What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4412466 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4412466?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4412466?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4412466?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9120933-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4412466 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4412466?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4412466?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4412466?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9120933-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4412466 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Tribunal’s order of 8 November 2022, terminating the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 5pm on Friday, 11 November 2022, remains in effect.
[The tenant/s] must pay Onecall Property Management Limited $3,017.21 immediately, as calculated in the Tribunal’s order dated 8 November 2022.

Reasons

The landlord and [Tenant 1] attended the hearing on 27 June 2023 in person. The other party, [Tenant 2], did not attend.
On 8 November 2022, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy with effect from 5pm on Friday 11 November 2022. The Tribunal ordered the payment of rent arrears ($5,220.00) and water charges ($96.77) together with the filing fee ($20.44). After deduction of the bond of $2,320.00 there was a net award in favour of the landlord of $3,017.21.
[Tenant 1] did not attend that hearing. He subsequently applied for a rehearing. On 4 May 2023, the Tribunal granted a rehearing in relation to [Tenant 1]’s liability for rent. Background
A brief summary of the background is set out below: • On 27 March 2021, [Tenant 2] texted the property manager saying she was looking for a 3-bedroom property for “...my family, me and husband and 2 adults borth [sic] work...”. A viewing at the tenancy address took place on 31 March 2021. • A written application for the tenancy in [Tenancy address suppressed] was made by [Tenant 2], who said they wanted to move due to her “work transfer”. Further: “...I have my other two kids that my husband and I want it [sic] them to come and stay with us now...”. • The landlord emailed a tenancy agreement to [Tenant 2] and it was returned signed by her, her husband, and the two other tenants (a niece and her husband). The signatures are dated 2 June 2021. • According to the tenancy agreement, the tenancy started on 9 April 2021, initially for a fixed term. The bond was paid by [Tenant 2] and was lodged at the Bond Centre on 29 April 2021.
In his rehearing application, [Tenant 1] said he was never a tenant at the [Tenancy address suppressed] and was living rent-free at another address in [location suppressed], with his children. He had never decided to move away from his children at [location suppressed]. He would visit the [Tenancy address suppressed] occasionally to provide his wife with help but never to stay there. At the hearing, [Tenant 1] indicated he might sometimes stay overnight if there were problems with public transport or it was late.
In his rehearing application, [Tenant 1] said he did not remember entering his name on the tenancy agreement and had not consented to his name being included on the agreement. At the hearing, he confirmed that the tenancy agreement bears his signature and he had signed it. [Tenant 1] said he did so because his wife asked him to sign. She gave him the form to sign and said it would make it easier for her to “get around the system”. Despite discussion, it was not clear what this meant exactly.
The landlord said that [Tenant 1]’s personal details were provided by his wife (such as his phone number and passport) which were then entered in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord said [Tenant 2] always confirmed that her husband was also living there when she conducted inspections. A text message dated 5 October 2021 from [Tenant 2], in the context of rent arrears, said “my niece and husband” were staying at home and not working due to illness. This may have been a reference to the niece’s husband rather than [Tenant 1]. Analysis
The issue is whether [Tenant 1] was a tenant of the premises and jointly liable for rent. While he says he never intended to live at the [Tenancy address suppressed] tenancy address, he signed the tenancy agreement, and prima facie, must be taken to be bound by the agreement and its terms (L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394).
[Tenant 1] said he did not know what he was agreeing to. However, when asked whether he understood he was signing a contract and would therefore be liable for rent, he tended not to respond directly. I infer that [Tenant 1] understood the general nature of the document he was signing, and there is no evidence he was misled about its contents. While he is elderly and retired, there is nothing to suggest he lacked contractual capacity.
Although his case was not quite put in this way, I have considered whether [Tenant 1] signed the tenancy agreement because of undue influence by his wife. The requirements were set out in Contractors Bonding Ltd v Snee [1992] 2 NZLR 157 (CA).
There is no presumption of undue influence between a husband and wife. I can accept that [Tenant 1]’s wife had capacity to influence him to sign the tenancy agreement and did so. It is not, however, obvious that the influence was undue.
[Tenant 1] said he did not want to sign the agreement and did not want to be a tenant. However, he does not appear to have had any communication with the landlord, or to have requested that his name be removed from the tenancy agreement. If his signature as a tenant had been improperly obtained, it might be anticipated that he would, over the next few weeks or months, ask to be removed from the tenancy.
[Tenant 1]’s evidence was that he signed the tenancy agreement to help his wife, and indeed he would go to the property to help her when requested. He also helped his wife to pay the rent when she was behind. Although there were no details of the sums involved, [Tenant 1] said this happened many times. My impression is that he helped his wife to meet her obligations under the tenancy agreement. This willingness to help, for some unspecified period after the tenancy started, appears inconsistent with a finding that he was coerced into signing the tenancy, or was otherwise unfairly taken advantage of.
The tenancy agreement could be viewed as disadvantageous because [Tenant 1] says he has lived in [Location suppressed] for many years and enjoys free accommodation there. On this view, he had no reason to sign a tenancy agreement for a property in [Tenancy address suppressed].
It is not, however, clear that the transaction was manifestly disadvantageous when he signed the tenancy agreement. He had been living with his wife in [Location suppressed], and the application for [Tenancy address suppressed] tenancy suggests they envisaged relocating together at that stage. Although there were difficulties in the relationship, which later ended, and [Tenant 1] says he never lived at [Tenancy address suppressed], his signature on the tenancy agreement is consistent with a married couple cohabiting. Seen in that way, the circumstances of the transaction do not call for an explanation, and it was to both parties benefit at the time of signature. Conclusion
For these reasons, I have decided to reinstate the Tribunal’s order of 8 November 2022, which held [Tenant 1] and his former wife jointly liable for rent and water charges. Name suppression
[Tenant 1] did not seek name suppression. His wife was granted name suppression following the first hearing, and this also benefited [Tenant 1]. I consider it is necessary, to preserve the effect of the previous order, to also grant suppression.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Tribunal’s order of 8 November 2022, terminating the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 5pm on Friday, 11 November 2022, remains in effect.
[The tenant/s] must pay Onecall Property Management Limited $3,017.21 immediately, as calculated in the Tribunal’s order dated 8 November 2022.

Reasons

The landlord and [Tenant 1] attended the hearing on 27 June 2023 in person. The other party, [Tenant 2], did not attend.
On 8 November 2022, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy with effect from 5pm on Friday 11 November 2022. The Tribunal ordered the payment of rent arrears ($5,220.00) and water charges ($96.77) together with the filing fee ($20.44). After deduction of the bond of $2,320.00 there was a net award in favour of the landlord of $3,017.21.
[Tenant 1] did not attend that hearing. He subsequently applied for a rehearing. On 4 May 2023, the Tribunal granted a rehearing in relation to [Tenant 1]’s liability for rent. Background
A brief summary of the background is set out below: • On 27 March 2021, [Tenant 2] texted the property manager saying she was looking for a 3-bedroom property for “...my family, me and husband and 2 adults borth [sic] work...”. A viewing at the tenancy address took place on 31 March 2021. • A written application for the tenancy in [Tenancy address suppressed] was made by [Tenant 2], who said they wanted to move due to her “work transfer”. Further: “...I have my other two kids that my husband and I want it [sic] them to come and stay with us now...”. • The landlord emailed a tenancy agreement to [Tenant 2] and it was returned signed by her, her husband, and the two other tenants (a niece and her husband). The signatures are dated 2 June 2021. • According to the tenancy agreement, the tenancy started on 9 April 2021, initially for a fixed term. The bond was paid by [Tenant 2] and was lodged at the Bond Centre on 29 April 2021.
In his rehearing application, [Tenant 1] said he was never a tenant at the [Tenancy address suppressed] and was living rent-free at another address in [location suppressed], with his children. He had never decided to move away from his children at [location suppressed]. He would visit the [Tenancy address suppressed] occasionally to provide his wife with help but never to stay there. At the hearing, [Tenant 1] indicated he might sometimes stay overnight if there were problems with public transport or it was late.
In his rehearing application, [Tenant 1] said he did not remember entering his name on the tenancy agreement and had not consented to his name being included on the agreement. At the hearing, he confirmed that the tenancy agreement bears his signature and he had signed it. [Tenant 1] said he did so because his wife asked him to sign. She gave him the form to sign and said it would make it easier for her to “get around the system”. Despite discussion, it was not clear what this meant exactly.
The landlord said that [Tenant 1]’s personal details were provided by his wife (such as his phone number and passport) which were then entered in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord said [Tenant 2] always confirmed that her husband was also living there when she conducted inspections. A text message dated 5 October 2021 from [Tenant 2], in the context of rent arrears, said “my niece and husband” were staying at home and not working due to illness. This may have been a reference to the niece’s husband rather than [Tenant 1]. Analysis
The issue is whether [Tenant 1] was a tenant of the premises and jointly liable for rent. While he says he never intended to live at the [Tenancy address suppressed] tenancy address, he signed the tenancy agreement, and prima facie, must be taken to be bound by the agreement and its terms (L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394).
[Tenant 1] said he did not know what he was agreeing to. However, when asked whether he understood he was signing a contract and would therefore be liable for rent, he tended not to respond directly. I infer that [Tenant 1] understood the general nature of the document he was signing, and there is no evidence he was misled about its contents. While he is elderly and retired, there is nothing to suggest he lacked contractual capacity.
Although his case was not quite put in this way, I have considered whether [Tenant 1] signed the tenancy agreement because of undue influence by his wife. The requirements were set out in Contractors Bonding Ltd v Snee [1992] 2 NZLR 157 (CA).
There is no presumption of undue influence between a husband and wife. I can accept that [Tenant 1]’s wife had capacity to influence him to sign the tenancy agreement and did so. It is not, however, obvious that the influence was undue.
[Tenant 1] said he did not want to sign the agreement and did not want to be a tenant. However, he does not appear to have had any communication with the landlord, or to have requested that his name be removed from the tenancy agreement. If his signature as a tenant had been improperly obtained, it might be anticipated that he would, over the next few weeks or months, ask to be removed from the tenancy.
[Tenant 1]’s evidence was that he signed the tenancy agreement to help his wife, and indeed he would go to the property to help her when requested. He also helped his wife to pay the rent when she was behind. Although there were no details of the sums involved, [Tenant 1] said this happened many times. My impression is that he helped his wife to meet her obligations under the tenancy agreement. This willingness to help, for some unspecified period after the tenancy started, appears inconsistent with a finding that he was coerced into signing the tenancy, or was otherwise unfairly taken advantage of.
The tenancy agreement could be viewed as disadvantageous because [Tenant 1] says he has lived in [Location suppressed] for many years and enjoys free accommodation there. On this view, he had no reason to sign a tenancy agreement for a property in [Tenancy address suppressed].
It is not, however, clear that the transaction was manifestly disadvantageous when he signed the tenancy agreement. He had been living with his wife in [Location suppressed], and the application for [Tenancy address suppressed] tenancy suggests they envisaged relocating together at that stage. Although there were difficulties in the relationship, which later ended, and [Tenant 1] says he never lived at [Tenancy address suppressed], his signature on the tenancy agreement is consistent with a married couple cohabiting. Seen in that way, the circumstances of the transaction do not call for an explanation, and it was to both parties benefit at the time of signature. Conclusion
For these reasons, I have decided to reinstate the Tribunal’s order of 8 November 2022, which held [Tenant 1] and his former wife jointly liable for rent and water charges. Name suppression
[Tenant 1] did not seek name suppression. His wife was granted name suppression following the first hearing, and this also benefited [Tenant 1]. I consider it is necessary, to preserve the effect of the previous order, to also grant suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4412466 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4412466 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions