What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920833 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Jenny Jiang For Auckland Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4920833?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920833?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10726126-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920833 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Jenny Jiang For Auckland Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4920833?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920833?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10726126-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4920833 — Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Jenny Jiang For Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent For Yan Zhou $1191.43 via the bond, being adjusted rent arrears.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Jenny Jiang For Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent For Yan Zhou: $1,191.43 [The tenant/s]: $2,088.57

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The tenants have applied for their bond to be returned.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records. The last week was unpaid and not disputed.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case. The dispute
This was a long tenancy. It commenced in March 2018.
In January 2024, the owner decided to market the premises for sale while tenanted. The tenants were advised of this by letter on 8 January 2024 and offered a $50 per week rent reduction, recognising the impact on their quiet enjoyment that would follow. The tenants reduced the rent paid by the same amount immediately. They would continue to pay that reduced amount until the end of the tenancy.
The listing agent engaged with the tenants over a number of weeks but there was some disconnect regarding the extent of marketing and related activities, as well as who was responsible. No marketing plan concluded or commenced.
The next communication from the landlord was on 23 February 2024 when it served a 90-day notice to terminate, citing the owners intention to put the premises on the market within 90 days of the termination date stated in that letter.
No active marketing was undertaken between the serving of that notice to terminate until approximately one week before the tenancy ended.
At the end of the tenancy, the rent reconciliation by the landlord was disputed by the tenants. Essentially, they claimed that since 8 January 2024 rent had been reduced by $50 per week, commensurate with the rent they paid. They stated that agreement was never rescinded nor cancelled. Further, they queried why the landlord did not raise the ongoing lower rent payments from January until after the tenancy had ended.
The landlord relied on the notice to terminate. It believed that this should have been clear to the tenants that all marketing would cease and therefore the $50 per week compensation disruption to their quiet enjoyment would no longer be offered.
Having considered the evidence and the respective submissions I believe both parties have some validity in their respective stance. If weighted, the tenant case is considered the stronger.
I have applied the $50 compensation over a 14 week and one day period. This is more than the initial marketing period and essentially apportions the rent difference across both the landlord and the tenant during the intermediary period, primarily March and April 2024.
As I signalled at the hearing, such a determination would reflect the overall merits and justice as I consider appropriate.
I believe the landlord should have communicated in a more clear and timely manner to the tenants when the arrangement regarding a rent reduction was considered to have ended. I have balanced that with what appears to have been a settled tenancy period during March and April when no active marketing occurred and no apparent impact on the tenants’ quiet enjoyment, due to any marketing, took place. Filing fee
I leave each party to carry their own filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Jenny Jiang For Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent For Yan Zhou $1191.43 via the bond, being adjusted rent arrears.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Jenny Jiang For Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent For Yan Zhou: $1,191.43 [The tenant/s]: $2,088.57

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The tenants have applied for their bond to be returned.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records. The last week was unpaid and not disputed.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case. The dispute
This was a long tenancy. It commenced in March 2018.
In January 2024, the owner decided to market the premises for sale while tenanted. The tenants were advised of this by letter on 8 January 2024 and offered a $50 per week rent reduction, recognising the impact on their quiet enjoyment that would follow. The tenants reduced the rent paid by the same amount immediately. They would continue to pay that reduced amount until the end of the tenancy.
The listing agent engaged with the tenants over a number of weeks but there was some disconnect regarding the extent of marketing and related activities, as well as who was responsible. No marketing plan concluded or commenced.
The next communication from the landlord was on 23 February 2024 when it served a 90-day notice to terminate, citing the owners intention to put the premises on the market within 90 days of the termination date stated in that letter.
No active marketing was undertaken between the serving of that notice to terminate until approximately one week before the tenancy ended.
At the end of the tenancy, the rent reconciliation by the landlord was disputed by the tenants. Essentially, they claimed that since 8 January 2024 rent had been reduced by $50 per week, commensurate with the rent they paid. They stated that agreement was never rescinded nor cancelled. Further, they queried why the landlord did not raise the ongoing lower rent payments from January until after the tenancy had ended.
The landlord relied on the notice to terminate. It believed that this should have been clear to the tenants that all marketing would cease and therefore the $50 per week compensation disruption to their quiet enjoyment would no longer be offered.
Having considered the evidence and the respective submissions I believe both parties have some validity in their respective stance. If weighted, the tenant case is considered the stronger.
I have applied the $50 compensation over a 14 week and one day period. This is more than the initial marketing period and essentially apportions the rent difference across both the landlord and the tenant during the intermediary period, primarily March and April 2024.
As I signalled at the hearing, such a determination would reflect the overall merits and justice as I consider appropriate.
I believe the landlord should have communicated in a more clear and timely manner to the tenants when the arrangement regarding a rent reduction was considered to have ended. I have balanced that with what appears to have been a settled tenancy period during March and April when no active marketing occurred and no apparent impact on the tenants’ quiet enjoyment, due to any marketing, took place. Filing fee
I leave each party to carry their own filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920833 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920833 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions