What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920453 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for an order varying the tenancy agreement is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4920453?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920453?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10741430-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920453 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for an order varying the tenancy agreement is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4920453?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920453?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10741430-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

93 Dundas Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4920453 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for an order varying the tenancy agreement is dismissed.
By way of declaration the start date of the fixed term tenancy remains as 8 February 2025.

Reasons

The landlord and three of the tenants attended the hearing.
This is an application by the landlord to vary a fixed term tenancy agreement signed by the parties between 6 and 10 June 2024.
The agreement is for a fixed term from 8/2/2025 to 31/12/2025 at a rental of $1,150.00 per week.
The landlord submitted that a mistake was made when filling out the tenancy agreement and the commencement date used was the date the tenants wanted to move in rather than the advertised start date of 1/1/2025.
In support of the variation the landlord provided a copy of the advertisement for the premises which noted the premises were “available” from 1 January.
On the other hand, the tenants submitted that when they applied for the premises on 30/5/2024 they advised the landlord of their move in and move out dates.
Subsequently on 5/6/ 2024 they went into the landlord’s office and confirmed that the date they were to pay rent from was 8/5/2025.
The following day the tenants said they signed the tenancy agreement.
Further the tenants suggested that one of the reasons they signed for the premises was the start date, which meant they did not need to pay rent from 1/1/2025 which they understood many other tenancies required.
Section 78(1) (f) states: 78 Orders of Tribunal (1) Without limiting the generality of section 77 or the nature or extent of orders that the Tribunal may make in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction (but subject to section 78A, if that section applies), make 1 or more of the following orders: ... (f) where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties, or any term of any such agreement, is harsh or unconscionable, or that any power conferred by an agreement between them has been exercised in a harsh or unconscionable manner, an order varying the agreement, or setting it aside (either wholly or in part)... ...(g) where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties, has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part)...
The evidence establishes that the tenants confirmed the details of the start date of the tenancy with the landlord before signing the tenancy agreement.
It took the landlord another four days before he signed the agreement and then subsequently discovered his mistake.
The start date is clear and unambiguous on it’s face.
I consider it would not have been a difficult or onerous task for the landlord to have re-checked the details in the agreement before either party signed.
Contract law confirms that clear, unambiguous written terms contained in a contract will not be set aside unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
Although a later start date than the 1 st of January in any year is not the usual practice of the landlord and means a loss of rent this does not mean the clause is harsh or unconscionable.
The contract was drawn up by the landlord and presented to the tenants for them to sign, which they did after confirming the start date.
While it is clear that the landlord made a mistake with the start date, I am not persuaded me there are any grounds to vary the commencement date of the tenancy.
The tenants were unaware any mistake had been made until after they signed and had indeed stopped looking for other tenancies based on the terms of the tenancy they were offered.
I do not consider it would be reasonable to vary the contract between the parties in these circumstances where the landlord made what was an entirely avoidable mistake.
I decline to make the order as requested.
No filing fee is awarded as the landlord was unsuccessful with the application.
Suppression is not granted to the applicant because they were wholly unsuccessful with the claim.

Reasons

The landlord and three of the tenants attended the hearing.

This is an application by the landlord to vary a fixed term tenancy agreement signed by the parties between 6 and 10 June 2024.

The agreement is for a fixed term from 8/2/2025 to 31/12/2025 at a rental of $1,150.00 per week.

The landlord submitted that a mistake was made when filling out the tenancy agreement and the commencement date used was the date the tenants wanted to move in rather than the advertised start date of 1/1/2025.

In support of the variation the landlord provided a copy of the advertisement for the premises which noted the premises were “available” from 1 January.

On the other hand, the tenants submitted that when they applied for the premises on 30/5/2024 they advised the landlord of their move in and move out dates.

Subsequently on 5/6/ 2024 they went into the landlord’s office and confirmed that the date they were to pay rent from was 8/5/2025.

The following day the tenants said they signed the tenancy agreement.

Further the tenants suggested that one of the reasons they signed for the premises was the start date, which meant they did not need to pay rent from 1/1/2025 which they understood many other tenancies required.

Section 78(1) (f) states: 78 Orders of Tribunal (1) Without limiting the generality of section 77 or the nature or extent of orders that the Tribunal may make in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction (but subject to section 78A, if that section applies), make 1 or more of the following orders: ... (f) where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties, or any term of any such agreement, is harsh or unconscionable, or that any power conferred by an agreement between them has been exercised in a harsh or unconscionable manner, an order varying the agreement, or setting it aside (either wholly or in part)... ...(g) where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties, has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part)...

The evidence establishes that the tenants confirmed the details of the start date of the tenancy with the landlord before signing the tenancy agreement.

It took the landlord another four days before he signed the agreement and then subsequently discovered his mistake.

The start date is clear and unambiguous on it’s face.

I consider it would not have been a difficult or onerous task for the landlord to have re-checked the details in the agreement before either party signed.

Contract law confirms that clear, unambiguous written terms contained in a contract will not be set aside unless there are compelling reasons to do so.

Although a later start date than the 1 st of January in any year is not the usual practice of the landlord and means a loss of rent this does not mean the clause is harsh or unconscionable.

The contract was drawn up by the landlord and presented to the tenants for them to sign, which they did after confirming the start date.

While it is clear that the landlord made a mistake with the start date, I am not persuaded me there are any grounds to vary the commencement date of the tenancy.

The tenants were unaware any mistake had been made until after they signed and had indeed stopped looking for other tenancies based on the terms of the tenancy they were offered.

I do not consider it would be reasonable to vary the contract between the parties in these circumstances where the landlord made what was an entirely avoidable mistake.

I decline to make the order as requested.

No filing fee is awarded as the landlord was unsuccessful with the application.

Suppression is not granted to the applicant because they were wholly unsuccessful with the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920453 — Tenancy dispute at 93 Dundas Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920453 — Tenancy dispute at 93 Dundas Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions