What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5071789 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 5071789?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,957.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5071789?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5071789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11634992-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5071789 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 5071789?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,957.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5071789?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5071789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11634992-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5071789 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5071789 — net $9,984.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 November 2024	$9,957.14	Rent arrears to 27 November 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,984.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,984.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $9,984.14 immediately, as per the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by teleconference. Background
On 4 September 2024 the parties signed an agreement, signed using the My Rent app, for a tenancy of the premises for a fixed term from 7 September 2024 to 6 September 2025.
It is of note that immediately above the parties’ signatures, the agreement records, “The landlords and tenants must sign here to show that they have read the agreement and attached documents in full and that they agree to all the terms and conditions outlined in the tenancy agreement. By signing this agreement you are entering a legally binding contract.”
On 5 September 2024 the tenant the messaged the landlord, “I have just left WINZ as the appointment that was supposed to be 8:30 this morning was in fact booked for the 12th. I have another appointment but the best I could get was tomorrow at 3:45. Very sorry to muck you about.”
On 6 September 2024 the tenant messaged the landlord, “So I got to speak to WINZ today and they have decided that 850 is outside of my means to pay in rent so have refused to help me into the property. I'm so sorry for wasting your time.”
The tenant’s evidence is that she considered the matter finished, closed the My Rent portal and did not respond to any further messages sent to her by My Rent.
The landlord notified the tenant through the portal that he considered her obliged to continue with the tenancy.
He left the rental listing open and took a number of inquiries about possible tenancies for the premises. He says that he arranged viewings and after declining perhaps 5 applications for the tenancy found a new tenant and an agreement was signed toward the end of November for a tenancy beginning on 9 January 2025.
Initially the landlord claimed rent from the tenant through to the date the new tenancy started but during the hearing the land offered to reduce the claim to the time the new agreement was signed.
A hearing on 25 February 2025 was adjourned to allow the parties to provide further evidence on the two issues that arose during that earlier hearing, namely: a. whether the agreement was conditional on WINZ being prepared to support the tenancy; and b. whether reasonable mitigation steps were taken by the landlord to reduce loss when the tenant advised that she could not take the tenancy.

Was the Agreement Conditional?

The tenant’s evidence is that during a conversation with the landlord before the agreement was signed, she made it clear that she was reliant on WINZ approving the tenancy and assisting her with the rent. She says it was clear and understood by the landlord that she would not be able to proceed with the tenancy if WINZ did not approve it.
The tenant says that the only reason she signed the agreement is because WINZ had told her she needed to have a signed agreement in place before she could apply to WINZ for housing support. If true, that would be a very surprising and risky policy.
For his part, the landlord says there was no such specific discussion. He says that he has previously provided tenants with offer letters to confirm the terms of an available tenancy for WINZ purposes, but has never been required to sign a binding residential tenancy agreement for that purpose. His position is that as far as he was aware, in signing the agreement, both parties were committing to it.
There is a tenancy agreement, signed by both parties that is clear in its terms. It is not expressed to be conditional in any way. For the Tribunal to find that the parties had agreed different or additional terms, there would need to be more clear evidence of that.
I do not doubt that the tenant genuinely believed she could not be required to proceed if WINZ did not approve the tenancy she had entered into. Her actions are consistent with that belief. That however is not the legal effect of the agreement that was signed. The warning contained in the agreement, quoted above, makes that clear.
I do not find it proved that the agreement was conditional and both parties were bound by its terms.
Although no such application has been made by the tenant, I have considered whether she might be entitled to ask the Tribunal to make an under s.66(1) RTA which allows the Tribunal to make an Order reducing a fixed term, “....where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.”
Holding the tenant to the agreement she could not proceed with, will have harsh consequences. There is however no evidence of an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, or evidence that would enable the Tribunal to assess the comparative hardship the parties would suffer.

Did the Landlord take reasonable mitigation steps?

Section 49 RTA provides that, “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
The Tribunal must accordingly ask what steps it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take in these circumstances, to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach.
It was reasonable for the landlord to keep the listing open and actively look for new tenants. The landlord did so. It was reasonable for the landlord to keep endeavouring to communicate with the tenant, which was done through My Rent, which included emails sent to the tenants e-mail address, although the tenant says that if she had seen emails directly from the landlord rather than from My Rent and she may have taking a different approach to responding.
The evidence does not support a view that it was unreasonable for the landlord not to reduce the advertised rental.
As discussed during the hearing my concern is that despite those efforts, it did take quite a long time to establish a new tenancy, raising the question of whether the landlord was unreasonably selective in assessing new tenants, because he could rely on the tenant’s ongoing rent obligations.
The evidence shows multiple inquiries about the tenancy, active responses from the landlord and arranging viewings in an attempt to establish a new tenancy. The landlord says, which is likely to be the case, that it was in his interests to find a new tenant sooner rather than later.
I do find it just that the tenant not penalised for the landlord selecting a new tenant who could not move in for several weeks after the agreement was signed. The landlord’s agreement to reduce the rent claim to when that new agreement was signed, is appropriate.
I do not find it proved that the landlord has failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss arising from the tenant’s breach of the agreement. The tenant is accordingly liable for rent from 7 September 2024 to 27 November 2024.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5071789 — net $9,984.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 November 2024	$9,957.14	Rent arrears to 27 November 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,984.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,984.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $9,984.14 immediately, as per the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by teleconference. Background
On 4 September 2024 the parties signed an agreement, signed using the My Rent app, for a tenancy of the premises for a fixed term from 7 September 2024 to 6 September 2025.
It is of note that immediately above the parties’ signatures, the agreement records, “The landlords and tenants must sign here to show that they have read the agreement and attached documents in full and that they agree to all the terms and conditions outlined in the tenancy agreement. By signing this agreement you are entering a legally binding contract.”
On 5 September 2024 the tenant the messaged the landlord, “I have just left WINZ as the appointment that was supposed to be 8:30 this morning was in fact booked for the 12th. I have another appointment but the best I could get was tomorrow at 3:45. Very sorry to muck you about.”
On 6 September 2024 the tenant messaged the landlord, “So I got to speak to WINZ today and they have decided that 850 is outside of my means to pay in rent so have refused to help me into the property. I'm so sorry for wasting your time.”
The tenant’s evidence is that she considered the matter finished, closed the My Rent portal and did not respond to any further messages sent to her by My Rent.
The landlord notified the tenant through the portal that he considered her obliged to continue with the tenancy.
He left the rental listing open and took a number of inquiries about possible tenancies for the premises. He says that he arranged viewings and after declining perhaps 5 applications for the tenancy found a new tenant and an agreement was signed toward the end of November for a tenancy beginning on 9 January 2025.
Initially the landlord claimed rent from the tenant through to the date the new tenancy started but during the hearing the land offered to reduce the claim to the time the new agreement was signed.
A hearing on 25 February 2025 was adjourned to allow the parties to provide further evidence on the two issues that arose during that earlier hearing, namely: a. whether the agreement was conditional on WINZ being prepared to support the tenancy; and b. whether reasonable mitigation steps were taken by the landlord to reduce loss when the tenant advised that she could not take the tenancy.

Was the Agreement Conditional?

The tenant’s evidence is that during a conversation with the landlord before the agreement was signed, she made it clear that she was reliant on WINZ approving the tenancy and assisting her with the rent. She says it was clear and understood by the landlord that she would not be able to proceed with the tenancy if WINZ did not approve it.
The tenant says that the only reason she signed the agreement is because WINZ had told her she needed to have a signed agreement in place before she could apply to WINZ for housing support. If true, that would be a very surprising and risky policy.
For his part, the landlord says there was no such specific discussion. He says that he has previously provided tenants with offer letters to confirm the terms of an available tenancy for WINZ purposes, but has never been required to sign a binding residential tenancy agreement for that purpose. His position is that as far as he was aware, in signing the agreement, both parties were committing to it.
There is a tenancy agreement, signed by both parties that is clear in its terms. It is not expressed to be conditional in any way. For the Tribunal to find that the parties had agreed different or additional terms, there would need to be more clear evidence of that.
I do not doubt that the tenant genuinely believed she could not be required to proceed if WINZ did not approve the tenancy she had entered into. Her actions are consistent with that belief. That however is not the legal effect of the agreement that was signed. The warning contained in the agreement, quoted above, makes that clear.
I do not find it proved that the agreement was conditional and both parties were bound by its terms.
Although no such application has been made by the tenant, I have considered whether she might be entitled to ask the Tribunal to make an under s.66(1) RTA which allows the Tribunal to make an Order reducing a fixed term, “....where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.”
Holding the tenant to the agreement she could not proceed with, will have harsh consequences. There is however no evidence of an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, or evidence that would enable the Tribunal to assess the comparative hardship the parties would suffer.

Did the Landlord take reasonable mitigation steps?

Section 49 RTA provides that, “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
The Tribunal must accordingly ask what steps it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take in these circumstances, to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach.
It was reasonable for the landlord to keep the listing open and actively look for new tenants. The landlord did so. It was reasonable for the landlord to keep endeavouring to communicate with the tenant, which was done through My Rent, which included emails sent to the tenants e-mail address, although the tenant says that if she had seen emails directly from the landlord rather than from My Rent and she may have taking a different approach to responding.
The evidence does not support a view that it was unreasonable for the landlord not to reduce the advertised rental.
As discussed during the hearing my concern is that despite those efforts, it did take quite a long time to establish a new tenancy, raising the question of whether the landlord was unreasonably selective in assessing new tenants, because he could rely on the tenant’s ongoing rent obligations.
The evidence shows multiple inquiries about the tenancy, active responses from the landlord and arranging viewings in an attempt to establish a new tenancy. The landlord says, which is likely to be the case, that it was in his interests to find a new tenant sooner rather than later.
I do find it just that the tenant not penalised for the landlord selecting a new tenant who could not move in for several weeks after the agreement was signed. The landlord’s agreement to reduce the rent claim to when that new agreement was signed, is appropriate.
I do not find it proved that the landlord has failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss arising from the tenant’s breach of the agreement. The tenant is accordingly liable for rent from 7 September 2024 to 27 November 2024.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5071789 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5071789 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the Agreement Conditional?

Did the Landlord take reasonable mitigation steps?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the Agreement Conditional?

Did the Landlord take reasonable mitigation steps?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions