What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5240331?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5240331?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240331?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12162261-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5240331?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5240331?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240331?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12162261-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20E Field Terrace, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5240331 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

This was a face-to-face hearing. Only the tenant attended. As a courtesy, the Tribunal called Mr Biswas, the landlord’s principal, shortly after the start time of the hearing and the call was not answered.

Because the landlord applicant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the case has settled, the landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed.

I make the following additional comments about this application.

There was an order made on this application on 9 June 2025 requiring the tenant to pay rent arrears. It takes account of bond paid by the tenant. The tenant did not attend that hearing, but he confirmed that he does not dispute the arrears. That order stands and the tenant confirmed that he intends arranging for it to be paid.

The landlord claimed compensation for removing items belonging to the tenant from the premises during the tenancy. Mr Biswas moved them in his car and took then to be stored in a garage of one of his other rental properties. He claimed $210 for the moving and $120 for storage.

It is unclear to me why the tenant was not permitted to have the items at the premises. There is nothing in the tenancy agreement to suggest that he could not have them.

The tenant said that there was no discussion about the cost of moving them or storing them. Therefore, it is unclear why the tenant should have to pay anything for that.

The amount claimed for moving the items seems grossly excessive and there is no evidence that storage was a cost to the landlord.

The landlord also claims $280 for moving the items to the tenant’s current rental when the tenancy ended. The tenant said that the only discussion with Mr Biswas about the cost was that Mr Biswas told him that he would keep the bond and all that the tenant needed to pay was the balance of the rent arrears.

I note as well that the premises are a three-bedroom house. The landlord had tenants occupying the lounge as a bedroom and the single garage as a bedroom. The tenant said that the garage had no windows.

Tenants must be provided with a living room and a windowless garage is plainly unsuited for use as residential accommodation.

If Mr Biswas, when he receives this order, is minded to make an application for a rehearing, he should think about the comments I have made above. If he comes back to the Tribunal in relation to this tenancy, he may find the outcome even less palatable than this order dismissing his application.

Reasons

Because the landlord applicant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the case has settled, the landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed.

I make the following additional comments about this application.

It is unclear to me why the tenant was not permitted to have the items at the premises. There is nothing in the tenancy agreement to suggest that he could not have them.

The tenant said that there was no discussion about the cost of moving them or storing them. Therefore, it is unclear why the tenant should have to pay anything for that.

The amount claimed for moving the items seems grossly excessive and there is no evidence that storage was a cost to the landlord.

Tenants must be provided with a living room and a windowless garage is plainly unsuited for use as residential accommodation.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5240331 — Rent arrears at 20E Field Terrace, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5240331 — Rent arrears at 20E Field Terrace, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions