What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4800298 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4800298?

Rent Arrears: $85.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4800298?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4800298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10299593-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4800298 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4800298?

Rent Arrears: $85.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4800298?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4800298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10299593-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

109 Prince Regent Drive, Half Moon Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4800298 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4800298. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$85.72		Rent arrears
Bond		$3,400.00

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
[The tenant] must pay Rent Now Limited as agent for Nipun Sondhi $85.72 from the bond immediately, being rent arrears to 14 February 2024,
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([bond number]) immediately apportioned as follows: Rent Now Limited as agent for Nipun Sondhi: $85.72 [The tenant]: $3,314.28

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person.
Rinkhu Sinha attended the hearing for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears.
The tenant disagrees with the amount claimed for rent arrears.
The issue in this case is what interpretation should be placed on an offer for rent reduction and termination of the tenancy. On one interpretation, the tenant should only have to pay $500.00 per week rent over the last 82 days of the tenancy. On the other interpretation, the tenant, having breached the agreement to move out by a certain date, must pay $850.00 per week rent for the last 82 days. Background
The tenancy began on 14 August 2023, and the tenant who had just returned from living for a time overseas, hoped the tenancy would be a long and settled one. Disappointingly for the tenant and his family, the landlord terminated the tenancy only three months later on 15 November 2023 by 90-day notice.
The landlord offered the tenant a rent reduction to $300.00 per week (from $850.00 per week) for the last month of the remaining three months of the tenancy. However, the tenant responded rejecting the offer saying “[w]e are now looking for a place as soon as possible” pointing out that if they moved earlier “we will not benefit from the reduced rent in the last month”. The tenant counteroffered $425.00 per week (half the weekly rent) payable from then on.
The landlord responded to the tenant through Ms Sinha: I understand the tenant’s situation and to be considerate towards his request, I would be happy to reduce weekly rental to $500 per week provided the tenant stays in the rental till end of January 2024, another 10 weeks from now. Alternatively tenant can provide 4 weeks of notice and vacate the property as per their convenience.
The tenant accepted “the offer of $500 per week and we will make plans to ensure we are there until the end of January”.
It was not until mid-January that the parties’ differing interpretations surfaced, when Ms Sinha telephoned the tenant about carrying out a final inspection on 31 January 2024. The parties’ submissions
The parties now dispute whether the landlord’s condition that “the tenant stays in the rental till end of January 2024, another 10 weeks from now” meant the tenant had to vacate after 31 January or it meant he had to remain at least until after 31 January, but no later that 14 February 2024 (the termination date given on the 90-day notice).
The landlord says the words meant the tenant had to vacate. The tenant says the words mean only that he must remain (and pay rent) at least to that date.
The landlord submits: The tenant was served with a notice lasting 90 days on November 15, 2023, instructing them to vacate the premises by February 15, 2024, due to the planned demolition of the property for development purposes. However, in an effort to extend financial assistance, the property owner proposed a reduction in rent to $500, contingent upon the lessee's departure by January 31, 2024. The tenant agreed to this offer with the condition of vacating by January 31, 2024, stipulating that failure to adhere to this deadline would result in the offer's revocation, and the rent would revert to its original amount of $850. Email correspondences confirming this arrangement are attached for reference. Regrettably, the tenant did not comply with the agreed-upon terms and failed to vacate the premises by the specified date. Additionally, the lessee sought additional financial compensation, which was denied.
The tenant submits: I want to make sure I get my bond back at the end of the tenancy. The owner and I made an agreement via email through the real estate agent. They were not clear on their terms of the agreement and there was ambiguity in the email so there was a misunderstanding. No efforts were made to clarify dates etc also no contracts or signatures were made and now the landlord is trying to hold me liable and adding clauses to this agreement after it was made which are not fair and go against the original agreement we made. Discussion
The agreement between the parties for reduced rent for the remainder of the tenancy is ambiguous. It is clear enough that the tenant must stay and pay the reduced rent at least until 31 January 2024, but it is not clear whether he must leave then or is at liberty to remain until the end of the 90-day notice period.
Ms Sinha says the landlord suffered financial loss due to the tenant remaining in the premises for an additional 12 days, but there is no evidence of the alleged loss.
The main source of the ambiguity is the landlord’s email, “I would be happy to reduce weekly rental to $500 per week provided the tenant stays in the rental till end of January 2024”.
In my view, the tenant’s interpretation was reasonable. He understood that he would pay a reduced rent, but that was to the landlord’s considerable advantage because if the rent had not been reduced, the tenant would have moved out early and the landlord would have had little prospect of getting another tenant for such a short term. The landlord stood to receive rent of at least $5,000.00 for 10 weeks if the tenant stayed, and only $3,400.00 if the tenant moved out in 28 days.
Where there are two reasonably plausible meanings for a clause a Tribunal may prefer the meaning less favourable to the party who supplied the language. 1 In this case, the tenant was a lay person dealing with an owner who was in business and an experienced property manager. As experienced property practitioners, the owner and the property manager should have clearly stipulated the end date of the tenancy if it was to be earlier than the notice period.
The tenant acted upon the offer and remained in the premises and gave up the opportunity of moving earlier than he would otherwise have done. I accept he was surprised, and his plans were disrupted when Ms Sinha told him that he and his family, which includes two toddlers, were expected to move within 14 days rather than the approximately 28 days he had anticipated. 2 Conclusion
The Tribunal finds the agreement between the parties did not specify the tenant had to move out at the end of the January, it only specified that he had to remain at least until the end of January.
The tenant did not breach the agreement by remaining in the premises beyond 31 January 2024 but no later than 14 January 2024.
It follows, the tenant must only pay rent at the agreed rate of $500.00 per week. That rate is applied to the 90-day notice’s end date for the tenancy because the tenant did not give 28 days’ notice of moving out early. 1 Ian Bassett Contract Law in New Zealand, Lawyers’ Handbook (Southern Cross Publishing, Auckland, 2007). 2 Under s 85 of the Residential Tenancies Ac 1986 (RTA), the Tribunal must decide cases fairly expeditiously, and in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case. Non-publication
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. 3
The tenant applies for non-publication. The tenant has substantially succeeded in proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4800298. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$85.72		Rent arrears
Bond		$3,400.00

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
[The tenant] must pay Rent Now Limited as agent for Nipun Sondhi $85.72 from the bond immediately, being rent arrears to 14 February 2024,
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([bond number]) immediately apportioned as follows: Rent Now Limited as agent for Nipun Sondhi: $85.72 [The tenant]: $3,314.28

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person.
Rinkhu Sinha attended the hearing for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears.
The tenant disagrees with the amount claimed for rent arrears.
The issue in this case is what interpretation should be placed on an offer for rent reduction and termination of the tenancy. On one interpretation, the tenant should only have to pay $500.00 per week rent over the last 82 days of the tenancy. On the other interpretation, the tenant, having breached the agreement to move out by a certain date, must pay $850.00 per week rent for the last 82 days. Background
The tenancy began on 14 August 2023, and the tenant who had just returned from living for a time overseas, hoped the tenancy would be a long and settled one. Disappointingly for the tenant and his family, the landlord terminated the tenancy only three months later on 15 November 2023 by 90-day notice.
The landlord offered the tenant a rent reduction to $300.00 per week (from $850.00 per week) for the last month of the remaining three months of the tenancy. However, the tenant responded rejecting the offer saying “[w]e are now looking for a place as soon as possible” pointing out that if they moved earlier “we will not benefit from the reduced rent in the last month”. The tenant counteroffered $425.00 per week (half the weekly rent) payable from then on.
The landlord responded to the tenant through Ms Sinha: I understand the tenant’s situation and to be considerate towards his request, I would be happy to reduce weekly rental to $500 per week provided the tenant stays in the rental till end of January 2024, another 10 weeks from now. Alternatively tenant can provide 4 weeks of notice and vacate the property as per their convenience.
The tenant accepted “the offer of $500 per week and we will make plans to ensure we are there until the end of January”.
It was not until mid-January that the parties’ differing interpretations surfaced, when Ms Sinha telephoned the tenant about carrying out a final inspection on 31 January 2024. The parties’ submissions
The parties now dispute whether the landlord’s condition that “the tenant stays in the rental till end of January 2024, another 10 weeks from now” meant the tenant had to vacate after 31 January or it meant he had to remain at least until after 31 January, but no later that 14 February 2024 (the termination date given on the 90-day notice).
The landlord says the words meant the tenant had to vacate. The tenant says the words mean only that he must remain (and pay rent) at least to that date.
The landlord submits: The tenant was served with a notice lasting 90 days on November 15, 2023, instructing them to vacate the premises by February 15, 2024, due to the planned demolition of the property for development purposes. However, in an effort to extend financial assistance, the property owner proposed a reduction in rent to $500, contingent upon the lessee's departure by January 31, 2024. The tenant agreed to this offer with the condition of vacating by January 31, 2024, stipulating that failure to adhere to this deadline would result in the offer's revocation, and the rent would revert to its original amount of $850. Email correspondences confirming this arrangement are attached for reference. Regrettably, the tenant did not comply with the agreed-upon terms and failed to vacate the premises by the specified date. Additionally, the lessee sought additional financial compensation, which was denied.
The tenant submits: I want to make sure I get my bond back at the end of the tenancy. The owner and I made an agreement via email through the real estate agent. They were not clear on their terms of the agreement and there was ambiguity in the email so there was a misunderstanding. No efforts were made to clarify dates etc also no contracts or signatures were made and now the landlord is trying to hold me liable and adding clauses to this agreement after it was made which are not fair and go against the original agreement we made. Discussion
The agreement between the parties for reduced rent for the remainder of the tenancy is ambiguous. It is clear enough that the tenant must stay and pay the reduced rent at least until 31 January 2024, but it is not clear whether he must leave then or is at liberty to remain until the end of the 90-day notice period.
Ms Sinha says the landlord suffered financial loss due to the tenant remaining in the premises for an additional 12 days, but there is no evidence of the alleged loss.
The main source of the ambiguity is the landlord’s email, “I would be happy to reduce weekly rental to $500 per week provided the tenant stays in the rental till end of January 2024”.
In my view, the tenant’s interpretation was reasonable. He understood that he would pay a reduced rent, but that was to the landlord’s considerable advantage because if the rent had not been reduced, the tenant would have moved out early and the landlord would have had little prospect of getting another tenant for such a short term. The landlord stood to receive rent of at least $5,000.00 for 10 weeks if the tenant stayed, and only $3,400.00 if the tenant moved out in 28 days.
Where there are two reasonably plausible meanings for a clause a Tribunal may prefer the meaning less favourable to the party who supplied the language. 1 In this case, the tenant was a lay person dealing with an owner who was in business and an experienced property manager. As experienced property practitioners, the owner and the property manager should have clearly stipulated the end date of the tenancy if it was to be earlier than the notice period.
The tenant acted upon the offer and remained in the premises and gave up the opportunity of moving earlier than he would otherwise have done. I accept he was surprised, and his plans were disrupted when Ms Sinha told him that he and his family, which includes two toddlers, were expected to move within 14 days rather than the approximately 28 days he had anticipated. 2 Conclusion
The Tribunal finds the agreement between the parties did not specify the tenant had to move out at the end of the January, it only specified that he had to remain at least until the end of January.
The tenant did not breach the agreement by remaining in the premises beyond 31 January 2024 but no later than 14 January 2024.
It follows, the tenant must only pay rent at the agreed rate of $500.00 per week. That rate is applied to the 90-day notice’s end date for the tenancy because the tenant did not give 28 days’ notice of moving out early. 1 Ian Bassett Contract Law in New Zealand, Lawyers’ Handbook (Southern Cross Publishing, Auckland, 2007). 2 Under s 85 of the Residential Tenancies Ac 1986 (RTA), the Tribunal must decide cases fairly expeditiously, and in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case. Non-publication
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. 3
The tenant applies for non-publication. The tenant has substantially succeeded in proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4800298 — Rent arrears at 109 Prince Regent Drive, Half Moon Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4800298 — Rent arrears at 109 Prince Regent Drive, Half Moon Bay, Auckland

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