Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4992169 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 3 Dec 2024 · Published 3 Dec 2024 · Application 4992169
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- Applications for suppression have been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Shane Ronald Lunn and Sarah Elizabeth Louise Palmer must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, being the Tribunal application fee.
- [The landlord] may retain the sum of $1,200.00 being two weeks rent paid by Shane Ronald Lunn and Sarah Elizabeth Louise Palmer for the tenancy.
- The tenants’ application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which was held by way of teleconference.
- On 28 March 2024 the tenants, Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer, signed an agreement for a periodic tenancy of the premises. Rent was agreed at $600 per week and the commencement date of the tenancy was recorded to be 5 April 2024. Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer received a copy of the signed agreement from the landlords which was then provided to Work and Income for the purposes of payment of the first weeks rent and the bond of $2,400. The rent and bond (total $3,000) was paid by Work and Income to the landlord on 3 April 2024. On 5 April, the parties met at the tenancy premises and the landlords gave Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer the keys for the premises.
- The landlords contacted the tenants when the second weeks’ rent had not been paid. Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer informed the landlords that they had not yet given notice to end their previous tenancy and could not afford to pay two rents. The parties agreed that Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer would give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy and the landlords would try to get a new tenant as soon as possible. On 12 April Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer gave the notice to end the tenancy and the landlords found another tenant commencing on 19 April.
- On 1 May Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer signed the bond refund form which recorded that the landlords would receive $600 from the bond (for the second weeks rent) and Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer would receive $1,800.
- The tenants then filed this application. They claim that they should not be liable for the two weeks rent and therefore the landlords should pay them $1,200 being the first weeks rent paid by Work and Income on their behalf and the $600 the landlords received from the bond.
- They said that they did not understand that the tenancy commenced on 5 April and they would be liable for rent from that date even if they had not moved into the premises. They said they told the landlords before signing the agreement that they would have to give their previous landlord 28 days’ notice and they did not read the agreement before signing it. They claim that the landlords had an obligation to explain the tenancy agreement to them before they signed and to ask them if they want someone there with them to assist them with the agreement.
- The landlords deny that Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer told them, before signing the agreement, that they would need to give their previous landlord 28 days’ notice and therefore, presumably, did not want this tenancy to start until the notice expired, and Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim that they did.
- There is no legal obligation on the landlords to explain the agreement to Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer or to ask them whether they wished to have someone with them when the agreement is signed. Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer are adults and there was no suggestion that they are not of sound mind. They are therefore bound by the agreement they signed regardless of whether they read it or not.
- I also have some doubt whether Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer were not aware of the start date of the tenancy given they met with the landlords at the premises on the commencement date and were given the keys to the premises. It would be unlikely that the landlords would hand over the keys if the tenancy had not yet commenced but would only do so on some not yet known future date. It also sits uncomfortably with the tenants’ agreement to pay the landlords the second weeks rent from the bond.
- The tenants have therefore not established their claim that they are entitled to a refund of the money paid to the landlords and their claim is dismissed.
- This means that the landlords’ claim to retain the money paid (the two weeks rent) has been successful. Tribunal application fee
- The landlords have been successful in their claim and are therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
- Both parties applied for a suppression order.
- Section 95A(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
- The landlord has been wholly successful in its claim and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlords’ name and identifying details be suppressed.
- However, Mr Lunn and Ms Palmer have been wholly unsuccessful in their claim. Their application for name suppression is therefore not granted.