of what was effectively at that time an aggregated bond lodged over the two tenancies. The balance remaining at the Bond Centre relates to this tenancy and it is released to the landlord per this order. That 3 December 2024 order succinctly addresses the considerations such a claim as made in this instance by the tenant requires. Some of the reasoning from that order are repeated below where applicable.
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.
There is no challenge from the tenant that the landlord is the owner as per the record of title. The landlord is entitled to the orders sought in her application here.
I am satisfied this is a residential tenancy and this Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this application. The rent was, at the date on which the application was filed, at least 21 days in arrear and a termination order should be made.
I am not satisfied any conditional order should be made per s 55(1A) RTA.
The tenancy is terminated per the above orders. Filing fee
Because Duong Thi Thuy Do has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100232 — Rent arrears at 17A Gibboney Place, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100232 — Rent arrears at 17A 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