What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309988 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 5309988?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309988?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12564284-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309988 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 5309988?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309988?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12564284-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5309988 — Unit Titles

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ease Property Management Limited as agent for Geng, Xiongnan must pay [The tenant/s] $1,247.00 immediately, being for compensation ($1,220.00 for cancellation of the tenancy agreement) and reimbursement of the filing fee ($27.00).

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has claimed compensation for the late cancellation of the tenancy agreement by the landlord. Background
On 3 July 2025 the tenant and landlord signed a tenancy agreement for the property. The property was a unit in a body corporate complex.
The tenancy agreement stated under the heading, “Pets”, that pets were allowed, and “Cat” is noted within the same section.
Based on this representation, the tenant paid the move-in costs and made arrangements to move into the property on the commencement date, being 11 July 2025.
Correspondence between the parties shows that together with the signed agreement and evidence of paid move-in costs, the tenant had also provided the landlord information about the cat, and this had been provided to the body corporate as part of an approvals process. Utilities were arranged for connection and the parties agreed to meet at the property on 10 July 2025 for the handover.
The landlord then cancelled the agreement sometime between 8 July 2025 and 10 July 2025 due to the body corporate declining approval for a cat at the property. Tenant’s claims
The tenant says that she signed the tenancy agreement based on the landlord’s advice that the property allowed pets, and the signed tenancy agreement confirmed that understanding. The tenant considers that if pet approval was to be a condition, then the agreement should not have been signed until approval was gained or it should have been a clear condition of the agreement.
The tenant has suffered a loss from the late cancellation and submitted that if the roles were reversed and a tenant cancelled an agreement late, they would potentially be liable for several weeks rent until the property was re-let.
The landlord says that they believed the cat would be approved on the basis that they had seen other pets around the building. They say that during initial verbal conversations, they had advised that pet approval was required by the body corporate. They say that even though the agreement was signed, “things were still being processed” and some details were still at the negotiation stage, including the cat approval. They say that at no point had they given final confirmation that the body corporate would accept the cat. Discussion
The landlord should have been fully aware of the body corporate rules and the requirements under those rules. It was misguided for it to rely on “seeing other pets around” in signing the tenancy agreement.
The signed tenancy agreement expressly allowed a cat. In doing so, the landlord effectively confirmed or promised that a cat was permitted. There was nothing in the tenancy agreement that suggested that this statement or approval was conditional on body corporate approval.
There was also no other correspondence that explicitly stated that the tenancy agreement was signed subject to pet approval by the body corporate. On review the correspondence seems to focus on the tenancy proceeding, for example, “I will get Tom to get in touch with regards to handover of the keys etc. I can confirm the BC is reviewing the pet approval form. Once I’ve heard back I will let you know”. My impression from reviewing the provided correspondence was that the pet approval process was an administrative task and all but a forgone conclusion.
I also do not consider that the tenant’s requirement to complete the pet approval form and provide the relevant pet information created an implicit condition of approval being required for the agreement, this is especially so when such a condition would have contradicted the express terms of the signed tenancy agreement.
If the landlord intended for the tenancy agreement to be conditional on obtaining body corporate approval for the cat, it should have clearly stated this in the tenancy agreement. It did not. Alternatively, it could have delayed signing the agreement until and unless the pet approval was obtained.
They may not have given confirmation that the body corporate had approved the cat, however that was a matter as between the landlord and the body corporate.
Through the signed tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant, they had agreed to the tenancy commencing and had given approval to the tenant for a cat, and it was reasonable for the tenant to rely on that.
The landlord subsequently cancelled the agreement. The tenant had reasonably relied on the representation made in the signed agreement and suffered losses from renting her previous property to a new tenant and being required to find alternative accommodation.
The tenant claims for two weeks rent totalling $1,220.00, and I consider in the circumstances that this is reasonable.
The amount ordered is proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must also reimburse the filing fee. Both parties sought name suppression and as the tenant was wholly successful, this is granted. There were no reasons advanced by the landlord that give rise to name suppression in these circumstances and the request for name suppression by the landlord is declined. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 15 October 2025

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ease Property Management Limited as agent for Geng, Xiongnan must pay [The tenant/s] $1,247.00 immediately, being for compensation ($1,220.00 for cancellation of the tenancy agreement) and reimbursement of the filing fee ($27.00).

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has claimed compensation for the late cancellation of the tenancy agreement by the landlord. Background
On 3 July 2025 the tenant and landlord signed a tenancy agreement for the property. The property was a unit in a body corporate complex.
The tenancy agreement stated under the heading, “Pets”, that pets were allowed, and “Cat” is noted within the same section.
Based on this representation, the tenant paid the move-in costs and made arrangements to move into the property on the commencement date, being 11 July 2025.
Correspondence between the parties shows that together with the signed agreement and evidence of paid move-in costs, the tenant had also provided the landlord information about the cat, and this had been provided to the body corporate as part of an approvals process. Utilities were arranged for connection and the parties agreed to meet at the property on 10 July 2025 for the handover.
The landlord then cancelled the agreement sometime between 8 July 2025 and 10 July 2025 due to the body corporate declining approval for a cat at the property. Tenant’s claims
The tenant says that she signed the tenancy agreement based on the landlord’s advice that the property allowed pets, and the signed tenancy agreement confirmed that understanding. The tenant considers that if pet approval was to be a condition, then the agreement should not have been signed until approval was gained or it should have been a clear condition of the agreement.
The tenant has suffered a loss from the late cancellation and submitted that if the roles were reversed and a tenant cancelled an agreement late, they would potentially be liable for several weeks rent until the property was re-let.
The landlord says that they believed the cat would be approved on the basis that they had seen other pets around the building. They say that during initial verbal conversations, they had advised that pet approval was required by the body corporate. They say that even though the agreement was signed, “things were still being processed” and some details were still at the negotiation stage, including the cat approval. They say that at no point had they given final confirmation that the body corporate would accept the cat. Discussion
The landlord should have been fully aware of the body corporate rules and the requirements under those rules. It was misguided for it to rely on “seeing other pets around” in signing the tenancy agreement.
The signed tenancy agreement expressly allowed a cat. In doing so, the landlord effectively confirmed or promised that a cat was permitted. There was nothing in the tenancy agreement that suggested that this statement or approval was conditional on body corporate approval.
There was also no other correspondence that explicitly stated that the tenancy agreement was signed subject to pet approval by the body corporate. On review the correspondence seems to focus on the tenancy proceeding, for example, “I will get Tom to get in touch with regards to handover of the keys etc. I can confirm the BC is reviewing the pet approval form. Once I’ve heard back I will let you know”. My impression from reviewing the provided correspondence was that the pet approval process was an administrative task and all but a forgone conclusion.
I also do not consider that the tenant’s requirement to complete the pet approval form and provide the relevant pet information created an implicit condition of approval being required for the agreement, this is especially so when such a condition would have contradicted the express terms of the signed tenancy agreement.
If the landlord intended for the tenancy agreement to be conditional on obtaining body corporate approval for the cat, it should have clearly stated this in the tenancy agreement. It did not. Alternatively, it could have delayed signing the agreement until and unless the pet approval was obtained.
They may not have given confirmation that the body corporate had approved the cat, however that was a matter as between the landlord and the body corporate.
Through the signed tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant, they had agreed to the tenancy commencing and had given approval to the tenant for a cat, and it was reasonable for the tenant to rely on that.
The landlord subsequently cancelled the agreement. The tenant had reasonably relied on the representation made in the signed agreement and suffered losses from renting her previous property to a new tenant and being required to find alternative accommodation.
The tenant claims for two weeks rent totalling $1,220.00, and I consider in the circumstances that this is reasonable.
The amount ordered is proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must also reimburse the filing fee. Both parties sought name suppression and as the tenant was wholly successful, this is granted. There were no reasons advanced by the landlord that give rise to name suppression in these circumstances and the request for name suppression by the landlord is declined. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 15 October 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309988 — Unit Titles

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309988 — Unit Titles

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions