What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4784018 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $657.14 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4784018?

The reconciled net award was $657.14.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4784018?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4784018?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10486644-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4784018 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $657.14 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4784018?

The reconciled net award was $657.14.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4784018?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4784018?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10486644-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4784018 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $657.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $862.86 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $657.14 [The tenant/s]: $205.72

Reasons

[The landlord’s representatives] attended the hearing for the landlord. [Tenant 1] attended by telephone. [Tenant 2] was called at the start of the hearing but the call would not connect and the number called appears to have been disconnected.
The tenant filed a claim for refund of their bond on the basis that they did not consider they were liable for rent to 9 January 2024.
The landlord filed a cross application for $862.86 for rent arrears to 9 January 2024, and made a claim on the bond. The landlord reduced the sum claimed at the hearing held on 19 June 2024 to $657.14, being rent to 6 January 2024.
Both parties sought reimbursement of the filing fee.
The parties had earlier attended mediation which resulted in an agreement on payment of the bond except for the amount in dispute ($862.86) which is the subject of this matter. The disputed bond of $862.86 is being held by the Bond Centre pending the outcome of the claims.
The matter was originally heard by the Tribunal on 29 April 2024 and was dismissed as neither party attended the hearing. The landlord made an application for rehearing which was granted.
The tenancy commenced on 10 June 2022 and was for a fixed term which ended on 10 June 2023. The tenancy became a periodic tenancy after that date. Rent was $440.00 a week until 18 August 2023 when it increased to $480.00.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants emailed the landlord on 24 November 2023 requesting early termination of their tenancy, which they understood was a fixed term tenancy, and advised “We are hoping to move out in January”. Their email included: “I understand our current tenancy agreement is fixed until June 10, 2024 and I am aware of the responsibilities associated with ending the agreement prior to this date. I am prepared to cooperate fully in accordance with the terms laid out in out agreement”.
The landlord responded on 28 November and forwarded the tenants a document setting out their requirements relating to tenants breaking a fixed term tenancy, along with an invoice for the advertising cost. The landlord advised it would commence marketing the property for new tenants once the advertising costs were paid.
The tenant paid the advertising costs on 9 December.
The property manager the tenants usually communicated with sent an email to the tenants on 11 December asking them to call 1 . This was followed up with an email on 13 December, as the tenants had not returned the call. The email advised there had been a miscommunication regarding their notice period and that the tenancy was not a fixed term tenancy as the fixed term had expired on 10 June 2023 and it had rolled over to a periodic. The property manager 1 The tenants had been communicating with a different staff member from the landlord/property manager until this time as their usual property manager had been absent from work. advised the tenants needed to give 28 days’ notice to vacate and asked the tenants to confirm what date in January they were going to leave the property. The tenant’s responded that they would be out of the property by 23 December.
The property manager advised the tenants would be liable for rent to 9 January, being 28 days from when the tenants paid the cost to advertise the property for rent. Accordingly the tenants’ and the landlord’s applications were based on whether rent was payable or not to that date.
[The landlord’s representative] advised at the start of the hearing that the amount claimed by the landlord was amended and rent to 6 January, rather than 9 January was being sought.
The tenants’ view was that they did not owe any rent to the landlord as they gave notice on 24 November and consider that to be the date the 28 days’ notice should start.
A tenant under a periodic tenancy may terminate the tenancy by giving the landlord 28 days’ notice (see section 51(2B) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)).
Every notice to terminate a tenancy must be in writing, identify the premises being tenanted and must specify the date the tenant is to vacate (see section 51(3), RTA).
The tenants’ notice did not meet the requirements of section 51(3) as it did not specify the date they were going to vacate, but instead said they were moving out “in January”. That means the tenants’ notice on 24 November to vacate is not a valid notice to terminate the tenancy.
Both parties should have been aware that the tenancy was a periodic tenancy; the tenancy agreement contained a provision setting out that the tenancy would convert to a periodic tenancy at the end of the fixed term, unless the fixed term was renewed. I am satisfied the landlord mitigated its loss by advising the tenants as soon as it realised a mistake was made. The tenants do not appear to have considered the tenancy might have been a periodic tenancy.
Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants.
After considering the matter I am persuaded that the landlord’s approach to the date the tenants are liable to pay rent is fair and reasonable, being 28 days after the tenants paid the advertising costs. The landlord’s reason for promoting this date as the date notice to terminate the tenancy should run from, is that in paying the advertising costs the tenants established intention that they were definitely intending to move out.
Accordingly I find the tenants are liable to pay rent until 6 January 2024. The rent summary provided by the landlord proves the amount of rent owing by the tenants until that date.
The bond: The bond is to be split between the landlord and the tenants as shown in order 2. above.
Reimbursement of filing fees: The landlord has succeeded in its claim, and the tenant has partly succeeded in their claim, in that they are liable to pay less rent that the $862.86 originally claimed. I find it appropriate to award both parties’ reimbursement of the filing fee they have paid.
Suppression: Both parties have applied for suppression of their names and the identifying details of the tenancy. I consider it appropriate that both parties’ names be suppressed. The landlord has been fully successful in its claim and the tenant, as set out above, can be considered to be partially successful in its claim. Regardless, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest I do not consider publication is in the public interest or is justified for any other circumstance. Therefore, I order non-publication of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details (see s95A RTA).

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $657.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $862.86 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $657.14 [The tenant/s]: $205.72

Reasons

[The landlord’s representatives] attended the hearing for the landlord. [Tenant 1] attended by telephone. [Tenant 2] was called at the start of the hearing but the call would not connect and the number called appears to have been disconnected.
The tenant filed a claim for refund of their bond on the basis that they did not consider they were liable for rent to 9 January 2024.
The landlord filed a cross application for $862.86 for rent arrears to 9 January 2024, and made a claim on the bond. The landlord reduced the sum claimed at the hearing held on 19 June 2024 to $657.14, being rent to 6 January 2024.
Both parties sought reimbursement of the filing fee.
The parties had earlier attended mediation which resulted in an agreement on payment of the bond except for the amount in dispute ($862.86) which is the subject of this matter. The disputed bond of $862.86 is being held by the Bond Centre pending the outcome of the claims.
The matter was originally heard by the Tribunal on 29 April 2024 and was dismissed as neither party attended the hearing. The landlord made an application for rehearing which was granted.
The tenancy commenced on 10 June 2022 and was for a fixed term which ended on 10 June 2023. The tenancy became a periodic tenancy after that date. Rent was $440.00 a week until 18 August 2023 when it increased to $480.00.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants emailed the landlord on 24 November 2023 requesting early termination of their tenancy, which they understood was a fixed term tenancy, and advised “We are hoping to move out in January”. Their email included: “I understand our current tenancy agreement is fixed until June 10, 2024 and I am aware of the responsibilities associated with ending the agreement prior to this date. I am prepared to cooperate fully in accordance with the terms laid out in out agreement”.
The landlord responded on 28 November and forwarded the tenants a document setting out their requirements relating to tenants breaking a fixed term tenancy, along with an invoice for the advertising cost. The landlord advised it would commence marketing the property for new tenants once the advertising costs were paid.
The tenant paid the advertising costs on 9 December.
The property manager the tenants usually communicated with sent an email to the tenants on 11 December asking them to call 1 . This was followed up with an email on 13 December, as the tenants had not returned the call. The email advised there had been a miscommunication regarding their notice period and that the tenancy was not a fixed term tenancy as the fixed term had expired on 10 June 2023 and it had rolled over to a periodic. The property manager 1 The tenants had been communicating with a different staff member from the landlord/property manager until this time as their usual property manager had been absent from work. advised the tenants needed to give 28 days’ notice to vacate and asked the tenants to confirm what date in January they were going to leave the property. The tenant’s responded that they would be out of the property by 23 December.
The property manager advised the tenants would be liable for rent to 9 January, being 28 days from when the tenants paid the cost to advertise the property for rent. Accordingly the tenants’ and the landlord’s applications were based on whether rent was payable or not to that date.
[The landlord’s representative] advised at the start of the hearing that the amount claimed by the landlord was amended and rent to 6 January, rather than 9 January was being sought.
The tenants’ view was that they did not owe any rent to the landlord as they gave notice on 24 November and consider that to be the date the 28 days’ notice should start.
A tenant under a periodic tenancy may terminate the tenancy by giving the landlord 28 days’ notice (see section 51(2B) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)).
Every notice to terminate a tenancy must be in writing, identify the premises being tenanted and must specify the date the tenant is to vacate (see section 51(3), RTA).
The tenants’ notice did not meet the requirements of section 51(3) as it did not specify the date they were going to vacate, but instead said they were moving out “in January”. That means the tenants’ notice on 24 November to vacate is not a valid notice to terminate the tenancy.
Both parties should have been aware that the tenancy was a periodic tenancy; the tenancy agreement contained a provision setting out that the tenancy would convert to a periodic tenancy at the end of the fixed term, unless the fixed term was renewed. I am satisfied the landlord mitigated its loss by advising the tenants as soon as it realised a mistake was made. The tenants do not appear to have considered the tenancy might have been a periodic tenancy.
Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants.
After considering the matter I am persuaded that the landlord’s approach to the date the tenants are liable to pay rent is fair and reasonable, being 28 days after the tenants paid the advertising costs. The landlord’s reason for promoting this date as the date notice to terminate the tenancy should run from, is that in paying the advertising costs the tenants established intention that they were definitely intending to move out.
Accordingly I find the tenants are liable to pay rent until 6 January 2024. The rent summary provided by the landlord proves the amount of rent owing by the tenants until that date.
The bond: The bond is to be split between the landlord and the tenants as shown in order 2. above.
Reimbursement of filing fees: The landlord has succeeded in its claim, and the tenant has partly succeeded in their claim, in that they are liable to pay less rent that the $862.86 originally claimed. I find it appropriate to award both parties’ reimbursement of the filing fee they have paid.
Suppression: Both parties have applied for suppression of their names and the identifying details of the tenancy. I consider it appropriate that both parties’ names be suppressed. The landlord has been fully successful in its claim and the tenant, as set out above, can be considered to be partially successful in its claim. Regardless, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest I do not consider publication is in the public interest or is justified for any other circumstance. Therefore, I order non-publication of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details (see s95A RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4784018 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4784018 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions