What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4971893 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4971893?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971893?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11124789-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4971893 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4971893?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971893?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11124789-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4971893 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The Tribunal declares that the agreement to tenant the premises on a fixed term basis between the landlord and the tenant is valid.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 25 November 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
The landlord has invited the Tribunal to make a declaration as to the validity of a tenancy agreement. Section 78 (1)(a) RTA allows the Tribunal to make a declaration on the status of any agreement or purported agreement.
The facts are not greatly in dispute.
The premises were placed on the market for rent in early July 2024.
The tenant saw the advertisement and made contact with Anna Marie Gruber, the landlord’s letting property manager. The tenant as advised to go and look at the premises. The tenant was only able to look through the window at the premises.
The tenant was told that if he was interested in the premises, he should apply to the landlord online.
The tenant completed a rental application and lodged it online with the landlord.
The landlord considered the application and carried out a credit check. The landlord was happy with the application and the credit check.
On 15 July 2024, the landlord sent a confirmation email to the tenant. The email recorded that “the application has been approved with a fixed term tenancy at a rental of $670.00 per week”. The tenancy was to become periodic at the end of the fixed term. The email informed the tenant that “to secure the tenancy a deposit of one weeks rent is required within 48 hours. Payment of the first weeks rent indicates confirmation of acceptance of this tenancy and is non-refundable. Once payment is made, please send proof of payment”. ( the emphasis is mine)
Payment of the $650.00 was made by the tenant and proof of payment sent by the tenant to the landlord.
The parties discussed a start date and a process for the tenant to uplift the keys from the agent.
The landlord sent a completed tenancy agreement to the tenant for execution.
On 11 August 2024, the landlord received an email for the tenant advising that he would not be taking up the tenancy due to a change in personal circumstances. The tenant asked for a refund of the deposit paid.
The landlord informed the tenant that they had agreed to a fixed term tenancy. Breaking the tenancy agreement would render the tenant liable for break lease costs and the rental for the period up to the landlord being able to find a replacement tenant.
The property was advertised by the landlord and replacement tenants moved in on 14 September 2024.
The tenant says that as no written tenancy agreement was ever signed by him there is no agreement. The tenant said that he considered the payment of $670.00 to be a deposit which “held” the premises for him until such time as a tenancy agreement was signed.
Section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that a Tenancy Agreement must be in writing and signed. That section is substantially weakened by s.13C RTA which provides no tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
Every contract requires elements of offer and acceptance. The offer and acceptance elements in this contract are in writing. There has been part performance by the tenant by the payment of funds to the landlord.
The offer by the landlord to the tenant to take on a fixed term tenancy was set out in the email dated 15 July 2024. The offer makes it clear that the tenant was being offered a fixed term tenancy of the premises at $670.00 per week. The email makes it clear that “Payment of the first weeks rent indicated confirmation of acceptance of this tenancy....”.
Contracts are binding and will only rarely be set aside.
From the point in time when the tenant paid $670.00 to the landlord, the tenant had accepted the tenancy. That there had been no tenancy agreement signed at that point did not mean that there was no tenancy agreement (see s.13C RTA).
The Tribunal declares pursuant to s.78(1)(a) RTA that there was a fixed term contract for the rental of the premises between the landlord and the tenant.
The application by the landlord did not the invite the Tribunal to make orders other than by way of declaration.
The parties both applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful and the application by the tenants is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 25 November 2024.

The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.

As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).

The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.

The landlord has invited the Tribunal to make a declaration as to the validity of a tenancy agreement. Section 78 (1)(a) RTA allows the Tribunal to make a declaration on the status of any agreement or purported agreement.

The facts are not greatly in dispute.

The premises were placed on the market for rent in early July 2024.

The tenant saw the advertisement and made contact with Anna Marie Gruber, the landlord’s letting property manager. The tenant as advised to go and look at the premises. The tenant was only able to look through the window at the premises.

The tenant was told that if he was interested in the premises, he should apply to the landlord online.

The tenant completed a rental application and lodged it online with the landlord.

The landlord considered the application and carried out a credit check. The landlord was happy with the application and the credit check.

On 15 July 2024, the landlord sent a confirmation email to the tenant. The email recorded that “the application has been approved with a fixed term tenancy at a rental of $670.00 per week”. The tenancy was to become periodic at the end of the fixed term. The email informed the tenant that “to secure the tenancy a deposit of one weeks rent is required within 48 hours. Payment of the first weeks rent indicates confirmation of acceptance of this tenancy and is non-refundable. Once payment is made, please send proof of payment”. ( the emphasis is mine)

Payment of the $650.00 was made by the tenant and proof of payment sent by the tenant to the landlord.

The parties discussed a start date and a process for the tenant to uplift the keys from the agent.

The landlord sent a completed tenancy agreement to the tenant for execution.

On 11 August 2024, the landlord received an email for the tenant advising that he would not be taking up the tenancy due to a change in personal circumstances. The tenant asked for a refund of the deposit paid.

The landlord informed the tenant that they had agreed to a fixed term tenancy. Breaking the tenancy agreement would render the tenant liable for break lease costs and the rental for the period up to the landlord being able to find a replacement tenant.

The property was advertised by the landlord and replacement tenants moved in on 14 September 2024.

The tenant says that as no written tenancy agreement was ever signed by him there is no agreement. The tenant said that he considered the payment of $670.00 to be a deposit which “held” the premises for him until such time as a tenancy agreement was signed.

Section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that a Tenancy Agreement must be in writing and signed. That section is substantially weakened by s.13C RTA which provides no tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.

Every contract requires elements of offer and acceptance. The offer and acceptance elements in this contract are in writing. There has been part performance by the tenant by the payment of funds to the landlord.

The offer by the landlord to the tenant to take on a fixed term tenancy was set out in the email dated 15 July 2024. The offer makes it clear that the tenant was being offered a fixed term tenancy of the premises at $670.00 per week. The email makes it clear that “Payment of the first weeks rent indicated confirmation of acceptance of this tenancy....”.

Contracts are binding and will only rarely be set aside.

From the point in time when the tenant paid $670.00 to the landlord, the tenant had accepted the tenancy. That there had been no tenancy agreement signed at that point did not mean that there was no tenancy agreement (see s.13C RTA).

The Tribunal declares pursuant to s.78(1)(a) RTA that there was a fixed term contract for the rental of the premises between the landlord and the tenant.

The application by the landlord did not the invite the Tribunal to make orders other than by way of declaration.

The parties both applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful and the application by the tenants is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971893 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971893 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions