What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927014 about?

The tribunal order states: Tracey Orchard and Levi Kendall must pay [The landlord/s] $4,934.72

How much money was awarded in case 4927014?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,714.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927014?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10895577-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927014 about?

The tribunal order states: Tracey Orchard and Levi Kendall must pay [The landlord/s] $4,934.72

How much money was awarded in case 4927014?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,714.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927014?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10895577-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927014 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927014 — net $4,934.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 August 2024	$7,714.28	Rent arrears to 30 August 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,934.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,934.72

Order

Tracey Orchard and Levi Kendall must pay [The landlord/s] $4,934.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
[The landlord/s] has applied for termination and rent arrears and refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy has terminated and the landlord now has possession. Possession was obtained via the Bailiff on 30 August 2024, following the conditional order made by Adjudicator Price in this application dated 20 August 2024. Is the [The applicant/s] the landlord?
The claim is bought by [The applicant/s]. Therefore, the Tribunal must determine whether [The applicant/s] comes within the definition of ‘landlord’.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes- ... (e) an agent of the landlord" [emphasis added]
There are two relevant sources of law in determining whether [The applicant/s] is a landlord: the common law rules of agency, and the definition of landlord in s 2(1) RTA. If, [The applicant/s] is a ‘landlord’, then it can bring the application.
The District Court held in the case of Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Ltd [2011] DCR 420, that “the law is no different for agents acting under the Residential Tenancies Act than agents acting in any other capacity” (at para [31]).
The primary common law rule is that an agent who merely acts as an intermediary for a principal (the landlord) is not a party to the contract between the principal and the other party (the tenant). Whether an agent is acting as an intermediary depends on the intention of the parties, which is determined objectively from the words used in the contract and the background facts.
An agent who puts their unqualified name on a contract will usually be personally liable, even if the other party knows they are acting as an agent. Use of the term ‘agent’ will not necessarily displace this presumption, as this is a descriptive term that does not necessarily indicate the capacity in which the agent has signed the contract. In these circumstances, both the agent and the principal can sue or be sued on the contract (Mumby at paras [47] and [50]). On the other hand, use of qualifying words such as ‘as agent for’ on ‘on behalf of’ will usually be taken to mean the agent is acting as an intermediary.
An agent acting for an unnamed principal will not necessarily be a party to the contract; this is just a relevant factor in determining the parties’ intention. Where the existence of a principal is not disclosed, the agent will be a party to the contract. The undisclosed principal, if discovered, will also be liable under the contract.
In Mumby, the agent took over the tenancy from a previous agent. A new tenancy agreement was prepared, which named the agent as landlord and required the tenant to pay rent to the agent. The Court considered several factors in deciding the agent was liable under the tenancy agreement: The agreement named the agent as landlord, a bond lodgement letter from the Bond Centre referred to the agent as landlord, the agent was involved in inspections; the agent dealt with the tenant's inquiries and complaints, and the agent issued a termination notice.
In this case, the tenancy began in 2023. The tenancy agreement recorded, under the header “LANDLORD DETAILS” says “[The applicant/s] as agent for [redacted]”.
However, the property was placed on the market during the course of the tenancy. A notice was given advising the tenant of the property going onto the market and [The applicant/s] says that they then engaged in discussions with the tenants. When a new owner was found the tenants were permitted to stay and [The applicant/s] continued in their property management of the property on behalf of the new owner. The property management authority was provided.
[The applicant/s] say the tenants were verbally then told about the change of ownership. Otherwise, everything else remained the same: [The applicant/s] continued to manage the day-to-day activity at the property. The bond is lodged in their name, they issued all notices and arranged all maintenance and received all rent. All tenant communication is through them. [The applicant/s] says that the tenants were not told of the contact details of the new owners and there was no formal notification of a change of landlord. [The applicant/s] suggested the tenants may have been told the new owner’s name verbally but this was not expressed with any certainty. [The applicant/s] regarded themselves as the landlord.
I consider that the above evidence points to [The applicant/s] being a ‘landlord’ within the common law definition. However, the words ‘on agent for’ in the original tenancy agreement means this warrants further consideration. I have considered below whether the extended definition of landlord applies.
The District Court’s statement in Mumby, that the law applicable to agents is the same under the RTA as in any other capacity, has sometimes been taken out of context and relied on for the proposition that the extended definition of landlord does not alter the common law principles of agency. However, the statement was made in the context of a finding that the Tenancy Tribunal had misapplied the common law rules: [30] The findings of the tenancy adjudicator in respect to the liability appear to be premised, on his view, as expressed in his “Background” – that if a tenant is aware that the agent is acting for the landlords then liability rests with the landlords and no liability attaches to the agent. [31] This in fact is not the legal position in respect to agents, and the law is no different for agents acting under the Residential Tenancies Act than agents acting in any other capacity.
Because the Court found that the property manager was a landlord under the common law rules, it did not need to consider the extended definition of landlord under s 2(1).
The plain and ordinary meaning of ‘landlord’, as defined by s 2(1) RTA, is that a landlord includes “where appropriate ... (e) an agent of the landlord”. If the Tribunal were to confine the meaning of landlord to the common law agency rules, then it would be ignoring the clear and explicit language of the statutory definition and would render the words in sub-clause (e) meaningless.
The Tribunal has held that the common law rules of agency are affected by the extended definition of landlord in the RTA, and that the words "where appropriate" in s 2(1) do not limit the extended definition. In Hayward v Lambton Property Management Limited [2012] NZTT, Lower Hutt, 11/01694/LH, the Tribunal said there were sound policy reasons why the definition of landlord should be extended to include the agent: many owners use professional property managers; some owners are absentee or live oversees; many tenants, owners and agents do not understand the implications of the common law rules; and a tenant could be left in a difficult situation if forced to pursue an owner whom they did not know and had no dealings with.
Based on the background factors outlined above in paragraph 12-14, I find that it is appropriate to regard [The applicant/s] as a landlord, based on the extended definition in s 2(1).
Therefore, I find that [The applicant/s] may bring this application in its own name as the landlord.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records for the whole tenancy (for both periods involving the different owners) which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Because the landlord has been wholly successful in its application I have awarded the filing fee. I have also ordered name suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details as this was requested and the landlord has been wholly successful (section 95A, RTA).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927014 — net $4,934.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 August 2024	$7,714.28	Rent arrears to 30 August 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,934.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,934.72

Order

Tracey Orchard and Levi Kendall must pay [The landlord/s] $4,934.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
[The landlord/s] has applied for termination and rent arrears and refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy has terminated and the landlord now has possession. Possession was obtained via the Bailiff on 30 August 2024, following the conditional order made by Adjudicator Price in this application dated 20 August 2024. Is the [The applicant/s] the landlord?
The claim is bought by [The applicant/s]. Therefore, the Tribunal must determine whether [The applicant/s] comes within the definition of ‘landlord’.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes- ... (e) an agent of the landlord" [emphasis added]
There are two relevant sources of law in determining whether [The applicant/s] is a landlord: the common law rules of agency, and the definition of landlord in s 2(1) RTA. If, [The applicant/s] is a ‘landlord’, then it can bring the application.
The District Court held in the case of Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Ltd [2011] DCR 420, that “the law is no different for agents acting under the Residential Tenancies Act than agents acting in any other capacity” (at para [31]).
The primary common law rule is that an agent who merely acts as an intermediary for a principal (the landlord) is not a party to the contract between the principal and the other party (the tenant). Whether an agent is acting as an intermediary depends on the intention of the parties, which is determined objectively from the words used in the contract and the background facts.
An agent who puts their unqualified name on a contract will usually be personally liable, even if the other party knows they are acting as an agent. Use of the term ‘agent’ will not necessarily displace this presumption, as this is a descriptive term that does not necessarily indicate the capacity in which the agent has signed the contract. In these circumstances, both the agent and the principal can sue or be sued on the contract (Mumby at paras [47] and [50]). On the other hand, use of qualifying words such as ‘as agent for’ on ‘on behalf of’ will usually be taken to mean the agent is acting as an intermediary.
An agent acting for an unnamed principal will not necessarily be a party to the contract; this is just a relevant factor in determining the parties’ intention. Where the existence of a principal is not disclosed, the agent will be a party to the contract. The undisclosed principal, if discovered, will also be liable under the contract.
In Mumby, the agent took over the tenancy from a previous agent. A new tenancy agreement was prepared, which named the agent as landlord and required the tenant to pay rent to the agent. The Court considered several factors in deciding the agent was liable under the tenancy agreement: The agreement named the agent as landlord, a bond lodgement letter from the Bond Centre referred to the agent as landlord, the agent was involved in inspections; the agent dealt with the tenant's inquiries and complaints, and the agent issued a termination notice.
In this case, the tenancy began in 2023. The tenancy agreement recorded, under the header “LANDLORD DETAILS” says “[The applicant/s] as agent for [redacted]”.
However, the property was placed on the market during the course of the tenancy. A notice was given advising the tenant of the property going onto the market and [The applicant/s] says that they then engaged in discussions with the tenants. When a new owner was found the tenants were permitted to stay and [The applicant/s] continued in their property management of the property on behalf of the new owner. The property management authority was provided.
[The applicant/s] say the tenants were verbally then told about the change of ownership. Otherwise, everything else remained the same: [The applicant/s] continued to manage the day-to-day activity at the property. The bond is lodged in their name, they issued all notices and arranged all maintenance and received all rent. All tenant communication is through them. [The applicant/s] says that the tenants were not told of the contact details of the new owners and there was no formal notification of a change of landlord. [The applicant/s] suggested the tenants may have been told the new owner’s name verbally but this was not expressed with any certainty. [The applicant/s] regarded themselves as the landlord.
I consider that the above evidence points to [The applicant/s] being a ‘landlord’ within the common law definition. However, the words ‘on agent for’ in the original tenancy agreement means this warrants further consideration. I have considered below whether the extended definition of landlord applies.
The District Court’s statement in Mumby, that the law applicable to agents is the same under the RTA as in any other capacity, has sometimes been taken out of context and relied on for the proposition that the extended definition of landlord does not alter the common law principles of agency. However, the statement was made in the context of a finding that the Tenancy Tribunal had misapplied the common law rules: [30] The findings of the tenancy adjudicator in respect to the liability appear to be premised, on his view, as expressed in his “Background” – that if a tenant is aware that the agent is acting for the landlords then liability rests with the landlords and no liability attaches to the agent. [31] This in fact is not the legal position in respect to agents, and the law is no different for agents acting under the Residential Tenancies Act than agents acting in any other capacity.
Because the Court found that the property manager was a landlord under the common law rules, it did not need to consider the extended definition of landlord under s 2(1).
The plain and ordinary meaning of ‘landlord’, as defined by s 2(1) RTA, is that a landlord includes “where appropriate ... (e) an agent of the landlord”. If the Tribunal were to confine the meaning of landlord to the common law agency rules, then it would be ignoring the clear and explicit language of the statutory definition and would render the words in sub-clause (e) meaningless.
The Tribunal has held that the common law rules of agency are affected by the extended definition of landlord in the RTA, and that the words "where appropriate" in s 2(1) do not limit the extended definition. In Hayward v Lambton Property Management Limited [2012] NZTT, Lower Hutt, 11/01694/LH, the Tribunal said there were sound policy reasons why the definition of landlord should be extended to include the agent: many owners use professional property managers; some owners are absentee or live oversees; many tenants, owners and agents do not understand the implications of the common law rules; and a tenant could be left in a difficult situation if forced to pursue an owner whom they did not know and had no dealings with.
Based on the background factors outlined above in paragraph 12-14, I find that it is appropriate to regard [The applicant/s] as a landlord, based on the extended definition in s 2(1).
Therefore, I find that [The applicant/s] may bring this application in its own name as the landlord.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records for the whole tenancy (for both periods involving the different owners) which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Because the landlord has been wholly successful in its application I have awarded the filing fee. I have also ordered name suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details as this was requested and the landlord has been wholly successful (section 95A, RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927014 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927014 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions