What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5057948 about?

The tribunal order states: Bond Services to release the full bond of $100 to Johnlem Homes Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5057948?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5057948?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5057948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11106502-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5057948 about?

The tribunal order states: Bond Services to release the full bond of $100 to Johnlem Homes Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5057948?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5057948?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5057948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11106502-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

72C Taylor Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5057948 — Harassment

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5057948. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
1. Bond Services to release the full bond of	$100.00		1. Bond Services to release the full bond of

Order

Bond Services to release the full bond of $100 to Johnlem Homes Limited immediately.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Johnlem Homes Limited $500.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This case concerns a fixed-term tenancy from 27 August 2024 to 27 August 2025.
The Tenants decided to vacate the premises prematurely, ostensibly to find suitable accommodation for their children, whom the premises could not safely and adequately accommodate.
The Landlord has not filed a cross-application, but there exists a valid dispute concerning the bond which I can and should determine.
The Landlord claims six weeks of rent as compensation for the loss incurred due to the Tenants’ early departure. The Landlord did not clearly state when the claimed six-week, loss-of-rent period begins. The Tenants argue they provided sufficient notice and acted in good faith.
On 27 August 2024, the Tenants moved into the premises after signing a tenancy agreement for a fixed-term tenancy of 12 months’ duration, with four other tenant parties.
On 30 September 2024 the Tenants verbally informed the Landlord of their intention to vacate the property. They claimed their children’s caregiver in the Philippines was unwell and their children were coming to New Zealand to live with them.
On 14 October 2024, the Tenants provided formal written notice of their intent to vacate, citing the need to accommodate her children and alleging non-provision of the signed tenancy agreement prior to moving in.
On 17 October 2024, the Landlord received the Tenants’ written notice via email and acknowledged it. The Landlord did not agree to release the Tenants from the fixed-term tenancy.
On 4 November 2024, the Tenants’ made their last rent payment, which covered up to 11 November 2024. The Tenant applied to the Tribunal for her bond, and by extension, to reduce the fixed-term tenancy.
On 11 November 2024, the Tenants vacated the property.
The Tenants claim: a. They were not given a copy of the Tenancy Agreement by the Landlord. b. Though they signed the Tenancy Agreement, they did not know the tenancy was for a fixed term. c. They were forced to vacate the property because the Landlord indicated it was not suitable for children and threatened to report them to the police and council if they stayed. This created fear and stress, leading to their decision to leave. d. The Landlord frequently visited the property and micromanaged their use of the facilities, such as instructing them to use toilet paper when using the toilet. e. The Tenants perceived the Landlord’s behaviour as intimidating and invasive. f. The Landlord sent the Tenants a letter after they vacated, alleging damage and seeking compensation, which they dispute.
The Landlord says: a. The Tenants were aware of the fixed-term nature of the agreement and signed the tenancy agreement willingly. b. A copy of the tenancy agreement was provided to the Tenants on October 3, 2024, when they requested it. c. The Tenants had been on a prior six-month fixed-term tenancy before August, which suggests familiarity with the fixed-term tenancies. d. He allowed the Tenant to stay in accommodation owned by him after her previous fixed-term tenancy came to an end in June or July 2024, on “humanitarian grounds,” until the new fixed-term tenancy began. e. On 12 November 2024 he began actively searching for a replacement tenant. f. On 17 October 2024, he discussed the Tenants desire (need) to bring her children and offered a compromise, proposing they could stay temporarily between November 2024 and January 2025. g. His concerns about the children’s safety and the property’s suitability were practical rather than threatening or intimidating. He was worried about the children’s safety and the premises being overcrowded and did not threaten to go to the police or the council. h. He denies any intimidation or inappropriate behaviour, claiming he had only normal tenancy-related interactions, such as inspections and discussions about maintenance. i. The alleged remark about toilet paper usage was a practical suggestion, not intimidation. He considered toilet-paper would be more hygienic than using water after going to the toilet. j. The Tenants failed to take sufficient steps to find a replacement tenant for the tenancy before breaching the tenancy agreement. k. Two individuals approached the Landlord, as referred by the Tenants. However, when the Landlord asked for further particulars concerning their identities, residency status, and financial means, they did not return to him, and he did not hear from them again. l. He denies causing fear or stress, stating the tenant created a narrative that does not align with the facts of their interactions. m. He insists claims for damage are legitimate and supported by evidence.
The Tenant, representing the Tenants, was inconsistent and selective in her responses during the hearing. While she refrained from answering straightforward questions, she readily challenged the Landlord on multiple points.
She requested assistance from a representative to clarify questions but declined an interpreter. She also appeared reluctant to acknowledge the Landlord’s genuine assistance in accommodating the Tenants during a difficult period in July, characterising him as intimidating and scary, justifying breaching the fixed term tenancy. This characterisation conflicted with evidence of the Landlord’s support, including his agreement to temporarily accommodate the Tenants’ children despite raising legitimate safety concerns, his continued good relations with the remaining tenants, and his bearing of the financial burden of their departure without charging the remaining tenants.
Section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires tenancy agreements to be written, signed, and provided to tenants before commencement to ensure transparency. While the Landlord’s failure to provide the agreement before the tenancy began is a technical breach, it does not invalidate the agreement unless the Tenants prove significant detriment. The Tenants signed the agreement, which clearly stated the fixed-term nature, and received a copy in October upon request. There is no reason to believe they could not have requested it earlier. Their claim of unawareness (detriment) is not credible, as concerns about the agreement’s terms were only raised after they decided to vacate.
The Tenants did not report any allegations of harassment or intimidation to authorities during the tenancy.
Despite claiming fear of the Landlord, the Tenants remained at the property and engaged in ongoing discussions with him about their circumstances.
The Tenant’s evidence regarding the prior ‘fixed-term’ tenancy was vague. She claimed they vacated early because the Landlord wanted the property back and their flatmates decided to leave, prompting them to do the same. However, she provided no details about discussions with the landlord or flatmates regarding the timing of the tenancy’s termination. The idea of vacating without securing another place to live seems implausible. It would have been reasonable for the flatmates and landlord to discuss extending the tenancy until the new fixed-term tenancy commenced in August, suggesting that the prior tenancy had likely expired by that time. When I put this to the Tenant, I received no straightforward answer.
The Tenant’s assistant explained that she struggled to vocalize her thoughts despite understanding and speaking English. However, she was able to articulate challenges to the Landlord’s actions, including questioning his efforts to secure replacement tenants. Overall, her evidence lacked credibility and honesty.
The Tenants have repudiated the fixed-term tenancy. The Tribunal may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss: ss 77 and 78 of the RTA. The Landlord needs to have taken steps to mitigate their loss as required by s 49.
I award the Landlord compensation of $600, representing two weeks’ rent as reasonable compensation for the Tenants’ early termination of the fixed-term tenancy. While the Landlord claimed six weeks’ rent, mitigation efforts were not actively pursued until after the tenants vacated on 11 November 2024, despite having been notified in mid-October of the Tenants’ intention. The bond of $100 is to be applied toward this amount, leaving $500 payable by the Tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5057948. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
1. Bond Services to release the full bond of	$100.00		1. Bond Services to release the full bond of

Order

Bond Services to release the full bond of $100 to Johnlem Homes Limited immediately.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Johnlem Homes Limited $500.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This case concerns a fixed-term tenancy from 27 August 2024 to 27 August 2025.
The Tenants decided to vacate the premises prematurely, ostensibly to find suitable accommodation for their children, whom the premises could not safely and adequately accommodate.
The Landlord has not filed a cross-application, but there exists a valid dispute concerning the bond which I can and should determine.
The Landlord claims six weeks of rent as compensation for the loss incurred due to the Tenants’ early departure. The Landlord did not clearly state when the claimed six-week, loss-of-rent period begins. The Tenants argue they provided sufficient notice and acted in good faith.
On 27 August 2024, the Tenants moved into the premises after signing a tenancy agreement for a fixed-term tenancy of 12 months’ duration, with four other tenant parties.
On 30 September 2024 the Tenants verbally informed the Landlord of their intention to vacate the property. They claimed their children’s caregiver in the Philippines was unwell and their children were coming to New Zealand to live with them.
On 14 October 2024, the Tenants provided formal written notice of their intent to vacate, citing the need to accommodate her children and alleging non-provision of the signed tenancy agreement prior to moving in.
On 17 October 2024, the Landlord received the Tenants’ written notice via email and acknowledged it. The Landlord did not agree to release the Tenants from the fixed-term tenancy.
On 4 November 2024, the Tenants’ made their last rent payment, which covered up to 11 November 2024. The Tenant applied to the Tribunal for her bond, and by extension, to reduce the fixed-term tenancy.
On 11 November 2024, the Tenants vacated the property.
The Tenants claim: a. They were not given a copy of the Tenancy Agreement by the Landlord. b. Though they signed the Tenancy Agreement, they did not know the tenancy was for a fixed term. c. They were forced to vacate the property because the Landlord indicated it was not suitable for children and threatened to report them to the police and council if they stayed. This created fear and stress, leading to their decision to leave. d. The Landlord frequently visited the property and micromanaged their use of the facilities, such as instructing them to use toilet paper when using the toilet. e. The Tenants perceived the Landlord’s behaviour as intimidating and invasive. f. The Landlord sent the Tenants a letter after they vacated, alleging damage and seeking compensation, which they dispute.
The Landlord says: a. The Tenants were aware of the fixed-term nature of the agreement and signed the tenancy agreement willingly. b. A copy of the tenancy agreement was provided to the Tenants on October 3, 2024, when they requested it. c. The Tenants had been on a prior six-month fixed-term tenancy before August, which suggests familiarity with the fixed-term tenancies. d. He allowed the Tenant to stay in accommodation owned by him after her previous fixed-term tenancy came to an end in June or July 2024, on “humanitarian grounds,” until the new fixed-term tenancy began. e. On 12 November 2024 he began actively searching for a replacement tenant. f. On 17 October 2024, he discussed the Tenants desire (need) to bring her children and offered a compromise, proposing they could stay temporarily between November 2024 and January 2025. g. His concerns about the children’s safety and the property’s suitability were practical rather than threatening or intimidating. He was worried about the children’s safety and the premises being overcrowded and did not threaten to go to the police or the council. h. He denies any intimidation or inappropriate behaviour, claiming he had only normal tenancy-related interactions, such as inspections and discussions about maintenance. i. The alleged remark about toilet paper usage was a practical suggestion, not intimidation. He considered toilet-paper would be more hygienic than using water after going to the toilet. j. The Tenants failed to take sufficient steps to find a replacement tenant for the tenancy before breaching the tenancy agreement. k. Two individuals approached the Landlord, as referred by the Tenants. However, when the Landlord asked for further particulars concerning their identities, residency status, and financial means, they did not return to him, and he did not hear from them again. l. He denies causing fear or stress, stating the tenant created a narrative that does not align with the facts of their interactions. m. He insists claims for damage are legitimate and supported by evidence.
The Tenant, representing the Tenants, was inconsistent and selective in her responses during the hearing. While she refrained from answering straightforward questions, she readily challenged the Landlord on multiple points.
She requested assistance from a representative to clarify questions but declined an interpreter. She also appeared reluctant to acknowledge the Landlord’s genuine assistance in accommodating the Tenants during a difficult period in July, characterising him as intimidating and scary, justifying breaching the fixed term tenancy. This characterisation conflicted with evidence of the Landlord’s support, including his agreement to temporarily accommodate the Tenants’ children despite raising legitimate safety concerns, his continued good relations with the remaining tenants, and his bearing of the financial burden of their departure without charging the remaining tenants.
Section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires tenancy agreements to be written, signed, and provided to tenants before commencement to ensure transparency. While the Landlord’s failure to provide the agreement before the tenancy began is a technical breach, it does not invalidate the agreement unless the Tenants prove significant detriment. The Tenants signed the agreement, which clearly stated the fixed-term nature, and received a copy in October upon request. There is no reason to believe they could not have requested it earlier. Their claim of unawareness (detriment) is not credible, as concerns about the agreement’s terms were only raised after they decided to vacate.
The Tenants did not report any allegations of harassment or intimidation to authorities during the tenancy.
Despite claiming fear of the Landlord, the Tenants remained at the property and engaged in ongoing discussions with him about their circumstances.
The Tenant’s evidence regarding the prior ‘fixed-term’ tenancy was vague. She claimed they vacated early because the Landlord wanted the property back and their flatmates decided to leave, prompting them to do the same. However, she provided no details about discussions with the landlord or flatmates regarding the timing of the tenancy’s termination. The idea of vacating without securing another place to live seems implausible. It would have been reasonable for the flatmates and landlord to discuss extending the tenancy until the new fixed-term tenancy commenced in August, suggesting that the prior tenancy had likely expired by that time. When I put this to the Tenant, I received no straightforward answer.
The Tenant’s assistant explained that she struggled to vocalize her thoughts despite understanding and speaking English. However, she was able to articulate challenges to the Landlord’s actions, including questioning his efforts to secure replacement tenants. Overall, her evidence lacked credibility and honesty.
The Tenants have repudiated the fixed-term tenancy. The Tribunal may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss: ss 77 and 78 of the RTA. The Landlord needs to have taken steps to mitigate their loss as required by s 49.
I award the Landlord compensation of $600, representing two weeks’ rent as reasonable compensation for the Tenants’ early termination of the fixed-term tenancy. While the Landlord claimed six weeks’ rent, mitigation efforts were not actively pursued until after the tenants vacated on 11 November 2024, despite having been notified in mid-October of the Tenants’ intention. The bond of $100 is to be applied toward this amount, leaving $500 payable by the Tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5057948 — Harassment at 72C Taylor Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5057948 — Harassment at 72C Taylor Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions