What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4698351 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the premises address must

How much money was awarded in case 4698351?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698351?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9756064-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4698351 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the premises address must

How much money was awarded in case 4698351?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698351?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9756064-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4698351 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4698351 — net $870.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for finding replacement tenant	$850.00	Compensation for finding replacement tenant
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$870.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$870.44

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the premises address must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $820.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.
Comprende Real Estate Limited must pay [the tenant] $870.44 immediately, as calculated in the table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation for finding replacement tenant$850.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$870.44 Bond to be repaid to the tenant$820.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$870.44

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by video.
The tenant attended the hearing for herself. The property manager attended for Comprende.
The tenant applies for compensation for the landlord misrepresenting her termination notice obligations and refund of the bond. Background
The premises are a two-bedroom apartment. The tenant began living at the premises on 26 October 2022. Another person was already living at the premises when she moved in. The tenant’s tenancy was treated as a variation of the existing tenancy. The variation was that the tenant replaced the exiting tenant.
The tenancy was a periodic tenancy, so under s 51(2B) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the tenant had to give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. On 19 September 2023, the tenant exercised that right by sending a notice terminating the tenancy “within 4 weeks – which will be the 10th October”.
The property manager responded on 19 September 2023: Unfortunately you cannot just give 28 days notice if only one of you wants to vacate. Either you both need to give 28 days notice to end your tenancy or you complete a tenant variation.
The other tenant did not want to move out, so relying on what the property manager said, the tenant felt compelled to find a replacement tenant. That put the tenant in an unpleasant predicament because she had committed to moving to Australia. In fact, she vacated the premises on 4 October 2023, six days before the expiry date of her notice.
Between 19 September 2023 until 4 October 2023, the tenant spent a lot of time speaking with Tenancy Services, researching the legal situation, preparing for mediation and this hearing, and finding a replacement tenant. The tenant successfully found a replacement tenant on 10 October 2023, who moved into the premises on 16 November 2023.
The tenant found Comprende’s adamant refusal to accept her notice vexing. Tenancy Services advised that her termination notice was valid, but she says Comprende dismissed her protests condescendingly. The tenant says in a conversation with a senior manager: [The senior manager] wasn’t aware that it was unlawful to not have a signed tenancy agreement in place and she continued to tell me how I am legally obligated to find a new tenant, and that the options were that we both move out, or we get a new tenant, or my flatmates takes over the whole property and also kept repeating: - " Just put on your big girl pants and have an adult conversation with your flatmate!"
Despite its earlier intransigence on the issue, Comprende later softened its hard line approach. It required the tenant to pay rent up to only the date she moved out (4 October 2023) not up to the date the new tenant moved in (16 November 2023), nor the end-date of the termination notice (10 October 2023). That equates to a discount on rent to the notice end-date of $182.14.
Further, Comprende does not oppose the Tribunal ordering that the tenant’s bond be released to her.
The issues remaining are: a. Did Comprende incorrectly state the tenant’s notice obligations? b. If so, what compensation should the Tribunal order? Did Comprende misstate the tenant’s notice obligations?
Comprende led the tenant to believe that her notice was not valid and because the original tenant did not want to move out. It effectively required her to find a replacement tenant, or she would continue to be liable for rent. The property manager submitted that Comprende correctly stated the tenant’s obligations in its email to both tenants on 28 September 2023 when she said: Hi [suppressed] and Maria, I think there has been some confusion around one of you wanting to leave your tenancy. Either you give 28 days notice, ending your tenancy and you both move out or the staying tenant solely takes on the responsibilities of the tenancy or you find a new tenant to replace the leaving tenant (the information around this is outlined in the email I sent regarding tenancy assignments, let me know if you need me to resend this to you). The choice is completely up to the both of you so let me know what you would like to do. Please feel free to call me on 04 384 2141, I am happy to speak with you both to discuss this.
Unfortunately, this email did not correct the erroneous advice in the property manager’s earlier email that “you cannot just give 28 days notice if only one of you wants to vacate”. The reference in paragraph to “you” refers to both tenants, so the instruction is still that both tenants must give joint notice of termination for the notice to be effective.
In fact, the tenant’s notice was valid. Notice of termination does not have to be given jointly by joint tenants. The legal principle is: A notice of termination of periodic tenancy given by one tenant under a joint tenancy is therefore effective to terminate a tenancy, even if another joint tenant does not agree. 1
Since the tenant’s notice was valid to end the tenancy, Comprende should have simply accepted it and proceeded on that basis. Rather, it misstated the legal position and required the tenant to find a replacement tenant before it would release the tenant from the tenancy.
I find Comprende misrepresented the tenant’s obligations.
The tenant acted upon Comprende’s misrepresentation to her detriment and suffered loss. It follows, the Tribunal should consider awarding the tenant compensation for the misrepresentation.

What compensation should be ordered?

The tenant claims for lost income because she missed work through having to: - Creating FB ad about the apartment – taking photos, editing photos, writing post, posting on various FB pages - Responding to enquiries - Showing people around at the apartment
She also claims for lost income for “calling tenancy services twice, applying for mediation online, preparing documents for mediation, mediation meeting, continued discussions with mediator, writing emails to mediator and agency, phone calls with mediator, preparing additional documents for Tribunal Meeting, Tribunal Meeting Time.” The Tribunal cannot award costs for the tenant’s time spent on preparing her application or attendance at the Tribunal. 2 However, it can make an order for the tenant’s loss of income, loss of amenity, and inconvenience. 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters , Wellington, 2018) at 189. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 102
The tenant provided a table of work hours lost, which totalled 64 hours. Much of that time was due to costs related to the litigation, so cannot be compensated for. The tenant also felt she had to take time off work to attend viewings of the apartment with prospective tenants even though the other tenant was present. I am not persuaded that the tenant was required to take time off work for those. However, I do accept the tenant spent a considerable amount of time advertising and consulting with prospective tenants and that the task was made more difficult because she told prospective tenant’s of the landlord’s (incorrect) restrictive rules about terminating the tenancy.
The property manager says it typically charges landlords a letting fee of $500.00, and that finding new tenants only takes a couple or a few hours of work.
I consider that a figure of about $500.00 is a realistic reference point to begin to quantify the appropriate amount the Tribunal might award for the tenant’s time for finding a new tenant.
In addition to the time the tenant was required to spend, the tenant suffered inconvenience, loss of amenity in the premises (because she could not relax and simply enjoy the premises), and unwarranted stress. The tenant was under pressure to move because she had committed to moving to Australia. She faced the prospect of paying rent for an indeterminate period of time even though she would not be living in the premises. The landlord obdurately maintained its erroneous opinion of the law, so the tenant had to battle it all the way through.
On the other side of the ledger, I factor in that the landlord has discounted the rent up to the correct end-date of the tenancy (10 November) by six days. Although, the landlord has never admitted it was at fault, its original stance has softened.
Upon reflection, I find that the landlord should be ordered to pay the tenant $850.00 in compensation. Filing fee
The Tribunal orders the landlord to reimburse the tenant for the filing fee because she has been substantially successful in her application. 3 3 RTA, s 102(4). Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in proceedings, and I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered, including of the premises address, the publication of which might lead to the identification of the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4698351 — net $870.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for finding replacement tenant	$850.00	Compensation for finding replacement tenant
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$870.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$870.44

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the premises address must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $820.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.
Comprende Real Estate Limited must pay [the tenant] $870.44 immediately, as calculated in the table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation for finding replacement tenant$850.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$870.44 Bond to be repaid to the tenant$820.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$870.44

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by video.
The tenant attended the hearing for herself. The property manager attended for Comprende.
The tenant applies for compensation for the landlord misrepresenting her termination notice obligations and refund of the bond. Background
The premises are a two-bedroom apartment. The tenant began living at the premises on 26 October 2022. Another person was already living at the premises when she moved in. The tenant’s tenancy was treated as a variation of the existing tenancy. The variation was that the tenant replaced the exiting tenant.
The tenancy was a periodic tenancy, so under s 51(2B) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the tenant had to give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. On 19 September 2023, the tenant exercised that right by sending a notice terminating the tenancy “within 4 weeks – which will be the 10th October”.
The property manager responded on 19 September 2023: Unfortunately you cannot just give 28 days notice if only one of you wants to vacate. Either you both need to give 28 days notice to end your tenancy or you complete a tenant variation.
The other tenant did not want to move out, so relying on what the property manager said, the tenant felt compelled to find a replacement tenant. That put the tenant in an unpleasant predicament because she had committed to moving to Australia. In fact, she vacated the premises on 4 October 2023, six days before the expiry date of her notice.
Between 19 September 2023 until 4 October 2023, the tenant spent a lot of time speaking with Tenancy Services, researching the legal situation, preparing for mediation and this hearing, and finding a replacement tenant. The tenant successfully found a replacement tenant on 10 October 2023, who moved into the premises on 16 November 2023.
The tenant found Comprende’s adamant refusal to accept her notice vexing. Tenancy Services advised that her termination notice was valid, but she says Comprende dismissed her protests condescendingly. The tenant says in a conversation with a senior manager: [The senior manager] wasn’t aware that it was unlawful to not have a signed tenancy agreement in place and she continued to tell me how I am legally obligated to find a new tenant, and that the options were that we both move out, or we get a new tenant, or my flatmates takes over the whole property and also kept repeating: - " Just put on your big girl pants and have an adult conversation with your flatmate!"
Despite its earlier intransigence on the issue, Comprende later softened its hard line approach. It required the tenant to pay rent up to only the date she moved out (4 October 2023) not up to the date the new tenant moved in (16 November 2023), nor the end-date of the termination notice (10 October 2023). That equates to a discount on rent to the notice end-date of $182.14.
Further, Comprende does not oppose the Tribunal ordering that the tenant’s bond be released to her.
The issues remaining are: a. Did Comprende incorrectly state the tenant’s notice obligations? b. If so, what compensation should the Tribunal order? Did Comprende misstate the tenant’s notice obligations?
Comprende led the tenant to believe that her notice was not valid and because the original tenant did not want to move out. It effectively required her to find a replacement tenant, or she would continue to be liable for rent. The property manager submitted that Comprende correctly stated the tenant’s obligations in its email to both tenants on 28 September 2023 when she said: Hi [suppressed] and Maria, I think there has been some confusion around one of you wanting to leave your tenancy. Either you give 28 days notice, ending your tenancy and you both move out or the staying tenant solely takes on the responsibilities of the tenancy or you find a new tenant to replace the leaving tenant (the information around this is outlined in the email I sent regarding tenancy assignments, let me know if you need me to resend this to you). The choice is completely up to the both of you so let me know what you would like to do. Please feel free to call me on 04 384 2141, I am happy to speak with you both to discuss this.
Unfortunately, this email did not correct the erroneous advice in the property manager’s earlier email that “you cannot just give 28 days notice if only one of you wants to vacate”. The reference in paragraph to “you” refers to both tenants, so the instruction is still that both tenants must give joint notice of termination for the notice to be effective.
In fact, the tenant’s notice was valid. Notice of termination does not have to be given jointly by joint tenants. The legal principle is: A notice of termination of periodic tenancy given by one tenant under a joint tenancy is therefore effective to terminate a tenancy, even if another joint tenant does not agree. 1
Since the tenant’s notice was valid to end the tenancy, Comprende should have simply accepted it and proceeded on that basis. Rather, it misstated the legal position and required the tenant to find a replacement tenant before it would release the tenant from the tenancy.
I find Comprende misrepresented the tenant’s obligations.
The tenant acted upon Comprende’s misrepresentation to her detriment and suffered loss. It follows, the Tribunal should consider awarding the tenant compensation for the misrepresentation.

What compensation should be ordered?

The tenant claims for lost income because she missed work through having to: - Creating FB ad about the apartment – taking photos, editing photos, writing post, posting on various FB pages - Responding to enquiries - Showing people around at the apartment
She also claims for lost income for “calling tenancy services twice, applying for mediation online, preparing documents for mediation, mediation meeting, continued discussions with mediator, writing emails to mediator and agency, phone calls with mediator, preparing additional documents for Tribunal Meeting, Tribunal Meeting Time.” The Tribunal cannot award costs for the tenant’s time spent on preparing her application or attendance at the Tribunal. 2 However, it can make an order for the tenant’s loss of income, loss of amenity, and inconvenience. 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters , Wellington, 2018) at 189. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 102
The tenant provided a table of work hours lost, which totalled 64 hours. Much of that time was due to costs related to the litigation, so cannot be compensated for. The tenant also felt she had to take time off work to attend viewings of the apartment with prospective tenants even though the other tenant was present. I am not persuaded that the tenant was required to take time off work for those. However, I do accept the tenant spent a considerable amount of time advertising and consulting with prospective tenants and that the task was made more difficult because she told prospective tenant’s of the landlord’s (incorrect) restrictive rules about terminating the tenancy.
The property manager says it typically charges landlords a letting fee of $500.00, and that finding new tenants only takes a couple or a few hours of work.
I consider that a figure of about $500.00 is a realistic reference point to begin to quantify the appropriate amount the Tribunal might award for the tenant’s time for finding a new tenant.
In addition to the time the tenant was required to spend, the tenant suffered inconvenience, loss of amenity in the premises (because she could not relax and simply enjoy the premises), and unwarranted stress. The tenant was under pressure to move because she had committed to moving to Australia. She faced the prospect of paying rent for an indeterminate period of time even though she would not be living in the premises. The landlord obdurately maintained its erroneous opinion of the law, so the tenant had to battle it all the way through.
On the other side of the ledger, I factor in that the landlord has discounted the rent up to the correct end-date of the tenancy (10 November) by six days. Although, the landlord has never admitted it was at fault, its original stance has softened.
Upon reflection, I find that the landlord should be ordered to pay the tenant $850.00 in compensation. Filing fee
The Tribunal orders the landlord to reimburse the tenant for the filing fee because she has been substantially successful in her application. 3 3 RTA, s 102(4). Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in proceedings, and I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered, including of the premises address, the publication of which might lead to the identification of the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698351 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698351 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What compensation should be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What compensation should be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions