What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4673809 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 4673809?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Partial Rent Refund: $314.28 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4673809?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4673809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10178184-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4673809 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 4673809?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Partial Rent Refund: $314.28 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4673809?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4673809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10178184-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

106 School Road, Paihia 0200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4673809 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4673809 — net $334.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Partial rent refund	$314.28	Partial rent refund
Filing fee	$20.44	24. The tenants have been partially successful in this application.
Net award	$334.72
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$334.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
Mark Fincher and Denise Fincher are to pay [The tenant/s] $334.72 immediately, calculated per the table below:

Reasons

Background

The tenanted premises is a self-contained apartment/unit on the ground floor of a house in Paihia. The landlords live in the upper floor.
Before the start of the tenancy the tenants lived in [City 1]. [Tenant 1] accepted a job at the [redacted] in [City 2]. They saw the Paihia property available to rent and made enquiries about it. Most of the communication was between [Tenant 1] and Mrs Fincher.
Mrs Fincher sent [Tenant 1] a video of the property. [The tenant/s] agreed to rent it. Mr & Mrs Fincher sent [The tenant/s] a tenancy agreement for a fixed term tenancy commencing on 18 August 2023 and ending on 18 February 2024. [The tenant/s] signed the tenancy agreement and returned it.
The tenants did not have the full amount of the bond ($1,650.00). The landlords agreed to accept an initial payment of $500.00 for the bond, plus two weeks rent in advance.
[The tenant/s] left [City 1] on 28 August, planning to travel directly through to Paihia, intending to arrive early in the morning on 29 August.
In the afternoon of 28 August, a probation officer came to the property and informed Mr & Mrs Fincher that [Tenant 2] is on electronically monitored bail. The officer wanted to ensure that there was an internet connection at the property for the electronic monitoring. Mr & Mrs Fincher say that the probation officer told them that: a. Because [Tenant 2] was going to reside in the same house as them, they would need to provide written consent for him to live there, and they would also need to consent to a police check being done on them. b. [Tenant 2] would be subject to regular visits by a probation officer and random checks by police, potentially at any time of the day or night.
Mr & Mrs Fincher were upset about this, and about the fact that the tenants had not told them about [Tenant 2]’s circumstances. They immediately contacted the tenants and told them that they did not want to proceed with the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Fincher refunded the $500.00 bond, but not the two weeks’ rent in advance.
The tenants’ application seeks refund of the two weeks’ rent in advance, plus costs associated with the cancellation of the tenancy (accommodation, travel, inconvenience, etc), and exemplary damages (termination without grounds). Findings
The parties entered into a written agreement. The agreement created a tenancy.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) imposes rights and obligations on landlords and tenants.
The RTA does not impose any obligations on tenants as to what information they must disclose to landlords when negotiating a tenancy.
The RTA sets out the circumstances in which a tenancy may be terminated.
The RTA applies to all residential tenancies, but it does not exclude the application of the general law of contract. To the extent that the general law of contract does not directly conflict with a specific provision of the RTA, it still applies. A tenancy agreement is a type of contract.
In any contract there may be express and implied terms.
Implied terms are not set out in the written agreement. They are “read into” an agreement by the Courts in circumstances. One established example is to “give business efficacy” to an agreement.
The Tenancy Tribunal and the District Court have found implied terms in tenancy agreements in various circumstances, for example: a. There is an implied term that a tenant will allow reasonable access for a landlord to carry out a repair. 1 b. There is an implied term that the landlord will provide water invoices to the tenant at regular intervals for payment. 2 c. There is an implied term that landlords will provide curtains in a tenanted property, particularly in bedrooms. 3 By analogy, landlords must also provide light fittings. 4 d. There is an implied term that tenants can only be held responsible for keeping swimming pools clean if it is reasonably possible for them to do so. 5 The same term is implied in respect of keeping driveways free from weeds. 6
The purpose of these implied terms is to ensure that no excessive or unreasonable burden is placed on either the landlord or the tenant. Sometimes issues come before the Tenancy Tribunal or District Court that are not specifically addressed in the RTA, but which need to be resolved in a manner that is consistent with the spirit and intent of the RTA.
The tenants did not have a legal obligation to tell the landlords that [Tenant 2] was on electronically monitored bail. The landlords could not legally cancel the tenancy simply because [Tenant 2] was on bail.
However, the fact that [Tenant 2] was on electronically monitored bail meant that the landlords were required to assume obligations that are substantially beyond a ‘normal’ tenancy, including: a. Having to submit to a police check. 1 Hooper v Housing New Zealand Corp TT Manukau 10/03104/MK 2 Woollams v Simpson DC Auckland 2005-004-1583 3 Tomlinson v Mittal TT Auckland 08/5574/AK 4 Summit Property Management Ltd v Tenant [2023] 4691490 5 Wiki Property Management v Tenant [2022] 4301945, 4304076 6 Miti v Barfoot & Thompson Ltd [2023] 4637969 b. Having to inform their insurer, with possible implications in terms of their insurance cover. c. Having to accept random police visits to the property at any time of the day or night.
I accept that [The tenant/s] thought that they were doing the right thing by waiting until they arrived at the tenancy before telling the landlords about [Tenant 2]’s circumstances face-to-face. They went through all the correct steps in terms of communicating with Corrections Officers about the re-location. They were disappointed with the way that the Northland Corrections Officers contacted the landlords without communicating with them about it, including giving the landlords information about [Tenant 2]’s convictions.
The Tenancy Tribunal is required to “determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case” 7 .
My findings are: a. It would be unjust to require Mr & Mrs Fincher to accept a tenancy that imposed on them an unforeseeable and unreasonable compromise of their own peace comfort and privacy (consenting to a police check, accepting random police visits) and their own commercial risk (insurance). b. Therefore, Mr & Mrs Fincher were entitled to cancel the contract. c. It was appropriate to refund the bond to the tenants, and Mr & Mrs Fincher did this promptly. Mr & Mrs Fincher elected to cancel the contract, and my finding is that any rent paid by the tenants beyond the date of cancellation must be refunded to them. The tenants paid two weeks’ rent in advance, but they did so on the understanding that they would not be able to travel to Paihia to begin the tenancy until 28/29 August. My finding is that Mr & Mrs Fincher must refund the balance of rent paid for the period after 28 August, which is four days of rent ($314.28). Filing fee, name suppression
The tenants have been partially successful in this application. I will award the tenants the filing fee of $20.44.
The tenants did not seek name suppression. The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression “of its own initiative”. 8 This decision includes information that is personal to the tenants, over which they have the right to some control. Publication of the tenants’ names may be unfairly detrimental to 7 Section 85(2) RTA 8 Section 95A(4) RTA them. Having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest my finding is that it is appropriate to grant name suppression to the tenants in this instance.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4673809 — net $334.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Partial rent refund	$314.28	Partial rent refund
Filing fee	$20.44	24. The tenants have been partially successful in this application.
Net award	$334.72
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$334.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
Mark Fincher and Denise Fincher are to pay [The tenant/s] $334.72 immediately, calculated per the table below:

Reasons

Background

The tenanted premises is a self-contained apartment/unit on the ground floor of a house in Paihia. The landlords live in the upper floor.
Before the start of the tenancy the tenants lived in [City 1]. [Tenant 1] accepted a job at the [redacted] in [City 2]. They saw the Paihia property available to rent and made enquiries about it. Most of the communication was between [Tenant 1] and Mrs Fincher.
Mrs Fincher sent [Tenant 1] a video of the property. [The tenant/s] agreed to rent it. Mr & Mrs Fincher sent [The tenant/s] a tenancy agreement for a fixed term tenancy commencing on 18 August 2023 and ending on 18 February 2024. [The tenant/s] signed the tenancy agreement and returned it.
The tenants did not have the full amount of the bond ($1,650.00). The landlords agreed to accept an initial payment of $500.00 for the bond, plus two weeks rent in advance.
[The tenant/s] left [City 1] on 28 August, planning to travel directly through to Paihia, intending to arrive early in the morning on 29 August.
In the afternoon of 28 August, a probation officer came to the property and informed Mr & Mrs Fincher that [Tenant 2] is on electronically monitored bail. The officer wanted to ensure that there was an internet connection at the property for the electronic monitoring. Mr & Mrs Fincher say that the probation officer told them that: a. Because [Tenant 2] was going to reside in the same house as them, they would need to provide written consent for him to live there, and they would also need to consent to a police check being done on them. b. [Tenant 2] would be subject to regular visits by a probation officer and random checks by police, potentially at any time of the day or night.
Mr & Mrs Fincher were upset about this, and about the fact that the tenants had not told them about [Tenant 2]’s circumstances. They immediately contacted the tenants and told them that they did not want to proceed with the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Fincher refunded the $500.00 bond, but not the two weeks’ rent in advance.
The tenants’ application seeks refund of the two weeks’ rent in advance, plus costs associated with the cancellation of the tenancy (accommodation, travel, inconvenience, etc), and exemplary damages (termination without grounds). Findings
The parties entered into a written agreement. The agreement created a tenancy.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) imposes rights and obligations on landlords and tenants.
The RTA does not impose any obligations on tenants as to what information they must disclose to landlords when negotiating a tenancy.
The RTA sets out the circumstances in which a tenancy may be terminated.
The RTA applies to all residential tenancies, but it does not exclude the application of the general law of contract. To the extent that the general law of contract does not directly conflict with a specific provision of the RTA, it still applies. A tenancy agreement is a type of contract.
In any contract there may be express and implied terms.
Implied terms are not set out in the written agreement. They are “read into” an agreement by the Courts in circumstances. One established example is to “give business efficacy” to an agreement.
The Tenancy Tribunal and the District Court have found implied terms in tenancy agreements in various circumstances, for example: a. There is an implied term that a tenant will allow reasonable access for a landlord to carry out a repair. 1 b. There is an implied term that the landlord will provide water invoices to the tenant at regular intervals for payment. 2 c. There is an implied term that landlords will provide curtains in a tenanted property, particularly in bedrooms. 3 By analogy, landlords must also provide light fittings. 4 d. There is an implied term that tenants can only be held responsible for keeping swimming pools clean if it is reasonably possible for them to do so. 5 The same term is implied in respect of keeping driveways free from weeds. 6
The purpose of these implied terms is to ensure that no excessive or unreasonable burden is placed on either the landlord or the tenant. Sometimes issues come before the Tenancy Tribunal or District Court that are not specifically addressed in the RTA, but which need to be resolved in a manner that is consistent with the spirit and intent of the RTA.
The tenants did not have a legal obligation to tell the landlords that [Tenant 2] was on electronically monitored bail. The landlords could not legally cancel the tenancy simply because [Tenant 2] was on bail.
However, the fact that [Tenant 2] was on electronically monitored bail meant that the landlords were required to assume obligations that are substantially beyond a ‘normal’ tenancy, including: a. Having to submit to a police check. 1 Hooper v Housing New Zealand Corp TT Manukau 10/03104/MK 2 Woollams v Simpson DC Auckland 2005-004-1583 3 Tomlinson v Mittal TT Auckland 08/5574/AK 4 Summit Property Management Ltd v Tenant [2023] 4691490 5 Wiki Property Management v Tenant [2022] 4301945, 4304076 6 Miti v Barfoot & Thompson Ltd [2023] 4637969 b. Having to inform their insurer, with possible implications in terms of their insurance cover. c. Having to accept random police visits to the property at any time of the day or night.
I accept that [The tenant/s] thought that they were doing the right thing by waiting until they arrived at the tenancy before telling the landlords about [Tenant 2]’s circumstances face-to-face. They went through all the correct steps in terms of communicating with Corrections Officers about the re-location. They were disappointed with the way that the Northland Corrections Officers contacted the landlords without communicating with them about it, including giving the landlords information about [Tenant 2]’s convictions.
The Tenancy Tribunal is required to “determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case” 7 .
My findings are: a. It would be unjust to require Mr & Mrs Fincher to accept a tenancy that imposed on them an unforeseeable and unreasonable compromise of their own peace comfort and privacy (consenting to a police check, accepting random police visits) and their own commercial risk (insurance). b. Therefore, Mr & Mrs Fincher were entitled to cancel the contract. c. It was appropriate to refund the bond to the tenants, and Mr & Mrs Fincher did this promptly. Mr & Mrs Fincher elected to cancel the contract, and my finding is that any rent paid by the tenants beyond the date of cancellation must be refunded to them. The tenants paid two weeks’ rent in advance, but they did so on the understanding that they would not be able to travel to Paihia to begin the tenancy until 28/29 August. My finding is that Mr & Mrs Fincher must refund the balance of rent paid for the period after 28 August, which is four days of rent ($314.28). Filing fee, name suppression
The tenants have been partially successful in this application. I will award the tenants the filing fee of $20.44.
The tenants did not seek name suppression. The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression “of its own initiative”. 8 This decision includes information that is personal to the tenants, over which they have the right to some control. Publication of the tenants’ names may be unfairly detrimental to 7 Section 85(2) RTA 8 Section 95A(4) RTA them. Having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest my finding is that it is appropriate to grant name suppression to the tenants in this instance.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4673809 — Tenancy dispute at 106 School Road, Paihia 0200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4673809 — Tenancy dispute at 106 School Road, Paihia 0200

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