What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4701400?

The tribunal order states: Abbegale Ireland must pay Chai Ran Jeong and Yong Min Kim $1,734.44

How much money was awarded in case 4701400?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Reimbursement: $514.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4701400?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4701400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9622130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4701400?

The tribunal order states: Abbegale Ireland must pay Chai Ran Jeong and Yong Min Kim $1,734.44

How much money was awarded in case 4701400?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Reimbursement: $514.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4701400?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4701400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9622130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Peer Street, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4701400 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4701400 — net $1,734.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent Reimbursement	$514.00	Rent Reimbursement
Bond Reimbursement	$1,200.00	Bond Reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,734.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,734.44

Order

Abbegale Ireland must pay Chai Ran Jeong and Yong Min Kim $1,734.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond and rent reimbursement following an unlawful or improper attempt by the landlord to terminate the tenancy.
The application raised a preliminary issue about whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. That is because the tenancy agreement recorded that the landlord’s address for service was the tenancy address and there was some suggestion that this may have been a flat sharing arrangement.
The tenants advertised for a room to rent on Facebook marketplace. The landlord replied with some room options at 33 Peer St. The tenants selected a room, and the landlord prepared a “Tenancy Agreement”. The agreement was not in a standard form; it appeared to be an amalgam of clauses from Residential Tenancy agreements and commercial leases or agreements from other jurisdictions available online. However, it is an agreement under which the landlord granted the tenants a tenancy in return for the payment of rent.
The tenants said that the landlord lived at the property for a short time and other rooms were let to other tenants at about the same time that they moved in. Text messages provided to the Tribunal establish that the landlord did not permanently reside at the property but moved to, or was in, Auckland to be near her son.
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act does not apply: where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family
When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied.
The landlord did not attend the hearing or communicate with the Tribunal in any way. She has not contended that the Act does not apply to this arrangement. I find that this was a Residential Tenancy for the double room at 33 Peer St. There is not enough evidence for me to conclude that the premises were used principally as a place of residence by the landlord. That is, I cannot be satisfied that the exclusion applies.
I find that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the tenants’ claims. Tenant’s Claims
I heard the claims at the hearing on 7 November 2023.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, so the landlord must reimburse the tenants.
The tenancy agreement recorded that the tenancy was periodic and that any notice to terminate “must comply with the applicable legislation of New Zealand (“the Act”). There is no reference to specific legislation and “the Act” is not properly defined.
Any notice to terminate the tenancy should have complied with s55 RTA. It did not. The landlord purported to terminate the tenancy, by text message, on 14 days’ notice. Her communications with the tenants were rude, unpleasant, and entitled. They lacked any sense of her obligations as a landlord. However, they did record that the bond and rent paid in advance would be refunded. The landlord then appears to have changed her mind or applied different conditions to the refunds.
The tenant has established that it had paid rent in advance which should be paid because of the landlord’s failure to issue a proper notice to terminate, and because in text messages the landlord had agreed to that refund. I award $514.00 to the tenants.
As the tenants were the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4701400 — net $1,734.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent Reimbursement	$514.00	Rent Reimbursement
Bond Reimbursement	$1,200.00	Bond Reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,734.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,734.44

Order

Abbegale Ireland must pay Chai Ran Jeong and Yong Min Kim $1,734.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond and rent reimbursement following an unlawful or improper attempt by the landlord to terminate the tenancy.
The application raised a preliminary issue about whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. That is because the tenancy agreement recorded that the landlord’s address for service was the tenancy address and there was some suggestion that this may have been a flat sharing arrangement.
The tenants advertised for a room to rent on Facebook marketplace. The landlord replied with some room options at 33 Peer St. The tenants selected a room, and the landlord prepared a “Tenancy Agreement”. The agreement was not in a standard form; it appeared to be an amalgam of clauses from Residential Tenancy agreements and commercial leases or agreements from other jurisdictions available online. However, it is an agreement under which the landlord granted the tenants a tenancy in return for the payment of rent.
The tenants said that the landlord lived at the property for a short time and other rooms were let to other tenants at about the same time that they moved in. Text messages provided to the Tribunal establish that the landlord did not permanently reside at the property but moved to, or was in, Auckland to be near her son.
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act does not apply: where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family
When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied.
The landlord did not attend the hearing or communicate with the Tribunal in any way. She has not contended that the Act does not apply to this arrangement. I find that this was a Residential Tenancy for the double room at 33 Peer St. There is not enough evidence for me to conclude that the premises were used principally as a place of residence by the landlord. That is, I cannot be satisfied that the exclusion applies.
I find that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the tenants’ claims. Tenant’s Claims
I heard the claims at the hearing on 7 November 2023.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, so the landlord must reimburse the tenants.
The tenancy agreement recorded that the tenancy was periodic and that any notice to terminate “must comply with the applicable legislation of New Zealand (“the Act”). There is no reference to specific legislation and “the Act” is not properly defined.
Any notice to terminate the tenancy should have complied with s55 RTA. It did not. The landlord purported to terminate the tenancy, by text message, on 14 days’ notice. Her communications with the tenants were rude, unpleasant, and entitled. They lacked any sense of her obligations as a landlord. However, they did record that the bond and rent paid in advance would be refunded. The landlord then appears to have changed her mind or applied different conditions to the refunds.
The tenant has established that it had paid rent in advance which should be paid because of the landlord’s failure to issue a proper notice to terminate, and because in text messages the landlord had agreed to that refund. I award $514.00 to the tenants.
As the tenants were the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4701400 — Tenancy dispute at 33 Peer Street, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4701400 — Tenancy dispute at 33 Peer Street, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions