What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4757794?

The tribunal order states: Samantha Elizabeth Costa and Ashleigh Dawn McIntosh must pay By Realty

How much money was awarded in case 4757794?

Deposit Held By Landlord (2 Weeks Re…: $2,560.00 awarded to landlord; Rent To 10.9.23: $731.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4757794?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4757794?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10444109-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4757794?

The tribunal order states: Samantha Elizabeth Costa and Ashleigh Dawn McIntosh must pay By Realty

How much money was awarded in case 4757794?

Deposit Held By Landlord (2 Weeks Re…: $2,560.00 awarded to landlord; Rent To 10.9.23: $731.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4757794?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4757794?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10444109-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Dressage Lane, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4757794 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4757794 — net $3,291.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Deposit held by landlord (2 weeks rent in advance	$2,560.00	Deposit held by landlord (2 weeks rent in advance
Rent to 10.9.23	$731.43	Rent to 10.9.23
Net award	$3,291.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,291.43

Order

Samantha Elizabeth Costa and Ashleigh Dawn McIntosh must pay By Realty Limited As Agent Xinxu Zhou $3,291.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the relisting and administration fee, and the tenancy transfer fee is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant Ashleigh McIntosh attended the hearing by telephone. There was no attendance by the tenant Samantha Costa.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears for the period to 10 September 2023 following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants say that the house was not in zone and that the house was advertised as being in a particular school zone for North Harbour Primary School. The tenancy agreement filed with the application was signed by the tenants on 10 August 2023.
The landlord says that the tenants viewed the property on 3 August 2023. There was a second viewing on Saturday 5 August. On 10 August 2023 the tenants then signed a formal tenancy agreement for a fixed term of 12 months and paid the deposit on or about 10 August 2023.
On 15 August 2023 the tenants then gave written notice to discontinue with the tenancy claiming that the house was not in the required school zone. The landlord then had to contact previous applicants in an attempt to find replacement tenants. They found replacement tenants who moved in on 11 September 2023.
The landlord charged two weeks rent in advance of $2560.00 on signing of the tenancy agreement. This was paid by the tenants on 10 August 2023. This amount is currently held in the landlord’s trust account. The landlord is seeking to withhold this as compensation for withdrawing from the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord is also claiming a relisting and administration fee of $287.50, and a tenancy transfer fee of $1472.00.

Was there a binding agreement?

A tenancy agreement is a contract. The law of contract applies to tenancy agreements, together with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
It is possible for a tenancy agreement to have been reached even when a written tenancy agreement has not been signed by both parties. Although Section 13 of the RTA states that all tenancy agreements must be in writing and signed, Section 13C provides that no tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
In order to determine whether a contract (residential tenancy agreement) existed the following matters need to be considered: a. the making of an offer; b. the fact of acceptance of an offer so that an agreement has been reached; c. consideration; d. Intention to create legal relations; e. The requirement of certainty – whether the terms are sufficiently certain for the parties to be legally bound.
What matters is if the contract was sufficiently formed during the exchange of emails between the tenant and the landlord. I need to be satisfied that the terms were sufficiently formed to create a binding contract. Having sighted the completed tenancy agreement with the key terms I am satisfied that the tenants intended on entering into a binding agreement with the landlord.
Having carefully reviewed all of the evidence in detail, and having heard the parties’ submissions at the hearing, I consider that there was a binding agreement. The landlord made an offer clearly setting out the details and start date of the tenancy, the rent and the bond payable.
In my view there was clear acceptance by the tenants of the contractual terms. It is unfortunate that the tenants did not undertake their own thorough investigations in respect of the tenancy address and the applicable school zoning prior to signing a legally binding tenancy agreement.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenants have no grounds for the landlord refunding the rent deposit withheld. The landlord is also entitled to charge rent up until the time the replacement tenants take over the tenancy.
I consider that my interpretation of the evidence accords with Section 85 of the RTA which provides that: Recovery of expenses incurred by the landlord s. 44A -Reasons
Samantha Elizabeth Costa and Ashleigh Dawn McIntosh claims the landlord has attempted to recover expenses incurred in respect of an assignment without providing an itemised account.
A landlord must provide an itemised account to the tenant of any expenses incurred in respect to an assignment. See section 44A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 44A(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has attempted to charge the tenant a relisting and administration fee of $287.50 and a tenancy transfer fee of $1472.00. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
The tenant has not filed a cross application in respect of this and therefore I make no order for compensation or exemplary damages.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the relisting and administration fee, and the tenancy transfer fee is dismissed.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that they are no longer seeking name suppression.
The landlord also confirming during the hearing that they are not seeking reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4757794 — net $3,291.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Deposit held by landlord (2 weeks rent in advance	$2,560.00	Deposit held by landlord (2 weeks rent in advance
Rent to 10.9.23	$731.43	Rent to 10.9.23
Net award	$3,291.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,291.43

Order

Samantha Elizabeth Costa and Ashleigh Dawn McIntosh must pay By Realty Limited As Agent Xinxu Zhou $3,291.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the relisting and administration fee, and the tenancy transfer fee is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant Ashleigh McIntosh attended the hearing by telephone. There was no attendance by the tenant Samantha Costa.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears for the period to 10 September 2023 following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants say that the house was not in zone and that the house was advertised as being in a particular school zone for North Harbour Primary School. The tenancy agreement filed with the application was signed by the tenants on 10 August 2023.
The landlord says that the tenants viewed the property on 3 August 2023. There was a second viewing on Saturday 5 August. On 10 August 2023 the tenants then signed a formal tenancy agreement for a fixed term of 12 months and paid the deposit on or about 10 August 2023.
On 15 August 2023 the tenants then gave written notice to discontinue with the tenancy claiming that the house was not in the required school zone. The landlord then had to contact previous applicants in an attempt to find replacement tenants. They found replacement tenants who moved in on 11 September 2023.
The landlord charged two weeks rent in advance of $2560.00 on signing of the tenancy agreement. This was paid by the tenants on 10 August 2023. This amount is currently held in the landlord’s trust account. The landlord is seeking to withhold this as compensation for withdrawing from the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord is also claiming a relisting and administration fee of $287.50, and a tenancy transfer fee of $1472.00.

Was there a binding agreement?

A tenancy agreement is a contract. The law of contract applies to tenancy agreements, together with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
It is possible for a tenancy agreement to have been reached even when a written tenancy agreement has not been signed by both parties. Although Section 13 of the RTA states that all tenancy agreements must be in writing and signed, Section 13C provides that no tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
In order to determine whether a contract (residential tenancy agreement) existed the following matters need to be considered: a. the making of an offer; b. the fact of acceptance of an offer so that an agreement has been reached; c. consideration; d. Intention to create legal relations; e. The requirement of certainty – whether the terms are sufficiently certain for the parties to be legally bound.
What matters is if the contract was sufficiently formed during the exchange of emails between the tenant and the landlord. I need to be satisfied that the terms were sufficiently formed to create a binding contract. Having sighted the completed tenancy agreement with the key terms I am satisfied that the tenants intended on entering into a binding agreement with the landlord.
Having carefully reviewed all of the evidence in detail, and having heard the parties’ submissions at the hearing, I consider that there was a binding agreement. The landlord made an offer clearly setting out the details and start date of the tenancy, the rent and the bond payable.
In my view there was clear acceptance by the tenants of the contractual terms. It is unfortunate that the tenants did not undertake their own thorough investigations in respect of the tenancy address and the applicable school zoning prior to signing a legally binding tenancy agreement.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenants have no grounds for the landlord refunding the rent deposit withheld. The landlord is also entitled to charge rent up until the time the replacement tenants take over the tenancy.
I consider that my interpretation of the evidence accords with Section 85 of the RTA which provides that: Recovery of expenses incurred by the landlord s. 44A -Reasons
Samantha Elizabeth Costa and Ashleigh Dawn McIntosh claims the landlord has attempted to recover expenses incurred in respect of an assignment without providing an itemised account.
A landlord must provide an itemised account to the tenant of any expenses incurred in respect to an assignment. See section 44A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 44A(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has attempted to charge the tenant a relisting and administration fee of $287.50 and a tenancy transfer fee of $1472.00. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
The tenant has not filed a cross application in respect of this and therefore I make no order for compensation or exemplary damages.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the relisting and administration fee, and the tenancy transfer fee is dismissed.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that they are no longer seeking name suppression.
The landlord also confirming during the hearing that they are not seeking reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4757794 — Tenancy dispute at 29 Dressage Lane, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4757794 — Tenancy dispute at 29 Dressage Lane, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a binding agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a binding agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions