How much money was awarded in case 4714309?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4714309?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4714309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9643461-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4714309?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4714309?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4714309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9643461-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4714309 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4714309 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 Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application to be awarded the bond is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by telephone. The landlord was represented by their property manager Ms Zhao.
The tenancy has ended. The landlord wants to retain the bond of $6,000 on the basis that the tenant terminated a fixed term tenancy early.
The tenancy was originally due to end on 22 July 2024 but the tenants expressed that they wanted to end the tenancy early.
The property manager says that she then spoke to the landlord who agreed that the tenants could be released from 20 September 2023. On 4 September 2023 the property manager emailed the tenants setting out the terms upon which the landlord would allow them to terminate.
This set out the tenants must pay: rent to 20 September 2023, water owing at the end of the tenancy, an administration fee of $1500 plus GST and an advertising fee of $150.
It is not disputed that this was agreed and that the tenants paid these sums. At this stage the bond was not mentioned. The tenants say the first time the bond was mentioned to them was on 28 September 2023 after the tenancy had ended. The property manager says that the first she knew about the landlord wanting the bond was on 5 October 2023.
The property manager explained that the landlord was basing his knowledge and understanding on the fact that they could retain the bond on Hong Kong which is where they were from. The landlord had assumed the bond would also be retained.
I find that the landlord cannot be awarded the bond. Section 50(1)(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) deals with the tenant surrendering possession with the consent of the landlord. This is what has occurred here.
Under s 44A(1) and (2), RTA a landlord may recover expenses from the tenant upon termination of a tenancy under section 50(1)(d), RTA. This includes where the parties agree in writing to end a fixed term tenancy. Subsection (2) sets out that the landlord must provide an itemised account of the expenses claimed and the amount must also be reasonable. Retaining the bond is not an expense. The amount would also not be reasonable. The landlord has already had their expenses (administration fee and advertising fee) paid.
Further, an agreement to terminate the tenancy was made on the above terms and that did not include retaining the bond. As a matter of contract law, once an agreement is concluded a party cannot unilaterally vary it. In any event, even if the agreement had included the bond (unless it was paid to specifically cover itemised reasonable expenses) this would have been unenforceable. This is because s11, RTA only allows parties to contract out of the RTA in limited circumstances and they do not apply here.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed and I have therefore made an order to refund the bond to the tenants. Suppression
The tenants have been wholly successful and is awarded suppression of identifying details.
The landlord has not been successful and there are no other reasons to justify name suppression. For this reason, I have not awarded the landlord name suppression (s95A, RTA).

Order

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

The landlord’s application to be awarded the bond is dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by telephone. The landlord was represented by their property manager Ms Zhao.

The tenancy has ended. The landlord wants to retain the bond of $6,000 on the basis that the tenant terminated a fixed term tenancy early.

The tenancy was originally due to end on 22 July 2024 but the tenants expressed that they wanted to end the tenancy early.

The property manager says that she then spoke to the landlord who agreed that the tenants could be released from 20 September 2023. On 4 September 2023 the property manager emailed the tenants setting out the terms upon which the landlord would allow them to terminate.

This set out the tenants must pay: rent to 20 September 2023, water owing at the end of the tenancy, an administration fee of $1500 plus GST and an advertising fee of $150.

It is not disputed that this was agreed and that the tenants paid these sums. At this stage the bond was not mentioned. The tenants say the first time the bond was mentioned to them was on 28 September 2023 after the tenancy had ended. The property manager says that the first she knew about the landlord wanting the bond was on 5 October 2023.

The property manager explained that the landlord was basing his knowledge and understanding on the fact that they could retain the bond on Hong Kong which is where they were from. The landlord had assumed the bond would also be retained.

I find that the landlord cannot be awarded the bond. Section 50(1)(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) deals with the tenant surrendering possession with the consent of the landlord. This is what has occurred here.

Under s 44A(1) and (2), RTA a landlord may recover expenses from the tenant upon termination of a tenancy under section 50(1)(d), RTA. This includes where the parties agree in writing to end a fixed term tenancy. Subsection (2) sets out that the landlord must provide an itemised account of the expenses claimed and the amount must also be reasonable. Retaining the bond is not an expense. The amount would also not be reasonable. The landlord has already had their expenses (administration fee and advertising fee) paid.

Further, an agreement to terminate the tenancy was made on the above terms and that did not include retaining the bond. As a matter of contract law, once an agreement is concluded a party cannot unilaterally vary it. In any event, even if the agreement had included the bond (unless it was paid to specifically cover itemised reasonable expenses) this would have been unenforceable. This is because s11, RTA only allows parties to contract out of the RTA in limited circumstances and they do not apply here.

The landlord’s claim is dismissed and I have therefore made an order to refund the bond to the tenants. Suppression

The tenants have been wholly successful and is awarded suppression of identifying details.

The landlord has not been successful and there are no other reasons to justify name suppression. For this reason, I have not awarded the landlord name suppression (s95A, RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4714309 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4714309 — Tenancy dispute

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