What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4640729 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 4640729?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Refund (5 Days: $214.28 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4640729?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4640729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9346169-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4640729 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 4640729?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Refund (5 Days: $214.28 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4640729?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4640729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9346169-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4640729 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4640729 — net $234.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent refund (5 days	$214.28	Rent refund (5 days
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$234.72
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$234.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ping Li must pay [The tenant/s] $234.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held at [Event location suppressed] on 25 August 2023.
The tenant has applied for a refund of 5 days’ rent between 8 and 13 July 2023.
Both parties accept that there was a residential tenancy between them so there are no jurisdictional issues for the Tribunal to determine.
The tenant agreed to rent a room from the landlord. The dispute concerns the commencement date for the tenancy.

When did the tenancy start?

The landlord submitted that the correspondence between the parties clearly shows that the tenancy was to commence on 8 July 2023.
The tenant paid a bond of $1,320.00 to secure the room. The bond was paid on 23 June, 2 weeks’ before the date the landlord considers that the tenancy started.
The tenant said she moved into the premises on 13 July 2023, and rent should be payable from that date only.
The parties did not sign a tenancy agreement on 8 July when the landlord states they agreed to start the tenancy. The landlord said she had prepared the agreement but forgot to take it with her when the tenant viewed the premises.
The tenant said that she collected the tenancy agreement from the landlord on 12 July and signed it the following day. She said she never agreed to move in on 8 July.
To complicate matters further, the parties agree that the tenancy agreement though dated 8 July was not signed until 12 July (according to the landlord) and 13 July (according to the tenant).
So, the tenancy agreement is not accurate. It was not signed on 8 July, which is the date stated in the agreement.
That means the landlord’s defence to the application is based on what she says was a verbal agreement for the tenancy to start on 8 July. That is disputed by the tenant.
When the oral evidence is in conflict, as it is here, the Tribunal will look to the documentary evidence. But, as I have noted, the tenancy agreement is not reliable evidence because both parties agree that the contract is wrongly dated.
While the tenancy agreement records the start date of the tenancy as 8 July, the tenant gave evidence that she felt intimidated by the landlord, having previously paid a large sum of money to her (the bond) for which she received no receipt. She said she felt that she had to pay the rent the landlord required otherwise she would lose her bond.
After the tenant moved into the premises on 13 July, the relationship deteriorated. Soon after, the landlord asked her to move out. The tenant vacated on 27 July, but the landlord refused to refund her rent for the 5-day period commencing 8 July.
Tenancy agreement are contracts. They are required to be in writing - see section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). A landlord must, before the tenancy commences, sign the tenancy agreement, and provide a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant, whether or not the tenant has signed it. A failure by the landlord to comply with these provisions is an unlawful act.
For the landlord to claim rent for the period when the tenant was not living at the premises, she would have to show compliance with section 13 RTA. She has not done that. The landlord accepted that the tenancy agreement was not signed before she says the tenancy started on 8 July, nor did she provide a copy of the agreement to the tenant.
Recording that the parties signed the tenancy agreement on 8 July 2023 when they did not was wrong.
The landlord cannot therefore establish that the tenancy started on 8 July, not having met the section 13 RTA requirements.
I find that the tenancy started on 13 July 2023. That means the landlord must reimburse the tenant the 5 days’ rent sought.
The tenant has not applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s unlawful act by not complying with the section 13 RTA requirements. Had the tenant sought exemplary damages (the civil equivalent of a fine) the Tribunal might have awarded them. Other factors
There is another reason why the tenant’s application should be allowed.
The tenant was a young, vulnerable student who had just arrived in New Zealand to study. She said she had no family or friends here. The landlord, on the other hand, is a resident and has a support network.
The amount of money in dispute is not great.
Section 85 RTA provides: Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The landlord could have, and should have, been more understanding of the tenant’s vulnerable position. The overall merits and justice in this case mean that the tenant should receive back the 5 days’ rent she paid when she was not residing at the premises. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $214.28 as a rent refund. As well, the landlord will pay the tenant’s Tribunal filing fee of $20.44. The total amount to be paid to the tenant is $234.72. Name suppression
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression as her application is wholly successful – see section 95A RTA.
The landlord sought, but is not entitled to, an order for name suppression as her defence has been unsuccessful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4640729 — net $234.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent refund (5 days	$214.28	Rent refund (5 days
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$234.72
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$234.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ping Li must pay [The tenant/s] $234.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held at [Event location suppressed] on 25 August 2023.
The tenant has applied for a refund of 5 days’ rent between 8 and 13 July 2023.
Both parties accept that there was a residential tenancy between them so there are no jurisdictional issues for the Tribunal to determine.
The tenant agreed to rent a room from the landlord. The dispute concerns the commencement date for the tenancy.

When did the tenancy start?

The landlord submitted that the correspondence between the parties clearly shows that the tenancy was to commence on 8 July 2023.
The tenant paid a bond of $1,320.00 to secure the room. The bond was paid on 23 June, 2 weeks’ before the date the landlord considers that the tenancy started.
The tenant said she moved into the premises on 13 July 2023, and rent should be payable from that date only.
The parties did not sign a tenancy agreement on 8 July when the landlord states they agreed to start the tenancy. The landlord said she had prepared the agreement but forgot to take it with her when the tenant viewed the premises.
The tenant said that she collected the tenancy agreement from the landlord on 12 July and signed it the following day. She said she never agreed to move in on 8 July.
To complicate matters further, the parties agree that the tenancy agreement though dated 8 July was not signed until 12 July (according to the landlord) and 13 July (according to the tenant).
So, the tenancy agreement is not accurate. It was not signed on 8 July, which is the date stated in the agreement.
That means the landlord’s defence to the application is based on what she says was a verbal agreement for the tenancy to start on 8 July. That is disputed by the tenant.
When the oral evidence is in conflict, as it is here, the Tribunal will look to the documentary evidence. But, as I have noted, the tenancy agreement is not reliable evidence because both parties agree that the contract is wrongly dated.
While the tenancy agreement records the start date of the tenancy as 8 July, the tenant gave evidence that she felt intimidated by the landlord, having previously paid a large sum of money to her (the bond) for which she received no receipt. She said she felt that she had to pay the rent the landlord required otherwise she would lose her bond.
After the tenant moved into the premises on 13 July, the relationship deteriorated. Soon after, the landlord asked her to move out. The tenant vacated on 27 July, but the landlord refused to refund her rent for the 5-day period commencing 8 July.
Tenancy agreement are contracts. They are required to be in writing - see section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). A landlord must, before the tenancy commences, sign the tenancy agreement, and provide a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant, whether or not the tenant has signed it. A failure by the landlord to comply with these provisions is an unlawful act.
For the landlord to claim rent for the period when the tenant was not living at the premises, she would have to show compliance with section 13 RTA. She has not done that. The landlord accepted that the tenancy agreement was not signed before she says the tenancy started on 8 July, nor did she provide a copy of the agreement to the tenant.
Recording that the parties signed the tenancy agreement on 8 July 2023 when they did not was wrong.
The landlord cannot therefore establish that the tenancy started on 8 July, not having met the section 13 RTA requirements.
I find that the tenancy started on 13 July 2023. That means the landlord must reimburse the tenant the 5 days’ rent sought.
The tenant has not applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s unlawful act by not complying with the section 13 RTA requirements. Had the tenant sought exemplary damages (the civil equivalent of a fine) the Tribunal might have awarded them. Other factors
There is another reason why the tenant’s application should be allowed.
The tenant was a young, vulnerable student who had just arrived in New Zealand to study. She said she had no family or friends here. The landlord, on the other hand, is a resident and has a support network.
The amount of money in dispute is not great.
Section 85 RTA provides: Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The landlord could have, and should have, been more understanding of the tenant’s vulnerable position. The overall merits and justice in this case mean that the tenant should receive back the 5 days’ rent she paid when she was not residing at the premises. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $214.28 as a rent refund. As well, the landlord will pay the tenant’s Tribunal filing fee of $20.44. The total amount to be paid to the tenant is $234.72. Name suppression
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression as her application is wholly successful – see section 95A RTA.
The landlord sought, but is not entitled to, an order for name suppression as her defence has been unsuccessful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4640729 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4640729 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy start?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy start?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions