How much money was awarded in case 4724109?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724109?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10050302-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4724109?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724109?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10050302-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4724109 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4724109 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this application and so

Order

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this application and so makes no order.

Reasons

Only the applicants, who are husband and wife, attended the hearing. There was no attendance for the landlord.
Sadly it appears that the applicants have been the victim of an elaborate rental scam. Background
The applicants responded to an advertisement of a flat to rent on Trademe Marketplace by a property manager named “Harry Smith”. The parties communicated using Facebook Messenger and Harry Smith advised the applicants that they could view the property the following day at 2.30pm. When the applicants asked if they could view the property after work they were told that they could not and that the viewing was at a fixed time.
The wife accordingly went to the property the next day at 2.30pm and was shown around the tenancy address while her husband connected by video call. The viewing was not conducted by Harry Smith but by another property manager, but the applicants did not think that there was anything unusual about this at the time.
Shortly after the viewing the property the applicants were contacted by Harry Smith, again using Messenger, who asked them if they wanted to apply for the property and asked them for an email address so that he could send them the tenancy agreement.
The tenants then signed the tenancy agreement, which appeared to have already been signed by the landlord, identified as “L M Tutty”, and returned it to Harry Smith for so that he could “validate it”.
The applicants then paid the sum of $2,750.00 to the account nominated by the landlord, in the name of L M Tutty, being one weeks rent ($550.00) and four weeks bond ($2200.00) to secure the property.
The applicants continued corresponding with Harry Smith using Messenger and sent a screenshot of the payment made. However they were told that the landlord had not received payment, and then were asked to recall the payment so that the landlord could provide “his other acct for you”.
The applicants explained to Harry Smith that the money had already been deducted from their account but he continued to ask them to recall the payment and said that the landlord had “made a mistake in the acct number”.
The applicants contacted their bank who explained that they could not recall the payment but that they could request a recovery action. The applicants went ahead and made such a request, incurring a $75.00 fee, but the recovery action was unsuccessful as there were no funds in the account they had paid the bond into.
By this stage the applicants were dealing with both L M Tutty (through a gmail account) and Harry Smith (using Messenger). Harry Smith kept up the pretence of making arrangements for the applicants to move into the property. L M Tutty delayed matters by advising that his wife was ill, before ultimately providing an alternate bank account number for the applicants to pay yet another bond.
When the applicants refused to pay another bond and expressed their concerns about what was going on they were blocked by Harry Smith on Facebook and so could no longer communicate with him on Messenger. They received no further correspondence from L M Tutty.
The applicants then made enquiries with the property manager who had shown them around the property. She is a legitimate property manager who had advertised the property for an open viewing at the nominated time. She had never heard of Harry Smith and had no idea that the applicants had thought she was associated with such a person. By this stage the property had been legitimately let by the property manager to another party. Jurisdiction
The applicants seek recovery of the bond and first weeks rent paid, together with the $75.00 recovery fee paid to their bank. They are out of pocket by $2,825.00.
The question for the Tribunal is whether this is in fact a tenancy.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to “every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided”. See section 4 RTA.
Section 2 of the RTA provides the following definitions: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent... tenant, in relation to any residential premises that the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement... landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement...
In my view this is not a tenancy. Although the applicants have signed a “tenancy agreement” for the property they viewed, the purported landlord had no association whatsoever with the property and no right or authority to grant a tenancy. No tenancy ever existed despite the applicants having signed a purported tenancy agreement.
The Tribunal does not therefore have jurisdiction and no orders can be made. Comments
Although the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this matter I have set out the facts in some detail in the hope that it might prevent other prospective tenants falling victim to this type of scam. I note that a similar type of scam also occurred recently in Christchurch as reported in in NZTT 461549 (although in that case the prospective tenants did not actually view the property).
The applicants may wish to refer this matter to the New Zealand Police. From the evidence before me it appears that they paid funds into a New Zealand bank account and were provided with details to make payment to a further account.
There is a public interest in this decision being published but there is no public interest in the applicants being named. I have therefore exercised my discretion to suppress the applicants’ names. I have also suppressed the ‘tenancy’ address as this scam in realty had nothing to do with this property.

Reasons

Only the applicants, who are husband and wife, attended the hearing. There was no attendance for the landlord.

Sadly it appears that the applicants have been the victim of an elaborate rental scam. Background

The applicants responded to an advertisement of a flat to rent on Trademe Marketplace by a property manager named “Harry Smith”. The parties communicated using Facebook Messenger and Harry Smith advised the applicants that they could view the property the following day at 2.30pm. When the applicants asked if they could view the property after work they were told that they could not and that the viewing was at a fixed time.

The wife accordingly went to the property the next day at 2.30pm and was shown around the tenancy address while her husband connected by video call. The viewing was not conducted by Harry Smith but by another property manager, but the applicants did not think that there was anything unusual about this at the time.

Shortly after the viewing the property the applicants were contacted by Harry Smith, again using Messenger, who asked them if they wanted to apply for the property and asked them for an email address so that he could send them the tenancy agreement.

The tenants then signed the tenancy agreement, which appeared to have already been signed by the landlord, identified as “L M Tutty”, and returned it to Harry Smith for so that he could “validate it”.

The applicants then paid the sum of $2,750.00 to the account nominated by the landlord, in the name of L M Tutty, being one weeks rent ($550.00) and four weeks bond ($2200.00) to secure the property.

The applicants continued corresponding with Harry Smith using Messenger and sent a screenshot of the payment made. However they were told that the landlord had not received payment, and then were asked to recall the payment so that the landlord could provide “his other acct for you”.

The applicants explained to Harry Smith that the money had already been deducted from their account but he continued to ask them to recall the payment and said that the landlord had “made a mistake in the acct number”.

The applicants contacted their bank who explained that they could not recall the payment but that they could request a recovery action. The applicants went ahead and made such a request, incurring a $75.00 fee, but the recovery action was unsuccessful as there were no funds in the account they had paid the bond into.

By this stage the applicants were dealing with both L M Tutty (through a gmail account) and Harry Smith (using Messenger). Harry Smith kept up the pretence of making arrangements for the applicants to move into the property. L M Tutty delayed matters by advising that his wife was ill, before ultimately providing an alternate bank account number for the applicants to pay yet another bond.

When the applicants refused to pay another bond and expressed their concerns about what was going on they were blocked by Harry Smith on Facebook and so could no longer communicate with him on Messenger. They received no further correspondence from L M Tutty.

The applicants then made enquiries with the property manager who had shown them around the property. She is a legitimate property manager who had advertised the property for an open viewing at the nominated time. She had never heard of Harry Smith and had no idea that the applicants had thought she was associated with such a person. By this stage the property had been legitimately let by the property manager to another party. Jurisdiction

The applicants seek recovery of the bond and first weeks rent paid, together with the $75.00 recovery fee paid to their bank. They are out of pocket by $2,825.00.

The question for the Tribunal is whether this is in fact a tenancy.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to “every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided”. See section 4 RTA.

Section 2 of the RTA provides the following definitions: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent... tenant, in relation to any residential premises that the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement... landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement...

In my view this is not a tenancy. Although the applicants have signed a “tenancy agreement” for the property they viewed, the purported landlord had no association whatsoever with the property and no right or authority to grant a tenancy. No tenancy ever existed despite the applicants having signed a purported tenancy agreement.

The Tribunal does not therefore have jurisdiction and no orders can be made. Comments

Although the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this matter I have set out the facts in some detail in the hope that it might prevent other prospective tenants falling victim to this type of scam. I note that a similar type of scam also occurred recently in Christchurch as reported in in NZTT 461549 (although in that case the prospective tenants did not actually view the property).

The applicants may wish to refer this matter to the New Zealand Police. From the evidence before me it appears that they paid funds into a New Zealand bank account and were provided with details to make payment to a further account.

There is a public interest in this decision being published but there is no public interest in the applicants being named. I have therefore exercised my discretion to suppress the applicants’ names. I have also suppressed the ‘tenancy’ address as this scam in realty had nothing to do with this property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724109 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724109 — 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