How much money was awarded in case 5207499?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5207499?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5207499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11665764-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5207499?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5207499?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5207499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11665764-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

145 No 3 Line, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5207499 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5207499?

The tribunal order states: Bartley Real Estate Limited As Agent For Paula And Damien Goudie is granted

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.

Ms O’Neil is the property manager. She attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.

The landlord served Mr. Morgan a notice under section 51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Section 51 (2)(a) notice states that the landlord “... wished to gain vacant possession of the premises to use as a principal place of residence by the owner or a member of the owner’s family.” The last date to vacate the premises is 20 March 2025.

Mr. Morgan did not dispute that the notice was properly served on him, and he was aware of the date by which he needed to vacate the premises.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy on 20 March 2025.

Ms. O’Neil stated that Mr. Morgan did not vacate the premises by 20 March 2025. The date of vacating the premises is now in dispute. Ms O’Neil’s submissions

Ms. O'Neil stated that Mr. Morgan had not fully vacated the property by 20 March 2025 and reported belongings still on-site as of the morning of the hearing.

She provided a rent arrears figure of $617.14, calculated up to 3 April 2025, due to Mr Morgan’s delayed vacating the premises. Mr Morgan’s submissions

Mr. Morgan submitted that he had vacated the house by 20 March 2025 and moved his belongings to the shed/driveway due to a delay in securing new accommodation.

He claimed that the house was empty and the keys were left inside; however, Ms. O'Neil disputed this, stating that she could not access the property to verify.

During the hearing, Mr. Morgan expressed frustration about the landlord’s demand for additional rent, emphasising his seven-year tenancy without any prior arrears. My view

There are conflicting accounts of when Mr. Morgan vacated the premises.

There is no evidence (except conflicting accounts from the parties) to adjudicate this issue.

I informed the parties that I would issue a formal order to revert the possession to the landlord, but there was no indication of when Mr. Morgan vacated the premises.

Ms. Morgan indicated that she would conduct a final inspection of the property. The possibility of further applications being filed with the Tribunal is a matter for Ms. Morgan.

If there are no applications, the parties may be able to agree to release the bond to Mr Morgan. Filing fee

I must reimburse Bartley Real Estate Limited As Agent For Paula And Damien Goudie filing fee if Ms Morgan has wholly or partially succeeded with the application.

My view is that Ms. O’Neil has neither wholly nor partially succeeded in her application because: a. The date for vacating the premises is in dispute. b. There is no evidence from Ms. O’Neil or Mr. Morgan to support their submissions.

Accordingly, I decline to reimburse Ms O’Neil for the filing fee.

Reasons