What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4788798?

The tribunal order states: Jun Meng and Junyun (Lucy) Li to pay The Rent House Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 4788798?

Break-Lease Costs: $647.66 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $950.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4788798?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4788798?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10196958-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4788798?

The tribunal order states: Jun Meng and Junyun (Lucy) Li to pay The Rent House Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 4788798?

Break-Lease Costs: $647.66 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $950.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4788798?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4788798?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10196958-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Edendale Road, Somerville, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4788798 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4788798 — net $1,618.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$950.00	Rent arrears
Break-lease costs	$647.66	Break-lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,618.10
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,618.10

Order

Jun Meng and Junyun (Lucy) Li to pay The Rent House Limited as Agent for AR Trustee Company Limited as Trustee of The Ariana Homi Rao Trust J $1,618.10 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (5019380-003) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent House Limited as Agent for AR Trustee Company Limited as Trustee of The Ariana Homi Rao Trust J: $1,618.10 Jun Meng and Junyun (Lucy) Li: $2,181.90

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant sought reimbursement of the rent paid, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenancy premises is one of two dwellings in the same site. It is the main house, and 13a is a minor dwelling at the back.
The two dwellings are very close together and are close to the boundary of the property on one side. There is a small lawn/garden area for the use of the tenants in the main house.
The subdivision of the property was consented by the Council, and 13a is a completely self-contained dwelling. However, it does not have vehicle access. There is a large gate opening onto the neighbouring driveway for moving large items/furniture.
Otherwise, access on foot to 13a is via a gate and down the path beside the main house. The path goes past a bedroom and study window. The occupant of 13a then turns down a further path past the master bedroom of the main house, to enter 13a via a set of steps.
The female tenant viewed with property, along with other potential tenants, on 28 November 2023.
The tenants applied for the property, were successful, and a tenancy agreement was signed.
The tenancy states a fixed term from 16/12/2023 to 16/1/2024. Both parties agree the end date is a typographical error, and a 12-month fixed term ending on 16 /12/2024 was intended.
The tenant paid a bond equivalent to 4 weeks rent and paid 2 weeks rent in advance.
After signing the tenancy agreement and paying the bond and rent in advance, the tenant visited the property with her husband on two further occasions.
During the second of these visits, they introduced themselves to the tenant in 13a, who has been there for 4 years. That conversation included the fact that the tenant from 13a uses the path to access his property.
The tenants say that this is the first time they were told of the access arrangements, and they were not happy with that situation.
The tenants sought to cancel the agreement on that basis and have their rent in advance and bond refunded.
The landlord’s position is that she advised all potential tenants of the access situation at the viewing. There was written confirmation from on of the other potential tenants on the 28 th of November 2023 confirming that she was told of the situation by the property and that was one of the reasons they did not apply for the property.
The landlord made various suggestions attempting a compromise, but these were not accepted by the tenants. The tenants wanted the occupant of 13a to use the big gate and the neighbour’s driveway. The landlord concern is that there is no entitlement to access the property via the neighbour’s driveway. The Occupant of 13a was concerned as that driveway is shared by 6 houses, and there are a number of cars going up and down it at all times of the day he is concerned for the safety of his 7-year-old son. One of the suggestions was that the occupant of 13a would use the neighbour’s drive, but his son use the footpath. That was not acceptable to the tenants.
Ultimately, the parties agreed to end the tenancy, however, the landlord’s position is that the tenant remained liable for the rent until new tenants were found, and for the costs of readvertising the property.
The tenants’ position is that the property was misrepresented, and they would not have signed the tenancy agreement if they knew about the access situation.
The tenant said that she was not told about the access situation at the hearing. Although she was aware that the tenant at 13a would walk past the back of the house to get to the steps. The tenant said she suspected that the landlord did not know the situation herself, as she seem surprised when told about it, and that the landlord did not appear to know the occupant of 13a. The tenant referred me to an email from the landlord which she says supported that position.
The landlord was adamant that she told all the potential tenants about the access situation as part of the property viewings. She believes this conversation took place in the kitchen while she and the tenant were discussing the fence that was to be built to ensure the garden was exclusively accessible by the main house.
Having read the email referred to by the tenant, I do not accept that it indicates that the landlord was not aware of the situation, nor that she did not know the occupant of 13a. The plain reading of the email simply does not say that.
The tenant then advised me that her comprehension of written English is better than spoken English and that the landlord had an obligation to ensure that she understood what was being said to her at the property viewing.
I note that the tenant, in her own application, did not request the assistance of an interpreter, and that she represented herself well in spoken English at the hearing, with minor exception of some technical terms which I was able to explain.
While I agree that it is important for parties to discuss matters in a way that both understand, it is not always possible for a speaker to know if what they have said is understood, if the listener does not indicate issues with understanding. The tenant did not tell the landlord that she had trouble understanding spoken English, nor did she request assistance or further explanation.
I am satisfied that the landlord did tell the tenant about the access situation at the viewing, in advance of the tenancy agreement being signed. I agree that recording this in the tenancy agreement would have been sensible, but I do not consider that this amounts to a misrepresentation, as the situation was outlined.
I am fortified by this by the email from the other viewer, which shows that the landlord was clearly aware of the situation and was disclosing it to potential tenants on the same day that this tenant viewed the property.
Further, the tenant’s email about the access situation expresses that her husband is not happy about the situation, rather than that she is not happy. I consider it more likely than not that the female tenant was told about the access issue, and it did not concern her, until her husband became upset by it.
That being the case, I consider that this was a valid tenancy and the tenant it bound by its terms. Including the fixed term provisions.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 5 January 2024. Having had discussions, the landlord re-tenanted the property. The new tenancy commenced on 6 January 2024.
The landlord seeks the rent due for the period 16 December 2023 to 5 January 2024. Two weeks of that period were covered by the rent in advance paid.
I consider the additional week’s rent is owing, and award that amount accordingly. Break Lease Fee
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy.
The landlord accepted the early termination of the tenancy. New tenants were found for the property, and the new tenancy commenced the day after the end of this tenancy. The landlord has not lost any rent.
However, the landlord is seeking to recover the costs of re-advertising and re- tenanting the property.
I am satisfied the amount sought is the actual and reasonable costs of re- tenanting the property early.
I note that the ending of a fixed term early often does cause loss to a landlord, and the tenant is generally liable for any loss caused by what is, essentially, a breach of contract by the tenant.
This is reflected in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which allows the Tribunal to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy when certain criteria are met. Such an order is generally accompanied by an order that compensation for reasonable costs incurred as a result of the reduction in term.
In the present case, had the tenant brought an application to reduce the fixed term for the reasons this tenancy termination, I am unlikely to have granted it. Such an application was not required because the landlord accepted a reduction in the fixed term without requiring an order from the Tribunal.
I do not consider that the landlord should be disadvantaged by taking a reasonable and pragmatic approach.
Accordingly, I consider the amount awarded is proved. Filing Fee
Because The Rent House Limited as Agent for AR Trustee Company Limited as Trustee of The Ariana Homi Rao Trust J has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4788798 — net $1,618.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$950.00	Rent arrears
Break-lease costs	$647.66	Break-lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,618.10
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,618.10

Order

Jun Meng and Junyun (Lucy) Li to pay The Rent House Limited as Agent for AR Trustee Company Limited as Trustee of The Ariana Homi Rao Trust J $1,618.10 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (5019380-003) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent House Limited as Agent for AR Trustee Company Limited as Trustee of The Ariana Homi Rao Trust J: $1,618.10 Jun Meng and Junyun (Lucy) Li: $2,181.90

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant sought reimbursement of the rent paid, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenancy premises is one of two dwellings in the same site. It is the main house, and 13a is a minor dwelling at the back.
The two dwellings are very close together and are close to the boundary of the property on one side. There is a small lawn/garden area for the use of the tenants in the main house.
The subdivision of the property was consented by the Council, and 13a is a completely self-contained dwelling. However, it does not have vehicle access. There is a large gate opening onto the neighbouring driveway for moving large items/furniture.
Otherwise, access on foot to 13a is via a gate and down the path beside the main house. The path goes past a bedroom and study window. The occupant of 13a then turns down a further path past the master bedroom of the main house, to enter 13a via a set of steps.
The female tenant viewed with property, along with other potential tenants, on 28 November 2023.
The tenants applied for the property, were successful, and a tenancy agreement was signed.
The tenancy states a fixed term from 16/12/2023 to 16/1/2024. Both parties agree the end date is a typographical error, and a 12-month fixed term ending on 16 /12/2024 was intended.
The tenant paid a bond equivalent to 4 weeks rent and paid 2 weeks rent in advance.
After signing the tenancy agreement and paying the bond and rent in advance, the tenant visited the property with her husband on two further occasions.
During the second of these visits, they introduced themselves to the tenant in 13a, who has been there for 4 years. That conversation included the fact that the tenant from 13a uses the path to access his property.
The tenants say that this is the first time they were told of the access arrangements, and they were not happy with that situation.
The tenants sought to cancel the agreement on that basis and have their rent in advance and bond refunded.
The landlord’s position is that she advised all potential tenants of the access situation at the viewing. There was written confirmation from on of the other potential tenants on the 28 th of November 2023 confirming that she was told of the situation by the property and that was one of the reasons they did not apply for the property.
The landlord made various suggestions attempting a compromise, but these were not accepted by the tenants. The tenants wanted the occupant of 13a to use the big gate and the neighbour’s driveway. The landlord concern is that there is no entitlement to access the property via the neighbour’s driveway. The Occupant of 13a was concerned as that driveway is shared by 6 houses, and there are a number of cars going up and down it at all times of the day he is concerned for the safety of his 7-year-old son. One of the suggestions was that the occupant of 13a would use the neighbour’s drive, but his son use the footpath. That was not acceptable to the tenants.
Ultimately, the parties agreed to end the tenancy, however, the landlord’s position is that the tenant remained liable for the rent until new tenants were found, and for the costs of readvertising the property.
The tenants’ position is that the property was misrepresented, and they would not have signed the tenancy agreement if they knew about the access situation.
The tenant said that she was not told about the access situation at the hearing. Although she was aware that the tenant at 13a would walk past the back of the house to get to the steps. The tenant said she suspected that the landlord did not know the situation herself, as she seem surprised when told about it, and that the landlord did not appear to know the occupant of 13a. The tenant referred me to an email from the landlord which she says supported that position.
The landlord was adamant that she told all the potential tenants about the access situation as part of the property viewings. She believes this conversation took place in the kitchen while she and the tenant were discussing the fence that was to be built to ensure the garden was exclusively accessible by the main house.
Having read the email referred to by the tenant, I do not accept that it indicates that the landlord was not aware of the situation, nor that she did not know the occupant of 13a. The plain reading of the email simply does not say that.
The tenant then advised me that her comprehension of written English is better than spoken English and that the landlord had an obligation to ensure that she understood what was being said to her at the property viewing.
I note that the tenant, in her own application, did not request the assistance of an interpreter, and that she represented herself well in spoken English at the hearing, with minor exception of some technical terms which I was able to explain.
While I agree that it is important for parties to discuss matters in a way that both understand, it is not always possible for a speaker to know if what they have said is understood, if the listener does not indicate issues with understanding. The tenant did not tell the landlord that she had trouble understanding spoken English, nor did she request assistance or further explanation.
I am satisfied that the landlord did tell the tenant about the access situation at the viewing, in advance of the tenancy agreement being signed. I agree that recording this in the tenancy agreement would have been sensible, but I do not consider that this amounts to a misrepresentation, as the situation was outlined.
I am fortified by this by the email from the other viewer, which shows that the landlord was clearly aware of the situation and was disclosing it to potential tenants on the same day that this tenant viewed the property.
Further, the tenant’s email about the access situation expresses that her husband is not happy about the situation, rather than that she is not happy. I consider it more likely than not that the female tenant was told about the access issue, and it did not concern her, until her husband became upset by it.
That being the case, I consider that this was a valid tenancy and the tenant it bound by its terms. Including the fixed term provisions.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 5 January 2024. Having had discussions, the landlord re-tenanted the property. The new tenancy commenced on 6 January 2024.
The landlord seeks the rent due for the period 16 December 2023 to 5 January 2024. Two weeks of that period were covered by the rent in advance paid.
I consider the additional week’s rent is owing, and award that amount accordingly. Break Lease Fee
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy.
The landlord accepted the early termination of the tenancy. New tenants were found for the property, and the new tenancy commenced the day after the end of this tenancy. The landlord has not lost any rent.
However, the landlord is seeking to recover the costs of re-advertising and re- tenanting the property.
I am satisfied the amount sought is the actual and reasonable costs of re- tenanting the property early.
I note that the ending of a fixed term early often does cause loss to a landlord, and the tenant is generally liable for any loss caused by what is, essentially, a breach of contract by the tenant.
This is reflected in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which allows the Tribunal to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy when certain criteria are met. Such an order is generally accompanied by an order that compensation for reasonable costs incurred as a result of the reduction in term.
In the present case, had the tenant brought an application to reduce the fixed term for the reasons this tenancy termination, I am unlikely to have granted it. Such an application was not required because the landlord accepted a reduction in the fixed term without requiring an order from the Tribunal.
I do not consider that the landlord should be disadvantaged by taking a reasonable and pragmatic approach.
Accordingly, I consider the amount awarded is proved. Filing Fee
Because The Rent House Limited as Agent for AR Trustee Company Limited as Trustee of The Ariana Homi Rao Trust J has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4788798 — Rent arrears at 13 Edendale Road, Somerville, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4788798 — Rent arrears at 13 Edendale Road, Somerville, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions