What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4826820 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy agreement is varied to include the two outside buildings (referred to

How much money was awarded in case 4826820?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826820?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10408971-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4826820 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy agreement is varied to include the two outside buildings (referred to

How much money was awarded in case 4826820?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826820?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10408971-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4826820 — State of repair

Order

The tenancy agreement is varied to include the two outside buildings (referred to as “the studio” and “the shed”) within the tenancy premises.
The following conditions are added to the tenancy agreement:- a. The two outside buildings must not be used for sleeping purposes. b. The two outside buildings are not required to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. c. The smoke alarm regulations do not apply to the two outside buildings because they are not to be used as sleeping spaces. d. The landlord is required to maintain the studio in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord is not required to maintain the shed but may choose to do so. e. All responsibilities of the tenants apply to the two outside buildings. For example, to keep and return these reasonably clean and tidy and to report to the landlord any damage or need for repairs.
The landlord must provide vacant possession and keys to the two outside buildings to the tenants on or before 5:00pm on Monday 10 June 2024.

Reasons

[The applicant/s] (the tenants) attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] attended for the landlord.
This dispute is about whether two outside buildings located at the tenancy address are part of the tenancy. One of the buildings has a ranchslider (“the studio”) and the other has a hinged door and is in poorer condition (“the shed”).
The tenants have applied to the Tribunal for a declaration that the buildings are included in the tenancy. The landlord says they are not. Facts
The property was advertised for rent without referring to the two outside buildings.
The tenants say that they were looking for a large property within a certain geographic range and price and with considerable storage because they have a lot of belongings. They accept that, based on the advertisement, they were not sure if this property would be large enough but decided to take a look.
Both tenants viewed the property with a property manager ([The property manager/s]) who did not attend the hearing and has not given evidence.
A few days later, [The property manager/s] offered the tenants the tenancy and sent them the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy agreement does not describe or identify what exactly is being rented except to say:

TENANCY ADDRESS

Address[Tenancy address suppressed]

The only relevant clause is clause 18 which says: Rural Tenancy – Boundary – The Tenant acknowledges that it has been advised that the boundary of the Property is the fence around the house and drive access to the Property. The Tenant agrees not to enter any of the surrounding paddocks.
The tenants provided a copy of the tenancy agreement in evidence. It shows both tenants’ physical (that is, not digital) signatures and the date “24/01/24” entered alongside each signature.
There is no signature for the landlord in the “signature section” of the agreement. However, a signature has been attached for or on behalf of the landlord in the “Healthy Homes Statement of Intent Signature Section” and in the “Healthy Homes Signature Section”. A typed date “24-01-2024” is entered alongside both landlord signatures. Law
A tenancy agreement is a contract, and the law of contract applies except to the extent that the RTA modifies it.
For a binding contract to be formed there must be an agreement between the parties made up of an offer, a clear acceptance, and sufficient certainty as to the key terms of the agreement.
The Tribunal may vary or set aside an agreement that has been induced by misrepresentation or mistake; section 78(1)(g) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The principles of contractual interpretation apply. These include:- a. The plain and ordinary meaning of words, b. Language inserted by the parties takes precedence over pre-printed forms 1 , c. Where there is ambiguity, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. 2 Decision
I made an oral decision in the hearing that the two outside buildings do form part of the tenancy because:- a. the tenants had made it clear at the viewing that they were interested in using these, b. [The property manager/s] did not tell them at this point or before offering them the tenancy, that the outside buildings were not included, c. the tenancy agreement refers only to the address of the property and is silent as to the outside buildings, d. the landlord and tenants signed the tenancy agreement, e. the tenants would not have entered into the tenancy if they had known that the outside buildings were not part of the tenancy.
I now provide more detail to support the oral decision.
The contract was formed at the point that both parties had signed the tenancy agreement. This was on 24 January 2024.
The tenancy agreement does not specify whether the two outside buildings are included in the tenancy. It is silent. 1 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at 766 per Judge Moore. 2 The common law position is known as contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"), also known as "interpretation against the draftsman".
This means that the interactions between the tenants and the landlord leading up to the signing of the contract are critical.
The tenants say that they viewed the property with [The property manager/s] and that she showed them the whole property including the outside of the two outside buildings. These were locked, and [The property manager/s] did not have a key, but the studio curtains were open, and they could see inside.
The tenants say that they said to [The property manager/s] that the studio would be good for a sewing room for [The tenant/s]. They recall [The property manager/s] commenting that the owner had used the studio as an art studio. [The property manager/s] told them that the owners were considering demolishing the shed. [The tenant/s] asked if [The property manager/s] could ask the owners to leave the shed in place as “you can never have too much storage”.
[The landlord’s representative] say that they are sure that [The property manager/s] knew that the outbuildings were not to be part of the tenancy. [The landlord’s representative] said she had conveyed this to [The property manager/s] prior to her taking up management of the letting of the property.
However, [The property manager/s] did not give evidence, so I have no direct evidence from her. The only direct evidence from people who were present at the time of the viewing is from the tenants.
My decision is that it was important to the tenants that the outside buildings were part of the tenancy, that they communicated this to [The property manager/s] as agent for the landlord, and that there is no evidence that [The property manager/s] told them, either on viewing day or before they signed the contract, that the outside buildings were not part of the tenancy.
The tenants mistakenly thought that the outside buildings were part of the tenancy and [The property manager/s] knew this.
The landlord says that the fact that the ingoing inspection report provided to [The tenant/s] on the move-in day (and which he initialled) lists a “sleepout” but was left blank as to its condition, as compared to all other rooms in the main house being described, means that it is clear that no outside buildings were included.
The landlord also says that the tenants could not have thought that the outside buildings were included because they were not given keys to these at the start of the tenancy.
These objections do not change my decision.
This is because the contract was formed before move-in day. It was formed when the tenancy agreement was signed by both parties.
By the time the ingoing inspection report was provided, it was too late. The tenants had accepted the tenancy and were in the process of moving in. In any event, I do not agree that leaving the “sleepout” section blank is enough to make it clear that outbuildings are not included. I note that the ingoing inspection report included photographs of the outside of the two outbuildings which, arguably, could indicate that they were included.
The tenants agree that they were not provided with keys to the studio or shed at the start of the tenancy. However, they say this was because they were told that the owners were still moving items out of these and that this would be done within about three weeks.
It was only when they followed up on obtaining a key, about two weeks later, that the first indication of this dispute arose. The owners’ adult son came to empty the shed and give this key to the tenants and commented to [The tenant/s] that the outside buildings were not supposed to be part of the tenancy.
This was confirmed by an email from the landlord on 21 February 2024. The mistake then became fully apparent. Variation of the terms of the agreement
The tenants say that they have relied on the inclusion of the two outside buildings in the tenancy and would suffer detriment if they are not included. They provided photographs showing that they currently have belongings stored in a truck parked at the address and stacked up in rooms in the house because they have not been given access to the studio or shed.
I agree that the terms of the tenancy should be varied to include the studio and the shed and have made a declaration to this effect.
I accept that the landlords genuinely did not intend that the outside buildings would be part of the tenancy. They are concerned that including them places obligations on the landlord that they did not intend to take on.
I have drafted additional conditions that clarify these concerns. I am satisfied that these are appropriate and fair.
My reasons for the conditions are:- a. The outside buildings are not intended to be used for sleeping purposes. b. The owners did not intend to rent out the outside buildings so it would be unfair if they were required to upgrade these to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. c. The tenants accept that the landlord was considering demolishing the shed so it should not have to be maintained and the tenants should take any risk of damage to any belongings stored in it.
I allowed the landlords time after the hearing to consult with the owners and propose a date by which the outside buildings would be available to the tenants. The landlords have not provided a date, so I have set one.
The Tribunal did receive additional submissions from the landlords on the issues in dispute. I have not read or considered these submissions because these were made outside of the hearing. I offered the parties the opportunity to return to mediation to negotiate a solution however this has not been agreed to.
The tenants have been successful in the application so are entitled to suppression of their names. I also suppress the landlords’ names as there is no fault on the part of the owners and their interests outweigh any public interest.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826820 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826820 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANCY ADDRESS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANCY ADDRESS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions