What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4569470 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4569470?

Agreed Costs Payable To Find New Ten…: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4569470?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4569470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9601402-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4569470 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4569470?

Agreed Costs Payable To Find New Ten…: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4569470?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4569470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9601402-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

19 Gunn Way, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4569470 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4569470 — net $329.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Agreed costs payable to find new tenants	$350.00		Agreed costs payable to find new tenants
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$350.00	$20.44
Net award	$329.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$329.56

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Corporate Property Rentals Limited acting as agent for Kearns Bezar as trustee of the Bezar Family Trust: $350.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,970.00
The bond is apportioned on the basis set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Willis and Mr Wright.
This matter concerns the tenancy of a property in Hobsonville. The tenancy began on 2 September 2022 and was for a fixed term until 31 August 2023.
The tenancy ended early, on 18 April 2023. A dispute has now arisen as to the terms on which it was agreed that the fixed term would finish early. Both parties have filed claims.
The tenant says that they had reached an agreement with the landlord that the fixed term would finish early on the basis that they gave 28 days’ notice and paid the landlord’s costs to find a new tenant (advertising and credit checks etc) in the amount of $350.00.
The tenant seeks refund of his bond, less the agreed amount.
The landlord says that they reached an agreement with the tenant that the fixed term would finish early on the basis that the landlord would look for new tenants, but the tenant would remain liable for rent until a new tenant was found, and in addition, would pay the landlord’s costs to find a new tenant in the amount of $350.00 (initially stated to be $250.00).
The landlord says that new tenants were found and moved in on 10 May 2023. They seek rent for the period up to 9 May, being $2,252.86. They have agreed to waive their costs of $350.00 on the basis that the outstanding rent is paid.

What did the parties agree?

On 3 February 2023 the tenant sent an email to Ms Willis asking about the possibility of an early release from his rental agreement for various family reasons including the property becoming too small with a new baby on the way.
Ms Willis replied advising “after discussions with the Owners of the property, we are happy to try and find new tenants for the property to allow you to move on” but advised that the tenant would be responsible for rent until the time a new tenant moves into the property or until the fixed term expires (whichever happens first) and an administration fee of $250.00 to cover advertising and administration costs.
On 13 March 2023 the tenant sent a further email to Ms Willis advising that he would like to give notice due to his family and work circumstances and is happy for them to start advertising the property and having people come through for viewings. He stated “we would like to move out on the easter weekend but if you find someone sooner that is also okay we will be moving into [work] housing so we can move whenever needed to be flexible. we will stay until a tenant is found.”
Ms Willis responded the same day,13 March 2023, stating: “thank you for letting us know of your intention to vacate the property on 10 April 2023, that is 28 days from today, this is your legal notice period”. The letter then repeated the earlier email of 13 March 2023 as to the terms although the administration fee was stated to be $350.00.
The response from Ms Willis was unusual because the tenant was not entitled to give 28 days’ notice and had not purported to do so. The tenant had also specifically advised that they would stay until a new tenant was found.
The tenant responded on 16 March 2023 to say that he would like to proceed but queried the increase in the administration fee. The tenant then further stated: “Also, we would like to stay in the property until the tenant is found, it is fine to advertise it as available once the notice period is up but we cannot sustain the financial strain of two rents this would put our family into financial hardship, this is an unforeseen circumstance that we have faced and did not imagine we would have to break the rental agreement so soon, we had got into a position to stay the full length of the term not imagining we would be faced with this challenge. happy to accommodate whatever is required to get potential tenants in earlier if needed”.
Ms Willis responded stating: “I will need to pass this by the owner as they need to agree to the fixed term break”.
The tenant responded by email later that day stating “thank you for your understanding look forward to your response”. The tenant then followed up again on 21 March 2023 to check on progress as they had not received a reply.
Ms Willis responded on 21 March 2023 stating: “Yes, the owner has agreed for you to break your fixed term provide that costs outline in my email below are covered. Advertising through trademe increased by $35 a listing an all background check for the new tenant must also be covered this is not the owners cost. Please let me know as soon as possible your vacate date, bearing in mind to must give 28 days’ notice”
The tenant responded the same day stating “Thank you for your prompt response and the land lords understanding in this difficult time for us. We would like to make that from today if possible. The fees are fine with us, thank you for justification cost increase”.
At the hearing it became clear that the parties were talking at cross purposes during this correspondence. Ms Willis said that she had thought it was clear that the “costs” included the administration costs and rent until a new tenant was found. The tenant said that he had understood that the landlord had agreed to only seek the administration costs and had agreed to accept 28 days’ notice so that he could move out without waiting for a new tenant to be found.
Having reviewed the correspondence above it seems to me that either interpretation could be possible, although having I note that it was Ms Willis who referred to there being a 28 notice period while the tenant had stressed that they would in fact stay until a new tenant was found as they were flexible and could not afford to pay rent in two places at once.
However in my view, the next email sent by Ms Willis was unequivocal and supports the tenant’s interpretation of the agreement reached. That email was sent on 21 March 2023, shortly after the tenant gave notice, stating: “This email is to acknowledge receipt of your notice that you will be vacating [property] on 18 April 2023. Rent payable up to and including your vacate date is $3082.86 and this needs to be paid before you vacate on 18/04/2023. You have a bond of $3320 and this can be refunded to your bank account at the end of the tenancy providing all rent is paid and the property is in reasonably tidy condition. Please remember to cancel your Automatic Payment and re-direct your mail”.
The email then continued to remind the tenant about the necessary cleaning required and asked them contact Ms Willis to schedule the exit inspection.
In my view the tenant was entitled to rely on the formal acknowledgement of the notice given as confirmation as to what had been agreed. The acknowledgement email specifically stated confirmed that rent was only “payable up to and including your vacate date”, which was recorded as 18 April 2024. It reminded the tenant to cancel his Automatic Payment.

What orders are required?

I have accepted the tenant’s interpretation of the agreed terms on which the fixed term tenancy was to end early. It follows that no rent is payable past the 28 day notice period and so no rent is owing. However the tenant is liable for the administration costs of $350.00 as agreed and so I award that amount to the landlord.
The bond is released accordingly, subject to the refund of the application fee to the tenant referred to in paragraph 25 below. Name suppression and filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $20.44.
As the successful party the tenant is entitled to name suppression and I make an order suppression the tenant’s name and identifying details accordingly pursuant to Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4569470 — net $329.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Agreed costs payable to find new tenants	$350.00		Agreed costs payable to find new tenants
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$350.00	$20.44
Net award	$329.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$329.56

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Corporate Property Rentals Limited acting as agent for Kearns Bezar as trustee of the Bezar Family Trust: $350.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,970.00
The bond is apportioned on the basis set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Willis and Mr Wright.
This matter concerns the tenancy of a property in Hobsonville. The tenancy began on 2 September 2022 and was for a fixed term until 31 August 2023.
The tenancy ended early, on 18 April 2023. A dispute has now arisen as to the terms on which it was agreed that the fixed term would finish early. Both parties have filed claims.
The tenant says that they had reached an agreement with the landlord that the fixed term would finish early on the basis that they gave 28 days’ notice and paid the landlord’s costs to find a new tenant (advertising and credit checks etc) in the amount of $350.00.
The tenant seeks refund of his bond, less the agreed amount.
The landlord says that they reached an agreement with the tenant that the fixed term would finish early on the basis that the landlord would look for new tenants, but the tenant would remain liable for rent until a new tenant was found, and in addition, would pay the landlord’s costs to find a new tenant in the amount of $350.00 (initially stated to be $250.00).
The landlord says that new tenants were found and moved in on 10 May 2023. They seek rent for the period up to 9 May, being $2,252.86. They have agreed to waive their costs of $350.00 on the basis that the outstanding rent is paid.

What did the parties agree?

On 3 February 2023 the tenant sent an email to Ms Willis asking about the possibility of an early release from his rental agreement for various family reasons including the property becoming too small with a new baby on the way.
Ms Willis replied advising “after discussions with the Owners of the property, we are happy to try and find new tenants for the property to allow you to move on” but advised that the tenant would be responsible for rent until the time a new tenant moves into the property or until the fixed term expires (whichever happens first) and an administration fee of $250.00 to cover advertising and administration costs.
On 13 March 2023 the tenant sent a further email to Ms Willis advising that he would like to give notice due to his family and work circumstances and is happy for them to start advertising the property and having people come through for viewings. He stated “we would like to move out on the easter weekend but if you find someone sooner that is also okay we will be moving into [work] housing so we can move whenever needed to be flexible. we will stay until a tenant is found.”
Ms Willis responded the same day,13 March 2023, stating: “thank you for letting us know of your intention to vacate the property on 10 April 2023, that is 28 days from today, this is your legal notice period”. The letter then repeated the earlier email of 13 March 2023 as to the terms although the administration fee was stated to be $350.00.
The response from Ms Willis was unusual because the tenant was not entitled to give 28 days’ notice and had not purported to do so. The tenant had also specifically advised that they would stay until a new tenant was found.
The tenant responded on 16 March 2023 to say that he would like to proceed but queried the increase in the administration fee. The tenant then further stated: “Also, we would like to stay in the property until the tenant is found, it is fine to advertise it as available once the notice period is up but we cannot sustain the financial strain of two rents this would put our family into financial hardship, this is an unforeseen circumstance that we have faced and did not imagine we would have to break the rental agreement so soon, we had got into a position to stay the full length of the term not imagining we would be faced with this challenge. happy to accommodate whatever is required to get potential tenants in earlier if needed”.
Ms Willis responded stating: “I will need to pass this by the owner as they need to agree to the fixed term break”.
The tenant responded by email later that day stating “thank you for your understanding look forward to your response”. The tenant then followed up again on 21 March 2023 to check on progress as they had not received a reply.
Ms Willis responded on 21 March 2023 stating: “Yes, the owner has agreed for you to break your fixed term provide that costs outline in my email below are covered. Advertising through trademe increased by $35 a listing an all background check for the new tenant must also be covered this is not the owners cost. Please let me know as soon as possible your vacate date, bearing in mind to must give 28 days’ notice”
The tenant responded the same day stating “Thank you for your prompt response and the land lords understanding in this difficult time for us. We would like to make that from today if possible. The fees are fine with us, thank you for justification cost increase”.
At the hearing it became clear that the parties were talking at cross purposes during this correspondence. Ms Willis said that she had thought it was clear that the “costs” included the administration costs and rent until a new tenant was found. The tenant said that he had understood that the landlord had agreed to only seek the administration costs and had agreed to accept 28 days’ notice so that he could move out without waiting for a new tenant to be found.
Having reviewed the correspondence above it seems to me that either interpretation could be possible, although having I note that it was Ms Willis who referred to there being a 28 notice period while the tenant had stressed that they would in fact stay until a new tenant was found as they were flexible and could not afford to pay rent in two places at once.
However in my view, the next email sent by Ms Willis was unequivocal and supports the tenant’s interpretation of the agreement reached. That email was sent on 21 March 2023, shortly after the tenant gave notice, stating: “This email is to acknowledge receipt of your notice that you will be vacating [property] on 18 April 2023. Rent payable up to and including your vacate date is $3082.86 and this needs to be paid before you vacate on 18/04/2023. You have a bond of $3320 and this can be refunded to your bank account at the end of the tenancy providing all rent is paid and the property is in reasonably tidy condition. Please remember to cancel your Automatic Payment and re-direct your mail”.
The email then continued to remind the tenant about the necessary cleaning required and asked them contact Ms Willis to schedule the exit inspection.
In my view the tenant was entitled to rely on the formal acknowledgement of the notice given as confirmation as to what had been agreed. The acknowledgement email specifically stated confirmed that rent was only “payable up to and including your vacate date”, which was recorded as 18 April 2024. It reminded the tenant to cancel his Automatic Payment.

What orders are required?

I have accepted the tenant’s interpretation of the agreed terms on which the fixed term tenancy was to end early. It follows that no rent is payable past the 28 day notice period and so no rent is owing. However the tenant is liable for the administration costs of $350.00 as agreed and so I award that amount to the landlord.
The bond is released accordingly, subject to the refund of the application fee to the tenant referred to in paragraph 25 below. Name suppression and filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $20.44.
As the successful party the tenant is entitled to name suppression and I make an order suppression the tenant’s name and identifying details accordingly pursuant to Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4569470 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Gunn Way, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4569470 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Gunn Way, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What did the parties agree?

What orders are required?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What did the parties agree?

What orders are required?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions