What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4990937 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4990937?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4990937?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4990937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11264580-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4990937 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4990937?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4990937?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4990937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11264580-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 1 Rainey Grove, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4990937 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The Landlord applied for compensation.
By way of background, the rental property was advertised for a fixed term tenancy. On 11 May 2024, the Respondents applied for the property.
On 17 May 2024, the landlord advised the Respondents, their application to rent the property was accepted and they could commence their tenancy on 31 May 2024. On 19 May 2024, the Landlord wrote to the Respondents stating they would send the Tenancy Agreement to them for signing.
On 20 May 2024, the Respondents wrote back to the Landlord stating they were withdrawing their application because the area was not suitable for their children’s schooling. The Landlord submitted he then had to find new Tenants to move in which incurred rental loss and reduction of rent. The Landlord provided a copy of the correspondence between the parties showing the Tenant’s acceptance of the Tenancy Agreement.
The Landlord submitted there was a legal agreement for the Respondents to rent the property which they broke. In total, the Landlord claimed 10 days rent which was the days it took to find new tenants and a reduction of rent of $15.00 per week.
The Respondents submitted they did not enter into a contract with the landlord. There was no signed Tenancy Agreement and they changed their mind because they discovered the property was not in the ideal school zone. They had just moved to New Zealand and were not familiar with the residential tenancy laws. The Landlord never lost rent because they retracted their agreement on 20 May 2024 before the proposed commencement of 31 May 2024. Furthermore, the property was never re-advertised after they retracted their offer so no costs were incurred. The respondents provided evidence of the advertising policies on the “myrent” website.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The issue
Was there a binding tenancy agreement between the parties? The law
In the District Court case of Wright v Goken, 1 it was found that there was a binding Tenancy Agreement once the parties signed the agreement, based on a reasonable view of the communication between the parties.
In considering the evidence, I find a binding legal agreement was not established between the parties because the Tenancy Agreement was not signed by both parties. The Landlord stated in his message to the Tenants on 17 May 2024 that he was preparing the Tenancy Agreement along with all the “regulatory requirements” which suggests there were still remaining steps to make this agreement binding.
In terms of the loss suffered by the Landlord, there was no evidence of the two other prospective Tenants that were declined as a result of offering the property to the Respondents. The Respondents also changed their minds within a few days of accepting the offer and before the actual proposed tenancy commencement date so specific evidence should have been provided.
The application is therefore dismissed.
As the Landlord has not been successful in their claim, name suppression is not granted to the Landlord. 1 Wright v Gokcen [2020] NZDC 3198; [2021] DCR 357

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The Landlord applied for compensation.

By way of background, the rental property was advertised for a fixed term tenancy. On 11 May 2024, the Respondents applied for the property.

On 17 May 2024, the landlord advised the Respondents, their application to rent the property was accepted and they could commence their tenancy on 31 May 2024. On 19 May 2024, the Landlord wrote to the Respondents stating they would send the Tenancy Agreement to them for signing.

On 20 May 2024, the Respondents wrote back to the Landlord stating they were withdrawing their application because the area was not suitable for their children’s schooling. The Landlord submitted he then had to find new Tenants to move in which incurred rental loss and reduction of rent. The Landlord provided a copy of the correspondence between the parties showing the Tenant’s acceptance of the Tenancy Agreement.

The Landlord submitted there was a legal agreement for the Respondents to rent the property which they broke. In total, the Landlord claimed 10 days rent which was the days it took to find new tenants and a reduction of rent of $15.00 per week.

The Respondents submitted they did not enter into a contract with the landlord. There was no signed Tenancy Agreement and they changed their mind because they discovered the property was not in the ideal school zone. They had just moved to New Zealand and were not familiar with the residential tenancy laws. The Landlord never lost rent because they retracted their agreement on 20 May 2024 before the proposed commencement of 31 May 2024. Furthermore, the property was never re-advertised after they retracted their offer so no costs were incurred. The respondents provided evidence of the advertising policies on the “myrent” website.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The issue

Was there a binding tenancy agreement between the parties? The law

In the District Court case of Wright v Goken, 1 it was found that there was a binding Tenancy Agreement once the parties signed the agreement, based on a reasonable view of the communication between the parties.

In considering the evidence, I find a binding legal agreement was not established between the parties because the Tenancy Agreement was not signed by both parties. The Landlord stated in his message to the Tenants on 17 May 2024 that he was preparing the Tenancy Agreement along with all the “regulatory requirements” which suggests there were still remaining steps to make this agreement binding.

In terms of the loss suffered by the Landlord, there was no evidence of the two other prospective Tenants that were declined as a result of offering the property to the Respondents. The Respondents also changed their minds within a few days of accepting the offer and before the actual proposed tenancy commencement date so specific evidence should have been provided.

The application is therefore dismissed.

As the Landlord has not been successful in their claim, name suppression is not granted to the Landlord. 1 Wright v Gokcen [2020] NZDC 3198; [2021] DCR 357

Tenancy Tribunal case 4990937 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 5, 1 Rainey Grove, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4990937 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 5, 1 Rainey Grove, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

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