What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4598805 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 4598805?

He Property At [Tenancy Address Supp…: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4598805?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4598805?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9330971-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4598805 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 4598805?

He Property At [Tenancy Address Supp…: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4598805?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4598805?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9330971-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4598805 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4598805 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
he property at [Tenancy address suppressed], including the area known as the “suite”. 3. Mackys Real Estate Ltd is to pa	$20.44	he property at [Tenancy address suppressed], including the area known as the “suite”. 3. Mackys Real Estate Ltd is to pa
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
By declaration, during the period of this tenancy, the tenanted premises were the entirety of the property at [Tenancy address suppressed], including the area known as the “suite”.
Mackys Real Estate Ltd is to pay [The tenant/s] $20.44, being the filing fee for this application.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] began occupying [Tenancy address suppressed] under an oral tenancy agreement with the previous owner.
The property was sold in 2022 with [The tenant/s] as sitting tenants. Bayleys Property Management acted as property managers for the new owners. Bayleys drafted a written tenancy agreement dated 7 June 2022.
The house at [Tenancy address suppressed] was intended to be ancillary dwelling for a large (650m2) dwelling at [next door], known as ‘[redacted]’. [Redacted] was intended to be operated commercially as a retreat.
The house at [Tenancy address suppressed] has a living area that the parties referred to the suite. This area is self-contained. It is not physically separate from the house, but there is no internal access to it from the house. The only access to the suite is via a path that runs down the outside of the house.
In February 2023, the owners asked the tenants to remove any of their property that they had in the suite. [The tenant/s] did not object to this at the time.
On 15 March, Ms Swart sent the tenants an email stating: You may notice activity around the flatlet, Janine has asked me to get quotes to bring the unit up to Healthy Homes standards so the unit can be separately rented.
The tenants did not respond to this email.
On 22 May the tenants sent Ms Swart an email stating: Could you please remind the owners to offer us the required notice prior to visiting the house and / or sending contractors in [...] Please consider this to be my 14 day notice to remedy.
Ms Swart replied: I have chatted to Janine who advises that the contractor they arranged visited the studio unit only which is not part of your tenancy so notice was not necessary
The tenants disputed this. They issued a 14-day breach notice to the landlords, then gave notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenants’ application seeks a declaration that the suite formed part of the tenanted premises during their tenancy.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 17 August 2023. Ms Swart represented the landlord at the hearing. [Tenant 1] represented herself and [Tenant 2].
Ms Swart submitted that: a. The previous owner and the current owner both clearly understood that the tenancy did not include the suite. The suite was intended to be used as an ‘overflow’ for [redacted]. b. The new owner had a conversation with [Tenant 2] asking whether he wanted to also rent out the suite and create an internal access. [Tenant 2] said that he did not need the suite. c. The tenants were never given a key for the suite. d. The rental rate of $450.00 per week does not reflect the value of the premises if the suite was included. Ms Swart noted that after [The tenant/s] vacated, the whole house including the suite was re-let for $750.00 per week.
[Tenant 1] submitted that: a. They were never told that the suite was excluded from their tenancy. b. The suite was never locked. c. They used the suite occasionally for visitors. d. The new owner did talk about the possibility of creating an internal access, which they said that they did not need, but the new owner did not offer them the suite as an ‘extra’ area.
My findings are: a. A landlord and tenant can, by agreement, exclude parts of a property from the tenancy. For example, a landlord and tenant could agree that the landlord retains the use of the garage or a storage room, or that the landlord retains the use of a shed on the property. b. If no areas are specifically excluded by agreement, a tenant can reasonably assume that “what they see is what they get”. This assumption could be rebutted if there was something about the look of the property that made it obvious to any tenant that some part of the property was not part of the tenancy. c. To the extent that there is any possibility of a misunderstanding, the landlord has the opportunity, and the obligation, to make things clear in the written tenancy agreement. d. In this instance: i. The written tenancy agreement states that the tenanted premises is [Tenancy address suppressed]. ii. The suite is an unusual aspect of the property, but it is not an area that is obviously not part of what would be rented out. iii. Although the owners were clear in their own minds that the suite was not part of the tenanted premises, the critical question is whether there was a meeting of minds between landlord and tenant. iv. I accept [Tenant 1]’s statement that she and [Tenant 2] never understood that this area was excluded from their tenancy. e. Therefore, I find that there is no proven agreement that this area was excluded from the tenanted premises, and that the tenants reasonably understood that they had the use of all of [Tenancy address suppressed].
I have made an order by declaration accordingly 1 .
The tenants have been successful in this application, and I must also award the tenants the filing fee 2 . 1 Section 78(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “RTA” 2 Section 102(4)(a) RTA
Name suppression is granted to the tenants 3 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4598805 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
he property at [Tenancy address suppressed], including the area known as the “suite”. 3. Mackys Real Estate Ltd is to pa	$20.44	he property at [Tenancy address suppressed], including the area known as the “suite”. 3. Mackys Real Estate Ltd is to pa
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
By declaration, during the period of this tenancy, the tenanted premises were the entirety of the property at [Tenancy address suppressed], including the area known as the “suite”.
Mackys Real Estate Ltd is to pay [The tenant/s] $20.44, being the filing fee for this application.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] began occupying [Tenancy address suppressed] under an oral tenancy agreement with the previous owner.
The property was sold in 2022 with [The tenant/s] as sitting tenants. Bayleys Property Management acted as property managers for the new owners. Bayleys drafted a written tenancy agreement dated 7 June 2022.
The house at [Tenancy address suppressed] was intended to be ancillary dwelling for a large (650m2) dwelling at [next door], known as ‘[redacted]’. [Redacted] was intended to be operated commercially as a retreat.
The house at [Tenancy address suppressed] has a living area that the parties referred to the suite. This area is self-contained. It is not physically separate from the house, but there is no internal access to it from the house. The only access to the suite is via a path that runs down the outside of the house.
In February 2023, the owners asked the tenants to remove any of their property that they had in the suite. [The tenant/s] did not object to this at the time.
On 15 March, Ms Swart sent the tenants an email stating: You may notice activity around the flatlet, Janine has asked me to get quotes to bring the unit up to Healthy Homes standards so the unit can be separately rented.
The tenants did not respond to this email.
On 22 May the tenants sent Ms Swart an email stating: Could you please remind the owners to offer us the required notice prior to visiting the house and / or sending contractors in [...] Please consider this to be my 14 day notice to remedy.
Ms Swart replied: I have chatted to Janine who advises that the contractor they arranged visited the studio unit only which is not part of your tenancy so notice was not necessary
The tenants disputed this. They issued a 14-day breach notice to the landlords, then gave notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenants’ application seeks a declaration that the suite formed part of the tenanted premises during their tenancy.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 17 August 2023. Ms Swart represented the landlord at the hearing. [Tenant 1] represented herself and [Tenant 2].
Ms Swart submitted that: a. The previous owner and the current owner both clearly understood that the tenancy did not include the suite. The suite was intended to be used as an ‘overflow’ for [redacted]. b. The new owner had a conversation with [Tenant 2] asking whether he wanted to also rent out the suite and create an internal access. [Tenant 2] said that he did not need the suite. c. The tenants were never given a key for the suite. d. The rental rate of $450.00 per week does not reflect the value of the premises if the suite was included. Ms Swart noted that after [The tenant/s] vacated, the whole house including the suite was re-let for $750.00 per week.
[Tenant 1] submitted that: a. They were never told that the suite was excluded from their tenancy. b. The suite was never locked. c. They used the suite occasionally for visitors. d. The new owner did talk about the possibility of creating an internal access, which they said that they did not need, but the new owner did not offer them the suite as an ‘extra’ area.
My findings are: a. A landlord and tenant can, by agreement, exclude parts of a property from the tenancy. For example, a landlord and tenant could agree that the landlord retains the use of the garage or a storage room, or that the landlord retains the use of a shed on the property. b. If no areas are specifically excluded by agreement, a tenant can reasonably assume that “what they see is what they get”. This assumption could be rebutted if there was something about the look of the property that made it obvious to any tenant that some part of the property was not part of the tenancy. c. To the extent that there is any possibility of a misunderstanding, the landlord has the opportunity, and the obligation, to make things clear in the written tenancy agreement. d. In this instance: i. The written tenancy agreement states that the tenanted premises is [Tenancy address suppressed]. ii. The suite is an unusual aspect of the property, but it is not an area that is obviously not part of what would be rented out. iii. Although the owners were clear in their own minds that the suite was not part of the tenanted premises, the critical question is whether there was a meeting of minds between landlord and tenant. iv. I accept [Tenant 1]’s statement that she and [Tenant 2] never understood that this area was excluded from their tenancy. e. Therefore, I find that there is no proven agreement that this area was excluded from the tenanted premises, and that the tenants reasonably understood that they had the use of all of [Tenancy address suppressed].
I have made an order by declaration accordingly 1 .
The tenants have been successful in this application, and I must also award the tenants the filing fee 2 . 1 Section 78(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “RTA” 2 Section 102(4)(a) RTA
Name suppression is granted to the tenants 3 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 4598805 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4598805 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions