What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4763120 about?

The tribunal order states: The notice to terminate the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 691 Torehape Road

How much money was awarded in case 4763120?

Compensation: $1,804.29 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4763120?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4763120?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10704264-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4763120 about?

The tribunal order states: The notice to terminate the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 691 Torehape Road

How much money was awarded in case 4763120?

Compensation: $1,804.29 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4763120?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4763120?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10704264-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

691 Torehape Road East, Ngatea, RD 1, Ngatea 3597 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4763120 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4763120 — net $1,569.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation from 13 November 2023 – 14 payments already made by the tenant	$1,804.29	Compensation from 13 November 2023 – 14 payments already made by the tenant
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,569.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,569.73

The notice to terminate the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 691 Torehape Road East, Ngatea, RD 1, Ngatea 3597 on 12 November 2023 was valid.

Central Waikato Realty Limited T/A LJ Hooker Morrinsville Acting Agent for Pouarua Farms Ltd is granted possession of the premises at 691 Torehape Road East, Ngatea, RD 1, Ngatea 3597 on Wednesday 28 August 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $255.00 (5980405-001) to Central Waikato Realty Limited T/A LJ Hooker Morrinsville Acting Agent for Pouarua Farms Ltd immediately.

[The tenant/s] must pay Central Waikato Realty Limited T/A LJ Hooker Morrinsville Acting Agent for Pouarua Farms Ltd $1,569.73 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Ms Menzies appeared as agent for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Background

The tenancy in question is a service tenancy that commenced on 13 February 2023. The tenant was employed on a farm managed by the landlord. On 26 October 2023, the tenant resigned affective 29 October 2023. On 27 October 2023, the landlord issued the tenant 14 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy effective 12 November 2023. The tenant refused to vacate the property. On 12 December 2023, the landlord filed an application seeking possession and compensation for lost rent from 13 December 2023 to the date of possession. The landlord also seeks termination for failing to remedy a 14-day breach notice.

On 15 February 2024, the matter was set down for hearing on 08 March 2024. On that date, the Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s application. Subsequently, on 12 March 2024, the landlord filed an application for rehearing. On 23 May 2024, the application for rehearing was set down for a telephone hearing on 13 June 2024, and a stay was granted. On 14 June 2024, the application for rehearing was granted, and the landlord’s application was rescheduled for hearing on 14 August 2024.

On 12 June 2024, the tenant filed an application and provided detailed written submissions. Careful reading of the tenant’s application, and submissions, confirm they do not not contain any substantive claims under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) and merely set out the tenant’s opposition to the landlord’s claim.

The 14-day termination notice issued on 27 October 2023 also stated although the tenant was no longer employed, no longer under a service tenancy, the landlord was prepared to enter into a new tenancy agreement. The proposed terms of the agreement included a rent increase from $255.00, the rent under the service tenancy, to $450.00 per week, which the landlord viewed as consistent with market rents in the area. The tenant rejected the offer, and no agreement was reached.

On 13 November 2023, Ms Menzies discovered that the tenant was making payments into their account without the landlord’s knowledge or consent. Prior to that date, the tenant’s rent had been deducted from their wages. The landlord is unsure how the tenant obtained their bank account number. Ms Menzies attempted to contact the tenant to discuss returning the payments. Ms Menzies further states that on or about 20 November 2023, the landlord again offered to enter in a new tenancy at the rate of $450.00 per week, the same terms previously rejected. The tenant declined, stating that they wished to discuss the matter with the landlord directly. Ms Menzies states that the offer was then withdrawn, although it had already been rejected, and the tenant advised that proceedings would be commenced to obtain possession. Tenant’s submissions

I have read the tenant’s submissions. The tenant argues that their resignation was forced upon them. The tenant accepts that they rejected the landlords offer on the basis that the proposed rent was unfair. The tenant states the landlord, who manages the farm for an Iwi to which he is affiliated, has failed to engage with him and discuss the matter, something that he feels that are in the circumstances obliged to do. The tenant states that until the matter is resolved, they have continued to make payments into the agent’s account. It appears, despite numerous attempts, the legal owners of the property are unwilling to engage with the tenant directly and simply seek possession and compensation. The tenant also challenges the validity of the termination notice and service. Jurisdiction and relevant law

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with employment related matters. The tenant states that they have filed a grievance claim against the landlord in another jurisdiction.

Provisions regarding termination of service tenancies are set out in section 53 of the Act. Section 53(1) provides that upon the termination of the contract for service, the employment, that either party may then service 14 days’ notice to also terminate the tenancy. Subsection (7)(a) states whether the contact for service was terminated is a matter of fact to be determined by the Tribunal, but the Tribunal shall not be concerned with the lawfulness or other wise of the termination. Issues

As stated, the fact of the resignation and ending of the employment agreement is not disputed by the tenant. The issues in this matter are as follows: i. Whether the termination notice issued on 27 October 2023 was valid for form and was it properly served, ii. Was there any concluded agreement to enter into a new tenancy agreement, iii. Is the landlord entitled to rent / compensation at the rate of $450.00 per week from the end of the tenancy on 12 November 2023 to the date of possession. Analysis termination notice

Section 51(3) of the Act states that every notice to terminate a tenancy must: be in writing, identify the property to which it relates, specify the date the tenant is to vacate, set out the reasons for termination, and be signed by the party giving the notice or their agent. The notice has been produced. It fulfils each of these requirements.

Section 136(1) of the Act states that where any notice, including any notice for termination, is served by either landlord or tenant, it may under subsection (1)(d), be sent to an email address given by the party as an address for service. The email to which the notice was attached has been produced. In this case, the notice has been sent as an attachment to an email address provided in the tenancy agreement as an address for service by the tenant.

Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the notice to terminate the tenancy dated 27 October 2023 terminating the tenancy with 14 days’ notice effective 29 October 2023 on 12 November 2023, was valid in form and correctly served. New tenancy agreement

Like other contracts, tenancy agreements can be oral or in writing. For a tenancy agreement to be legally binding, key elements such as a clear offer, unequivocal acceptance of that offer, adequate consideration, an intention to enter legal relations, and certainty of terms must be present. In this case, I am satisfied that none of these requirements are present. Any offer made by the landlord to enter into an agreement was unequivocally rejected by the tenant.

Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenancy ended on 12 November 2023, and that no new agreement was entered into, either prior to or after the ending of the service tenancy. On this basis, the landlord is entitled to possession of the property. Possession order

Section 64(1) provides, subject to subsection (2), that on the application of a person entitled to possession, in this case the landlord, following the termination of the tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession. Subsection (2) provides that no possession order may be made by the Tribunal more than 90 days after the date of termination of the tenancy.

In this case just over nine months has elapsed since the end of the tenancy. However, section 96(2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may extend any time limit prescribed under the Act.

In this case the landlord filed an application seeking possession within 90 days of the end of the tenancy. There was a delay of around two months before the matter was listed and then heard on 08 March 2023, after which the matter became the subject of an application for rehearing and re listing. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to extend the time limit.

The landlord initially sought immediate possession but has agreed grace period deferring possession to 28 August 2023, allowing the tenant ample time to relocate. Compensation

Section 40(1)(e) of the Act states that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the property. Section 40(3A) states that a failure to do so without reasonable excuse may be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. By failing to leave on the expiry of the notice, the tenant has breached the provisions of the Act. In the case, the landlord does not seek exemplary damages but claims compensation, as they are entitled to do.

The landlord seeks compensation at the rate of $450.00 per week, which they view as the appropriate market rent for the property, an essential term of the new agreement unequivocally rejected by the tenant. Ms Menzies states that there are over thirty properties on the farm; four are presently vacant, three are rented to tenants who are not employed by the landlord, and at a market rent, and the tenant occupies one, with the balance occupied by employees of the landlord under service tenancies. Ms Menzies states after gaining possession of the property, the landlord plans to offer it to another employee under a service tenancy.

Having considered the matter, while the landlord is entitled to be compensated for their loss arising from the breach, I am not satisfied that the landlord is necessarily entitled to claim compensation at the market rate. I do not consider this to be a reasonably foreseeable loss arising from the breach. In my opinion, the tenant should be liable at the same amount payable under the initial agreement, the rate of $255.00 per week, effective from 13 November 2023 to 14 August 2024. The amount ordered considers the amount already paid by the tenant into the agent’s account. Other matters

The landlord’s application also includes a claim for termination on the basis that the tenant failed to remedy a 14-day notice requiring them to remove a dog kept at the property contrary to the terms of the service tenancy. The tenant denies the breach, stating that a farm manager had given permission to keep a dog. Ms Menzies states the landlord is unaware of any such permission being given. However, having already determined that the notice to terminate the tenancy was valid and having granted the landlord possession, it is unnecessary to determine termination for failure to remedy the notice. Tenant’s application

Concerning the tenant’s application, as stated it does not disclose any substantive claims against the landlord. Costs

As Central Waikato Realty Limited T/A LJ Hooker Morrinsville Acting Agent for Pouarua Farms Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

Although entitled, the landlord does not seek name suppression, and no orders are made. There is no statutory basis to suppress the tenant’s name, and no reasons have been advanced by the tenant.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4763120 — net $1,569.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation from 13 November 2023 – 14 payments already made by the tenant	$1,804.29	Compensation from 13 November 2023 – 14 payments already made by the tenant
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,569.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,569.73

The notice to terminate the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 691 Torehape Road East, Ngatea, RD 1, Ngatea 3597 on 12 November 2023 was valid.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $255.00 (5980405-001) to Central Waikato Realty Limited T/A LJ Hooker Morrinsville Acting Agent for Pouarua Farms Ltd immediately.

[The tenant/s] must pay Central Waikato Realty Limited T/A LJ Hooker Morrinsville Acting Agent for Pouarua Farms Ltd $1,569.73 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Ms Menzies appeared as agent for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Background

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with employment related matters. The tenant states that they have filed a grievance claim against the landlord in another jurisdiction.

In this case just over nine months has elapsed since the end of the tenancy. However, section 96(2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may extend any time limit prescribed under the Act.

The landlord initially sought immediate possession but has agreed grace period deferring possession to 28 August 2023, allowing the tenant ample time to relocate. Compensation

Concerning the tenant’s application, as stated it does not disclose any substantive claims against the landlord. Costs

As Central Waikato Realty Limited T/A LJ Hooker Morrinsville Acting Agent for Pouarua Farms Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

Although entitled, the landlord does not seek name suppression, and no orders are made. There is no statutory basis to suppress the tenant’s name, and no reasons have been advanced by the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4763120 — Tenancy dispute at 691 Torehape Road East, Ngatea, RD 1, Ngatea 3597

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4763120 — Tenancy dispute at 691 Torehape Road East, Ngatea, RD 1, Ngatea 3597

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions