What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5436719?

The tribunal order states: Shalini Ram also known as Shelley Ram trading as CPS Property Management.

How much money was awarded in case 5436719?

Compensation: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436719?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436719?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13601078-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5436719?

The tribunal order states: Shalini Ram also known as Shelley Ram trading as CPS Property Management.

How much money was awarded in case 5436719?

Compensation: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436719?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436719?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13601078-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 66A Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436719 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436719 — net $828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation breach of s13A, s13AB	$800.00	Compensation breach of s13A, s13AB
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$828.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$828.00

Order

Shalini Ram also known as Shelley Ram trading as CPS Property Management. must pay Imran Ali and Michelle Gibson Ali $828.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Only the tenants attended the hearing held on the 14 May. The landlord as served at the same email address as the landlord recorded in the applications the landlord made to the tribunal in 5232134 relating to these parties last year. I am therefore satisfied that Ms Ram has been given notice of the claims and the hearing date and have proceeded in her absence.
The tenants lived at the tenancy address from 27 May 2022 to 12 February 2025.
During the tenancy the tenants experienced numerous problems, and they made an application to the Tribunal against their landlord, who was described in the tenancy agreement as CPS Property Management. (TT5103149). The tenants’ application was first heard on the 20 January 2025 by Adjudicator Ryken. The Tribunal found in favour of the tenants. On the 29 January 2025 CPS Property Management made an application for rehearing, that application was filed by Mr Raj Singh, and the email given was cpspropertynz@gmail.com and the telephone number as 0225105146. This is the same number as in the tenancy agreement.
At the rehearing consideration hearing I understand that Ms Shalini Ram attended as the landlord.
The rehearing was granted, and the matter was heard by another adjudicator on the 17 April 2025. Shortly before the second hearing an application on behalf of the landlord was filed. In that application(TT 5232134) the landlord was recorded as CPS Property Management as agent for the landlord. The email address provided to the tribunal was cpspropertynz@gmail.com and the telephone number is 0225105146. There is no landlord ID provided in the application.
At the hearing of TT5232134/5103149 on the 17 April 2025, Ms Shalini Ram attended on behalf of the landlord.
The Tribunal once again found in favour of the tenants and ordered the landlord which was recorded in the order as CPS Property Management to pay the tenants $4777.00.
The tenants have not received payment for the money ordered. They have applied through the Courts for enforcement of the order, but they have been told that as CPS Property Management is a trading in name only, then it cannot be enforced. A Tribunal order can only be enforced against a legal entity.
The tenants have filed this new application, in it they claim a breach of s13A, 13B and or s16 of the RTA which requires the landlord to provide certain information in the tenancy agreement.
The tenants say that the person who trades as CPS Property Management is Ms Shalini Ram also known as Shelley Ram and they say that she is their landlord; They say that because: a. Ms Ram is the person who granted them the tenancy, she was the person who conducted the viewing of the property and who handed them the tenancy agreement. b. Ms Ram is the only person they ever dealt with regarding the tenancy. c. They paid rent to a bank account that Ms Ram that Ms Ram by text instructed them to pay. d. Ms Ram attended Tribunal hearings (The rehearing consideration hearing and the in person hearing on the 17 April 2025).

Was Ms Ram the landlord?

Landlord is defined the RTA as: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes— (a) a prospective landlord; and (b) a former landlord; and (c) a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises; and (d) the personal representative of a deceased landlord; and (e) an agent of a landlord
The tenancy agreement records the landlord as CPS Property Management as agent for the owner. The tenancy agreement does not disclose who the owner is and is not signed by anyone on behalf of the landlord.
CPS Property Management is not a legal entity, that is because it is either an incorporated company or a natural person. It is a merely a trading name.
I am satisfied that Shalini Ram also known as Shelly Ram was the landlord because: a. She was the grantor of the tenancy, the tenants only dealt with her, she showed them the property and it was her that provided them with the tenancy agreement. Even though the tenancy agreement is in the name of CPS Property Management she is the person behind CPS Property Management. This is reinforced by the rent increase notice that was given to the tenants during the tenancy, which is purportedly on CPS Property Management letterhead but is ‘signed’ by Shelly b. She acted as the agent for the whole of the tenancy, she was the person who came to the property when there were issues, she sent the text to the tenants as to which bank account the rent was to be paid to, she attended tenancy hearings. c. I consider that it is appropriate in the absence of a disclosed principle, that the agent is considered the landlord for the purposes of the RTA. The wide definition of landlord shows that Parliament has intended that tenants should know who they are contracting with, and if there is an issue in the tenancy, that there is someone that they can bring to account.

Did Ms Ram breach s13 A, 13AB or 16 RTA?

Having found that Ms Ram is the landlord, I turn to the tenants claims that the landlord did not provide the required information in the tenancy agreement.
Section 13A requires the landlord to provide certain information in the tenancy agreement. This includes the full name and contact address of the landlord; and the landlord’s contact email address (if any); the landlord’s address for service; and the place or bank account number where the rent is to be paid.
Section 13AB details what an address for service means and requires the landlord to provide an address of a physical place in New Zealand and may in addition to the physical address give another PO Box number or email address.
Section 16 requires that if the landlord details change during the tenancy, then they are to provide the updated information to the tenant.
The tenants says that they thought that CPS Property Management was a company, and therefore a legal entity. The tenants claim that Ms Ram has failed to disclose the full legal name of the landlord and physical address of the landlord, the tenancy agreement recorded the following details: And on the back signing page
The tenancy agreement was not signed by the landlord.
I am satisfied that Ms Ram was the person who provided the tenants with the tenancy agreement which she prepared from the information that they provided her with.
I am satisfied that the Ms Ram breached a13A and 13AB of the RTA by failing to disclose the full (legal) name of the landlord, a physical address for service (the address for service appears to be part of Auckland University Campus) there is another 33 Symonds Street in Onehunga in Auckland, but if that was the address for service then I would expect that the word Onehunga would have been added in. The address is also not recorded in the tenancy agreement as an address for service.
I am satisfied that it was the failure of Ms Ram to fulfil the requirements of s13A and 13AB, that has led to the situation where the tenants have an unenforceable order (TT5103149). against ghost business that is only a trading name.
The Tribunal expects those that make claims and appear before it, to be genuine. Ms Ram should have disclosed to both the tenants and Tribunal in the previous proceedings that CPS Property Management was a trading name only, or have disclosed who, if anyone else was the landlord.
The tenants seek compensation of $900 this includes the fees that they have paid for enforcement and compensation for the time and stress in trying to locate Ms Ram. I am satisfied that that the tenants should be compensated for Ms Ram’s breaches to complete the tenancy agreement as required by s13A and 13AB RTA and I award the tenants the sum of $800 to cover the costs the enforcement that they have occurred and to recognise the time, stress and inconvenience caused to them as a result of this breach.
I note that the tenants have an unenforceable order (TT5103149/5232134) from the Tribunal. That is an unacceptable situation. The tenants only recourse in respect of that order is to seek a rehearing outside of time. They need to apply to the Tribunal for a rehearing outside of time. They should attach a copy of this order to any application for rehearing that they make. As I am not the adjudicator who dealt with that claim, it would not be appropriate for me to determine the rehearing – that should go back to the original adjudicator.
The tenant’s had name suppression in TT5103149/5232134. They no longer wish to have name suppression as they are concerned that the granting of name suppression would limit the media’s ability to report on this issue, they feel strongly that the public should be aware that the CPS Property Management is a trading name only. Observation.
I also put Ms Ram and anyone else that trades under the name CPS Property Management, on notice that they should ensure that their tenancy agreements are updated so that the landlord is properly recorded as a legal entity. Any order made in favour of CPS Property Management would also be unenforceable and so it is to the landlord’s benefit to attend to recording the correct landlord details as a matter of urgency.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436719 — net $828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation breach of s13A, s13AB	$800.00	Compensation breach of s13A, s13AB
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$828.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$828.00

Order

Shalini Ram also known as Shelley Ram trading as CPS Property Management. must pay Imran Ali and Michelle Gibson Ali $828.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Only the tenants attended the hearing held on the 14 May. The landlord as served at the same email address as the landlord recorded in the applications the landlord made to the tribunal in 5232134 relating to these parties last year. I am therefore satisfied that Ms Ram has been given notice of the claims and the hearing date and have proceeded in her absence.
The tenants lived at the tenancy address from 27 May 2022 to 12 February 2025.
During the tenancy the tenants experienced numerous problems, and they made an application to the Tribunal against their landlord, who was described in the tenancy agreement as CPS Property Management. (TT5103149). The tenants’ application was first heard on the 20 January 2025 by Adjudicator Ryken. The Tribunal found in favour of the tenants. On the 29 January 2025 CPS Property Management made an application for rehearing, that application was filed by Mr Raj Singh, and the email given was cpspropertynz@gmail.com and the telephone number as 0225105146. This is the same number as in the tenancy agreement.
At the rehearing consideration hearing I understand that Ms Shalini Ram attended as the landlord.
The rehearing was granted, and the matter was heard by another adjudicator on the 17 April 2025. Shortly before the second hearing an application on behalf of the landlord was filed. In that application(TT 5232134) the landlord was recorded as CPS Property Management as agent for the landlord. The email address provided to the tribunal was cpspropertynz@gmail.com and the telephone number is 0225105146. There is no landlord ID provided in the application.
At the hearing of TT5232134/5103149 on the 17 April 2025, Ms Shalini Ram attended on behalf of the landlord.
The Tribunal once again found in favour of the tenants and ordered the landlord which was recorded in the order as CPS Property Management to pay the tenants $4777.00.
The tenants have not received payment for the money ordered. They have applied through the Courts for enforcement of the order, but they have been told that as CPS Property Management is a trading in name only, then it cannot be enforced. A Tribunal order can only be enforced against a legal entity.
The tenants have filed this new application, in it they claim a breach of s13A, 13B and or s16 of the RTA which requires the landlord to provide certain information in the tenancy agreement.
The tenants say that the person who trades as CPS Property Management is Ms Shalini Ram also known as Shelley Ram and they say that she is their landlord; They say that because: a. Ms Ram is the person who granted them the tenancy, she was the person who conducted the viewing of the property and who handed them the tenancy agreement. b. Ms Ram is the only person they ever dealt with regarding the tenancy. c. They paid rent to a bank account that Ms Ram that Ms Ram by text instructed them to pay. d. Ms Ram attended Tribunal hearings (The rehearing consideration hearing and the in person hearing on the 17 April 2025).

Was Ms Ram the landlord?

Landlord is defined the RTA as: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes— (a) a prospective landlord; and (b) a former landlord; and (c) a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises; and (d) the personal representative of a deceased landlord; and (e) an agent of a landlord
The tenancy agreement records the landlord as CPS Property Management as agent for the owner. The tenancy agreement does not disclose who the owner is and is not signed by anyone on behalf of the landlord.
CPS Property Management is not a legal entity, that is because it is either an incorporated company or a natural person. It is a merely a trading name.
I am satisfied that Shalini Ram also known as Shelly Ram was the landlord because: a. She was the grantor of the tenancy, the tenants only dealt with her, she showed them the property and it was her that provided them with the tenancy agreement. Even though the tenancy agreement is in the name of CPS Property Management she is the person behind CPS Property Management. This is reinforced by the rent increase notice that was given to the tenants during the tenancy, which is purportedly on CPS Property Management letterhead but is ‘signed’ by Shelly b. She acted as the agent for the whole of the tenancy, she was the person who came to the property when there were issues, she sent the text to the tenants as to which bank account the rent was to be paid to, she attended tenancy hearings. c. I consider that it is appropriate in the absence of a disclosed principle, that the agent is considered the landlord for the purposes of the RTA. The wide definition of landlord shows that Parliament has intended that tenants should know who they are contracting with, and if there is an issue in the tenancy, that there is someone that they can bring to account.

Did Ms Ram breach s13 A, 13AB or 16 RTA?

Having found that Ms Ram is the landlord, I turn to the tenants claims that the landlord did not provide the required information in the tenancy agreement.
Section 13A requires the landlord to provide certain information in the tenancy agreement. This includes the full name and contact address of the landlord; and the landlord’s contact email address (if any); the landlord’s address for service; and the place or bank account number where the rent is to be paid.
Section 13AB details what an address for service means and requires the landlord to provide an address of a physical place in New Zealand and may in addition to the physical address give another PO Box number or email address.
Section 16 requires that if the landlord details change during the tenancy, then they are to provide the updated information to the tenant.
The tenants says that they thought that CPS Property Management was a company, and therefore a legal entity. The tenants claim that Ms Ram has failed to disclose the full legal name of the landlord and physical address of the landlord, the tenancy agreement recorded the following details: And on the back signing page
The tenancy agreement was not signed by the landlord.
I am satisfied that Ms Ram was the person who provided the tenants with the tenancy agreement which she prepared from the information that they provided her with.
I am satisfied that the Ms Ram breached a13A and 13AB of the RTA by failing to disclose the full (legal) name of the landlord, a physical address for service (the address for service appears to be part of Auckland University Campus) there is another 33 Symonds Street in Onehunga in Auckland, but if that was the address for service then I would expect that the word Onehunga would have been added in. The address is also not recorded in the tenancy agreement as an address for service.
I am satisfied that it was the failure of Ms Ram to fulfil the requirements of s13A and 13AB, that has led to the situation where the tenants have an unenforceable order (TT5103149). against ghost business that is only a trading name.
The Tribunal expects those that make claims and appear before it, to be genuine. Ms Ram should have disclosed to both the tenants and Tribunal in the previous proceedings that CPS Property Management was a trading name only, or have disclosed who, if anyone else was the landlord.
The tenants seek compensation of $900 this includes the fees that they have paid for enforcement and compensation for the time and stress in trying to locate Ms Ram. I am satisfied that that the tenants should be compensated for Ms Ram’s breaches to complete the tenancy agreement as required by s13A and 13AB RTA and I award the tenants the sum of $800 to cover the costs the enforcement that they have occurred and to recognise the time, stress and inconvenience caused to them as a result of this breach.
I note that the tenants have an unenforceable order (TT5103149/5232134) from the Tribunal. That is an unacceptable situation. The tenants only recourse in respect of that order is to seek a rehearing outside of time. They need to apply to the Tribunal for a rehearing outside of time. They should attach a copy of this order to any application for rehearing that they make. As I am not the adjudicator who dealt with that claim, it would not be appropriate for me to determine the rehearing – that should go back to the original adjudicator.
The tenant’s had name suppression in TT5103149/5232134. They no longer wish to have name suppression as they are concerned that the granting of name suppression would limit the media’s ability to report on this issue, they feel strongly that the public should be aware that the CPS Property Management is a trading name only. Observation.
I also put Ms Ram and anyone else that trades under the name CPS Property Management, on notice that they should ensure that their tenancy agreements are updated so that the landlord is properly recorded as a legal entity. Any order made in favour of CPS Property Management would also be unenforceable and so it is to the landlord’s benefit to attend to recording the correct landlord details as a matter of urgency.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436719 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 66A Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436719 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 66A Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was Ms Ram the landlord?

Did Ms Ram breach s13 A, 13AB or 16 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was Ms Ram the landlord?

Did Ms Ram breach s13 A, 13AB or 16 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions