What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4549649 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details for both

How much money was awarded in case 4549649?

Ders Suppression Of The Names And Id…: $3,096.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4549649?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4549649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9366191-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4549649 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details for both

How much money was awarded in case 4549649?

Ders Suppression Of The Names And Id…: $3,096.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4549649?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4549649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9366191-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4549649 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4549649. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ders suppression of the names and identifying details for both parties. 2. [The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] the	$3,096.90		ders suppression of the names and identifying details for both parties. 2. [The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] the

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details for both parties.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] the sum of $3,096.90 immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The landlord seeks compensation for chattels that were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 14 June 2021. The Tenancy agreement records the landlord as [The landlord/s], and the sole tenant as [The tenant/s]. The tenancy was rented furnished.
Toward the end of the tenancy the tenant asked the landlord if he could take six pieces of furniture with him. I have been provided with an email of 19 December 2023 from the tenant which states in part: Also as discussed over the call we have 1 TV unit, 1 TV, 1 double bed, 2 side drawers and 1 fridge, the pictures attached. We would like to take this with us if you allow. Im not sure if you give this to us for free or you want us to pay for this. We don’t mind paying for this.
The landlord responded with an offer that the tenant could purchase those items for $3,000.00.
On 1 January 2023 the tenant emailed the landlord: We are moving out on 15 th January, Could you please do the furniture for $2500 and We will take all the furniture, $3,000 will be too much for the used furniture comparing them with the market value. I think this furniture we are using is not worth more than $2,500 for sure.
On 2 January 2023 the landlord (property manager) responded: The landlord has agreed with 2500.
The tenancy ended on 15 January 2023, and the tenant paid the $2,500.00 to the landlord. It is the case that the tenant took all the furniture with him, that is the 6 specific items set out in the 19 December email, and also the 9 further items which the landlord now claims, which are: a. Washing Machine$1,099.00 b. Dining table$699.00 c. Sofa$3,039.00 d. Mattress$149.00 e. Bed base$159.00 f. Microwave oven$268.00 g. Side tables with draws$1,316.00 h. Shelves$54.00 i. Cloth stand (coat rack)$99.00
The total amount of the replacement items was valued at $6,882.00, but the landlord has applied a depreciation, and claims the reduced amount of $3,096.90. Position of the parties
The landlord’s position is that there was an agreement only for the tenant to purchase the 6 items in the 19 December 2022 email for $2,500.00, and the tenant should compensate the landlord for the further items he took with him at the end of the tenancy at the depreciated amount.
The tenant’s position is that there was an agreement he could take “all” of the furniture for $2,500.00 as reflected in the most recent email communication from 1 and 2 January 2023. Analysis
The question I must decide, is whether to order compensation to the landlord for the 9 items claimed.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies, and of particular relevance is section 40, which sets out the tenant’s responsibilities. Section 40(1)(e) requires that: The tenant shall...on the termination of the tenancy...leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.
This means that the default obligation on the tenant was to leave all furniture and appliances in the tenancy when he left. However there is no reason the tenant and landlord could not agree that the tenant could purchase any of those items, and if a price could be agreed, there would be no problem.
In this case the parties did enter into a negation, and on the face of it there was an agreement for the furniture to be purchased for $2,500.00, but the dispute really centres around what that $2,500.00 covered. Was it all furniture and appliances in the dwelling as the tenant claims, or was it only the 6 items and the landlord claims?
Having heard from the parties, and considered the information on file, my conclusion is that both parties believed they were agreeing to different things.
I accept the tenant believed he was agreeing to purchase all items of furniture, and when he referred to taking “all the furniture”, I accept that he was intending to mean just that – everything in the tenancy.
But I also accept that the landlord believed that when the tenant referred to taking all the furniture, that this was interpreted to mean all the furniture detailed in the 19 December email. In that regard I note that the landlord had valued the 6 items of furniture at $3,000.00, but was willing to reduce that price to $2,500.00. A $500 reduction would not be a surprising amount for the reduction of the offer in a negotiation such as this.
But if I were to take the depreciated value of the other 9 items of furniture, which is $3,096.90, then that combined with the original six items of furniture would mean the value of all items was $6,096.90. It seems unrealistic that the landlord would go from an offer to sell less than half of the furniture for $3,000.00, then reduce that by a further $500.00, and then to settle the negotiation by include the rest of the furniture of another $3,096.90 of value.
There is a further reason I consider the landlord’s interpretation of the counter offer of $2,500.00 to be only in relation to the 6 items. Again the email on 1 January holds: We are moving out on 15 th January, Could you please do the furniture for $2500 and We will take all the furniture, $3,000 will be too much for the used furniture comparing them with the market value
What the tenant said, was that ‘$3000 will be too much for the used furniture’, but that was in directly response to the landlords offer of $2,500.00, which of course was only for the six pieces. To put that another way, what the email reads as saying, is that the tenant considered the offer to purchase the 6 pieces for $3,000.00 was too high, but $2,500.00 would be more reasonable – for those 6 pieces.
While the belief of the tenant may well have been naive, I accept that the tenant honestly held that mistaken belief in what the landlord was agreeing to.
What remains is that while there was an amount agreed, both parties had significantly different beliefs in relation to what they were selling / buying for that $2,500.00.
In order for there to be a valid and binding contract for the sale of the items, then I must consider if a contract had been formed which requires a range of requirements, but one of those is that there must be certainty of the terms. In short, both the landlord and tenant had to be agreeing on the sale and purchase of the same thing, which I find they were not.
What that means is that I find there was no binding contract for the purchase of the house lot of furniture for $2,500.00.
There is no claim before me from either the tenant or landlord for the 6 items in the December email, the claim is only in relation to the 9 additional items.
I accept the landlord has provided the chattels which are the subject of this claim, and I also accept that the tenant did not return those items at the end of the tenancy as the tenant was required to do given his section 40 obligation. The tenant must be liable for the replacement costs.
The amounts claimed by the landlord seem reasonable. There is nothing in the quoted replacement costs which struck me as anything other than reasonable for the replacement of the items described.
The landlord’s loss will be the depreciated amount. The landlord has applied a depreciation to the amounts claimed, which is more than half of the replacement cost. That seems fair for chattels around the 2-3 year old mark.
The claim is reasonable, and is ordered in full.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. This is ordered in full because the landlord has been successful in its claim. I have also decided to extend my discretion to order name suppression for the tenant. I accept that the tenant had an honest belief that he had purchased those further item, and ordering name suppression in the circumstances for both parties would be reasonable.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4549649. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ders suppression of the names and identifying details for both parties. 2. [The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] the	$3,096.90		ders suppression of the names and identifying details for both parties. 2. [The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] the

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details for both parties.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] the sum of $3,096.90 immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The landlord seeks compensation for chattels that were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 14 June 2021. The Tenancy agreement records the landlord as [The landlord/s], and the sole tenant as [The tenant/s]. The tenancy was rented furnished.
Toward the end of the tenancy the tenant asked the landlord if he could take six pieces of furniture with him. I have been provided with an email of 19 December 2023 from the tenant which states in part: Also as discussed over the call we have 1 TV unit, 1 TV, 1 double bed, 2 side drawers and 1 fridge, the pictures attached. We would like to take this with us if you allow. Im not sure if you give this to us for free or you want us to pay for this. We don’t mind paying for this.
The landlord responded with an offer that the tenant could purchase those items for $3,000.00.
On 1 January 2023 the tenant emailed the landlord: We are moving out on 15 th January, Could you please do the furniture for $2500 and We will take all the furniture, $3,000 will be too much for the used furniture comparing them with the market value. I think this furniture we are using is not worth more than $2,500 for sure.
On 2 January 2023 the landlord (property manager) responded: The landlord has agreed with 2500.
The tenancy ended on 15 January 2023, and the tenant paid the $2,500.00 to the landlord. It is the case that the tenant took all the furniture with him, that is the 6 specific items set out in the 19 December email, and also the 9 further items which the landlord now claims, which are: a. Washing Machine$1,099.00 b. Dining table$699.00 c. Sofa$3,039.00 d. Mattress$149.00 e. Bed base$159.00 f. Microwave oven$268.00 g. Side tables with draws$1,316.00 h. Shelves$54.00 i. Cloth stand (coat rack)$99.00
The total amount of the replacement items was valued at $6,882.00, but the landlord has applied a depreciation, and claims the reduced amount of $3,096.90. Position of the parties
The landlord’s position is that there was an agreement only for the tenant to purchase the 6 items in the 19 December 2022 email for $2,500.00, and the tenant should compensate the landlord for the further items he took with him at the end of the tenancy at the depreciated amount.
The tenant’s position is that there was an agreement he could take “all” of the furniture for $2,500.00 as reflected in the most recent email communication from 1 and 2 January 2023. Analysis
The question I must decide, is whether to order compensation to the landlord for the 9 items claimed.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies, and of particular relevance is section 40, which sets out the tenant’s responsibilities. Section 40(1)(e) requires that: The tenant shall...on the termination of the tenancy...leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.
This means that the default obligation on the tenant was to leave all furniture and appliances in the tenancy when he left. However there is no reason the tenant and landlord could not agree that the tenant could purchase any of those items, and if a price could be agreed, there would be no problem.
In this case the parties did enter into a negation, and on the face of it there was an agreement for the furniture to be purchased for $2,500.00, but the dispute really centres around what that $2,500.00 covered. Was it all furniture and appliances in the dwelling as the tenant claims, or was it only the 6 items and the landlord claims?
Having heard from the parties, and considered the information on file, my conclusion is that both parties believed they were agreeing to different things.
I accept the tenant believed he was agreeing to purchase all items of furniture, and when he referred to taking “all the furniture”, I accept that he was intending to mean just that – everything in the tenancy.
But I also accept that the landlord believed that when the tenant referred to taking all the furniture, that this was interpreted to mean all the furniture detailed in the 19 December email. In that regard I note that the landlord had valued the 6 items of furniture at $3,000.00, but was willing to reduce that price to $2,500.00. A $500 reduction would not be a surprising amount for the reduction of the offer in a negotiation such as this.
But if I were to take the depreciated value of the other 9 items of furniture, which is $3,096.90, then that combined with the original six items of furniture would mean the value of all items was $6,096.90. It seems unrealistic that the landlord would go from an offer to sell less than half of the furniture for $3,000.00, then reduce that by a further $500.00, and then to settle the negotiation by include the rest of the furniture of another $3,096.90 of value.
There is a further reason I consider the landlord’s interpretation of the counter offer of $2,500.00 to be only in relation to the 6 items. Again the email on 1 January holds: We are moving out on 15 th January, Could you please do the furniture for $2500 and We will take all the furniture, $3,000 will be too much for the used furniture comparing them with the market value
What the tenant said, was that ‘$3000 will be too much for the used furniture’, but that was in directly response to the landlords offer of $2,500.00, which of course was only for the six pieces. To put that another way, what the email reads as saying, is that the tenant considered the offer to purchase the 6 pieces for $3,000.00 was too high, but $2,500.00 would be more reasonable – for those 6 pieces.
While the belief of the tenant may well have been naive, I accept that the tenant honestly held that mistaken belief in what the landlord was agreeing to.
What remains is that while there was an amount agreed, both parties had significantly different beliefs in relation to what they were selling / buying for that $2,500.00.
In order for there to be a valid and binding contract for the sale of the items, then I must consider if a contract had been formed which requires a range of requirements, but one of those is that there must be certainty of the terms. In short, both the landlord and tenant had to be agreeing on the sale and purchase of the same thing, which I find they were not.
What that means is that I find there was no binding contract for the purchase of the house lot of furniture for $2,500.00.
There is no claim before me from either the tenant or landlord for the 6 items in the December email, the claim is only in relation to the 9 additional items.
I accept the landlord has provided the chattels which are the subject of this claim, and I also accept that the tenant did not return those items at the end of the tenancy as the tenant was required to do given his section 40 obligation. The tenant must be liable for the replacement costs.
The amounts claimed by the landlord seem reasonable. There is nothing in the quoted replacement costs which struck me as anything other than reasonable for the replacement of the items described.
The landlord’s loss will be the depreciated amount. The landlord has applied a depreciation to the amounts claimed, which is more than half of the replacement cost. That seems fair for chattels around the 2-3 year old mark.
The claim is reasonable, and is ordered in full.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. This is ordered in full because the landlord has been successful in its claim. I have also decided to extend my discretion to order name suppression for the tenant. I accept that the tenant had an honest belief that he had purchased those further item, and ordering name suppression in the circumstances for both parties would be reasonable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4549649 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4549649 — Property damage

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