What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4868902 about?

The tribunal order states: Rentex Limited As Agent For Yinlan Huang must pay [The tenants] $1,400.44

How much money was awarded in case 4868902?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,380.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4868902?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4868902?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10671771-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4868902 about?

The tribunal order states: Rentex Limited As Agent For Yinlan Huang must pay [The tenants] $1,400.44

How much money was awarded in case 4868902?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,380.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4868902?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4868902?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10671771-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4868902 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4868902 — net $1,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,380.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,400.44
Bond	$2,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,400.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4868902 — net $1,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,380.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,400.44
Bond	$2,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,400.44

Order

Rentex Limited As Agent For Yinlan Huang must pay [The tenants] $1,400.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for refund of overpaid rent, refund of the bond, reimbursement of the filing fee and the tenancy agreement and their cancellation of the tenancy agreement to be upheld.
The landlord has made a cross application for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach its obligations such that the tenants could cancel the tenancy agreement?

The tenants entered into a fixed term tenancy agreement that was to commence on 21 April 2024 and end on 21 April 2025. They signed the agreement on 27 March 2024 after viewing the property with the previous tenants still in situ and nearly a full month before they were due to move in.
Parties enter into a fixed term tenancy agreement for security. The tenants can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term and the landlord has security of income from their investment that they can rely on. For this reason, the RTA places strict conditions on how a fixed term tenancy can be brought to an end early and the remedies that can be sought by a party when the other party repudiates the tenancy agreement.
The tenants say they cancelled the fixed term tenancy agreement before the started as the landlord was in breach of its section 45 obligations to them, specifically section 45(1)(a) and (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which require the landlord or provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and in a reasonable state of repair.
I note that the only healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement is the insulation statement and it signed but not completed. The smoke alarm section of the tenancy agreement records that there is one smoke alarm, where it is placed and what type of alarm is not recorded, when it was last checked was not recorded and nor was the expiry date of the alarm. As such, I am unsure whether the premises met any of the healthy homes standards or smoke alarm regulations. The tenants do not appear to have been provided a healthy homes standards report. Therefore, the landlord may also be in breach of its other section 45(1) obligations that relate to the smoke alarm regulations and the healthy home standards.
When the tenants went to move into the premise on 21 April 2024, they found the house was not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition nor was it repaired and maintained in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. The tenants produced photographs that prove the house was not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The floors, skirting boards, bathroom mirror and tiles, switches, carpets, walls and kitchen were mouldy, dusty, dirty or generally unclean. There were unwanted items left in cupboard and on the floor from the previous tenants. The lawns needed mowing and the yard had weeds and looked unkempt. There were areas where the carpet was worn, had come away from the wall and carpet tacks were broken and exposed, causing health and safety risks to the tenants.
In addition, the tenants say the garage remote controls did not work and they could not enter the garage, the house was left unlocked and the front door lock was faulty and the house could not be made secure as a result. The tenants provided a video that shows the garage remotes did not work after the tenants pushed all four buttons and the key did not lock the front door.
The landlord refutes all the tenants claims and relies on a property inspection report dated 20 April 2024 that records that there are some issues but that the premises are reasonably clean and tidy and in a reasonable state of repair. The property manager also produced a video that shows her locking and unlocking the door on the evening of 21 April 2024 and opening the garage door with the remote controls she left for the tenants.
The previous tenants had vacated on 20 April 2024. Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 :
While the premises may have met the reasonably clean and tidy standard pursuant to 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA, it did not meet the reasonably clean and tidy standard pursuant to the landlords s45(1)(a) of the RTA obligations. The landlord should have ensured the premises were given a more thorough clean before the new tenants moved in. The landlord should also have gone to assist the tenants on move in day when they found they could not secure the premises or open the garage and it did not. Given these were first time tenants, it would be best practice to meet the tenants at the premise on move in day and go through the entry inspection with them and get them to sign it off. Instead, this landlord left the key under a plant pot and when the tenants called her with numerous issues, she told them they could issue a 14-day notice to remedy the various landlord breaches.
Tenants should be able to rely on premises meeting the legally required standard on the day they move into a property and if the property does not meet the legally required standards set out in the RTA, the tenants are entitled to choose to cancel their contract with the landlord.
Section 78(1)(h) of the RTA confirms the Tribunal may make in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction make any other order that the High Court or the District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012.
Section 37(1) of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 allows a party to a contract to cancel the contract if: (a)the party has been induced to enter into it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made by or on behalf of another party to the contract; or (b)a term in the contract is breached by another party to the contract; or (c) it is clear that a term in the contract will be breached by another party to the contract; and
The party may only exercise it rights to cancel the contract under s37(1) if: (a) the parties have expressly or impliedly agreed that the truth of the representation or, as the case may require, the performance of the term is essential to the cancelling party; or (b) the effect of the misrepresentation or breach of the contract is, or, in the case of an anticipated breach, will be,— (i) substantially to reduce the benefit of the contract to the cancelling party; or (ii) substantially to increase the burden of the cancelling party under the contract; or (iii) in relation to the cancelling party, to make the benefit or burden of the contract substantially different from that represented or contracted for.
I am satisfied the tenants have proven the landlord was in breach of its section 45(1)(a) and (b) of the RTA obligations and may well have been in breach of further obligations under the RTA. Whether there was a breach of the smoke alarm regulations, healthy homes standards and/or the requirement to ensure the premises could be secured, is unclear from the evidence produced. However, the breaches the tenants have proven are sufficient ion their own to allow the tenants to cancel the contract.
I am equally satisfied the tenants have proven the performance of the landlords s45(1)(a) and (b) obligations were essential; to them and material to their decision to cancel the contract when they were packed and ready to move in and had to find emergency accommodation because of the landlord’s breaches of its obligations to them.
Section 38 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 does not allow a party to cancel a contract if “with full knowledge of the repudiation, misrepresentation, or breach, the party has affirmed the contract”. The tenants did not affirm the contract because they alerted the landlord to the breaches and immediately informed the landlord, they were cancelling the contract because of the breaches.
I do not accept the tenants were estopped from cancelling the contract because the landlord was going to send cleaner in three days after move in day to clean carpets and the house more generally and had committed to getting quotes to clean and tidy the yard the week after. I also do not accept the landlord’s position that the tenants were required to affirm the contract by moving in and missing 14- day notices when the landlord had a positive obligation to get the cleaning and repairs done before the tenants moved in.
The tenants were not legally bound to affirm the breaches and wait until the landlord got around to remedying its breaches, especially when the landlord had told them the house was an older house and issues like the ripped curtains and carpet and broken carpet tacks sticking out would not be repaired.
I find the tenants cancelled the tenancy agreement before it started, and the landlord must repay the first two weeks rent they paid in advance and refund the full bond and reimburse the filing fee. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because [the applicants] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants applied for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
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.
The tenants have wholly succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

The landlord’s claim for rent arrears for the period 21 April 2024 to 17 May 2024 is dismissed as the fixed term agreement is deemed to have been cancelled before it began. As such, the tenants did not abandon the premises and cannot be held liable for rent until new tenants moved into the property.
The landlord’s compensation claims for $700.00 for the agent’s time for viewings and checking the property for issue, $155.80 for mileage to and from viewings, and $148.35 for advertising and credit checks is dismissed. The did not abandon the premises and cannot be held liable for break lease costs.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially unsuccessful in its claims and is not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. Refer s102 (4) of the RTA. Its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is also dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4868902 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4868902 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORD CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORD CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions