What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677498 about?

The tribunal order states: Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Xiaochen Hou, Jia Wang

How much money was awarded in case 4677498?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677498?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677498?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9921704-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677498 about?

The tribunal order states: Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Xiaochen Hou, Jia Wang

How much money was awarded in case 4677498?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677498?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677498?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9921704-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Glaisdale Crescent, Flagstaff, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677498 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677498 — net $770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$750.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$770.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$770.44

Order

Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Xiaochen Hou, Jia Wang Shelley Xue must pay [The tenant/s] $770.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenancy began on 15 October 2022 and ended on 6 October 2023.
The applicant sought reimbursement of one weeks rent and reimbursement of the filing fee.
This was a fixed term tenancy originally starting on 15 October 2022 and ending on 15 October 2023.The landlord contacted the tenant prior to the end of this fixed term offering a continuation of the tenancy again on a fixed term basis. The parties agreed to a further fixed term tenancy of one year and the tenant confirmed this on 15 August 2023.
The landlord sent through a lease renewal agreement, but the tenant did not get to signing it, believing that the parties’ agreement was enough to renew it for another year.
On 17 August 2023, the landlord emailed the tenants that the landlord had changed his mind and was going to use the premises as a home for his family members. On this basis a 63-day notice was issued terminating the tenancy on 21 October 2023, after the fixed term tenancy ended on 15 October 2023.
This email also advised the tenant that. “... if you are able to secure alternative accommodation before the specified date, we kindly request that you give us 28 days’ notice. This will assist us in making necessary arrangements and ensure a seamless handover.”
The tenant tried to negotiate staying until the end of the year so that her children could finish school, but this was declined. The tenant found a new premises and then gave 30 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 6 October 2023, believing that they complied with the landlord’s e-mail of the 17 August 2023.
The landlord replied that the tenant could not give notice ending a fixed term tenancy and that they were liable for rent until 21 October 2023.
The tenant said that they relied on what they had been told in the email and terminated the tenancy based on this information. The result was that they had to pay double rent for two weeks. The tenants sought reimbursement of $750.00 being one weeks rent that they believed they should not have paid.

Does the equitable remedy of Estoppel apply?

Estoppel arises when one party has acted in reliance on another parties promise to their detriment and so it would be inequitable or unconscionable to allow that party not to be bound by such a promise or assurance.
In order to establish an estoppel by representation, there must be a representation in reliance on which the representee altered his or her position detrimentally. This representation may be made either by statement or by conduct and may arise by implication from words or conduct, including silence.
The landlord said that the email did not mean what the tenant thought, but was asking the tenant to give notice ending the tenancy during the, albeit short, periodic term if they want to end it earlier. They were not agreeing to the ending of the fixed term tenancy by giving 28 days written notice.
The tenant disagreed and said that they relied on this email and believed that they could give notice to end the tenancy before the specified date giving written notice. They claimed that they more than complied by giving 30 days’ notice.
They said that the email did not specify that the 28 days’ notice this was only to be given to end the tenancy during the periodic period of the tenancy.
I find that the email gave specific instructions, and it was reasonable for the tenants to believe that they only had to give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. The tenants relied upon the statements made in the email to their detriment, resulting in the double payment of rent for one week.
It would be inequitable for the landlord not to be bound by the statements made in the email. The tenant is awarded $750.00 being one weeks rent.
The landlord claimed that the tenant owed 9 days rent. The tenant established that the rent payments had been paid. During the hearing it became apparent that the landlord had used the tenants last rental payments to cover claimed damages and end of tenancy claims.
Both parties said that they agreed with the invoices that are now to be paid out of the bond and neither party raised any other claims that they wished addressed by the Tribunal.
The parties can have the end of tenancy claims determined if they find that they disagree. They will need to file a separate application with the Tribunal.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. The tenants application for name suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677498 — net $770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$750.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$770.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$770.44

Order

Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Xiaochen Hou, Jia Wang Shelley Xue must pay [The tenant/s] $770.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenancy began on 15 October 2022 and ended on 6 October 2023.
The applicant sought reimbursement of one weeks rent and reimbursement of the filing fee.
This was a fixed term tenancy originally starting on 15 October 2022 and ending on 15 October 2023.The landlord contacted the tenant prior to the end of this fixed term offering a continuation of the tenancy again on a fixed term basis. The parties agreed to a further fixed term tenancy of one year and the tenant confirmed this on 15 August 2023.
The landlord sent through a lease renewal agreement, but the tenant did not get to signing it, believing that the parties’ agreement was enough to renew it for another year.
On 17 August 2023, the landlord emailed the tenants that the landlord had changed his mind and was going to use the premises as a home for his family members. On this basis a 63-day notice was issued terminating the tenancy on 21 October 2023, after the fixed term tenancy ended on 15 October 2023.
This email also advised the tenant that. “... if you are able to secure alternative accommodation before the specified date, we kindly request that you give us 28 days’ notice. This will assist us in making necessary arrangements and ensure a seamless handover.”
The tenant tried to negotiate staying until the end of the year so that her children could finish school, but this was declined. The tenant found a new premises and then gave 30 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 6 October 2023, believing that they complied with the landlord’s e-mail of the 17 August 2023.
The landlord replied that the tenant could not give notice ending a fixed term tenancy and that they were liable for rent until 21 October 2023.
The tenant said that they relied on what they had been told in the email and terminated the tenancy based on this information. The result was that they had to pay double rent for two weeks. The tenants sought reimbursement of $750.00 being one weeks rent that they believed they should not have paid.

Does the equitable remedy of Estoppel apply?

Estoppel arises when one party has acted in reliance on another parties promise to their detriment and so it would be inequitable or unconscionable to allow that party not to be bound by such a promise or assurance.
In order to establish an estoppel by representation, there must be a representation in reliance on which the representee altered his or her position detrimentally. This representation may be made either by statement or by conduct and may arise by implication from words or conduct, including silence.
The landlord said that the email did not mean what the tenant thought, but was asking the tenant to give notice ending the tenancy during the, albeit short, periodic term if they want to end it earlier. They were not agreeing to the ending of the fixed term tenancy by giving 28 days written notice.
The tenant disagreed and said that they relied on this email and believed that they could give notice to end the tenancy before the specified date giving written notice. They claimed that they more than complied by giving 30 days’ notice.
They said that the email did not specify that the 28 days’ notice this was only to be given to end the tenancy during the periodic period of the tenancy.
I find that the email gave specific instructions, and it was reasonable for the tenants to believe that they only had to give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. The tenants relied upon the statements made in the email to their detriment, resulting in the double payment of rent for one week.
It would be inequitable for the landlord not to be bound by the statements made in the email. The tenant is awarded $750.00 being one weeks rent.
The landlord claimed that the tenant owed 9 days rent. The tenant established that the rent payments had been paid. During the hearing it became apparent that the landlord had used the tenants last rental payments to cover claimed damages and end of tenancy claims.
Both parties said that they agreed with the invoices that are now to be paid out of the bond and neither party raised any other claims that they wished addressed by the Tribunal.
The parties can have the end of tenancy claims determined if they find that they disagree. They will need to file a separate application with the Tribunal.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. The tenants application for name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677498 — Tenancy dispute at 4 Glaisdale Crescent, Flagstaff, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677498 — Tenancy dispute at 4 Glaisdale Crescent, Flagstaff, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the equitable remedy of Estoppel apply?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the equitable remedy of Estoppel apply?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions