What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4699130?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4699130?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4699130?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4699130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10083021-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4699130?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4699130?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4699130?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4699130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10083021-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Gloria Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4699130 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

The applicant and Mr Ian Thompson attended the hearing.

Mr Thompson stated he is the Franchise Development Manager for Quinovic Management Limited, a company based in Wellington.

Mr Thompson sent an email to Ministry of Justice on 12 March 2024 stating that he was not the correct party to the proceeding.

Who are the correct parties to this application?

Mr Bieshaar and Ms Fiona Morgan signed a Tenancy Agreement for the above property on 23 February 2021. The named landlord is Murray and Lorraine Calder. (Lorraine “Calder” is later referred to as Lorraine Borich.)

The property manager is named as Four Squared Limited (trading as) Quinovic Property Management, in Te Atatu South.

Mr Bieshaar stated that sometime during the tenancy Four Squared Limited was taken over by Lvg Property Management Limited, trading as Quinovic West Auckland (“LVG”).

The tenancy ended on 24 March 2023.

Mr Thompson stated that on 13 September 2023 LVG had its contract with Quinovic Management Limited terminated. At the same time, Murray Calder and Lorraine Borich, the owners of the property, cancelled their property management contract with LVG.

Subsequently Cotswold Property Management Limited took over operation of the Quinovic franchise, which was incorporated into the Mt Eden Quinovic franchise.

On 19 September 2023 Mr Bieshaar was the respondent in a Tenancy Tribunal application brought by LVG. The applicant was “Lvg Property Management Li T/A Quinovic West Auckland as agent for Murray Calder and Lorraine Borich.” Mr Calder and Ms Borich are not respondents to this current application.

Mr Bieshaar stated that at the hearing on 19 September 2023, the property manager Ms Grinter, the accounts manager Mr Kumar, and Mr Thompson represented LVG.

Mr Thompson stated that at the hearing in September 2023, he had been given authority to represent LVG, but that at today’s hearing, he does not have authority to represent LVG. I accept this as likely to be true, given the close proximity between the cancellation of the contract and the hearing in September 2023, and the six months that have passed since then.

That being the case means that today there was no representative present from the respondent, Lvg Property Management Li Limited T/A Quinovic West Auckland.

I am not convinced that an order made against Lvg Property Management Li Limited T/A Quinovic West Auckland today could be enforced against Mr Thompson.

Lvg Property Management Li Limited is still in existence and has one director, but the company no longer operates a Quinovic franchise. The one director has not signed any document relating to this tenancy, and has not been served the documents for this application. Lvg Property Management Li Limited T/A Quinovic West Auckland no longer exists.

No application was made to have any other party joined to the application.

For these reasons, I am not satisfied that an order for this application as it currently stands, could be enforced against any respondent.

To put it another way, the principals for the purpose of the contract are Mr and Mrs Calder, and the property managers are the agents of Mr and Mrs Calder.

The usual legal position is that only a principal can sue or be sued under contract, and the facts of this case present no reason to depart from that approach.

In this case the tenant has filed an application against the agent, but not against the principal, the landlord.

I record for completeness that I am expressing no view as to the underlying merits of the application. The applicant is at liberty to refile his application, but it would need to be against the correct respondent, the landlords, Mr and Mrs Calder.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The applicant and Mr Ian Thompson attended the hearing.
Mr Thompson stated he is the Franchise Development Manager for Quinovic Management Limited, a company based in Wellington.
Mr Thompson sent an email to Ministry of Justice on 12 March 2024 stating that he was not the correct party to the proceeding.

Who are the correct parties to this application?

Mr Bieshaar and Ms Fiona Morgan signed a Tenancy Agreement for the above property on 23 February 2021. The named landlord is Murray and Lorraine Calder. (Lorraine “Calder” is later referred to as Lorraine Borich.)
The property manager is named as Four Squared Limited (trading as) Quinovic Property Management, in Te Atatu South.
Mr Bieshaar stated that sometime during the tenancy Four Squared Limited was taken over by Lvg Property Management Limited, trading as Quinovic West Auckland (“LVG”).
The tenancy ended on 24 March 2023.
Mr Thompson stated that on 13 September 2023 LVG had its contract with Quinovic Management Limited terminated. At the same time, Murray Calder and Lorraine Borich, the owners of the property, cancelled their property management contract with LVG.
Subsequently Cotswold Property Management Limited took over operation of the Quinovic franchise, which was incorporated into the Mt Eden Quinovic franchise.
On 19 September 2023 Mr Bieshaar was the respondent in a Tenancy Tribunal application brought by LVG. The applicant was “Lvg Property Management Li T/A Quinovic West Auckland as agent for Murray Calder and Lorraine Borich.” Mr Calder and Ms Borich are not respondents to this current application.
Mr Bieshaar stated that at the hearing on 19 September 2023, the property manager Ms Grinter, the accounts manager Mr Kumar, and Mr Thompson represented LVG.
Mr Thompson stated that at the hearing in September 2023, he had been given authority to represent LVG, but that at today’s hearing, he does not have authority to represent LVG. I accept this as likely to be true, given the close proximity between the cancellation of the contract and the hearing in September 2023, and the six months that have passed since then.
That being the case means that today there was no representative present from the respondent, Lvg Property Management Li Limited T/A Quinovic West Auckland.
I am not convinced that an order made against Lvg Property Management Li Limited T/A Quinovic West Auckland today could be enforced against Mr Thompson.
Lvg Property Management Li Limited is still in existence and has one director, but the company no longer operates a Quinovic franchise. The one director has not signed any document relating to this tenancy, and has not been served the documents for this application. Lvg Property Management Li Limited T/A Quinovic West Auckland no longer exists.
No application was made to have any other party joined to the application.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied that an order for this application as it currently stands, could be enforced against any respondent.
To put it another way, the principals for the purpose of the contract are Mr and Mrs Calder, and the property managers are the agents of Mr and Mrs Calder.
The usual legal position is that only a principal can sue or be sued under contract, and the facts of this case present no reason to depart from that approach.
In this case the tenant has filed an application against the agent, but not against the principal, the landlord.
I record for completeness that I am expressing no view as to the underlying merits of the application. The applicant is at liberty to refile his application, but it would need to be against the correct respondent, the landlords, Mr and Mrs Calder.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4699130 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Gloria Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4699130 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Gloria Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who are the correct parties to this application?

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Who are the correct parties to this application?

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions