What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4498944 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4498944?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4498944?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4498944?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9470185-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4498944 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4498944?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4498944?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4498944?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9470185-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

200 Glamorgan Drive, Torbay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4498944 — Exemplary damages

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations by terminating the tenancy agreement without grounds.
The tenant also claims compensation for out-of-pocket expenses and exemplary damages for requesting more than 2 weeks rent in advance and more than 4 weeks bond.
The premises consisted of a two-level house. The tenants intended renting the downstairs area of the premises. Tenant application:
The tenants responded to a TradeMe ‘for rent’ advertisement in respect of the property. They viewed the property and immediately expressed an interest in renting it. The parties then met up on 17 January 2023 to discuss everything. During the hearing the landlord stated that he explained to the tenants that the move in costs would be $2100.00, payable in advance.
In an email dated 19 January 2023 the landlord set out how much would need to be paid. In the same email the landlord also attached a partially completed Tenancy Agreement. The Healthy Home sections had not been completed at that stage. The Tenancy Agreement clearly set out the rent payable in advance along with the bond amount payable. Both amounts were not in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act.
On 19 January 2023 the tenants paid a deposit of $1500.00 into the landlord’s bank account. Evidence in the form of a bank statement was provided by the landlord confirming this payment. The landlord also allowed the tenants to move some of their personal belongings into the premises.
In the same email dated 19 January 2023 the landlord stated as follows: “Hi guys, here is the tenancy agreement. You paid $1500 Deposit is 4 weeks rent $350 x 4 = $1400 Then 2 weeks advanced $700”
On 23 January 2023 the tenant sent a text message to the landlord raising concerns regarding signing a fixed term agreement. The tenant stated that traditionally he has only ever signed periodic agreements and being locked into a [fixed] agreement is daunting to us. He then went on to say that he is struggling to see any upsides to signing a fixed term agreement.
On 26 January the landlord text the tenant stating that he still hadn’t received a signed copy of the Agreement. The tenant replied stating that he wanted to run the Agreement past his father prior to signing.
On 26 January the tenant notified the landlord that he was happy to sign a fixed term agreement.
The tenant says that they then met up again on or about 29 January where all parties signed the Agreement. The landlord stated during the hearing that he did not countersign the Agreement. No evidence of an Agreement signed by all parties was produced by the tenants to the Tribunal.
On 30 January the tenant Cherish signed her part of the Agreement. She photographed the signature page and sent it to the landlord via text message. The landlord replied via text message requesting that he needed all the pages.
The tenant then text the landlord with the following: “Hey mate, all signed and ready to go, just taking it to get scanned so it can be sent through”. Nothing was received by the landlord.
During the hearing I questioned the tenant where he had emailed the agreement from and whether he had proof of the agreement being emailed. The tenant was unable to provide evidence confirming that the agreement, signed by both parties had been emailed to the landlord. I stated to the tenant during the hearing that presumably if he had gone to a shop to have the agreement scanned and emailed then he would have proof of that. He did not.
The landlord also provided an email from his account manager confirming that no email with an attached agreement had been received from the tenants.
It was also the tenant’s belief that the landlord wanted more money than was allowed under the Residential Tenancies Act. The landlord stated that he simply wanted the balance paid. During the hearing the landlord stated that he did not countersign any Agreement as they had still not agreed on the essential terms.
On 31 January the landlord advised the tenant that he would not be going ahead with the tenancy as they could not reach an agreement. The landlord refunded the deposit in full to the tenants that same day.
I find that while the tenants have some reasonable arguments that there was a binding agreement based on their actions and payments, the lack of certainty in respect of their overall performance, and the landlord’s failure to countersign, weakens their case. There is also an absence of evidence from the tenant confirming the agreement of all parties.
It is also my view that what the landlord was asking for financially was within the parameters allowed under the RTA even if his choice of wording in the beginning was unintentionally misleading.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not there was a binding agreement in respect of this tenancy.
Accordingly, the tenant’s application must be dismissed.
Because the tenant has been unsuccessful with this application I do not order reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Because the tenant has been unsuccessful, I do not order suppression of name. I also do not see any public interest grounds for name suppression.

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations by terminating the tenancy agreement without grounds.
The tenant also claims compensation for out-of-pocket expenses and exemplary damages for requesting more than 2 weeks rent in advance and more than 4 weeks bond.
The premises consisted of a two-level house. The tenants intended renting the downstairs area of the premises. Tenant application:
The tenants responded to a TradeMe ‘for rent’ advertisement in respect of the property. They viewed the property and immediately expressed an interest in renting it. The parties then met up on 17 January 2023 to discuss everything. During the hearing the landlord stated that he explained to the tenants that the move in costs would be $2100.00, payable in advance.
In an email dated 19 January 2023 the landlord set out how much would need to be paid. In the same email the landlord also attached a partially completed Tenancy Agreement. The Healthy Home sections had not been completed at that stage. The Tenancy Agreement clearly set out the rent payable in advance along with the bond amount payable. Both amounts were not in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act.
On 19 January 2023 the tenants paid a deposit of $1500.00 into the landlord’s bank account. Evidence in the form of a bank statement was provided by the landlord confirming this payment. The landlord also allowed the tenants to move some of their personal belongings into the premises.
In the same email dated 19 January 2023 the landlord stated as follows: “Hi guys, here is the tenancy agreement. You paid $1500 Deposit is 4 weeks rent $350 x 4 = $1400 Then 2 weeks advanced $700”
On 23 January 2023 the tenant sent a text message to the landlord raising concerns regarding signing a fixed term agreement. The tenant stated that traditionally he has only ever signed periodic agreements and being locked into a [fixed] agreement is daunting to us. He then went on to say that he is struggling to see any upsides to signing a fixed term agreement.
On 26 January the landlord text the tenant stating that he still hadn’t received a signed copy of the Agreement. The tenant replied stating that he wanted to run the Agreement past his father prior to signing.
On 26 January the tenant notified the landlord that he was happy to sign a fixed term agreement.
The tenant says that they then met up again on or about 29 January where all parties signed the Agreement. The landlord stated during the hearing that he did not countersign the Agreement. No evidence of an Agreement signed by all parties was produced by the tenants to the Tribunal.
On 30 January the tenant Cherish signed her part of the Agreement. She photographed the signature page and sent it to the landlord via text message. The landlord replied via text message requesting that he needed all the pages.
The tenant then text the landlord with the following: “Hey mate, all signed and ready to go, just taking it to get scanned so it can be sent through”. Nothing was received by the landlord.
During the hearing I questioned the tenant where he had emailed the agreement from and whether he had proof of the agreement being emailed. The tenant was unable to provide evidence confirming that the agreement, signed by both parties had been emailed to the landlord. I stated to the tenant during the hearing that presumably if he had gone to a shop to have the agreement scanned and emailed then he would have proof of that. He did not.
The landlord also provided an email from his account manager confirming that no email with an attached agreement had been received from the tenants.
It was also the tenant’s belief that the landlord wanted more money than was allowed under the Residential Tenancies Act. The landlord stated that he simply wanted the balance paid. During the hearing the landlord stated that he did not countersign any Agreement as they had still not agreed on the essential terms.
On 31 January the landlord advised the tenant that he would not be going ahead with the tenancy as they could not reach an agreement. The landlord refunded the deposit in full to the tenants that same day.
I find that while the tenants have some reasonable arguments that there was a binding agreement based on their actions and payments, the lack of certainty in respect of their overall performance, and the landlord’s failure to countersign, weakens their case. There is also an absence of evidence from the tenant confirming the agreement of all parties.
It is also my view that what the landlord was asking for financially was within the parameters allowed under the RTA even if his choice of wording in the beginning was unintentionally misleading.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not there was a binding agreement in respect of this tenancy.
Accordingly, the tenant’s application must be dismissed.
Because the tenant has been unsuccessful with this application I do not order reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Because the tenant has been unsuccessful, I do not order suppression of name. I also do not see any public interest grounds for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4498944 — Exemplary damages at 200 Glamorgan Drive, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4498944 — Exemplary damages at 200 Glamorgan Drive, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions