What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4600332?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4600332?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600332?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9205897-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4600332?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4600332?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600332?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9205897-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

56 Scarborough Road, Scarborough, Christchurch 8081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4600332 — Tenancy dispute

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3357425-002) to Wilco Terink immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
Judith Ann Foster must pay Wilco Terink $20.44 immediately being the filing fee on the tenant’s successful application.
The tenant’s application for other costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Terink attended by phone from the Netherlands. Ms Foster and her (approved) representative attended in person. Background
The tenancy started on 11 September 2022 initially for 6 months. It was extended for a further fixed term until 12 September 2023.
Before the tenancy ended, Mr Terink decided to end his employment in Christchurch and return to The Netherlands to do work for clients there.
Mr Terink asked the landlord whether he could be released from the tenancy early. He says she agreed to him doing that.
Ms Foster says that she never agreed to release him from the tenancy. She seeks the bond as compensation for him leaving the tenancy before the term of the tenancy had ended. Issues:
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are: •Did the parties agree to end the tenancy early, and if so when did it end? •If the parties did not agree to end the tenancy, has Mr Terink established grounds for the Tribunal to reduce the term of the tenancy?

Did the parties agree to end the tenancy early, and if so when did it end?

The first relevant communication between the parties is an email dated 2 May 2023. The landlord confirmed that the end of the tenancy is on or prior to 12 th September 2023.
There then followed a letter of the same date confirming that the fixed term tenancy agreement ends 12 th September 2023.
Mr Lister submitted that was proof that the landlord intended the tenancy to run to term and there was no unequivocal agreement to end it earlier.
Had that been the only communication, I would have accepted that submission.
However, on 23 May 2023 Mr Terink emailed the landlord to advise that he might vacate the tenancy earlier, possibly the following month.
Ms Foster responded on 24 May. She said: regarding your possible early termination of the tenancy agreement prior to 12.9.23, I accept that you may vacate earlier although I would prefer that you remain there during June and July.
Ms Foster also said in a separate email: yes I understand and agree that you can move out earlier than 12 th September if you want to. It is fine for you to work in with your client in the Nederlands (sic) and when you can get your travel bookings arranged for.
Mr Terink thanked the landlord for her understanding and agreed to keep her updated about his move out date.
Later that day Ms Foster emailed Mr Terink and said: I will be able to work in with whatever move out date suits you. Please keep me informed once you know your travel dates.
Then, on 28 May Ms Foster emailed Mr Terink and said: Thanks for letting me know about your planned move out date on 17 th June. We will need to do a final house inspection together before then, so you can claim your bond back after your departure...After you move out on 17 th June, can you please leave the house keys and the two garage door remotes with a friend in Christchurch...
Ms Foster then emailed Mr Terink on 2 June to make arrangements for an inspection on 14 June, noting that she would bring the bond refund form. The inspection date was later changed to 17 June by agreement.
On 9 June, Ms Foster emailed Mr Terink and told him she had consulted Tenancy Services who told her the Mr Terink was bound to pay rent until the end of the fixed term, though she would accept the bond, equivalent to 28 days’ notice.
Mr Terink did not accept that. He considered that he and Ms Foster had already reached an agreement about ending the tenancy early.
The dispute that arose then resulted in the applications before the Tribunal today.
The communications I have referred to clearly show that Ms Foster agreed to release Mr Terink from his fixed term tenancy; that she was prepared to be flexible as to the date he left the tenancy; and that once confirmed as 17 June, she arranged to conduct an inspection and advised where Mr Terink was to leave the keys. She also confirmed that she would bring the bond form so he could get his bond refunded.
That she later took advice from Tenancy Services does not negate the agreements the parties had reached before then. Mr Terink acted on the landlord’s agreement to release him from his tenancy. He booked his airfare. And Ms Foster acknowledged that 17 June would be the move out date.
That agreement between the parties served to vary the tenancy agreement. No longer was it a fixed term tenancy agreement to 12 September 2023. The parties agreed to end it earlier, on 17 June 2023.
Ms Foster could not then unilaterally change the agreement reached; the contract (the tenancy agreement) had already been varied by agreement.
Mr Terink paid his rent to 17 June 2023, the date the parties agreed the tenancy would end. The landlord has no further claim against him.
The tenant is entitled to receive his bond in full. That is what the Tribunal orders. If the parties did not agree to end the tenancy, has Mr Terink established grounds for the Tribunal to reduce the term of the tenancy?
Given my finding that the parties reached an agreement about ending the fixed term tenancy on 17 June 2023, I need not address this aspect of the tenant’s application. Other matters raised
Both parties raised other issues that arose during the tenancy. However, they were not part of the applications, and I told the parties that the Tribunal would not address them on this bond dispute. The Tribunal is not a general complaints forum.
The tenant’s allegations about the landlord falsifying evidence and committing Crimes Act offences do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Mr Terink also sought costs; the filing fee, his time preparing for the hearing and the cost of his teleconference attendance.
Generally, each party in the Tribunal bears their own costs. The cost of the teleconference attendance is also a cost for Mr Terink to bear due to him being overseas. The landlord has no control over that. Result
The bond will be paid to Mr Terink. The landlord will pay his filing fee as his application is successful. I make no other award for costs. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3357425-002) to Wilco Terink immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
Judith Ann Foster must pay Wilco Terink $20.44 immediately being the filing fee on the tenant’s successful application.
The tenant’s application for other costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Terink attended by phone from the Netherlands. Ms Foster and her (approved) representative attended in person. Background
The tenancy started on 11 September 2022 initially for 6 months. It was extended for a further fixed term until 12 September 2023.
Before the tenancy ended, Mr Terink decided to end his employment in Christchurch and return to The Netherlands to do work for clients there.
Mr Terink asked the landlord whether he could be released from the tenancy early. He says she agreed to him doing that.
Ms Foster says that she never agreed to release him from the tenancy. She seeks the bond as compensation for him leaving the tenancy before the term of the tenancy had ended. Issues:
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are: •Did the parties agree to end the tenancy early, and if so when did it end? •If the parties did not agree to end the tenancy, has Mr Terink established grounds for the Tribunal to reduce the term of the tenancy?

Did the parties agree to end the tenancy early, and if so when did it end?

The first relevant communication between the parties is an email dated 2 May 2023. The landlord confirmed that the end of the tenancy is on or prior to 12 th September 2023.
There then followed a letter of the same date confirming that the fixed term tenancy agreement ends 12 th September 2023.
Mr Lister submitted that was proof that the landlord intended the tenancy to run to term and there was no unequivocal agreement to end it earlier.
Had that been the only communication, I would have accepted that submission.
However, on 23 May 2023 Mr Terink emailed the landlord to advise that he might vacate the tenancy earlier, possibly the following month.
Ms Foster responded on 24 May. She said: regarding your possible early termination of the tenancy agreement prior to 12.9.23, I accept that you may vacate earlier although I would prefer that you remain there during June and July.
Ms Foster also said in a separate email: yes I understand and agree that you can move out earlier than 12 th September if you want to. It is fine for you to work in with your client in the Nederlands (sic) and when you can get your travel bookings arranged for.
Mr Terink thanked the landlord for her understanding and agreed to keep her updated about his move out date.
Later that day Ms Foster emailed Mr Terink and said: I will be able to work in with whatever move out date suits you. Please keep me informed once you know your travel dates.
Then, on 28 May Ms Foster emailed Mr Terink and said: Thanks for letting me know about your planned move out date on 17 th June. We will need to do a final house inspection together before then, so you can claim your bond back after your departure...After you move out on 17 th June, can you please leave the house keys and the two garage door remotes with a friend in Christchurch...
Ms Foster then emailed Mr Terink on 2 June to make arrangements for an inspection on 14 June, noting that she would bring the bond refund form. The inspection date was later changed to 17 June by agreement.
On 9 June, Ms Foster emailed Mr Terink and told him she had consulted Tenancy Services who told her the Mr Terink was bound to pay rent until the end of the fixed term, though she would accept the bond, equivalent to 28 days’ notice.
Mr Terink did not accept that. He considered that he and Ms Foster had already reached an agreement about ending the tenancy early.
The dispute that arose then resulted in the applications before the Tribunal today.
The communications I have referred to clearly show that Ms Foster agreed to release Mr Terink from his fixed term tenancy; that she was prepared to be flexible as to the date he left the tenancy; and that once confirmed as 17 June, she arranged to conduct an inspection and advised where Mr Terink was to leave the keys. She also confirmed that she would bring the bond form so he could get his bond refunded.
That she later took advice from Tenancy Services does not negate the agreements the parties had reached before then. Mr Terink acted on the landlord’s agreement to release him from his tenancy. He booked his airfare. And Ms Foster acknowledged that 17 June would be the move out date.
That agreement between the parties served to vary the tenancy agreement. No longer was it a fixed term tenancy agreement to 12 September 2023. The parties agreed to end it earlier, on 17 June 2023.
Ms Foster could not then unilaterally change the agreement reached; the contract (the tenancy agreement) had already been varied by agreement.
Mr Terink paid his rent to 17 June 2023, the date the parties agreed the tenancy would end. The landlord has no further claim against him.
The tenant is entitled to receive his bond in full. That is what the Tribunal orders. If the parties did not agree to end the tenancy, has Mr Terink established grounds for the Tribunal to reduce the term of the tenancy?
Given my finding that the parties reached an agreement about ending the fixed term tenancy on 17 June 2023, I need not address this aspect of the tenant’s application. Other matters raised
Both parties raised other issues that arose during the tenancy. However, they were not part of the applications, and I told the parties that the Tribunal would not address them on this bond dispute. The Tribunal is not a general complaints forum.
The tenant’s allegations about the landlord falsifying evidence and committing Crimes Act offences do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Mr Terink also sought costs; the filing fee, his time preparing for the hearing and the cost of his teleconference attendance.
Generally, each party in the Tribunal bears their own costs. The cost of the teleconference attendance is also a cost for Mr Terink to bear due to him being overseas. The landlord has no control over that. Result
The bond will be paid to Mr Terink. The landlord will pay his filing fee as his application is successful. I make no other award for costs. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600332 — Tenancy dispute at 56 Scarborough Road, Scarborough, Christchurch 8081

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600332 — Tenancy dispute at 56 Scarborough Road, Scarborough, Christchurch 8081

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the parties agree to end the tenancy early, and if so when did it end?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the parties agree to end the tenancy early, and if so when did it end?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions