What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774002 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Jade Rental Properties Limited Cindy Foote $614.28

How much money was awarded in case 4774002?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774002?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774002?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10713731-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774002 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Jade Rental Properties Limited Cindy Foote $614.28

How much money was awarded in case 4774002?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774002?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774002?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10713731-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

59A Pembroke Road, Northland, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774002 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Jade Rental Properties Limited Cindy Foote $614.28 immediately, being rent in lieu of notice.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,228.57 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Jade Rental Properties Limited Cindy Foote: $614.28 [The tenant/s]: $614.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Foote representing the landlord.
The parties are in dispute as to whether the tenants gave the required notice to end the tenancy and any rent owed in lieu of notice. To that end, the amount in dispute of $1,228.57 has been retained from the bond held at the Bond Centre. The balance bond of $1,173.43 has already been refunded to the tenants.
The tenancy was for a fixed term starting on 20 December 2022 and to end on 19 December 2023.
On 5 October 2023, the landlord (through the property manager, Vanessa) emailed the tenants reminding them that their fixed term tenancy was due to expire on 19 December 2023. She advised the tenants of the various options for ending, renewing or continuing the tenancy citing section 60A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The email included the following section:
The landlord uses an automated system called Console Cloud to manage its tenancies. The system allows the landlord to manage tasks for multiple properties such as inspections, maintenance and communications with tenants including renewing, continuing or ending tenancies. The system has a portal which can be accessed by tenants and landlords which automatically date stamps and logs the communications. The above email sent to the tenants had a link at the foot of the email to the Console Cloud system. The link took them to a form for the tenants to choose the appropriate option.
The tenants claim that they clicked on the link and completed the form choosing to end the tenancy on the expiry of the fixed term. They believe that they clicked on the link and chose the “Leaving” option within 2 days or so of receiving the email. Therefore, they understood that they had given the landlord more than the required 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. They say that when they completed the task, they received a message generated by the system showing a green tick and the words “Thank You. Your response has been submitted.”
On receiving no direct response from their property manager after submitting the response, the tenants clicked on the link again and submitted their response a second time. They think that they did this a week or so later on or about 12 October. Again, they received no direct response from the property manager but say they did not think there was any problem.
The tenants say that they did not notice the advice in the email which instructed them to tick the desired option and send a copy of the attached form to the landlord and keep a copy for themselves as a record. Therefore, they did not take either of those steps.
On 18 November, the tenants sent their property manager, Vanessa, an email which advised her that they were applying for a new flat in Wellington and had listed her as a referee. She replied on 20 November that she was happy to be a referee.
On 9 December, the tenants emailed Vanessa wanting to check the amount of the last rental payment before their lease ended on 19 December. Vanessa replied on 11 December that she had not received notice to end the tenancy. Therefore, the landlord claims that the tenants are liable for 28 day’s rent in lieu of notice from 11 December to 8 January 2024. Rent was paid up to 15 December. Based on the rent summary, rent owed to 8 January 2024 is $1,228.57
The landlord says they made several checks with Console and there is no evidence that the tenants clicked on the link in October and submitted the form advising them of their intention to end the tenancy. They also provided evidence from Console that there were no outages which affected the system from 5 October to late December.
In addition, the landlord provided a record which shows that their email was delivered on 5 October 2023 at 3.21pm and then opened several times on 5, 6 and 15 October; 19 November; 11, 12, 14, 16 and 20 December. On 4 occasions on 11,12, and 16 December, the record shows that the message was opened and then “clicked”. The landlord says that this means the tenants clicked on the link and submitted it through the system. The tenants did this as a test. It appears from that evidence that they were able to submit the form on those occasions. However, there is no record of them clicking on the link and submitting it before 11 December as they claim.
It is quite possible that the tenants thought they had submitted the required form but it didn’t go through, or that they didn’t do what was required to submit it. It is unlikely that this was a deliberate omission on their part but an accident of using technology. Clearly, they opened the form several times and it appears they intended to give notice to end the tenancy on the expiry of the term. This is also supported by the fact that they asked the property manager to be a referee on 18 November. They query why she did not realise that they were ending the tenancy. However, I accept the landlord’s explanation that asking for a reference did not necessarily mean the tenants would be chosen and it cannot be taken as any sort of implied notice to end this tenancy. Tenants are required to provide a specific notice in writing.
The landlord acknowledges that there can be limitations with technology but that is why their email advice included an instruction that the tenants should also email a copy of the form to the landlord and keep a record for themselves, which the tenants did not do here. Had they done so, this situation might’ve been avoided.
The onus is on the tenants to give the notice to the end the tenancy in writing. They acknowledged at the hearing that they were uncertain as to whether their first submission had gone through which prompted them to send a second submission. It begs the questions: why didn’t they ask the landlord to confirm receipt and why didn’t they take a screen shot of the confirmation?
The landlord has advised that if I find the required notice was not given by the tenants such that they owe further rent in lieu of notice, she is willing to accept half the amount claimed. She says this is to recognise the technology limitations and the length of time that has elapsed since the tenancy ended without resolving the issue.
Overall, I find that the tenants should have ensured their notice was received by the landlord because the onus is on them to give the notice in writing. However, I also acknowledge that the landlord provided a means for giving notice and that system may have its limitations. If a landlord provides a means for giving notice and there are problems with the technology, then to some extent it is only fair that the landlord assumes some responsibility for that. For those reasons, there may be some blame on both sides and I consider the landlord’s offer is a fair and reasonable outcome. I therefore award the landlord half the amount claimed for rent in lieu of notice to be deducted from the bond.
The tenants have asked for suppression of their names and identifying details. While they have not substantially succeeded with their claim, they have succeeded to some extent. Furthermore, I do not find that they have acted in deliberate breach of their obligations such that there is public interest in disclosing their identities. Suppression is therefore granted. K Stirling, 15 August 2024

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Jade Rental Properties Limited Cindy Foote $614.28 immediately, being rent in lieu of notice.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,228.57 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Jade Rental Properties Limited Cindy Foote: $614.28 [The tenant/s]: $614.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Foote representing the landlord.

The parties are in dispute as to whether the tenants gave the required notice to end the tenancy and any rent owed in lieu of notice. To that end, the amount in dispute of $1,228.57 has been retained from the bond held at the Bond Centre. The balance bond of $1,173.43 has already been refunded to the tenants.

The tenancy was for a fixed term starting on 20 December 2022 and to end on 19 December 2023.

On 5 October 2023, the landlord (through the property manager, Vanessa) emailed the tenants reminding them that their fixed term tenancy was due to expire on 19 December 2023. She advised the tenants of the various options for ending, renewing or continuing the tenancy citing section 60A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The email included the following section:

The landlord uses an automated system called Console Cloud to manage its tenancies. The system allows the landlord to manage tasks for multiple properties such as inspections, maintenance and communications with tenants including renewing, continuing or ending tenancies. The system has a portal which can be accessed by tenants and landlords which automatically date stamps and logs the communications. The above email sent to the tenants had a link at the foot of the email to the Console Cloud system. The link took them to a form for the tenants to choose the appropriate option.

The tenants claim that they clicked on the link and completed the form choosing to end the tenancy on the expiry of the fixed term. They believe that they clicked on the link and chose the “Leaving” option within 2 days or so of receiving the email. Therefore, they understood that they had given the landlord more than the required 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. They say that when they completed the task, they received a message generated by the system showing a green tick and the words “Thank You. Your response has been submitted.”

On receiving no direct response from their property manager after submitting the response, the tenants clicked on the link again and submitted their response a second time. They think that they did this a week or so later on or about 12 October. Again, they received no direct response from the property manager but say they did not think there was any problem.

The tenants say that they did not notice the advice in the email which instructed them to tick the desired option and send a copy of the attached form to the landlord and keep a copy for themselves as a record. Therefore, they did not take either of those steps.

On 18 November, the tenants sent their property manager, Vanessa, an email which advised her that they were applying for a new flat in Wellington and had listed her as a referee. She replied on 20 November that she was happy to be a referee.

On 9 December, the tenants emailed Vanessa wanting to check the amount of the last rental payment before their lease ended on 19 December. Vanessa replied on 11 December that she had not received notice to end the tenancy. Therefore, the landlord claims that the tenants are liable for 28 day’s rent in lieu of notice from 11 December to 8 January 2024. Rent was paid up to 15 December. Based on the rent summary, rent owed to 8 January 2024 is $1,228.57

The landlord says they made several checks with Console and there is no evidence that the tenants clicked on the link in October and submitted the form advising them of their intention to end the tenancy. They also provided evidence from Console that there were no outages which affected the system from 5 October to late December.

In addition, the landlord provided a record which shows that their email was delivered on 5 October 2023 at 3.21pm and then opened several times on 5, 6 and 15 October; 19 November; 11, 12, 14, 16 and 20 December. On 4 occasions on 11,12, and 16 December, the record shows that the message was opened and then “clicked”. The landlord says that this means the tenants clicked on the link and submitted it through the system. The tenants did this as a test. It appears from that evidence that they were able to submit the form on those occasions. However, there is no record of them clicking on the link and submitting it before 11 December as they claim.

It is quite possible that the tenants thought they had submitted the required form but it didn’t go through, or that they didn’t do what was required to submit it. It is unlikely that this was a deliberate omission on their part but an accident of using technology. Clearly, they opened the form several times and it appears they intended to give notice to end the tenancy on the expiry of the term. This is also supported by the fact that they asked the property manager to be a referee on 18 November. They query why she did not realise that they were ending the tenancy. However, I accept the landlord’s explanation that asking for a reference did not necessarily mean the tenants would be chosen and it cannot be taken as any sort of implied notice to end this tenancy. Tenants are required to provide a specific notice in writing.

The landlord acknowledges that there can be limitations with technology but that is why their email advice included an instruction that the tenants should also email a copy of the form to the landlord and keep a record for themselves, which the tenants did not do here. Had they done so, this situation might’ve been avoided.

The onus is on the tenants to give the notice to the end the tenancy in writing. They acknowledged at the hearing that they were uncertain as to whether their first submission had gone through which prompted them to send a second submission. It begs the questions: why didn’t they ask the landlord to confirm receipt and why didn’t they take a screen shot of the confirmation?

The landlord has advised that if I find the required notice was not given by the tenants such that they owe further rent in lieu of notice, she is willing to accept half the amount claimed. She says this is to recognise the technology limitations and the length of time that has elapsed since the tenancy ended without resolving the issue.

Overall, I find that the tenants should have ensured their notice was received by the landlord because the onus is on them to give the notice in writing. However, I also acknowledge that the landlord provided a means for giving notice and that system may have its limitations. If a landlord provides a means for giving notice and there are problems with the technology, then to some extent it is only fair that the landlord assumes some responsibility for that. For those reasons, there may be some blame on both sides and I consider the landlord’s offer is a fair and reasonable outcome. I therefore award the landlord half the amount claimed for rent in lieu of notice to be deducted from the bond.

The tenants have asked for suppression of their names and identifying details. While they have not substantially succeeded with their claim, they have succeeded to some extent. Furthermore, I do not find that they have acted in deliberate breach of their obligations such that there is public interest in disclosing their identities. Suppression is therefore granted. K Stirling, 15 August 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774002 — Tenancy dispute at 59A Pembroke Road, Northland, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774002 — Tenancy dispute at 59A Pembroke Road, Northland, Wellington 6012

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