What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4628089?

The tribunal order states: Parshu Ram Naidu must pay Northland Real Estate Ltd $356.15 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4628089?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,215.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4628089?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4628089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9426215-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4628089?

The tribunal order states: Parshu Ram Naidu must pay Northland Real Estate Ltd $356.15 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4628089?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,215.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4628089?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4628089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9426215-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2/27B/5, 27 Princes St, Kensington, Whangarei Tenancy Tribunal Case 4628089 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4628089 — net $356.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (for the periods 11 April to 8 May 2023 and 27 June to 1 July 2023	$2,215.71	Rent arrears (for the periods 11 April to 8 May 2023 and 27 June to 1 July 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$356.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$356.15

Order

Parshu Ram Naidu must pay Northland Real Estate Ltd $356.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 to Northland Real Estate Ltd immediately.
The application for termination of the tenancy under s61 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) for abandonment is not granted as I am not satisfied the tenant abandoned the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant was represented at the hearing by his wife, Mrs Reema Naidu.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Did the tenant deliver vacant possession or abandon the tenancy?

The parties agreed: a. The tenancy was for a fixed term from 28 April 2023 to 28 April 2024; and b. The tenant vacated the premise on 30 June 2023.
What was in dispute at the hearing was whether the tenant abandoned the premises on 30 June 2023 or whether the landlord accepted vacant possession of the premises on 1 July 2023.
The landlord argued that the tenant abandoned the premises on 1 July 2023 when he returned the keys to the Director of Northland Real Estate Ltd’s letterbox without having sought written consent to end the tenancy on 1 July 2023.
The tenant and landlord agreed that Ms Gamman, as Ms Baker’s boss, had stepped in and started to communicate with the tenant when he had contacted Ms Gamman with concerns about what he claimed were Ms Baker’s inappropriate interactions with him. Further, he informed Ms Gamman that he refused to deal with Ms Baker any further, either in person or in written communications.
Ms Gamman did not redirect the tenant back to Ms Baker, nor did she inform him that he did not have the right to choose not to deal with Ms Baker as she is the property manager with responsibility for managing the tenancy. She did meet with the tenant and Ms Baker to try to help them to resolve the issues the tenant had raised, after which the tenant still refused to deal with Ms Baker at all. Thereafter, all communications from the tenant were to Ms Gamman, even though it had been made clear to the tenant at a meeting with him in or around June 2023, that Ms Gamman only operated in the real estate section of the business and had nothing to do with the property management section of the business.
The landlord provided extensive evidence of the numerous attempts it made, post the tenant’s return of the keys to Ms Gamman, to agree an early release from the fixed term tenancy. These communications state that the landlord will agree to terminate the tenancy earlier than the end of the fixed term on the condition that the rent and water rate arrears, as at 10 July 2023, were immediately paid in full. An alternative to reaching agreement on those conditions was also given, being an application to the Tribunal for termination of tenancy and rent and water arrears to the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises. The tenant ignored all communications from Melanie Baker, the Property Manager engaged by Northland Real Estate Ltd to deal with all property management matters.
After the landlord accepted the return of the keys, it did not change the locks or relet the property as it did not consider the tenancy terminated. It therefore seeks rent arrears up to the date of the hearing.
In July 2023, the landlord engaged a lawyer to assist it to try to get the tenant to respond to its communications. The tenant informed the lawyer that it had delivered up vacant possession to Ms Gamman, the Director of Northland Real Estate Ltd, on 1 July 2023, and that Ms Gamman had accepted that vacant possession in writing, thereby providing the tenant with the landlord’s written consent to break the tenancy on that date, as required by section 50(1)(d) of the Act.
The tenant provided the Tribunal with: a. A text message that the tenant sent to the Ms Gamman on 30 June 2023 that reads “Hi Marilyn. Tried calling you but probably you are busy. Letting you know I have moved out of the property today. Please let me know where I can drop the keys. Thank you Naidu”. The message has 13 photographs of the state of the premises as at that date; b. A text message dated 1 July 2023 at 9:29am, from Ms Gamman that reads “Hello Naidu I can pick them up from u if that is easier for you...must be busy with the move. Do hope yu will be happy in new home. M”; c. A reply from the tenant, the same day, that reads “I can drop it off if you give me a time and location as I’m mostly out today. Thanks Naidu”; and d. A further reply from Ms Gamman at 12:9pm that reads “Ok then into my letter box at no 11 Mill Rd. Thank you Marilyn. Naidu...I do hope you have better luck with yr next”.
The tenant again argued at the hearing that in these 1 July 2023 text messages Ms Gamman accepted vacant possession in writing on behalf of the landlord, as required by section 50(1)(d) of the Act and did not accept he owed rent beyond that date.
At the date of the hearing, I indicated to the parties that needed further time to consider whether these text messages constituted acceptance of vacant possession, and early termination of the tenants fixed term tenancy, and I would reserve my decision to allow time to go over the evidence again prior to deciding this key issue. I did state that, prima facie, Ms Gamman’s text messages may not meet the threshold of written consent to early termination of the fixed term tenancy.
After giving all the evidence further consideration, I am satisfied that when Ms Gamman, as an officer of Northland Real Estate Ltd, accepted the return of the keys to the premises she accepted vacant possession and the tenancy ended on 1 July 2023.
Ms Gamman, as a Director of Northland Real Estate Ltd, the authorised agent of the owner of the tenancy premises, had responsibility to satisfy herself that there were no matters outstanding between Northland Real Estate Ltd and the tenant before allowing him to deliver up vacant possession of the tenancy premises with her written consent.
Even if Ms Gamman was genuinely under the impression that the tenancy had been properly terminated with her property manager, when she wished the tenant better luck next time, she never left any room in her texts that she had been clueless about the material issue of whether the tenancy had ended or not at the material time or if any rent arrears were outstanding.
I consider that Ms Gamman’s texts did not leave any impression or doubt in the tenant’s mind that he was surrendering the tenancy with her express consent. How else would a reasonable tenant in Mr Naidu’s shoes construe Ms Gamman’s communication. On review, I consider Ms Gamman’s text messages to be clear and unequivocal consent to terminate the tenancy.
If Ms Gamman expressed some equivocation, or deference to Ms Baker as the person that Mr Naidu should be dealing with, then perhaps there may be some force for the landlord to now suggest that Ms Gamman did not have authority to deal with Mr Naidu on issues such as when the fixed term tenancy will end or whether it can end on 1 July 2023 by mutual agreement.
It would not be fair, according to the substantial justice and merits of the case, that rent for the period claimed by the landlord should be awarded in all the circumstances.
I find that the tenant should be able to rely on Ms Gamman’s written acceptance of the keys as consent in writing to the early release of the tenant from the fixed term tenancy on 1 July 2023 and that he delivered up vacant possession of the premises to her that day when he placed the keys in her letter box, as agreed in writing.

How much is owed in rent arrears?

During the hearing the tenant argued that he had made payment for one of the four weeks rent arrears for the period 11 April to 8 May 2023. The rent summary records do not bear that claim out. I am not satisfied that the tenant paid any of the rent arrears for this period.
For the reasons outlined above, I have found that the tenancy ended on 1 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is: a. $1,880.00 for the four missed rent payments from 11 April to 8 May 2023; and b. $335.71 for the five days rent owing for the period 27 June to 1 July 2023, being a prorated amount of the agreed rent of $470 per week.
Therefore, the total rent arrears owing by the tenant is $2,215.71.

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Because Northland Real Estate Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4628089 — net $356.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (for the periods 11 April to 8 May 2023 and 27 June to 1 July 2023	$2,215.71	Rent arrears (for the periods 11 April to 8 May 2023 and 27 June to 1 July 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$356.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$356.15

Order

Parshu Ram Naidu must pay Northland Real Estate Ltd $356.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 to Northland Real Estate Ltd immediately.
The application for termination of the tenancy under s61 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) for abandonment is not granted as I am not satisfied the tenant abandoned the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant was represented at the hearing by his wife, Mrs Reema Naidu.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Did the tenant deliver vacant possession or abandon the tenancy?

The parties agreed: a. The tenancy was for a fixed term from 28 April 2023 to 28 April 2024; and b. The tenant vacated the premise on 30 June 2023.
What was in dispute at the hearing was whether the tenant abandoned the premises on 30 June 2023 or whether the landlord accepted vacant possession of the premises on 1 July 2023.
The landlord argued that the tenant abandoned the premises on 1 July 2023 when he returned the keys to the Director of Northland Real Estate Ltd’s letterbox without having sought written consent to end the tenancy on 1 July 2023.
The tenant and landlord agreed that Ms Gamman, as Ms Baker’s boss, had stepped in and started to communicate with the tenant when he had contacted Ms Gamman with concerns about what he claimed were Ms Baker’s inappropriate interactions with him. Further, he informed Ms Gamman that he refused to deal with Ms Baker any further, either in person or in written communications.
Ms Gamman did not redirect the tenant back to Ms Baker, nor did she inform him that he did not have the right to choose not to deal with Ms Baker as she is the property manager with responsibility for managing the tenancy. She did meet with the tenant and Ms Baker to try to help them to resolve the issues the tenant had raised, after which the tenant still refused to deal with Ms Baker at all. Thereafter, all communications from the tenant were to Ms Gamman, even though it had been made clear to the tenant at a meeting with him in or around June 2023, that Ms Gamman only operated in the real estate section of the business and had nothing to do with the property management section of the business.
The landlord provided extensive evidence of the numerous attempts it made, post the tenant’s return of the keys to Ms Gamman, to agree an early release from the fixed term tenancy. These communications state that the landlord will agree to terminate the tenancy earlier than the end of the fixed term on the condition that the rent and water rate arrears, as at 10 July 2023, were immediately paid in full. An alternative to reaching agreement on those conditions was also given, being an application to the Tribunal for termination of tenancy and rent and water arrears to the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises. The tenant ignored all communications from Melanie Baker, the Property Manager engaged by Northland Real Estate Ltd to deal with all property management matters.
After the landlord accepted the return of the keys, it did not change the locks or relet the property as it did not consider the tenancy terminated. It therefore seeks rent arrears up to the date of the hearing.
In July 2023, the landlord engaged a lawyer to assist it to try to get the tenant to respond to its communications. The tenant informed the lawyer that it had delivered up vacant possession to Ms Gamman, the Director of Northland Real Estate Ltd, on 1 July 2023, and that Ms Gamman had accepted that vacant possession in writing, thereby providing the tenant with the landlord’s written consent to break the tenancy on that date, as required by section 50(1)(d) of the Act.
The tenant provided the Tribunal with: a. A text message that the tenant sent to the Ms Gamman on 30 June 2023 that reads “Hi Marilyn. Tried calling you but probably you are busy. Letting you know I have moved out of the property today. Please let me know where I can drop the keys. Thank you Naidu”. The message has 13 photographs of the state of the premises as at that date; b. A text message dated 1 July 2023 at 9:29am, from Ms Gamman that reads “Hello Naidu I can pick them up from u if that is easier for you...must be busy with the move. Do hope yu will be happy in new home. M”; c. A reply from the tenant, the same day, that reads “I can drop it off if you give me a time and location as I’m mostly out today. Thanks Naidu”; and d. A further reply from Ms Gamman at 12:9pm that reads “Ok then into my letter box at no 11 Mill Rd. Thank you Marilyn. Naidu...I do hope you have better luck with yr next”.
The tenant again argued at the hearing that in these 1 July 2023 text messages Ms Gamman accepted vacant possession in writing on behalf of the landlord, as required by section 50(1)(d) of the Act and did not accept he owed rent beyond that date.
At the date of the hearing, I indicated to the parties that needed further time to consider whether these text messages constituted acceptance of vacant possession, and early termination of the tenants fixed term tenancy, and I would reserve my decision to allow time to go over the evidence again prior to deciding this key issue. I did state that, prima facie, Ms Gamman’s text messages may not meet the threshold of written consent to early termination of the fixed term tenancy.
After giving all the evidence further consideration, I am satisfied that when Ms Gamman, as an officer of Northland Real Estate Ltd, accepted the return of the keys to the premises she accepted vacant possession and the tenancy ended on 1 July 2023.
Ms Gamman, as a Director of Northland Real Estate Ltd, the authorised agent of the owner of the tenancy premises, had responsibility to satisfy herself that there were no matters outstanding between Northland Real Estate Ltd and the tenant before allowing him to deliver up vacant possession of the tenancy premises with her written consent.
Even if Ms Gamman was genuinely under the impression that the tenancy had been properly terminated with her property manager, when she wished the tenant better luck next time, she never left any room in her texts that she had been clueless about the material issue of whether the tenancy had ended or not at the material time or if any rent arrears were outstanding.
I consider that Ms Gamman’s texts did not leave any impression or doubt in the tenant’s mind that he was surrendering the tenancy with her express consent. How else would a reasonable tenant in Mr Naidu’s shoes construe Ms Gamman’s communication. On review, I consider Ms Gamman’s text messages to be clear and unequivocal consent to terminate the tenancy.
If Ms Gamman expressed some equivocation, or deference to Ms Baker as the person that Mr Naidu should be dealing with, then perhaps there may be some force for the landlord to now suggest that Ms Gamman did not have authority to deal with Mr Naidu on issues such as when the fixed term tenancy will end or whether it can end on 1 July 2023 by mutual agreement.
It would not be fair, according to the substantial justice and merits of the case, that rent for the period claimed by the landlord should be awarded in all the circumstances.
I find that the tenant should be able to rely on Ms Gamman’s written acceptance of the keys as consent in writing to the early release of the tenant from the fixed term tenancy on 1 July 2023 and that he delivered up vacant possession of the premises to her that day when he placed the keys in her letter box, as agreed in writing.

How much is owed in rent arrears?

During the hearing the tenant argued that he had made payment for one of the four weeks rent arrears for the period 11 April to 8 May 2023. The rent summary records do not bear that claim out. I am not satisfied that the tenant paid any of the rent arrears for this period.
For the reasons outlined above, I have found that the tenancy ended on 1 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is: a. $1,880.00 for the four missed rent payments from 11 April to 8 May 2023; and b. $335.71 for the five days rent owing for the period 27 June to 1 July 2023, being a prorated amount of the agreed rent of $470 per week.
Therefore, the total rent arrears owing by the tenant is $2,215.71.

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Because Northland Real Estate Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4628089 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2/27B/5, 27 Princes St, Kensington, Whangarei

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4628089 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2/27B/5, 27 Princes St, Kensington, Whangarei

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant deliver vacant possession or abandon the tenancy?

How much is owed in rent arrears?

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant deliver vacant possession or abandon the tenancy?

How much is owed in rent arrears?

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions