How much money was awarded in case 5245372?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245372?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11868874-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5245372?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245372?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11868874-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

111 O'Leary Road, Pokeno, RD 1, Pokeno 2471 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245372 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245372 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of 111 O'Leary Road, Pokeno, RD 1, Pokeno 2471 between [the tenant] and Yao Xiao is varied from a fixed term tenancy to a periodic tenancy. All other terms of the tenancy remain unchanged.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the tenant’s right to make any other claims relating to the tenancy, including those relating to the use of the garage/separate dwelling on the property, is unaffected by this order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by telephone. The Tribunal also heard from Wing Lei and Jack Tong of Sunshine Property Group Limited (Sunshine).
Sunshine were the agents acting for the landlord when the tenant viewed the premises, discussed and agreed the tenancy, and signed the tenancy agreement. The landlord has recently dismissed them as her agent. For that reason, and because the remedy that the tenant seeks does not affect the agent, I have removed them from the application.
The tenant seeks an order that her fixed term tenancy agreement be varied to become a periodic tenancy. The ground for her application is that the Ms Lei, on behalf of the landlord, misled her regarding the separate garage on the property. She says that she was led to understand that the garage was part of the tenancy, and it was only after she had agreed the tenancy and given notice to her then landlord, that Ms Lei informed her that the garage was not part of the tenancy and that the landlord intended converting it to a separate dwelling and putting tenants in it.
The landlord agrees that the agent misled the tenant over the garage and says that the agent also misled her.
Having heard from Ms Lei and Mr Tong, I am satisfied that the agent did mislead the tenant regarding the garage. They denied it, but I found their evidence to be unconvincing and inconsistent with reality. Ms Lei said that there was no garage, only a “shape”. In other words, that the tenant had no reason to assume that there was a garage.
The tenant said that the tenancy was advertised with a garage, and I accept that. As well, the structure looks like a garage from the outside and it would be reasonable to assume that it is a garage. In any case, garage or not, I am satisfied that the tenant was led to believe that it was included in the tenancy, and she had no reason to think that it would be occupied as a separate dwelling only a few meters away from the main house.
Section 78(1)(g) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may make the following order, “where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part)”
I find that the agent, on behalf of the landlord, induced the tenant to enter the tenancy agreement by misrepresenting the nature of the garage, its intended use, and the fact that it was not to be included in the tenancy. The tenant was made aware of the true position before she signed the tenancy agreement but by then she had given notice to terminate her then tenancy and she was committed to taking the tenancy.
The prospect of having strangers occupying the garage or separate dwelling next door to the main house very reasonably is of concern to the tenant and she may be very well not be comfortable continuing with the tenancy in those circumstances. Therefore, it is appropriate to make an order to convert the tenancy to periodic so that the tenant can give 21 days notice to terminate it at any time.
The tenant has referred in her application to some other concerns regarding the tenancy, such as a fireplace very near to a wooden wall and some of the landlord’s belonging left at the premises. There was no supporting evidence in relation to those things and the application seeks only a variation of the tenancy agreement. Any claims relating to them will therefore have to be brought by way of another application.
I note also that the landlord should consider very carefully whether it is lawful for the converted garage to be occupied as a separate dwelling. Indications are that it has consent to be used as a sleep out. It may be that its occupation is limited to people associated with the occupants of the main house. The landlord will need to confirm the position with the relevant authorities.
The tenant did not seek payment of the filing fee.
The tenant has succeeded and so I have granted her request for name suppression.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

The tenancy of 111 O'Leary Road, Pokeno, RD 1, Pokeno 2471 between [the tenant] and Yao Xiao is varied from a fixed term tenancy to a periodic tenancy. All other terms of the tenancy remain unchanged.

For the avoidance of any doubt, the tenant’s right to make any other claims relating to the tenancy, including those relating to the use of the garage/separate dwelling on the property, is unaffected by this order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by telephone. The Tribunal also heard from Wing Lei and Jack Tong of Sunshine Property Group Limited (Sunshine).

Sunshine were the agents acting for the landlord when the tenant viewed the premises, discussed and agreed the tenancy, and signed the tenancy agreement. The landlord has recently dismissed them as her agent. For that reason, and because the remedy that the tenant seeks does not affect the agent, I have removed them from the application.

The tenant seeks an order that her fixed term tenancy agreement be varied to become a periodic tenancy. The ground for her application is that the Ms Lei, on behalf of the landlord, misled her regarding the separate garage on the property. She says that she was led to understand that the garage was part of the tenancy, and it was only after she had agreed the tenancy and given notice to her then landlord, that Ms Lei informed her that the garage was not part of the tenancy and that the landlord intended converting it to a separate dwelling and putting tenants in it.

The landlord agrees that the agent misled the tenant over the garage and says that the agent also misled her.

Having heard from Ms Lei and Mr Tong, I am satisfied that the agent did mislead the tenant regarding the garage. They denied it, but I found their evidence to be unconvincing and inconsistent with reality. Ms Lei said that there was no garage, only a “shape”. In other words, that the tenant had no reason to assume that there was a garage.

The tenant said that the tenancy was advertised with a garage, and I accept that. As well, the structure looks like a garage from the outside and it would be reasonable to assume that it is a garage. In any case, garage or not, I am satisfied that the tenant was led to believe that it was included in the tenancy, and she had no reason to think that it would be occupied as a separate dwelling only a few meters away from the main house.

Section 78(1)(g) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may make the following order, “where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part)”

I find that the agent, on behalf of the landlord, induced the tenant to enter the tenancy agreement by misrepresenting the nature of the garage, its intended use, and the fact that it was not to be included in the tenancy. The tenant was made aware of the true position before she signed the tenancy agreement but by then she had given notice to terminate her then tenancy and she was committed to taking the tenancy.

The prospect of having strangers occupying the garage or separate dwelling next door to the main house very reasonably is of concern to the tenant and she may be very well not be comfortable continuing with the tenancy in those circumstances. Therefore, it is appropriate to make an order to convert the tenancy to periodic so that the tenant can give 21 days notice to terminate it at any time.

The tenant has referred in her application to some other concerns regarding the tenancy, such as a fireplace very near to a wooden wall and some of the landlord’s belonging left at the premises. There was no supporting evidence in relation to those things and the application seeks only a variation of the tenancy agreement. Any claims relating to them will therefore have to be brought by way of another application.

I note also that the landlord should consider very carefully whether it is lawful for the converted garage to be occupied as a separate dwelling. Indications are that it has consent to be used as a sleep out. It may be that its occupation is limited to people associated with the occupants of the main house. The landlord will need to confirm the position with the relevant authorities.

The tenant did not seek payment of the filing fee.

The tenant has succeeded and so I have granted her request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245372 — Tenancy dispute at 111 O'Leary Road, Pokeno, RD 1, Pokeno 2471

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245372 — Tenancy dispute at 111 O'Leary Road, Pokeno, RD 1, Pokeno 2471

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