What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4850262 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4850262?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850262?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10398144-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4850262 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4850262?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850262?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10398144-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4850262 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4850262 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The applications are dismissed.
The tenant is to pay $20.44 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing on 29 May 2024.
The landlord was represented by [The landlord's representative].
The dispute relates to a property at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
There are a range of claims and counterclaims between the parties. The sole issue that the Tribunal is called upon to decide at this hearing is whether there was a tenancy agreement between the parties at all.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.”
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and txt messages. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the parties to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner.
The Tribunal may consider applications relating to every tenancy for residential purposes (see s.4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The general principles of contract law apply to tenancy agreements.
Does a tenancy agreement have to be in writing? Section 13 RTA provides that every tenancy agreement shall be in writing and signed. That is not however the end of the matter. Section 13C RTA provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other enactment, no tenancy agreement, or variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
The authors of Burrows, Finn and Todd on the Law of Contract in New Zealand ( 7 th edition 2022) state that the requirement of agreement between the parties underpins all forms of contract. A contracting party is bound by the terms of the agreement because they have agreed to be bound.
A contract is usually found in the process of offer and acceptance where one person ( the offeror) makes an offer to another ( the offeree) who in turn accepts the offer.
An offer, capable of being converted into a contract, must consist of a definite promise to be bound by certain terms. The offeror must have completed their part in the formation of the contract by declaring a readiness to contract upon certain terms, leaving the offeree the option of acceptance or rejection.
For the purposes of this hearing, the concept of a counter offer is significant. A counter offer is made where the offeree does not accept the terms proposed by the offeror, but instead puts forward different terms for the proposed contract. At law, a counter offer terminates the original offer. The offeree in that situation cannot revive the original offer by changing their mind and tendering a subsequent acceptance.
The facts of the matter before the Tribunal in this matter are reasonably straight forward.
The landlord owns the premises.
The tenants were looking to rent a rural property.
The tenants were acquainted with the existing tenants of the premises who wished to move out.
There appears to have been some preliminary discussions between the parties in late 2023 about the possibility of the tenant renting the premises.
On or about 9 March 2024, the parties met at the premises. They walked around the premises and each discussed their requirements.
The landlord said that she would prepare a tenancy agreement for execution by the parties. Some time passed. The tenant say that they had to remind the landlord on a number of occasions to provide the tenancy agreement. The landlord says the reasons for her delay in providing the agreement, was a delay by the tenant in completing and returning a pre tenancy application form to her.
The tenancy was to commence on 1 April 2024.
The tenancy agreement was received by the tenants on 21 March 2024. They sought legal advice from both a lawyer and Tenancy Services as to the terms of the agreement.
On 27 March 2024, the tenants wrote to the landlord seeking a range of variations to the proposed agreement. Some of the variations related to the addition of the tenant’s husband as a party to the agreement and other variations of a personal nature, whilst some variations were sought by the tenant to bring the agreement into line with what they considered to be the requirements of the RTA. In essence, the tenants say that the terms of the written tenancy agreement were not those previously agreed to by the parties during the course of their informal walk over the property.
The landlord did not agree with the variations proposed by the tenant and her offer was brought to an end.
The tenant’s rely on the informal verbal discussions between the parties at the walk over of the property as being the tenancy agreement. The difference in understanding by the parties as to what may have been discussed at that meeting is substantial. The tenants thought that they were to tenant a specified area. The landlord was not of that understanding. The difference between the parties as to what may have been discussed at the walk through indicates that there was no agreement or meeting of the minds reached as to the terms of any agreement at the walk through.
The tenants said in correspondence and in evidence that they were waiting for a written tenancy agreement to be provided by the landlord. That was their expectation.
The tenant’s letter to the landlord dated 27 March 2024 makes it clear that the landlord’s initial offer to the tenant contained in the tenancy agreement was not accepted. There was a willingness by the tenant to be bound, but only on different terms. The tenant’s letter of 27 March 2024 amounted to a counteroffer and as a result terminated the original offer contained in the tenancy agreement.
There being no tenancy agreement, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider the matter further. The applications are dismissed.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord having been wholly successful in this matter, suppression of the landlord details is ordered.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4850262 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The applications are dismissed.
The tenant is to pay $20.44 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing on 29 May 2024.
The landlord was represented by [The landlord's representative].
The dispute relates to a property at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
There are a range of claims and counterclaims between the parties. The sole issue that the Tribunal is called upon to decide at this hearing is whether there was a tenancy agreement between the parties at all.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.”
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and txt messages. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the parties to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner.
The Tribunal may consider applications relating to every tenancy for residential purposes (see s.4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The general principles of contract law apply to tenancy agreements.
Does a tenancy agreement have to be in writing? Section 13 RTA provides that every tenancy agreement shall be in writing and signed. That is not however the end of the matter. Section 13C RTA provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other enactment, no tenancy agreement, or variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
The authors of Burrows, Finn and Todd on the Law of Contract in New Zealand ( 7 th edition 2022) state that the requirement of agreement between the parties underpins all forms of contract. A contracting party is bound by the terms of the agreement because they have agreed to be bound.
A contract is usually found in the process of offer and acceptance where one person ( the offeror) makes an offer to another ( the offeree) who in turn accepts the offer.
An offer, capable of being converted into a contract, must consist of a definite promise to be bound by certain terms. The offeror must have completed their part in the formation of the contract by declaring a readiness to contract upon certain terms, leaving the offeree the option of acceptance or rejection.
For the purposes of this hearing, the concept of a counter offer is significant. A counter offer is made where the offeree does not accept the terms proposed by the offeror, but instead puts forward different terms for the proposed contract. At law, a counter offer terminates the original offer. The offeree in that situation cannot revive the original offer by changing their mind and tendering a subsequent acceptance.
The facts of the matter before the Tribunal in this matter are reasonably straight forward.
The landlord owns the premises.
The tenants were looking to rent a rural property.
The tenants were acquainted with the existing tenants of the premises who wished to move out.
There appears to have been some preliminary discussions between the parties in late 2023 about the possibility of the tenant renting the premises.
On or about 9 March 2024, the parties met at the premises. They walked around the premises and each discussed their requirements.
The landlord said that she would prepare a tenancy agreement for execution by the parties. Some time passed. The tenant say that they had to remind the landlord on a number of occasions to provide the tenancy agreement. The landlord says the reasons for her delay in providing the agreement, was a delay by the tenant in completing and returning a pre tenancy application form to her.
The tenancy was to commence on 1 April 2024.
The tenancy agreement was received by the tenants on 21 March 2024. They sought legal advice from both a lawyer and Tenancy Services as to the terms of the agreement.
On 27 March 2024, the tenants wrote to the landlord seeking a range of variations to the proposed agreement. Some of the variations related to the addition of the tenant’s husband as a party to the agreement and other variations of a personal nature, whilst some variations were sought by the tenant to bring the agreement into line with what they considered to be the requirements of the RTA. In essence, the tenants say that the terms of the written tenancy agreement were not those previously agreed to by the parties during the course of their informal walk over the property.
The landlord did not agree with the variations proposed by the tenant and her offer was brought to an end.
The tenant’s rely on the informal verbal discussions between the parties at the walk over of the property as being the tenancy agreement. The difference in understanding by the parties as to what may have been discussed at that meeting is substantial. The tenants thought that they were to tenant a specified area. The landlord was not of that understanding. The difference between the parties as to what may have been discussed at the walk through indicates that there was no agreement or meeting of the minds reached as to the terms of any agreement at the walk through.
The tenants said in correspondence and in evidence that they were waiting for a written tenancy agreement to be provided by the landlord. That was their expectation.
The tenant’s letter to the landlord dated 27 March 2024 makes it clear that the landlord’s initial offer to the tenant contained in the tenancy agreement was not accepted. There was a willingness by the tenant to be bound, but only on different terms. The tenant’s letter of 27 March 2024 amounted to a counteroffer and as a result terminated the original offer contained in the tenancy agreement.
There being no tenancy agreement, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider the matter further. The applications are dismissed.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord having been wholly successful in this matter, suppression of the landlord details is ordered.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850262 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850262 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions