What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4903314 about?

The tribunal order states: Rosstan Mazey must pay [The landlord/s] $3,413.30 from the bond

How much money was awarded in case 4903314?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,392.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903314?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903314?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10862066-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4903314 about?

The tribunal order states: Rosstan Mazey must pay [The landlord/s] $3,413.30 from the bond

How much money was awarded in case 4903314?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,392.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903314?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903314?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10862066-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 12, 5 Malcolm Lane, Thorndon, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4903314 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4903314 — net $3,413.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 February 2024	$3,392.86	Rent arrears to 26 February 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,413.30
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,413.30

Both parties attended the hearing.

This tenancy has ended and both parties want the bond. The owner has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. The tenant did not dispute the rent owed. He has claimed compensation in an equivalent amount because the process to end the tenancy was unreasonably delayed.

The owner has also claimed compensation from the property management company that acted as landlord during the tenancy. As I only have the jurisdiction to decide landlord/tenant disputes I cannot make a decision about a dispute between the owner and the property manager. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The tenant filed his application against the owner and the property management company. This was amended by Tenancy Services. I find the owner named in the application is the correct person to bring a claim against in this particular case because of the laws of agency. I will refer to the owner as the landlord in this decision.

How did this tenancy end?

The tenant signed a six month fixed term tenancy at the start of October 2023. On 4 December he asked the property manager if he could break the lease. The landlord was contacted that same day. On 11 December the landlord agreed in writing that it was fine to relist on the same terms and that she was planning to put the house on the market. The house was listed on trademe on 22 December. The property manager dealing with the house was on sick leave until 14 January. A new tenant was found and the fixed term tenancy ended on 26 February 2024. As an incentive, the new tenant was offered a $100 reduction of rent for the first six weeks of the tenancy, this being paid by the tenant.

Despite the initial trademe advertisement – which states the new tenant will take over the remainder of the fixed term - I am not persuaded there was an assignment. Through the various communications from December – February it seems most likely to me the landlord and the tenant agreed in writing to end the tenancy. Terminating the tenancy like this is provided for in section 50(1)(d) RTA, which allows the tenant to surrender the tenancy, or deliver up vacant possession of the premises. I note that the new tenancy agreement is a periodic agreement, rather than an assignment of the remainder of the fixed term.

This means there is not the same legislated requirement that the landlord act within reasonable time frames as set out in section 43B(4), (5) and (6) RTA. Further, section 43B(7) provides that a landlord’s consent must not be taken to have been withheld unreasonably if, instead of consenting to an assignment, the landlord offers to accept a surrender of the tenancy on reasonable terms.

Should the tenant get compensation?

The parties agree the property management company did not charge any fees or reasonable costs because of the delay caused by the property manager being unwell in January. Claiming the reasonable costs of breaking a fixed term is allowed by section 42 RTA, and usually includes the costs of advertising, viewings, and reference checking a replacement tenant.

I have read the documents and the submissions again. It took 12 weeks from 4 December for a new tenant to be found. I am persuaded the landlord acted reasonably given the time of year. The $600 enticement paid by the tenant was a sensible response to a slow market. I am not persuaded the rent was too high for a furnished property, and I note that the new tenant is paying the same rent. The tenant’s submission he only withheld rent because he was frustrated at the lack of progress is noted, but withholding rent in these circumstances is not allowed under the RTA.

This means the tenant’s claim for compensation is not proved, and it is dismissed. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when a tenancy ends, and the tenant owes rent.

The bond will be refunded as ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4903314 — net $3,413.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 February 2024	$3,392.86	Rent arrears to 26 February 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,413.30
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,413.30

Order

Rosstan Mazey must pay [The landlord/s] $3,413.30 from the bond immediately, as set out in the table:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $3,413.30 Rosstan Mazey: $386.70
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy has ended and both parties want the bond. The owner has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. The tenant did not dispute the rent owed. He has claimed compensation in an equivalent amount because the process to end the tenancy was unreasonably delayed.
The owner has also claimed compensation from the property management company that acted as landlord during the tenancy. As I only have the jurisdiction to decide landlord/tenant disputes I cannot make a decision about a dispute between the owner and the property manager. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant filed his application against the owner and the property management company. This was amended by Tenancy Services. I find the owner named in the application is the correct person to bring a claim against in this particular case because of the laws of agency. I will refer to the owner as the landlord in this decision.

How did this tenancy end?

The tenant signed a six month fixed term tenancy at the start of October 2023. On 4 December he asked the property manager if he could break the lease. The landlord was contacted that same day. On 11 December the landlord agreed in writing that it was fine to relist on the same terms and that she was planning to put the house on the market. The house was listed on trademe on 22 December. The property manager dealing with the house was on sick leave until 14 January. A new tenant was found and the fixed term tenancy ended on 26 February 2024. As an incentive, the new tenant was offered a $100 reduction of rent for the first six weeks of the tenancy, this being paid by the tenant.
Despite the initial trademe advertisement – which states the new tenant will take over the remainder of the fixed term - I am not persuaded there was an assignment. Through the various communications from December – February it seems most likely to me the landlord and the tenant agreed in writing to end the tenancy. Terminating the tenancy like this is provided for in section 50(1)(d) RTA, which allows the tenant to surrender the tenancy, or deliver up vacant possession of the premises. I note that the new tenancy agreement is a periodic agreement, rather than an assignment of the remainder of the fixed term.
This means there is not the same legislated requirement that the landlord act within reasonable time frames as set out in section 43B(4), (5) and (6) RTA. Further, section 43B(7) provides that a landlord’s consent must not be taken to have been withheld unreasonably if, instead of consenting to an assignment, the landlord offers to accept a surrender of the tenancy on reasonable terms.

Should the tenant get compensation?

The parties agree the property management company did not charge any fees or reasonable costs because of the delay caused by the property manager being unwell in January. Claiming the reasonable costs of breaking a fixed term is allowed by section 42 RTA, and usually includes the costs of advertising, viewings, and reference checking a replacement tenant.
I have read the documents and the submissions again. It took 12 weeks from 4 December for a new tenant to be found. I am persuaded the landlord acted reasonably given the time of year. The $600 enticement paid by the tenant was a sensible response to a slow market. I am not persuaded the rent was too high for a furnished property, and I note that the new tenant is paying the same rent. The tenant’s submission he only withheld rent because he was frustrated at the lack of progress is noted, but withholding rent in these circumstances is not allowed under the RTA.
This means the tenant’s claim for compensation is not proved, and it is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when a tenancy ends, and the tenant owes rent.
The bond will be refunded as ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903314 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 12, 5 Malcolm Lane, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903314 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 12, 5 Malcolm Lane, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How did this tenancy end?

Should the tenant get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How did this tenancy end?

Should the tenant get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions