What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5238271?

The tribunal order states: Ty Patterson must pay Cutlers Limited As Agent For Sld Family Trust $1,707.00

How much money was awarded in case 5238271?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,680.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5238271?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5238271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12120768-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5238271?

The tribunal order states: Ty Patterson must pay Cutlers Limited As Agent For Sld Family Trust $1,707.00

How much money was awarded in case 5238271?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,680.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5238271?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5238271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12120768-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

896A George Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5238271 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5238271 — net $1,707.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 29 April 2025	$1,680.00	Rent arrears as at 29 April 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,707.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,707.00

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.

This order ought to be read together with the Tribunal’s previous order dated 1 May 2025. The hearing on that day was adjourned to allow Mr Patterson an opportunity to provide the Tribunal and the landlord with copies of three cases that he said supported his position that he ought not to have to pay the rent as claimed.

At today’s hearing Mr Patterson stated that he was unable to find those cases.

Ought Mr Patterson pay rent from 5 March 2025 to 29 April 2025?

The following is a brief summary of the communications between the parties during the tenancy.

On 27 February 2025 Mr Patterson signed a fixed term tenancy which was to commence on 5 March 2025 and end on 29 December 2025.

On 5 March 2025 the landlord sent a text to the tenant enquiring as to whether he had picked up the key and referring also to the rent and bond not having been paid, as required by the tenancy agreement.

Another email was sent on 6 March 2025 and, having received no response from the tenant, a further text was sent on 17 March 2025.

On 17 March 2025 Mr Patterson made his first response, advising that he was unable to take up the tenancy because he was in hospital with a broken leg.

The landlord requested some kind of documentation or evidence to support Mr Patterson’s hospitalisation and although Mr Patterson said he could send a doctor’s note or a photograph of his broken leg, none was forthcoming.

On 25 March 2025, the landlord suggested a break lease arrangement with the tenant. The tenant replied saying that he is keen to work out such an arrangement and later that day suggested that ACC may be able to cover the rent.

On that same day the landlord asked whether they can re-advertise the property.

On 31 March 2025 the landlord, having not had a response from the tenant regarding the re-leasing of the premises, sent Mr Patterson a 14-day notice requiring him to pay rent arrears.

In response to that notice Mr Patterson replied that ACC should be getting back to him later that week.

On 3 April 2025 the landlord again asked the tenant whether he agreed to have the premises re-leased. Mr Patterson then agreed to its being be re-advertised.

The landlord re-advertised and a new tenancy commenced on 30 April 2025.

Mr Patterson states that he ought not to have to pay the rent as claimed because he did not have access to the property and never lived in it.

I am dismissing Mr Patterson’s defence to the claim for reasons that include: (a) The tenancy agreement was signed on 27 February 2025. This indicates that both parties are in agreement with all the clauses within that agreement. (b) Clause 30 of that agreement states that the keys will be available once the bond is paid in full; and (c) While Mr Patterson states that he could not pay the bond or indeed access the unit because he had broken his leg, at no stage did he provide the landlord with evidence of that, as he said he would; and (d) The landlords were entitled, then, to regard Mr Patterson’s failure to pay the bond and rent as a breach of contract; and (e) The breach was clearly outlined to Mr Patterson in the 14-day notice sent to him on 31 March 2025; and (f) If a contract is breached, the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 provides that the party who has suffered the loss can claim damages to compensate for the loss suffered because of the breach. The aim is to put the ‘innocent’ party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. (g) In this case that means that the tenant is required to pay rent up until the date that a new tenancy starts – that is, $1680.00.

I note that the landlord continued to try and communicate with Mr Patterson, in spite of his lack of response, in an effort to mitigate not only their own loss but Mr Patterson’s.

However, it was not until 3 April 2025 that the tenant agreed that the property could be re-advertised. Filing fee reimbursement

I am ordering Mr Patterson to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful in the claim against him - see s102(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. C ter Haar 15 July 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5238271 — net $1,707.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 29 April 2025	$1,680.00	Rent arrears as at 29 April 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,707.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,707.00

Order

Ty Patterson must pay Cutlers Limited As Agent For Sld Family Trust $1,707.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below..

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
This order ought to be read together with the Tribunal’s previous order dated 1 May 2025. The hearing on that day was adjourned to allow Mr Patterson an opportunity to provide the Tribunal and the landlord with copies of three cases that he said supported his position that he ought not to have to pay the rent as claimed.
At today’s hearing Mr Patterson stated that he was unable to find those cases.

Ought Mr Patterson pay rent from 5 March 2025 to 29 April 2025?

The following is a brief summary of the communications between the parties during the tenancy.
On 27 February 2025 Mr Patterson signed a fixed term tenancy which was to commence on 5 March 2025 and end on 29 December 2025.
On 5 March 2025 the landlord sent a text to the tenant enquiring as to whether he had picked up the key and referring also to the rent and bond not having been paid, as required by the tenancy agreement.
Another email was sent on 6 March 2025 and, having received no response from the tenant, a further text was sent on 17 March 2025.
On 17 March 2025 Mr Patterson made his first response, advising that he was unable to take up the tenancy because he was in hospital with a broken leg.
The landlord requested some kind of documentation or evidence to support Mr Patterson’s hospitalisation and although Mr Patterson said he could send a doctor’s note or a photograph of his broken leg, none was forthcoming.
On 25 March 2025, the landlord suggested a break lease arrangement with the tenant. The tenant replied saying that he is keen to work out such an arrangement and later that day suggested that ACC may be able to cover the rent.
On that same day the landlord asked whether they can re-advertise the property.
On 31 March 2025 the landlord, having not had a response from the tenant regarding the re-leasing of the premises, sent Mr Patterson a 14-day notice requiring him to pay rent arrears.
In response to that notice Mr Patterson replied that ACC should be getting back to him later that week.
On 3 April 2025 the landlord again asked the tenant whether he agreed to have the premises re-leased. Mr Patterson then agreed to its being be re-advertised.
The landlord re-advertised and a new tenancy commenced on 30 April 2025.
Mr Patterson states that he ought not to have to pay the rent as claimed because he did not have access to the property and never lived in it.
I am dismissing Mr Patterson’s defence to the claim for reasons that include: (a) The tenancy agreement was signed on 27 February 2025. This indicates that both parties are in agreement with all the clauses within that agreement. (b) Clause 30 of that agreement states that the keys will be available once the bond is paid in full; and (c) While Mr Patterson states that he could not pay the bond or indeed access the unit because he had broken his leg, at no stage did he provide the landlord with evidence of that, as he said he would; and (d) The landlords were entitled, then, to regard Mr Patterson’s failure to pay the bond and rent as a breach of contract; and (e) The breach was clearly outlined to Mr Patterson in the 14-day notice sent to him on 31 March 2025; and (f) If a contract is breached, the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 provides that the party who has suffered the loss can claim damages to compensate for the loss suffered because of the breach. The aim is to put the ‘innocent’ party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. (g) In this case that means that the tenant is required to pay rent up until the date that a new tenancy starts – that is, $1680.00.
I note that the landlord continued to try and communicate with Mr Patterson, in spite of his lack of response, in an effort to mitigate not only their own loss but Mr Patterson’s.
However, it was not until 3 April 2025 that the tenant agreed that the property could be re-advertised. Filing fee reimbursement
I am ordering Mr Patterson to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful in the claim against him - see s102(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. C ter Haar 15 July 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5238271 — Rent arrears at 896A George Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5238271 — Rent arrears at 896A George Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Ought Mr Patterson pay rent from 5 March 2025 to 29 April 2025?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Ought Mr Patterson pay rent from 5 March 2025 to 29 April 2025?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions