What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5118968?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5118968?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,922.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118968?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118968?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11516346-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5118968?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5118968?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,922.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118968?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118968?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11516346-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

309E St Aubyn Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5118968 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5118968 — net $3,949.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 March 2025	$3,922.86	Rent arrears to 7 March 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,949.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,949.86

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Missipati Mose-Tuiloma at 309E St Aubyn Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310 is terminated, and possession is granted to Property Management New Plymouth 2020 Ltd T/A Raywhite, at 11.59pm on Friday 7 March 2025.
Missipati Mose-Tuiloma must pay Property Management New Plymouth 2020 Ltd T/A Raywhite $3,949.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied that Mr Mose-Tulioma has been served with details relating to this hearing and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Who is the landlord?

The application is bought by Property Management New Plymouth 2020 Ltd T/A Ray White (Ray White). Ray White is a property management business.
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants. The Tribunal must first determine whether Ray White is a landlord to determine whether it may bring this application.
Section 2(1) RTA defines the meaning of landlord as: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes- ... (e) an agent of the landlord" [emphasis added]
Therefore, while the owner of the property will usually be the grantor of the tenancy a property management business (often described as an agent) may also be a ‘landlord’ where appropriate.
In deciding whether the agent can bring a claim (or can be liable), the Tribunal has to consider principles of agency. There are two relevant sources of agency law: the common law rules of agency and the extended definition of landlord in s 2(1) RTA.
The tenancy agreement describes Ray White as an agent and an intermediary acting on behalf of the landlord (owner). Therefore, on the face of it, under agency law, they are not a landlord. However, a detailed discussion, surrounding the law of agency in respect of property managers/agents can be found in Tribunal case [2023] NZTT 4601989, 4654572 (see paragraphs 42 to 63). This discussion highlights that the position is more nuanced and requires further consideration.
The application has been made on the basis that Ray White are the landlord.
Ray White collects the rent from the tenant and does the tenancy inspections schedules maintenance and so on. It generally undertakes all the management of the tenancy without the involvement of the owner.
Taking the above factors into account and adopting the reasoning of Adjudicator J P Smith in the above case, I find that Ray White is a ‘landlord’ and may bring this application.

Who is the tenant?

The landlord says that Mr Mose-Tulioma took over this tenancy in December 2023. A copy of a document setting this out has been provided however the page that the landlord says was signed by Mr Mose-Tulioma is missing as the landlord says it has been lost. The page signed by the departing tenant is however provided. The document sets out that Mr Mose-Tulioma takes over the tenancy from the departing tenant from 14 December 2023.
I heard that Mr Mose-Tulioma has been living in the property as the sole tenant and the landlord has (since the departing tenant moved elsewhere) had all contact has been with him. The departing tenant is a relation of Mr Mose- Tulioma and I heard how she moved to another unit the same landlord has in the same complex at the time Mr Mose-Tulioma took over the tenancy. I heard how Mr Mose-Tulioma has been the person paying the rent at the property since December 2023. I have no reason to doubt this.
I am satisfied on the evidence before me that Mr Mose-Tulioma took over as the tenant of this premises on 14 December 2023.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord seeks rent arrears. I am satisfied that rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is 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.
The landlord agrees that the tenancy may be terminated on 7 March 2025 to enable the tenant time to depart. I have therefore made an adjustment and ordered arrears to that date. Bond
No bond form has been provided transferring the bond from the departing tenant to Mr Mose-Tulioma. The landlord says this was lodged at the Bond Centre and the bond is held in Mr Mose-Tulioma’s name. However, as discussed at the hearing the bond is not held in Mr Mose-Tulioma’s name. It remains held in the departing tenant’s name. I have made enquires of the Bond Centre to confirm this information.
Unlike the tenancy itself, which I am sufficiently satisfied has been varied and passed to Mr Mose-Tulioma on the basis of the evidence before me, in the absence of a signed bond form, and in the absence of any record of it being lodged at the Bond Centre, I am not sufficiently satisfied the departing tenant agreed to pass the bond on to cover Mr Mose-Tulioma’s tenancy when she left.
I therefore decline to award the bond. Filing fee and suppression
Because Property Management New Plymouth 2020 Ltd T/A Raywhite has been substantially successful I have reimbursed the filing fee.
No application was made for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5118968 — net $3,949.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 March 2025	$3,922.86	Rent arrears to 7 March 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,949.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,949.86

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Missipati Mose-Tuiloma at 309E St Aubyn Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310 is terminated, and possession is granted to Property Management New Plymouth 2020 Ltd T/A Raywhite, at 11.59pm on Friday 7 March 2025.
Missipati Mose-Tuiloma must pay Property Management New Plymouth 2020 Ltd T/A Raywhite $3,949.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied that Mr Mose-Tulioma has been served with details relating to this hearing and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Who is the landlord?

The application is bought by Property Management New Plymouth 2020 Ltd T/A Ray White (Ray White). Ray White is a property management business.
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants. The Tribunal must first determine whether Ray White is a landlord to determine whether it may bring this application.
Section 2(1) RTA defines the meaning of landlord as: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes- ... (e) an agent of the landlord" [emphasis added]
Therefore, while the owner of the property will usually be the grantor of the tenancy a property management business (often described as an agent) may also be a ‘landlord’ where appropriate.
In deciding whether the agent can bring a claim (or can be liable), the Tribunal has to consider principles of agency. There are two relevant sources of agency law: the common law rules of agency and the extended definition of landlord in s 2(1) RTA.
The tenancy agreement describes Ray White as an agent and an intermediary acting on behalf of the landlord (owner). Therefore, on the face of it, under agency law, they are not a landlord. However, a detailed discussion, surrounding the law of agency in respect of property managers/agents can be found in Tribunal case [2023] NZTT 4601989, 4654572 (see paragraphs 42 to 63). This discussion highlights that the position is more nuanced and requires further consideration.
The application has been made on the basis that Ray White are the landlord.
Ray White collects the rent from the tenant and does the tenancy inspections schedules maintenance and so on. It generally undertakes all the management of the tenancy without the involvement of the owner.
Taking the above factors into account and adopting the reasoning of Adjudicator J P Smith in the above case, I find that Ray White is a ‘landlord’ and may bring this application.

Who is the tenant?

The landlord says that Mr Mose-Tulioma took over this tenancy in December 2023. A copy of a document setting this out has been provided however the page that the landlord says was signed by Mr Mose-Tulioma is missing as the landlord says it has been lost. The page signed by the departing tenant is however provided. The document sets out that Mr Mose-Tulioma takes over the tenancy from the departing tenant from 14 December 2023.
I heard that Mr Mose-Tulioma has been living in the property as the sole tenant and the landlord has (since the departing tenant moved elsewhere) had all contact has been with him. The departing tenant is a relation of Mr Mose- Tulioma and I heard how she moved to another unit the same landlord has in the same complex at the time Mr Mose-Tulioma took over the tenancy. I heard how Mr Mose-Tulioma has been the person paying the rent at the property since December 2023. I have no reason to doubt this.
I am satisfied on the evidence before me that Mr Mose-Tulioma took over as the tenant of this premises on 14 December 2023.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord seeks rent arrears. I am satisfied that rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is 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.
The landlord agrees that the tenancy may be terminated on 7 March 2025 to enable the tenant time to depart. I have therefore made an adjustment and ordered arrears to that date. Bond
No bond form has been provided transferring the bond from the departing tenant to Mr Mose-Tulioma. The landlord says this was lodged at the Bond Centre and the bond is held in Mr Mose-Tulioma’s name. However, as discussed at the hearing the bond is not held in Mr Mose-Tulioma’s name. It remains held in the departing tenant’s name. I have made enquires of the Bond Centre to confirm this information.
Unlike the tenancy itself, which I am sufficiently satisfied has been varied and passed to Mr Mose-Tulioma on the basis of the evidence before me, in the absence of a signed bond form, and in the absence of any record of it being lodged at the Bond Centre, I am not sufficiently satisfied the departing tenant agreed to pass the bond on to cover Mr Mose-Tulioma’s tenancy when she left.
I therefore decline to award the bond. Filing fee and suppression
Because Property Management New Plymouth 2020 Ltd T/A Raywhite has been substantially successful I have reimbursed the filing fee.
No application was made for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118968 — Rent arrears at 309E St Aubyn Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118968 — Rent arrears at 309E St Aubyn Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who is the landlord?

Who is the tenant?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who is the landlord?

Who is the tenant?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions