What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4854900 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4854900?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4854900?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4854900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10430453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4854900 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4854900?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4854900?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4854900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10430453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Oriental Terrace, Mount Victoria, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4854900 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenant’s cross-application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. At the outset of the hearing I waited for Ms Weinhold-Pullon to attend, allowing for unexpected delays. However, after a reasonable period of time she had not made any appearance, and I decided to go ahead with the hearing. I note that the notice of hearing was correctly served and that the previous hearing was been adjourned, after a late request made by Ms Weinhold-Pullon.
As Ms Weinhold-Pullon did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, and is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, she has not proven her cross claim and I dismiss it. It was unclear from the application form what the basis and content of her claim was in any event.
The landlord has claimed $2260, four weeks rent, on the basis that Ms Weinhold-Pullon had, in a series of texts emails and other correspondence agreed to enter into a tenancy, but never carried through with the agreement.
I am satisfied that there was an agreement to enter into a tenancy, this is shown by Ms Weinhold-Pullon’s correspondence. The agreement included the level of rent to be paid, the date to be moved in, details of bond and rent advance, and the landlord forwarded a tenancy agreement to Weinhold-Pullon.
However, the tenancy agreement was never signed or returned, no rental or bond were paid and Ms Weinhold-Pullon never moved into the premises.
S 13 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) requires that tenancy agreements are in writing and are signed by both tenant and landlord. However, the landlord’s application relies on S 13 C which states that tenancy agreements need not be in writing to be enforceable. For this provision to apply there needs to have been an enforceable Tenancy Agreement, in the first place. In situations such as this the law of contract, as modified by the RTA, applies.
The law of contract requires that people should keep promises that they legitimately agree to even if not recorded in writing. This has led to the following characteristics of a contract being identified: a. there needs to be clear communication between the parties of an offer to provide a service or product and acceptance of that offer; b. there needs to be consideration, which is a transfer of value between the parties; c. certainty of terms; and d. intention to create legal relations, in other words a commitment to the promises made.
In this case there was no written agreement. The evidence of the contract is the correspondence between the parties. I conclude that: a. there was clear communication that Ms Weinhold-Pullon would enter into a tenancy; b. there was certainty of the terms of that tenancy, as set out in the unsigned tenancy agreement the landlord provided; and c. on the face of it the communications show an intention to create legal relations.
However, no rent or bond were paid, and there was no other consideration flowing from Ms Weinhold-Pullon to the landlord. Therefore, I am unable to conclude that there was an enforceable tenancy agreement. 1
I have some sympathy for the landlord, who quite clearly believed in good faith that Ms Weinhold-Pullon had agreed to become his tenant. It appears he was 1 see White v Yaxley District Court, DCJ Dougherty (24 November 2009) CIV-2009-009-002401 put to some inconvenience by her actions. However, I am unable to uphold his application, and must dismiss it.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. At the outset of the hearing I waited for Ms Weinhold-Pullon to attend, allowing for unexpected delays. However, after a reasonable period of time she had not made any appearance, and I decided to go ahead with the hearing. I note that the notice of hearing was correctly served and that the previous hearing was been adjourned, after a late request made by Ms Weinhold-Pullon.

As Ms Weinhold-Pullon did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, and is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, she has not proven her cross claim and I dismiss it. It was unclear from the application form what the basis and content of her claim was in any event.

The landlord has claimed $2260, four weeks rent, on the basis that Ms Weinhold-Pullon had, in a series of texts emails and other correspondence agreed to enter into a tenancy, but never carried through with the agreement.

I am satisfied that there was an agreement to enter into a tenancy, this is shown by Ms Weinhold-Pullon’s correspondence. The agreement included the level of rent to be paid, the date to be moved in, details of bond and rent advance, and the landlord forwarded a tenancy agreement to Weinhold-Pullon.

However, the tenancy agreement was never signed or returned, no rental or bond were paid and Ms Weinhold-Pullon never moved into the premises.

S 13 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) requires that tenancy agreements are in writing and are signed by both tenant and landlord. However, the landlord’s application relies on S 13 C which states that tenancy agreements need not be in writing to be enforceable. For this provision to apply there needs to have been an enforceable Tenancy Agreement, in the first place. In situations such as this the law of contract, as modified by the RTA, applies.

The law of contract requires that people should keep promises that they legitimately agree to even if not recorded in writing. This has led to the following characteristics of a contract being identified: a. there needs to be clear communication between the parties of an offer to provide a service or product and acceptance of that offer; b. there needs to be consideration, which is a transfer of value between the parties; c. certainty of terms; and d. intention to create legal relations, in other words a commitment to the promises made.

In this case there was no written agreement. The evidence of the contract is the correspondence between the parties. I conclude that: a. there was clear communication that Ms Weinhold-Pullon would enter into a tenancy; b. there was certainty of the terms of that tenancy, as set out in the unsigned tenancy agreement the landlord provided; and c. on the face of it the communications show an intention to create legal relations.

However, no rent or bond were paid, and there was no other consideration flowing from Ms Weinhold-Pullon to the landlord. Therefore, I am unable to conclude that there was an enforceable tenancy agreement. 1

I have some sympathy for the landlord, who quite clearly believed in good faith that Ms Weinhold-Pullon had agreed to become his tenant. It appears he was 1 see White v Yaxley District Court, DCJ Dougherty (24 November 2009) CIV-2009-009-002401 put to some inconvenience by her actions. However, I am unable to uphold his application, and must dismiss it.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4854900 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Oriental Terrace, Mount Victoria, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4854900 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Oriental Terrace, Mount Victoria, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions