What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4797583 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4797583?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797583?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10248353-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4797583 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4797583?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797583?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10248353-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4797583 — Rent arrears

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
No order is made on the tenant’s application.
The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed.

Reasons

The tenant and Ms Morland (for the landlord) attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for payment of rent arrears in the sum of $855.
The tenant has applied to be released from liability for the arrears. Background
The tenant was one of two joint tenants under a fixed term tenancy agreement starting on 23 June 2023.
The other tenant applied to the landlord to withdraw from the tenancy on the ground that she was a victim of family violence.
The landlord accepted her application and she vacated the premises on 9 December 2023.
The tenant did not accept that the other tenant had the right to withdraw from the tenancy but, in the circumstances, he sought to end the tenancy early.
The landlord found a replacement tenant and the tenancy ended on 18 January 2024.
The tenant paid full rent for two weeks and then his half share of the rent for three weeks to the end of the tenancy. The other tenant paid her share of the rent to 14 December.
The rent shortfall to the end of the tenancy is $855 being the other tenant’s share of the rent for the last three weeks of the tenancy. Law
Section 56B(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a tenant may withdraw from the tenancy by giving at least two days’ notice to the landlord if; a. The notice is accompanied by qualifying evidence that the tenant has been the victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises; and b. The notice is in the approved form and includes the prescribed information.
The qualifying evidence means either a declaration in the approved form made a person who is prescribed, or is of a class prescribed or evidence, in the approved form, of a prescribed type.
Regulations provide that the withdrawing tenant’s declaration may be qualifying evidence along with declarations by a variety of other specified people and classes of people.
Evidence in the approved form and of the prescribed type means a written statement from a person who is prescribed or of a prescribed class (excluding the withdrawing tenant), a protection order or a Police safety order or a charging document. Other Facts and Discussion
The other tenant provided a notice in the approved for and with the prescribed information to the landlord.
She did not provide a declaration of any sort and she did not provide any qualifying evidence.
She provided text messages to the landlord and that satisfied Ms Morland that she was the victim of family violence from the tenant. She offered to provide a statement from her GP, but Ms Morland told her that was unnecessary.
The landlord has subsequently provided a letter from the other tenant’s GP supporting her claim that she had been a victim of family violence during the tenancy.
The GP is a prescribed person who can provide a written statement that is a type of qualifying evidence.
But the Act provides that the tenant’s notice must be accompanied by qualifying evidence. That plainly means that the statement must be provided at the same time as the notice and certainly before the tenant is permitted to withdraw from the tenancy.
Because that did not happen in this case, the other tenant was not entitled to withdraw from the tenancy.
I accept that Ms Morland was acting in good faith and in, what she believed to be, the other tenant’s best interests. I also note that the legislation is not easy to follow or even easy for a non-lawyer to access.
So where does this leave the parties? The starting point is that if the other tenant could not withdraw from the tenancy, she remained a tenant with the tenant until 18 January 2024 and she was therefore jointly and severally liable for the rent until then. If follows that she would be liable for the rent arrears with the tenant.
But both parties have other arguments they can make concerning liability for the arrears.
The tenant can point out that if the other tenant had not been permitted to withdraw from the tenancy, his liability for rent may have been less.
The other tenant can say that she was assured by the landlord that she was permitted to withdraw from the tenancy and the landlord cannot go back on that.
The other tenant’s position seems to be incontrovertible. Legally, the landlord is estopped (prevented) from denying that the withdrawal was legitimate.
That would leave the tenant solely liable for the rent. It would be wrong to leave him able to recover a contribution from the other tenant and it would be wrong to leave him solely liable for the rent arrears.
I indicated at the hearing that I would add the other tenant to the application and adjourn it, but on reflection I think the only possible outcome is that both tenants must be released from liability. An adjournment will only delay the inevitable.
I have therefore dismissed the landlord’s application.
No further order is needed on the tenant’s application.
The tenant has succeeded and so I have granted him name suppression.

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
No order is made on the tenant’s application.
The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed.

Reasons

The tenant and Ms Morland (for the landlord) attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for payment of rent arrears in the sum of $855.
The tenant has applied to be released from liability for the arrears. Background
The tenant was one of two joint tenants under a fixed term tenancy agreement starting on 23 June 2023.
The other tenant applied to the landlord to withdraw from the tenancy on the ground that she was a victim of family violence.
The landlord accepted her application and she vacated the premises on 9 December 2023.
The tenant did not accept that the other tenant had the right to withdraw from the tenancy but, in the circumstances, he sought to end the tenancy early.
The landlord found a replacement tenant and the tenancy ended on 18 January 2024.
The tenant paid full rent for two weeks and then his half share of the rent for three weeks to the end of the tenancy. The other tenant paid her share of the rent to 14 December.
The rent shortfall to the end of the tenancy is $855 being the other tenant’s share of the rent for the last three weeks of the tenancy. Law
Section 56B(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a tenant may withdraw from the tenancy by giving at least two days’ notice to the landlord if; a. The notice is accompanied by qualifying evidence that the tenant has been the victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises; and b. The notice is in the approved form and includes the prescribed information.
The qualifying evidence means either a declaration in the approved form made a person who is prescribed, or is of a class prescribed or evidence, in the approved form, of a prescribed type.
Regulations provide that the withdrawing tenant’s declaration may be qualifying evidence along with declarations by a variety of other specified people and classes of people.
Evidence in the approved form and of the prescribed type means a written statement from a person who is prescribed or of a prescribed class (excluding the withdrawing tenant), a protection order or a Police safety order or a charging document. Other Facts and Discussion
The other tenant provided a notice in the approved for and with the prescribed information to the landlord.
She did not provide a declaration of any sort and she did not provide any qualifying evidence.
She provided text messages to the landlord and that satisfied Ms Morland that she was the victim of family violence from the tenant. She offered to provide a statement from her GP, but Ms Morland told her that was unnecessary.
The landlord has subsequently provided a letter from the other tenant’s GP supporting her claim that she had been a victim of family violence during the tenancy.
The GP is a prescribed person who can provide a written statement that is a type of qualifying evidence.
But the Act provides that the tenant’s notice must be accompanied by qualifying evidence. That plainly means that the statement must be provided at the same time as the notice and certainly before the tenant is permitted to withdraw from the tenancy.
Because that did not happen in this case, the other tenant was not entitled to withdraw from the tenancy.
I accept that Ms Morland was acting in good faith and in, what she believed to be, the other tenant’s best interests. I also note that the legislation is not easy to follow or even easy for a non-lawyer to access.
So where does this leave the parties? The starting point is that if the other tenant could not withdraw from the tenancy, she remained a tenant with the tenant until 18 January 2024 and she was therefore jointly and severally liable for the rent until then. If follows that she would be liable for the rent arrears with the tenant.
But both parties have other arguments they can make concerning liability for the arrears.
The tenant can point out that if the other tenant had not been permitted to withdraw from the tenancy, his liability for rent may have been less.
The other tenant can say that she was assured by the landlord that she was permitted to withdraw from the tenancy and the landlord cannot go back on that.
The other tenant’s position seems to be incontrovertible. Legally, the landlord is estopped (prevented) from denying that the withdrawal was legitimate.
That would leave the tenant solely liable for the rent. It would be wrong to leave him able to recover a contribution from the other tenant and it would be wrong to leave him solely liable for the rent arrears.
I indicated at the hearing that I would add the other tenant to the application and adjourn it, but on reflection I think the only possible outcome is that both tenants must be released from liability. An adjournment will only delay the inevitable.
I have therefore dismissed the landlord’s application.
No further order is needed on the tenant’s application.
The tenant has succeeded and so I have granted him name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797583 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797583 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions