What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774187?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4774187?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774187?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774187?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9945128-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774187?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4774187?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774187?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774187?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9945128-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Leatherwood Road, Takanini, Takanini 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774187 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by remote teleconference.
The tenants are seeking return of bond money which was paid to the property manager.
On 11 December 2023 the tenant made enquiries to the landlord in respect of renting this property.
On 12 December 2023 the tenant’s wife viewed the property. During the viewing the tenant provided the landlord with confirmation over the telephone that he would like to rent the property. He asked the landlord to email him confirmation of this so that they could pay the move in costs.
On 13 December 2023 the landlord emailed the tenants a conditional approval for the tenancy with a tentative date of the 18 December 2023. The email from the landlord recorded that the tenant was’ happily accepting this house’ and accepting this conditional offer based on the viewing of the property by his wife the day before. It also stressed that he read the email and understands everything prior to agreeing to the move in costs. The email also confirmed the address and full details of the property, the weekly rent (which included power, water, internet and gas), the bond payable and the type of tenancy agreement (periodic). The landlord and tenant also spoke over the telephone about meeting at the property on 16 December 2023 to sign the Tenancy Agreement and confirm a move in date.
On 14 December 2023 the tenants paid the deposit and bond into the landlord’s bank account.
On 16 December 2023 the tenant called the landlord saying that they would not be moving in due to a change in circumstances and did not want the property. The tenants did not inform the landlord what the change of circumstances were.
By that stage the landlord had removed the property from the ‘for rent’ listings and had turned away other prospective tenants. The landlord then had to relist the property and contact the other applicants who they had turned away.
On 18 December 2023 the tenant emailed the landlord stating that they now wanted to move in again.
On the morning of 19 December 2023, the landlord advised the tenants that it was too late as the landlord had gone ahead and rented the property to another party.
The tenant claims that the landlord had no right to withhold two weeks rent.
The landlord says that he is only charging two weeks to cover the period from 18 December to 31 December. The landlord found a new tenant and had them sign a Tenancy Agreement on 16 December 2023 with a move in date of 1 January 2024.
The tenant paid $4100.00 (made up of bond plus one week in advance). The landlord refunded $2460.00 on 19 December 2024.
The tenant says that he had not signed a Tenancy Agreement nor had he received a key.

Was there a tenancy agreement?

A tenancy agreement is a contract. The law of contract applies to tenancy agreements, together with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
It is possible for a tenancy agreement to have been reached even when a written tenancy agreement has not been signed. Although Section 13 of the RTA states that all tenancy agreements must be in writing and signed, Section 13C provides that no tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
In order to determine whether a contract (residential tenancy agreement) existed the following matters need to be considered: a. the making of an offer; b. the fact of acceptance of an offer so that an agreement has been reached; c. consideration; d. Intention to create legal relations; e. The requirement of certainty – whether the terms are sufficiently certain for the parties to be legally bound.
What matters is if the contract was sufficiently formed during the exchange of emails between the tenant and the landlord. If it was then the tenant would have had to have provided 28 days’ notice to terminate the agreement. I need to be satisfied that the terms were sufficiently formed to create a binding contract and if so then 2 weeks penalty instead of 4 is a concession by the landlord.
Having carefully reviewed all of the evidence in detail, and having heard the parties’ submissions at the hearing, I consider that there was a binding agreement. The landlord made an offer on 13 December 2023 clearly setting out details in full; the start date of the tenancy, the rent and the bond payable.
In my view there was clear acceptance by the tenant of the contractual terms.
The tenants could have been liable for 28 days of rent to be paid to the landlord if the tenancy was periodic or for more than that if the tenancy was for a fixed term.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenants have no grounds against the landlord for refusing to refund the full payment made.
I consider that my interpretation of the evidence accords with Section 85 of the RTA which provides that:
It follows that the tenants’ claim for return of the full deposit is dismissed.
Because the tenants’ have been unsuccessful in their application I do not reimburse the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant applied for non-publication of his name and identifying details. He has not succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that there are any public interest grounds which justify non-publication of name.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by remote teleconference.
The tenants are seeking return of bond money which was paid to the property manager.
On 11 December 2023 the tenant made enquiries to the landlord in respect of renting this property.
On 12 December 2023 the tenant’s wife viewed the property. During the viewing the tenant provided the landlord with confirmation over the telephone that he would like to rent the property. He asked the landlord to email him confirmation of this so that they could pay the move in costs.
On 13 December 2023 the landlord emailed the tenants a conditional approval for the tenancy with a tentative date of the 18 December 2023. The email from the landlord recorded that the tenant was’ happily accepting this house’ and accepting this conditional offer based on the viewing of the property by his wife the day before. It also stressed that he read the email and understands everything prior to agreeing to the move in costs. The email also confirmed the address and full details of the property, the weekly rent (which included power, water, internet and gas), the bond payable and the type of tenancy agreement (periodic). The landlord and tenant also spoke over the telephone about meeting at the property on 16 December 2023 to sign the Tenancy Agreement and confirm a move in date.
On 14 December 2023 the tenants paid the deposit and bond into the landlord’s bank account.
On 16 December 2023 the tenant called the landlord saying that they would not be moving in due to a change in circumstances and did not want the property. The tenants did not inform the landlord what the change of circumstances were.
By that stage the landlord had removed the property from the ‘for rent’ listings and had turned away other prospective tenants. The landlord then had to relist the property and contact the other applicants who they had turned away.
On 18 December 2023 the tenant emailed the landlord stating that they now wanted to move in again.
On the morning of 19 December 2023, the landlord advised the tenants that it was too late as the landlord had gone ahead and rented the property to another party.
The tenant claims that the landlord had no right to withhold two weeks rent.
The landlord says that he is only charging two weeks to cover the period from 18 December to 31 December. The landlord found a new tenant and had them sign a Tenancy Agreement on 16 December 2023 with a move in date of 1 January 2024.
The tenant paid $4100.00 (made up of bond plus one week in advance). The landlord refunded $2460.00 on 19 December 2024.
The tenant says that he had not signed a Tenancy Agreement nor had he received a key.

Was there a tenancy agreement?

A tenancy agreement is a contract. The law of contract applies to tenancy agreements, together with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
It is possible for a tenancy agreement to have been reached even when a written tenancy agreement has not been signed. Although Section 13 of the RTA states that all tenancy agreements must be in writing and signed, Section 13C provides that no tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
In order to determine whether a contract (residential tenancy agreement) existed the following matters need to be considered: a. the making of an offer; b. the fact of acceptance of an offer so that an agreement has been reached; c. consideration; d. Intention to create legal relations; e. The requirement of certainty – whether the terms are sufficiently certain for the parties to be legally bound.
What matters is if the contract was sufficiently formed during the exchange of emails between the tenant and the landlord. If it was then the tenant would have had to have provided 28 days’ notice to terminate the agreement. I need to be satisfied that the terms were sufficiently formed to create a binding contract and if so then 2 weeks penalty instead of 4 is a concession by the landlord.
Having carefully reviewed all of the evidence in detail, and having heard the parties’ submissions at the hearing, I consider that there was a binding agreement. The landlord made an offer on 13 December 2023 clearly setting out details in full; the start date of the tenancy, the rent and the bond payable.
In my view there was clear acceptance by the tenant of the contractual terms.
The tenants could have been liable for 28 days of rent to be paid to the landlord if the tenancy was periodic or for more than that if the tenancy was for a fixed term.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenants have no grounds against the landlord for refusing to refund the full payment made.
I consider that my interpretation of the evidence accords with Section 85 of the RTA which provides that:
It follows that the tenants’ claim for return of the full deposit is dismissed.
Because the tenants’ have been unsuccessful in their application I do not reimburse the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant applied for non-publication of his name and identifying details. He has not succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that there are any public interest grounds which justify non-publication of name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774187 — Tenancy dispute at 7 Leatherwood Road, Takanini, Takanini 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774187 — Tenancy dispute at 7 Leatherwood Road, Takanini, Takanini 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions