What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5125008?

The tribunal order states: Bronek Joseph Genek Hasler must pay Triarc Developments Limited $6,429.67

How much money was awarded in case 5125008?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,402.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5125008?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5125008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11926864-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5125008?

The tribunal order states: Bronek Joseph Genek Hasler must pay Triarc Developments Limited $6,429.67

How much money was awarded in case 5125008?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,402.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5125008?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5125008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11926864-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

204 Jervois Street, Mayfair, Hastings 4122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5125008 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

204 Jervois Street, Mayfair, Hastings 4122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5125008 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5125008 — net $6,429.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$6,402.67	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,429.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,429.67

Claims and awards for application 5125008 — net $6,429.67 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $6,402.67
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $6,429.67

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $6,429.67

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

Bronek Joseph Genek Hasler must pay Triarc Developments Limited $6,429.67 immediately, as follows.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by its Director, Mr Taylor. Mr Taylor confirms that the company is the owner of the property. It should be considered the landlord in the absence of any tenancy agreement to the contrary.
The tenant did not attend. He was phoned and given the opportunity to participate by teleconference. He chose not to.
A case conference on 20 March 2025 noted claims for rent arrears, rubbish removal and compensation for damage. Mr Taylor confirms that the property has since been sold for demolition, so compensation for damage is no longer sought. The landlord’s only claim is now for rent arrears. Rent
The landlord has provided a rent summary which Mr Taylor confirms was taken from the landlord’s bank records and accounts for all rent payment smade by the tenant.
The rent summary shows rent due of $280.00 per week from the start of the tenancy on 2 May 2023, increasing to $300.00 per week from 3 April 2024 to 14 December 2024 when the tenant vacated.
I accept Mr Taylor’s evidence that the tenant vacated on 14 December 2024 and that is the date to which rent should be paid.
Rent cannot be increased within 12 months from the start of the tenancy (s24(1)(d) RTA). The rent increase was accordingly ineffective and there is no evidence of it having been rectified as allowed under s.24(4) RTA.
That means the rent payable remains as it was prior to the invalid increase.
The rent summary shows that rent was paid, though somewhat erratically, up to 17 September 2024. No rent was paid after that date.
I have given consideration to s.49 RTA, which provides that, “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
Mr Taylor says that he was in repeated contact with the tenant about the arrears and was repeatedly given promises of payment, which, given the tenant’s history of eventually paying up the arrears, led the landlord to delay bringing action to end the tenancy and accumulation of the rent debt.
In those circumstances and given that the landlord is seeking arrears that accumulated for less than 3 months after the last rent payment, no reduction in the claim should be made for the landlord’s failure to meet its obligations under s.49 RTA (see for example Huang v Ashworth 1 ). 1 Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726
Because Triarc Developments Limited has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5125008 — net $6,429.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$6,402.67	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,429.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,429.67

Claims and awards for application 5125008 — net $6,429.67 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $6,402.67
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $6,429.67

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $6,429.67

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

Bronek Joseph Genek Hasler must pay Triarc Developments Limited $6,429.67 immediately, as follows.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by its Director, Mr Taylor. Mr Taylor confirms that the company is the owner of the property. It should be considered the landlord in the absence of any tenancy agreement to the contrary.
The tenant did not attend. He was phoned and given the opportunity to participate by teleconference. He chose not to.
A case conference on 20 March 2025 noted claims for rent arrears, rubbish removal and compensation for damage. Mr Taylor confirms that the property has since been sold for demolition, so compensation for damage is no longer sought. The landlord’s only claim is now for rent arrears. Rent
The landlord has provided a rent summary which Mr Taylor confirms was taken from the landlord’s bank records and accounts for all rent payment smade by the tenant.
The rent summary shows rent due of $280.00 per week from the start of the tenancy on 2 May 2023, increasing to $300.00 per week from 3 April 2024 to 14 December 2024 when the tenant vacated.
I accept Mr Taylor’s evidence that the tenant vacated on 14 December 2024 and that is the date to which rent should be paid.
Rent cannot be increased within 12 months from the start of the tenancy (s24(1)(d) RTA). The rent increase was accordingly ineffective and there is no evidence of it having been rectified as allowed under s.24(4) RTA.
That means the rent payable remains as it was prior to the invalid increase.
The rent summary shows that rent was paid, though somewhat erratically, up to 17 September 2024. No rent was paid after that date.
I have given consideration to s.49 RTA, which provides that, “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
Mr Taylor says that he was in repeated contact with the tenant about the arrears and was repeatedly given promises of payment, which, given the tenant’s history of eventually paying up the arrears, led the landlord to delay bringing action to end the tenancy and accumulation of the rent debt.
In those circumstances and given that the landlord is seeking arrears that accumulated for less than 3 months after the last rent payment, no reduction in the claim should be made for the landlord’s failure to meet its obligations under s.49 RTA (see for example Huang v Ashworth 1 ). 1 Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726
Because Triarc Developments Limited has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5125008 — Rent arrears at 204 Jervois Street, Mayfair, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5125008 — Rent arrears at 204 Jervois Street, Mayfair, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions