What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5167468?

The tribunal order states: Lewis Adam Popata and Keely Shannon McManus must pay Arent1 Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5167468?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,040.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167468?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12036166-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5167468?

The tribunal order states: Lewis Adam Popata and Keely Shannon McManus must pay Arent1 Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5167468?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,040.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167468?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12036166-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7A Rangiatea Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5167468 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167468 — net $2,067.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 November 2022	$2,040.00	Rent arrears to 4 November 2022
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,067.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,067.00

Order

Lewis Adam Popata and Keely Shannon McManus must pay Arent1 Limited $2,067.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for the tenant failing to quit the premises is dismissed.
The tenants’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Shu for the landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend the hearing. Approximately one hour into the hearing the Tribunal received an email from Keely McManus stating that she was in Nelson and had been expecting to receive a telephone call to join by teleconference. She requested that she be contacted by telephone so she could participate in the hearing.
In the days and weeks leading up to the hearing Mr Shu made three requests to attend the hearing by teleconference. I received the second and third requests and declined them on the basis that this was a cross-application with many claims that were likely to be contested by both parties. My view was, (and is) that it would not be practical to address these claims in a teleconference hearing and I declined Mr Shu’s request.
The Notices of Hearings sent to both parties on 29 May 2025, 1 April 2025 and 17 June 2025 all state the location of the hearing as Auckland District Court. I am satisfied that Ms Keely was given correct information and sufficient notice of the place and mode of hearing and has not been given contradictory information on this point.
All parties are expected to read the correspondence sent to them and to attend hearings in the mode they are scheduled. Occasionally changes of mode can be made on the strength of an application being made. As stated above I declined to do that in this case for Ms Shu, and I gave my reasons. I am not aware of Ms Keely applying to attend by teleconference, and I do not believe an indication was given to her that she could.
I declined to join Ms Keely by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 30 May 2022. The parties produced a tenancy agreement that sets out a 2-year fixed term tenancy from 3 May 2022 – 3 May 2024. The tenancy agreement says the tenancy is for a one-bedroom studio at 7a Rangiatea Road, Epsom and the rent is $495.00 per week.
The property also had other premises on it including a two-bedroom studio and a five-bedroom house.
The tenancy was a troublesome one for the landlord. The landlord stated that in July 2022, the tenants essentially moved into the 2-bedroom studio as well as the 1-bedroom studio. The landlord sought to formalise the arrangement. The landlord produced a screenshot of an SMS message conversation with one of the tenants dated 27 August 2022 in which the landlord sets out the conditions for the tenants taking the two-bedroom unit, and a response from the tenants which reads: “I agree to about our conversation we had about and our arrangement” [sic].
The rent for the 2-bedroom studio was $720.00 per week. The landlord produced an unsigned tenancy agreement for this studio which states the start date for the tenancy is 3 September 2022 and the end date is 2 December 2022. The rent summary produced by the landlord shows that two payments of $720.00 were made by the tenants, one on 5 September 2022 and the other on 5 November 2025. Based on this information I determine that a tenancy between these two parties for the two-bedroom studio began on 3 September 2022.
The tenancies ended when the landlord issued a trespass notice to the tenants on 28 October 2022 and the tenants moved out. The premises covered by the trespass notice include a one-bedroom studio, a two-bedroom studio and a five- bedroom house. The landlord stated the tenants had vacated by 4 November 2022. I determine the tenancies of the one-bedroom studio and the two- bedroom studio ended on 4 November 2022.
My calculations of rent that was due for the one-bedroom studio, tenanted for 27 weeks at $495.00 per week, is $13,365.00 and for the two-bedroom studio tenanted for 9 weeks at $720.00 per week, is $6,480.00. This amounts to a total of $19,845.00 that the tenant needed to pay in rent.
(I note that the landlord is claiming significantly more than this because he considers the tenants moved into the two-bedroom studio much earlier, and that other acquaintances of the tenants also stayed in the premises. However, I have focussed on what I consider is proved by way of lawful tenancies of the tenants, and not unlawful occupation of the property by the tenants’ acquaintances, who may or may not have been at the property with the tenants’ permission.)
The landlord produced a rent summary that shows the total amount of rent paid for the two studios was $17,805.00. This means the tenants left the tenancy owing $2,040.00 in rent arrears.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord was also claiming exemplary damages for the tenant failing to perform the tenant’s duties.
Section 109 of the RTA sets out that a tenant or landlord may apply for exemplary damages up to 12 months after the commission of an unlawful act in most cases, including this claim. When I advised the landlord of this, he withdrew this claim.
Because Arent1 Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167468 — net $2,067.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 November 2022	$2,040.00	Rent arrears to 4 November 2022
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,067.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,067.00

Order

Lewis Adam Popata and Keely Shannon McManus must pay Arent1 Limited $2,067.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for the tenant failing to quit the premises is dismissed.
The tenants’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Shu for the landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend the hearing. Approximately one hour into the hearing the Tribunal received an email from Keely McManus stating that she was in Nelson and had been expecting to receive a telephone call to join by teleconference. She requested that she be contacted by telephone so she could participate in the hearing.
In the days and weeks leading up to the hearing Mr Shu made three requests to attend the hearing by teleconference. I received the second and third requests and declined them on the basis that this was a cross-application with many claims that were likely to be contested by both parties. My view was, (and is) that it would not be practical to address these claims in a teleconference hearing and I declined Mr Shu’s request.
The Notices of Hearings sent to both parties on 29 May 2025, 1 April 2025 and 17 June 2025 all state the location of the hearing as Auckland District Court. I am satisfied that Ms Keely was given correct information and sufficient notice of the place and mode of hearing and has not been given contradictory information on this point.
All parties are expected to read the correspondence sent to them and to attend hearings in the mode they are scheduled. Occasionally changes of mode can be made on the strength of an application being made. As stated above I declined to do that in this case for Ms Shu, and I gave my reasons. I am not aware of Ms Keely applying to attend by teleconference, and I do not believe an indication was given to her that she could.
I declined to join Ms Keely by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 30 May 2022. The parties produced a tenancy agreement that sets out a 2-year fixed term tenancy from 3 May 2022 – 3 May 2024. The tenancy agreement says the tenancy is for a one-bedroom studio at 7a Rangiatea Road, Epsom and the rent is $495.00 per week.
The property also had other premises on it including a two-bedroom studio and a five-bedroom house.
The tenancy was a troublesome one for the landlord. The landlord stated that in July 2022, the tenants essentially moved into the 2-bedroom studio as well as the 1-bedroom studio. The landlord sought to formalise the arrangement. The landlord produced a screenshot of an SMS message conversation with one of the tenants dated 27 August 2022 in which the landlord sets out the conditions for the tenants taking the two-bedroom unit, and a response from the tenants which reads: “I agree to about our conversation we had about and our arrangement” [sic].
The rent for the 2-bedroom studio was $720.00 per week. The landlord produced an unsigned tenancy agreement for this studio which states the start date for the tenancy is 3 September 2022 and the end date is 2 December 2022. The rent summary produced by the landlord shows that two payments of $720.00 were made by the tenants, one on 5 September 2022 and the other on 5 November 2025. Based on this information I determine that a tenancy between these two parties for the two-bedroom studio began on 3 September 2022.
The tenancies ended when the landlord issued a trespass notice to the tenants on 28 October 2022 and the tenants moved out. The premises covered by the trespass notice include a one-bedroom studio, a two-bedroom studio and a five- bedroom house. The landlord stated the tenants had vacated by 4 November 2022. I determine the tenancies of the one-bedroom studio and the two- bedroom studio ended on 4 November 2022.
My calculations of rent that was due for the one-bedroom studio, tenanted for 27 weeks at $495.00 per week, is $13,365.00 and for the two-bedroom studio tenanted for 9 weeks at $720.00 per week, is $6,480.00. This amounts to a total of $19,845.00 that the tenant needed to pay in rent.
(I note that the landlord is claiming significantly more than this because he considers the tenants moved into the two-bedroom studio much earlier, and that other acquaintances of the tenants also stayed in the premises. However, I have focussed on what I consider is proved by way of lawful tenancies of the tenants, and not unlawful occupation of the property by the tenants’ acquaintances, who may or may not have been at the property with the tenants’ permission.)
The landlord produced a rent summary that shows the total amount of rent paid for the two studios was $17,805.00. This means the tenants left the tenancy owing $2,040.00 in rent arrears.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord was also claiming exemplary damages for the tenant failing to perform the tenant’s duties.
Section 109 of the RTA sets out that a tenant or landlord may apply for exemplary damages up to 12 months after the commission of an unlawful act in most cases, including this claim. When I advised the landlord of this, he withdrew this claim.
Because Arent1 Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167468 — Rent arrears at 7A Rangiatea Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167468 — Rent arrears at 7A Rangiatea Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

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