How much money was awarded in case 5196271?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,907.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5196271?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5196271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11783903-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5196271?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,907.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5196271?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5196271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11783903-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43A Motu Road, Kumeu, Kumeu 0891 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5196271 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5196271?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Rogan Nordmeyer as director of Mammoth Transport Limited at

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5196271 — net $12,934.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$12,907.14	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,934.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,934.14

The tenancy of Rogan Nordmeyer as director of Mammoth Transport Limited at 43A Motu Road, Kumeu, Kumeu 0891 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Ying Lin, Peiheng Hu, Sen Miao & Lei Zhang, at 11.59 am on Thursday 8 May 2025.

Rogan Nordmeyer as director of Mammoth Transport Limited must pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Ying Lin, Peiheng Hu, Sen Miao & Lei Zhang $12,934.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 1 May 2025.

The tenancy commenced on 19 January 2024 and was current at the date of hearing.

The relevant law is set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)

The tenant is described in the tenancy agreement as ”Rogan Nordmeyer as director of Mammoth Transport Limited”. That means for the purposes of this hearing, the tenant is the company “Mammoth Transport Limited” (“the company”) and not Rogan Nordmeyer in his personal capacity. During the course of the hearing, the property manager indicated that it was her understanding that a company could not be a tenant. That is incorrect. A company acts by its directors and on this occasion, it is clear that Rogan Nordmeyer was acting in his capacity as a director of the company.

The property forms part of a lifestyle block. The landlord let part of the lifestyle block to the company under a commercial lease. The balance of the residential property was let to the company under a separate residential tenancy agreement.

The rental due under the commercial lease and the rent due under the tenancy agreement were identical amounts ($650.00 per week). This may have caused some confusion between the parties.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord says that the rent owing under the tenancy agreement was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed.

The landlord provided a rent summary showing that the rent arrears on 11 March 2025, when this application was filed, amounted to $7,614.29. The tenant did not dispute this.

The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord said that the rent arrears owing at the date of the hearing was $12,350.00.

The tenant said that the rent had been paid in full yesterday.

The landlord confirmed receipt of $12,350.00 from the tenant, but said that this had been allocated by the landlord to the rent owing under the commercial lease, which was an identical amount.

The payment made by the tenant did not include any direction to the landlord as to which account was to be paid. The payment was made by the company, which is the tenant under both the commercial and residential agreements.

Where several distinct debts are owing by a debtor to a creditor, the debtor has the right, when making a payment, to appropriate the money to any of the debts that the debtor pleases; and the creditor is bound, if the creditor takes the money, to apply it in the manner directed by the debtor ( Devaynes v Noble (1816) 1 Mer 572 (Claytons’ Case). If the debtor does not make any appropriation at the time when they make the payment, the right of appropriation devolves on the creditor (Ward v National Bank of New Zealand (1889) 8 NZLR 10(SC).

The company owed distinct debts to the landlord. Payment was made by the company without any directions to the landlord as to where this payment was to be directed. In those circumstances, the right of appropriation devolves to the landlord. The landlord has directed that the payment received was to go towards payment of the commercial lease rent.

As the landlord has been wholly successful in this matter, the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord.

The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter. The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5196271 — net $12,934.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$12,907.14	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,934.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,934.14

Order

The tenancy of Rogan Nordmeyer as director of Mammoth Transport Limited at 43A Motu Road, Kumeu, Kumeu 0891 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Ying Lin, Peiheng Hu, Sen Miao & Lei Zhang, at 11.59 am on Thursday 8 May 2025.
Rogan Nordmeyer as director of Mammoth Transport Limited must pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Ying Lin, Peiheng Hu, Sen Miao & Lei Zhang $12,934.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 1 May 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 19 January 2024 and was current at the date of hearing.
The relevant law is set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
The tenant is described in the tenancy agreement as ”Rogan Nordmeyer as director of Mammoth Transport Limited”. That means for the purposes of this hearing, the tenant is the company “Mammoth Transport Limited” (“the company”) and not Rogan Nordmeyer in his personal capacity. During the course of the hearing, the property manager indicated that it was her understanding that a company could not be a tenant. That is incorrect. A company acts by its directors and on this occasion, it is clear that Rogan Nordmeyer was acting in his capacity as a director of the company.
The property forms part of a lifestyle block. The landlord let part of the lifestyle block to the company under a commercial lease. The balance of the residential property was let to the company under a separate residential tenancy agreement.
The rental due under the commercial lease and the rent due under the tenancy agreement were identical amounts ($650.00 per week). This may have caused some confusion between the parties.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord says that the rent owing under the tenancy agreement was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed.
The landlord provided a rent summary showing that the rent arrears on 11 March 2025, when this application was filed, amounted to $7,614.29. The tenant did not dispute this.
The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that the rent arrears owing at the date of the hearing was $12,350.00.
The tenant said that the rent had been paid in full yesterday.
The landlord confirmed receipt of $12,350.00 from the tenant, but said that this had been allocated by the landlord to the rent owing under the commercial lease, which was an identical amount.
The payment made by the tenant did not include any direction to the landlord as to which account was to be paid. The payment was made by the company, which is the tenant under both the commercial and residential agreements.
Where several distinct debts are owing by a debtor to a creditor, the debtor has the right, when making a payment, to appropriate the money to any of the debts that the debtor pleases; and the creditor is bound, if the creditor takes the money, to apply it in the manner directed by the debtor ( Devaynes v Noble (1816) 1 Mer 572 (Claytons’ Case). If the debtor does not make any appropriation at the time when they make the payment, the right of appropriation devolves on the creditor (Ward v National Bank of New Zealand (1889) 8 NZLR 10(SC).
The company owed distinct debts to the landlord. Payment was made by the company without any directions to the landlord as to where this payment was to be directed. In those circumstances, the right of appropriation devolves to the landlord. The landlord has directed that the payment received was to go towards payment of the commercial lease rent.
As the landlord has been wholly successful in this matter, the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter. The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5196271 — Rent arrears at 43A Motu Road, Kumeu, Kumeu 0891

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5196271 — Rent arrears at 43A Motu Road, Kumeu, Kumeu 0891

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