What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4528895 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4528895?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4528895?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4528895?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9246833-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4528895 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4528895?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4528895?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4528895?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9246833-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4528895 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 July 2023.
On 17 March 2023 the landlord applied to the Tribunal for lost rental income of $11,600.00 (8 weeks) general damages, and an order recognising that the landlord could “invalidate/withdraw” the tenancy agreement.
On 18 March 2023 the tenant applied to the Tribunal for compensation for breach of contract. Background
A summary of the background is as follows: • On 13 March 2023, the tenant completed an application for a residential tenancy of the property. The application form did not ask about his criminal history. • The tenant attended a viewing of the property with the landlord in the evening of 13 March 2023. • On 14 March 2023 the landlord said they were waiting for the results of a criminal history check (which the tenant had consented to). The tenant was welcome to pay the deposit, but: “If the result [of the check] is no good, then it will be refunded to you”. The tenant indicated that he would wait for the result of the criminal history check before paying the deposit. • The landlord also requested that the tenant confirm his home address in [Region 2]. The tenant provided the address of a property in [Town 1]. The landlord then asked the tenant to “explain the court case at the property”, to which the tenant responded that there was a court case involving his tenants. • The landlord was able to perform a search of records registered against the title of the [Town 1] property on 14 March 2023. This identified restraining orders made pursuant to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. • The landlord emailed the draft tenancy agreement to the overseas owner for approval during the evening of 14 March 2023. • On 15 March 2023 the landlord emailed the tenant, confirming that his application for the property had been accepted. The landlord requested that 2 weeks rent in advance ($2,900.00) be paid immediately, as a deposit to secure the property. On receipt of the deposit, the landlord said the agreement would be a 12-month fixed term from 21 March 2023. A bond would need to be paid prior to the entry inspection. • The tenancy agreement, for a fixed term from 21 March 2023 to 18 March 2024, was signed by both parties on 16 March 2023. The agreement noted that 2 weeks rent in advance had been received on 15 March 2023. • After signature of the tenancy agreement on 16 March 2023, the landlord emailed the tenant saying she had just received the convictions history report. The landlord said the tenancy agreement had been “invalidated” and requested the tenant’s bank account number for refund of the 2 weeks deposit. • In further exchanges by text over the next day or so the tenant at one point stated: “I am not happy about this I’m trying to sort this out with you in a civil matter [sic]. I will wait to hear from tenancy tribunal with a result because a tenancy agreement with you and me was signed on fixed term of 12 months. And it doesn’t say in the agreement that you are waiting for cvc check to terminate this agreement.” • The landlord stated by text: “We would like to give you a chance. But we felt [you] have been misleading by your hiding your criminal history. I feel scary and can’t sleep well because of your ‘not happy’. Unfortunately, after conversation with the owner, your agreement is stopped to process and [is] invalid now.” • The tenant did not move into the property. The property has not been re- let by the landlord. Relevant law
In the law of contract, an offer to be legally bound on certain specified terms may be conditional and not absolute. The courts sometimes have to determine whether an apparent agreement was intended by the parties to have contractual force. The court may take into account the terms of the agreement and the background to the transaction (Fletcher Challenge Energy Ltd v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand [2002] 2 NZLR 433 (CA)).
A contract is repudiated where a party makes it clear by words or conduct that they do not intend to perform their obligations under it or to complete such performance. Analysis
The landlord submitted that she was induced to enter into the tenancy agreement by the tenant’s misrepresentation of his criminal offending. The landlord knew about the restraining orders over the [Town 1] property prior to signing the tenancy agreement. The landlord would also have been able to establish that the restraining orders likely related to the proceeds of criminal activity, and therefore that the tenant might have a criminal history.
The tenant responded to the landlord’s query about a “court case” involving the [Town 1] property by referring to a dispute with his tenants. The available evidence does not indicate that this statement was factually incorrect or that there was no such dispute. The landlord did not directly ask about the restraining orders, or the tenant’s criminal history, and the tenant said nothing about his criminal history at any time. He did not have a duty of disclosure but consented to the landlord performing a check with the Ministry of Justice.
I am not satisfied that the tenant misrepresented his previous offending, or that there were grounds for the landlord to cancel the tenancy agreement based on a misrepresentation. The tenant did no more than consent to a criminal records check.
The landlord also submitted that the tenancy agreement was conditional on there being no criminal record. There was no such condition stated in the tenancy agreement itself. The landlord accepted the tenant’s application for a tenancy, requested that the tenant pay the deposit before the criminal history check was available (which the tenant then did) and signed the tenancy agreement without qualification.
The closest the evidence comes to an understanding between the parties that there would be no enforceable contract, unless there was a clear convictions history report, was the landlord’s email on 14 March 2023. This stated that the deposit would be refunded if the result of the check was “no good”. The landlord submitted that this meant the report needed to be “all clear”. Objectively however, what “no good” meant, in terms of what level of criminal offending would or would not be acceptable, lacks clarity.
Subsequently, the landlord approved the tenant’s application for the tenancy and signed the tenancy agreement, without restricting the contractual effect of doing so. There was no indication in the tenancy agreement that its legal effect was postponed pending the results of the criminal history check.
Even if there was a conditional offer of a tenancy, such offer was either replaced by a further offer to be legally bound on the terms of the tenancy agreement, which the tenant accepted when he signed, or was waived when the agreement was sent to the tenant for signature.
I find that there was a binding contract for a tenancy starting on 21 March 2023 when the tenancy agreement was signed.
It follows that the landlord repudiated the contract when she “invalidated” the agreement on 16 June 2023. There can be little doubt that the contract is no longer in existence. While the tenant initially tried to change the landlord’s mind by providing details of changes he had made in his life and his Christian faith, together with the contact details of a mentor, the matter quickly made its way to the Tribunal. The landlord sought an order to “invalidate/withdraw” the tenancy agreement. The tenant did not move into the property and says he had to return to [Region 2]..
The landlord says the property is still vacant and cannot be re-let because there is a tenancy agreement with the tenant. This contradicts the landlord’s earlier statements purporting to invalidate or withdraw from the tenancy. Having taken the decision to cancel the contract, the landlord cannot now claim loss of rental from the tenant.
The landlord also claimed general damages. I accept that the tenant’s text message in which he stated he was “not happy” caused the landlord significant distress. However, there is the immediate difficulty that general damages are not awarded to landlords, because they are viewed as a party to a commercial contract (Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd v [1909] AC 488).
Further, before the Tribunal could award damages for stress or anxiety, in my opinion it would need to be shown that the distress was caused by a breach of a relevant legal obligation by the tenant, and that the landlord’s adverse reaction to the breach was objectively a reaction which a person in the landlord’s position might have. I am not satisfied of either requirement. The tenant expressed himself in clear and firm but respectful language. His texts were not threatening. There is no basis for an award of general damages or medical costs.
The tenant claimed compensation for breach of contract. There was little evidence provided to support the claim, for example information about moving or storage costs. The tenant has probably suffered a reliance loss because he said he incurred expenses in anticipation of moving to the new tenancy. The tenant provided some evidence that he charges for his contract labouring services at $30.00 per hour. The tenant said he had taken 3-4 days off work to attend to matters relating to the move. He mentioned the stress of finding somewhere else to live with his family, because he had given notice on his existing rental home. I award compensation of $480.00 for lost wages and general damages of $250.00 (a total award of $730.00). Filing fee and suppression
The tenant’s application has succeeded. I award the filing fee.
The tenant is granted name suppression as requested, pursuant to section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4528895 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4528895 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions