What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4658771?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 () immediately apportioned as

How much money was awarded in case 4658771?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent: $1,685.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4658771?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4658771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10020936-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4658771?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 () immediately apportioned as

How much money was awarded in case 4658771?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent: $1,685.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4658771?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4658771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10020936-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Manuroa Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4658771 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4658771 — net $1,665.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 21 August 2023	$1,685.72		Rent to 21 August 2023
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,685.72	$20.44
Net award	$1,665.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,665.28

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 () immediately apportioned as follows: TBT Property Management Limited: $1,665.28 Dianne Lomano: $1,334.72

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 7 December 2023 (by telephone) and on 28 February 2024 (in person).
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy on 21 August 2023. Background
A summary of the facts is set out below: • A tenancy agreement was signed with 5 tenants (including Ms Lomano) for a periodic tenancy from 11 December 2020. The weekly rent was $750.00. The email address for service was for Daniel, one of the tenants. • On 9 February 2023, Daniel emailed the landlord requesting a change of tenants. He was leaving together with another tenant. The landlord replied that there was a fee to make changes to the tenancy. Later that day, Daniel said the fee had been paid and the tenant would be the point of contact in future. • On 10 February 2023 the landlord requested details of who was living at the property so that the application could be assessed. The owner’s approval would then be sought. Daniel replied that the two tenants were leaving that weekend. They would be replaced by new tenants. • Daniel and the other departing tenant vacated the property on or about 10 February 2023 and by 1 March 2023 had removed all their belongings. • On 23 February 2023 the landlord sent a change of tenant form and requested identity information for the new tenants. The change of tenant form was returned to the landlord on 5 March 2023. • On 24 February 2023 the landlord emailed a notice increasing the rent to $800.00 per week, effective from 28 April 2023. The notice was emailed to Daniel, using the email address in the tenancy agreement. • On 8 March 2023 Tenancy Services sent a letter confirming the tenant details for the bond had been changed. • On 22 May 2023 the tenant replied to an email from the landlord which said the new rent was $800.00, and the rent had been short paid for that week. The tenant said this was the first email received noting that the rent was now $800.00. The tenant said they had not received the required 60-day notice of an increase.
The tenants continued to pay $750.00 per week from 28 April 2023. The landlord says this resulted in rent arrears and claims the arrears from the bond. Water charges were also sought. After discussion at the hearing, it was common ground that there are no arrears for water charges. Relevant Law
Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the rent may be increased provided the landlord gives written notice of the increase. The notice must specify the amount of the increased rent and the day on which the increased rent becomes payable. The day when the increased rent becomes payable must not be less than 60 days after the date of the notice. The rent must not be increased within 12 months of commencement of the tenancy, or within 12 months after the last increase took effect.
Under the Act, a notice or other document can be served by email. Pursuant to section 136(4) of the Act, where there are 2 or more tenants (or landlords) under the tenancy agreement: “...it shall be sufficient compliance with a provision of this Act requiring or authorising a notice...to be given or served upon...the tenant if the notice...is served, in accordance with this Act, to or upon any one of...the tenants”.
Pursuant to section 19 of the Interpretation Act 2019, words in the singular include the plural and vice-versa. This means that the definition of “tenant” in section 2(1) of the Act includes all the tenants where there is more than one. Analysis
The tenant said she did not receive notice of the rent increase. Only Daniel received the notice. It was therefore invalid.
The notice complies with the requirements of section 24 of the Act relating to the content and timing of the notice. The only issue is whether it was given to “the tenant”. Pursuant to section 136(4) of the Act, if Daniel was still a tenant, then service on him was effective service on all the tenants, including Ms Lomano, who was an original party to the tenancy agreement.
Daniel had physically left by the time the notice of rent increase was issued. However, the landlord had not yet agreed to remove him (or anyone else) from the tenancy. For there to be a change of tenants, the tenancy agreement had to be varied. At common law a contract may only be varied with the consent of the contracting parties, including the landlord. The agreement of the remaining tenants can be implied, on the basis of conduct (they remained at the property after the change of tenants) but the landlord’s agreement was clearly subject to the owner’s consent and completion of related administration. The landlord can be taken to have agreed to vary the tenancy agreement at the earliest on 5 March 2023, when the change of tenant form was returned. Certainly, the process had been completed by 8 March 2023, when the bond details were changed.
I find that Daniel was still a tenant when the notice of rent increase was issued, and therefore, service of the notice on Daniel was service on the tenants as a group.
It is unfortunate if the other tenants were not informed at the time and it clearly caused consternation, but this does not change the legal position: the landlord followed the correct process and had sent notice to the tenants using their address for service. I find that the notice of rent increase was effective and that the rent increased to $800.00 per week from 28 April 2023. I have therefore paid $1,685.72 from the bond to the landlord for rent and refunded the balance to the tenant. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant applied for a refund of the bond and has been successful in obtaining a refund of just under half. I exercise my discretion to award the filing fee.
The tenant requested suppression. In my view, the tenant has not been “wholly or substantially” successful in the proceedings pursuant to section 95A of the Act. I decline to grant suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4658771 — net $1,665.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 21 August 2023	$1,685.72		Rent to 21 August 2023
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,685.72	$20.44
Net award	$1,665.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,665.28

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 () immediately apportioned as follows: TBT Property Management Limited: $1,665.28 Dianne Lomano: $1,334.72

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 7 December 2023 (by telephone) and on 28 February 2024 (in person).
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy on 21 August 2023. Background
A summary of the facts is set out below: • A tenancy agreement was signed with 5 tenants (including Ms Lomano) for a periodic tenancy from 11 December 2020. The weekly rent was $750.00. The email address for service was for Daniel, one of the tenants. • On 9 February 2023, Daniel emailed the landlord requesting a change of tenants. He was leaving together with another tenant. The landlord replied that there was a fee to make changes to the tenancy. Later that day, Daniel said the fee had been paid and the tenant would be the point of contact in future. • On 10 February 2023 the landlord requested details of who was living at the property so that the application could be assessed. The owner’s approval would then be sought. Daniel replied that the two tenants were leaving that weekend. They would be replaced by new tenants. • Daniel and the other departing tenant vacated the property on or about 10 February 2023 and by 1 March 2023 had removed all their belongings. • On 23 February 2023 the landlord sent a change of tenant form and requested identity information for the new tenants. The change of tenant form was returned to the landlord on 5 March 2023. • On 24 February 2023 the landlord emailed a notice increasing the rent to $800.00 per week, effective from 28 April 2023. The notice was emailed to Daniel, using the email address in the tenancy agreement. • On 8 March 2023 Tenancy Services sent a letter confirming the tenant details for the bond had been changed. • On 22 May 2023 the tenant replied to an email from the landlord which said the new rent was $800.00, and the rent had been short paid for that week. The tenant said this was the first email received noting that the rent was now $800.00. The tenant said they had not received the required 60-day notice of an increase.
The tenants continued to pay $750.00 per week from 28 April 2023. The landlord says this resulted in rent arrears and claims the arrears from the bond. Water charges were also sought. After discussion at the hearing, it was common ground that there are no arrears for water charges. Relevant Law
Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the rent may be increased provided the landlord gives written notice of the increase. The notice must specify the amount of the increased rent and the day on which the increased rent becomes payable. The day when the increased rent becomes payable must not be less than 60 days after the date of the notice. The rent must not be increased within 12 months of commencement of the tenancy, or within 12 months after the last increase took effect.
Under the Act, a notice or other document can be served by email. Pursuant to section 136(4) of the Act, where there are 2 or more tenants (or landlords) under the tenancy agreement: “...it shall be sufficient compliance with a provision of this Act requiring or authorising a notice...to be given or served upon...the tenant if the notice...is served, in accordance with this Act, to or upon any one of...the tenants”.
Pursuant to section 19 of the Interpretation Act 2019, words in the singular include the plural and vice-versa. This means that the definition of “tenant” in section 2(1) of the Act includes all the tenants where there is more than one. Analysis
The tenant said she did not receive notice of the rent increase. Only Daniel received the notice. It was therefore invalid.
The notice complies with the requirements of section 24 of the Act relating to the content and timing of the notice. The only issue is whether it was given to “the tenant”. Pursuant to section 136(4) of the Act, if Daniel was still a tenant, then service on him was effective service on all the tenants, including Ms Lomano, who was an original party to the tenancy agreement.
Daniel had physically left by the time the notice of rent increase was issued. However, the landlord had not yet agreed to remove him (or anyone else) from the tenancy. For there to be a change of tenants, the tenancy agreement had to be varied. At common law a contract may only be varied with the consent of the contracting parties, including the landlord. The agreement of the remaining tenants can be implied, on the basis of conduct (they remained at the property after the change of tenants) but the landlord’s agreement was clearly subject to the owner’s consent and completion of related administration. The landlord can be taken to have agreed to vary the tenancy agreement at the earliest on 5 March 2023, when the change of tenant form was returned. Certainly, the process had been completed by 8 March 2023, when the bond details were changed.
I find that Daniel was still a tenant when the notice of rent increase was issued, and therefore, service of the notice on Daniel was service on the tenants as a group.
It is unfortunate if the other tenants were not informed at the time and it clearly caused consternation, but this does not change the legal position: the landlord followed the correct process and had sent notice to the tenants using their address for service. I find that the notice of rent increase was effective and that the rent increased to $800.00 per week from 28 April 2023. I have therefore paid $1,685.72 from the bond to the landlord for rent and refunded the balance to the tenant. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant applied for a refund of the bond and has been successful in obtaining a refund of just under half. I exercise my discretion to award the filing fee.
The tenant requested suppression. In my view, the tenant has not been “wholly or substantially” successful in the proceedings pursuant to section 95A of the Act. I decline to grant suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4658771 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Manuroa Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4658771 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Manuroa Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions