How much money was awarded in case 4655169?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655169?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9548742-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4655169?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655169?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9548742-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 16, 137 Quay, Auckland 1010, Princes Wharf Tenancy Tribunal Case 4655169 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4655169 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants’ names and identifying details.
By declaration, there is no residential tenancy agreement between the parties with respect to Unit/Flat 16, 137 Quay, Auckland 1010, Princes Wharf and no rent is therefore payable by the applicants to the respondent.

Reasons

Only the applicants attended the hearing. Telephone calls made to Andrew Purdie were not picked up.
The issue in this case is whether or not the parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement with respect to the premises at Unit/Flat 16, 137 Quay, Auckland 1010 (the premises). Background
The applicants live in the [Country]. [Tenant 1] accepted employment at [redacted] Hospital earlier in this year which necessitated the applicants needing to find accommodation in Auckland from 5 July 2023 to 22 October 2023.
The applicants searched for suitable accommodation on a website known as [vacation rental website], a platform that appears to operate similar to [accommodation website].
The applicants identified suitable premises, being a two-bedroom fully furnished apartment with two bathrooms, located at Sebel Apartments at the Viaduct, in Auckland.
They dealt with Mr Purdie in connection with those premises and agreed to rent them for the duration of their stay. While still [overseas], they pre-paid the full cost of the accommodation to [vacation rental website], being $20,145. The arrangement is that [vacation rental website] pays the owner at a later point, presumably after the occupant has arrived on site and is living in the [vacation rental website] unit.
The applicants duly arrived in New Zealand and arranged to meet Mr Purdie on site at Sebel so that he could take them to the apartment. When he arrived, however, he informed them that the apartment they had agreed to rent was not available. He said that he had another apartment that the applicants could move into instead.
At this point, he took them to the premises, which, according to the applicants were not suitable for their purposes. [Tenant 2], who is aged 80, had recently had an operation, and the 17 steep stairs within the apartment were not at all suitable for her. Further, the apartment was only sparsely furnished and was significantly lacking in basic items like sheets, cooking utensils and the like. The premises and chattels that were provided were dirty. Dishes still had food on them in places and there was a large stain on the couch.
The applicants were very disappointed but, having only arrived in New Zealand, had little choice but to stay there.
They went through the apartment with Mr Purdie and pointed out all of the things that were lacking in the premises. Mr Purdie made a list of all of the things that were missing and agreed to produce them. He did return that night with sheets but failed to deliver any of the other promised items.
At this point, the applicants, who remained very disappointed, contacted [vacation rental website]. They had by this stage realised that they were not actually in a [vacation rental website] property. They wanted their money back.
In the meantime, Mr Purdie continue to reassure them that he was working on getting them back into the Sebel apartment. He came up with many excuses as to why it was not available but kept indicating that this apartment may be available soon. For that reason, they remained living at the premises, notwithstanding they were utterly unsuitable for their purposes.
The applicants then learned from security at the premises that Mr Purdie did not even own the premises. They were then able to get in contact with the actual owner and an e-mail was produced from that owner which explained that Mr Purdie had at one point been a tenant but had been evicted because he had not been making rent payments. The owner also pointed out that whilst he was a tenant, Mr Purdie did not have the consent of the owner to sublet the premises to anyone.
The applicant’s evidence was that Mr Purdie was continuing to constantly chase them for money by calling and by texting. They received a full refund from [vacation rental website] and immediately made arrangements to move out of the property on 13 August 2023. In the meantime, after they received the refund, Mr Purdie started demanding it. On 9 august 2023 he produced a back-dated residential tenancy agreement, signed by him, which they refused to sign.
They made their application to the tribunal on 13 August 2023 and, a month later, Mr Purdie filed his own application through his company, Board My Boat Ltd. Through that application, he seeks an order that the applicants are tenants and that they owe rent. As [Tenant 2] points out, however, the actual quantum of the alleged “rent” Mr Purdie says is owing has changed several times. Was there a residential tenancy agreement in place between the applicants and the respondent?
It is an axiomatic part of any residential tenancy that a landlord actually has the right to grant the tenancy. Mr Purdie and Build My Boat Limited never had the right to grant a tenancy to the applicants in the first place. In this regard, I accept the evidence provided by the applicants and the email they produced from the actual owner. Mr Purdie and Build My Boat Limited never having had the right to grant a tenancy to the applicants, no tenancy agreement ever came into existence and it follows that no rent is payable.
If I am wrong on this question then alternatively I would have had no hesitation finding that any agreement was induced by misrepresentation on the part of Mr Purdie that he had the legitimate right to grant a residential tenancy with respect to the premises. Pursuant to s 78(1)(g) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I would have made an order that any such agreement should be set aside as at the start of the applicant’s occupation of the premises, with the consequence, again, that no rent is owing by the applicants to the respondent.
The applicants should be refunded their filing fee by the respondents.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants’ names and identifying details.

By declaration, there is no residential tenancy agreement between the parties with respect to Unit/Flat 16, 137 Quay, Auckland 1010, Princes Wharf and no rent is therefore payable by the applicants to the respondent.

Reasons

Only the applicants attended the hearing. Telephone calls made to Andrew Purdie were not picked up.

The issue in this case is whether or not the parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement with respect to the premises at Unit/Flat 16, 137 Quay, Auckland 1010 (the premises). Background

The applicants live in the [Country]. [Tenant 1] accepted employment at [redacted] Hospital earlier in this year which necessitated the applicants needing to find accommodation in Auckland from 5 July 2023 to 22 October 2023.

The applicants searched for suitable accommodation on a website known as [vacation rental website], a platform that appears to operate similar to [accommodation website].

The applicants identified suitable premises, being a two-bedroom fully furnished apartment with two bathrooms, located at Sebel Apartments at the Viaduct, in Auckland.

They dealt with Mr Purdie in connection with those premises and agreed to rent them for the duration of their stay. While still [overseas], they pre-paid the full cost of the accommodation to [vacation rental website], being $20,145. The arrangement is that [vacation rental website] pays the owner at a later point, presumably after the occupant has arrived on site and is living in the [vacation rental website] unit.

The applicants duly arrived in New Zealand and arranged to meet Mr Purdie on site at Sebel so that he could take them to the apartment. When he arrived, however, he informed them that the apartment they had agreed to rent was not available. He said that he had another apartment that the applicants could move into instead.

At this point, he took them to the premises, which, according to the applicants were not suitable for their purposes. [Tenant 2], who is aged 80, had recently had an operation, and the 17 steep stairs within the apartment were not at all suitable for her. Further, the apartment was only sparsely furnished and was significantly lacking in basic items like sheets, cooking utensils and the like. The premises and chattels that were provided were dirty. Dishes still had food on them in places and there was a large stain on the couch.

The applicants were very disappointed but, having only arrived in New Zealand, had little choice but to stay there.

They went through the apartment with Mr Purdie and pointed out all of the things that were lacking in the premises. Mr Purdie made a list of all of the things that were missing and agreed to produce them. He did return that night with sheets but failed to deliver any of the other promised items.

At this point, the applicants, who remained very disappointed, contacted [vacation rental website]. They had by this stage realised that they were not actually in a [vacation rental website] property. They wanted their money back.

In the meantime, Mr Purdie continue to reassure them that he was working on getting them back into the Sebel apartment. He came up with many excuses as to why it was not available but kept indicating that this apartment may be available soon. For that reason, they remained living at the premises, notwithstanding they were utterly unsuitable for their purposes.

The applicants then learned from security at the premises that Mr Purdie did not even own the premises. They were then able to get in contact with the actual owner and an e-mail was produced from that owner which explained that Mr Purdie had at one point been a tenant but had been evicted because he had not been making rent payments. The owner also pointed out that whilst he was a tenant, Mr Purdie did not have the consent of the owner to sublet the premises to anyone.

The applicant’s evidence was that Mr Purdie was continuing to constantly chase them for money by calling and by texting. They received a full refund from [vacation rental website] and immediately made arrangements to move out of the property on 13 August 2023. In the meantime, after they received the refund, Mr Purdie started demanding it. On 9 august 2023 he produced a back-dated residential tenancy agreement, signed by him, which they refused to sign.

They made their application to the tribunal on 13 August 2023 and, a month later, Mr Purdie filed his own application through his company, Board My Boat Ltd. Through that application, he seeks an order that the applicants are tenants and that they owe rent. As [Tenant 2] points out, however, the actual quantum of the alleged “rent” Mr Purdie says is owing has changed several times. Was there a residential tenancy agreement in place between the applicants and the respondent?

It is an axiomatic part of any residential tenancy that a landlord actually has the right to grant the tenancy. Mr Purdie and Build My Boat Limited never had the right to grant a tenancy to the applicants in the first place. In this regard, I accept the evidence provided by the applicants and the email they produced from the actual owner. Mr Purdie and Build My Boat Limited never having had the right to grant a tenancy to the applicants, no tenancy agreement ever came into existence and it follows that no rent is payable.

If I am wrong on this question then alternatively I would have had no hesitation finding that any agreement was induced by misrepresentation on the part of Mr Purdie that he had the legitimate right to grant a residential tenancy with respect to the premises. Pursuant to s 78(1)(g) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I would have made an order that any such agreement should be set aside as at the start of the applicant’s occupation of the premises, with the consequence, again, that no rent is owing by the applicants to the respondent.

The applicants should be refunded their filing fee by the respondents.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655169 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 16, 137 Quay, Auckland 1010, Princes Wharf

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655169 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 16, 137 Quay, Auckland 1010, Princes Wharf

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions