What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4760926?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Sang Woo Park and Erin Koo at Unit/Flat 2, 9 Schnapper Rock

How much money was awarded in case 4760926?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760926?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760926?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10069721-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4760926?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Sang Woo Park and Erin Koo at Unit/Flat 2, 9 Schnapper Rock

How much money was awarded in case 4760926?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760926?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760926?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10069721-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 9 Schnapper Rock Road, Greenhithe, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4760926 — Healthy homes

Order

The tenancy of Sang Woo Park and Erin Koo at Unit/Flat 2, 9 Schnapper Rock Road, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632 is terminated, and possession is granted to Silverfern Property Management Limited, at 11.59pm on Thursday 14 March 2024.
The application for a reduction of the term of the tenancy under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is dismissed.
The application for a declaration that the premises were not Healthy Homes Standards compliant, and for compensation for non-compliance, is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Park represented the tenants, Mr Xu the landlord. I heard evidence from them both and from Mr Zhu a witness for the tenant. Background
The tenancy started on 2 June 2023 and is a fixed term tenancy until 1 June 2024.
Then tenants moved out of the premises on 23 December 2023. They travelled to Korea and were married there on 13 January 2024. They were away from New Zealand for about five weeks. Upon their return they did not move back into the premises although they have continued to pay rent.
The tenants asked the landlord to release them from the tenancy. They engaged an agent, Mr Zhu, to help them find replacement tenants.
Mr Zhu sent 3 applications to the landlord company. All were rejected.
The tenants applied for an order reducing the term of their tenancy. They also alleged that the premises were not Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliant for which they sought compensation.
At the hearing today, Mr Park withdrew the part of the application that concerned HHS compliance and compensation. The landlord proved compliance so there was no basis on which that part of the application could have succeeded. The premises were newly built at the start of the tenancy. A later report has confirmed the premises are HHS compliant. Issues
The issues for determination by the Tribunal are these: •Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the tenancy under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)? •If not, did the landlord unreasonably withhold consent for an assignment of the tenancy. •If the landlord withheld consent unreasonably, what should happen?

Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the tenancy under section 66 RTA?

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Park explained that about one month after the tenancy started, after dating for about a year, he and Ms Koo decided to get married, which they did, in Korea, on 13 January 2024.
When I explained that the decision to marry was not an unforeseen change in circumstances, Mr Park said they did not want to remain at the premises because of parking difficulties.
When I explained that was not an unforeseen change in circumstances, Mr Park said he and his wife had bought a house. The purchase settled on 1 March 2024.
After returning from Korea and before the settlement of their purchase of their house, Mr Park and Ms Koo did not reside at the tenancy premises. But they could have. It was their decision not to.
The application to reduce the term of the tenancy does not clear the first hurdle; they have failed to establish any unforeseen change in their circumstances that would justify the Tribunal making an order.
The section 66 RTA test is a test of high threshold. The tenants have not proved their application for the Tribunal to reduce the term of the tenancy. Did the landlord unreasonably withhold consent for an assignment of the tenancy.
A tenant may assign a tenancy with the consent of the landlord which cannot unreasonably be withheld.
The tenants engaged Mr Zhu, a rental management agent, to find new tenants. He put forward three applications to the landlord for consideration. All were rejected.
The premises comprise one bedroom and a study. Mr Xu said that two of the applications were not suitable as there were multiple tenants. Mr Zhu accepted today that was correct.
However, the third application was from a mother with a daughter (aged 11 years). Mr Zhu said the credit and reference checks for that applicant were good.
Mr Xu did not work for the landlord company when that application was presented to the previous property manager. All he could say is that the owner did not consider the premises suitable for a mother and daughter, preferring a couple.
There is no objective reason why a mother and daughter as opposed to a couple would not be suitable, given that the credit and reference checks were satisfactory.
Even in a 1-bedroom unit, two single beds could have accommodated them (or indeed one large bed). The number of tenants was the same whether for a mother and daughter or for a couple.
I find that the landlord unreasonably withheld consent for an assignment of the tenancy to the mother and daughter prospective tenants Mr Zhu found. What should happen because the landlord unreasonably refused to assign the tenancy?
Section 85(2) RTA provides: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The tenants have not abandoned the tenancy. They simply decided to move from the premises pending their wedding on 13 January 2024, their time overseas, and the settlement of their purchase on 1 March 2024.
As recently as 7 March 2024, the tenants went back to the premises. They have not returned the keys. They have continued to pay rent.
The fairest resolution of this dispute is for the Tribunal to end the tenancy at the end of the most recent rent period, which is 14 March 2024. I have terminated the tenancy and have granted the landlord possession then.
The bond will remain at the Bond Centre until then, pending a final inspection by the landlord. Result
The tenants’ application for a reduction of the term of the tenancy is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for a declaration that the premises are not HHS compliant, and for compensation, is withdrawn.
The tenancy will end on 14 March 2024, based on the landlord’s unreasonable refusal to assign the tenancy to the mother/daughter tenants located by rental management agent Mr Zhu.
I make no award of the filing fee. The application is only partly successful.
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Order

The tenancy of Sang Woo Park and Erin Koo at Unit/Flat 2, 9 Schnapper Rock Road, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632 is terminated, and possession is granted to Silverfern Property Management Limited, at 11.59pm on Thursday 14 March 2024.
The application for a reduction of the term of the tenancy under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is dismissed.
The application for a declaration that the premises were not Healthy Homes Standards compliant, and for compensation for non-compliance, is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Park represented the tenants, Mr Xu the landlord. I heard evidence from them both and from Mr Zhu a witness for the tenant. Background
The tenancy started on 2 June 2023 and is a fixed term tenancy until 1 June 2024.
Then tenants moved out of the premises on 23 December 2023. They travelled to Korea and were married there on 13 January 2024. They were away from New Zealand for about five weeks. Upon their return they did not move back into the premises although they have continued to pay rent.
The tenants asked the landlord to release them from the tenancy. They engaged an agent, Mr Zhu, to help them find replacement tenants.
Mr Zhu sent 3 applications to the landlord company. All were rejected.
The tenants applied for an order reducing the term of their tenancy. They also alleged that the premises were not Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliant for which they sought compensation.
At the hearing today, Mr Park withdrew the part of the application that concerned HHS compliance and compensation. The landlord proved compliance so there was no basis on which that part of the application could have succeeded. The premises were newly built at the start of the tenancy. A later report has confirmed the premises are HHS compliant. Issues
The issues for determination by the Tribunal are these: •Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the tenancy under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)? •If not, did the landlord unreasonably withhold consent for an assignment of the tenancy. •If the landlord withheld consent unreasonably, what should happen?

Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the tenancy under section 66 RTA?

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Park explained that about one month after the tenancy started, after dating for about a year, he and Ms Koo decided to get married, which they did, in Korea, on 13 January 2024.
When I explained that the decision to marry was not an unforeseen change in circumstances, Mr Park said they did not want to remain at the premises because of parking difficulties.
When I explained that was not an unforeseen change in circumstances, Mr Park said he and his wife had bought a house. The purchase settled on 1 March 2024.
After returning from Korea and before the settlement of their purchase of their house, Mr Park and Ms Koo did not reside at the tenancy premises. But they could have. It was their decision not to.
The application to reduce the term of the tenancy does not clear the first hurdle; they have failed to establish any unforeseen change in their circumstances that would justify the Tribunal making an order.
The section 66 RTA test is a test of high threshold. The tenants have not proved their application for the Tribunal to reduce the term of the tenancy. Did the landlord unreasonably withhold consent for an assignment of the tenancy.
A tenant may assign a tenancy with the consent of the landlord which cannot unreasonably be withheld.
The tenants engaged Mr Zhu, a rental management agent, to find new tenants. He put forward three applications to the landlord for consideration. All were rejected.
The premises comprise one bedroom and a study. Mr Xu said that two of the applications were not suitable as there were multiple tenants. Mr Zhu accepted today that was correct.
However, the third application was from a mother with a daughter (aged 11 years). Mr Zhu said the credit and reference checks for that applicant were good.
Mr Xu did not work for the landlord company when that application was presented to the previous property manager. All he could say is that the owner did not consider the premises suitable for a mother and daughter, preferring a couple.
There is no objective reason why a mother and daughter as opposed to a couple would not be suitable, given that the credit and reference checks were satisfactory.
Even in a 1-bedroom unit, two single beds could have accommodated them (or indeed one large bed). The number of tenants was the same whether for a mother and daughter or for a couple.
I find that the landlord unreasonably withheld consent for an assignment of the tenancy to the mother and daughter prospective tenants Mr Zhu found. What should happen because the landlord unreasonably refused to assign the tenancy?
Section 85(2) RTA provides: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The tenants have not abandoned the tenancy. They simply decided to move from the premises pending their wedding on 13 January 2024, their time overseas, and the settlement of their purchase on 1 March 2024.
As recently as 7 March 2024, the tenants went back to the premises. They have not returned the keys. They have continued to pay rent.
The fairest resolution of this dispute is for the Tribunal to end the tenancy at the end of the most recent rent period, which is 14 March 2024. I have terminated the tenancy and have granted the landlord possession then.
The bond will remain at the Bond Centre until then, pending a final inspection by the landlord. Result
The tenants’ application for a reduction of the term of the tenancy is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for a declaration that the premises are not HHS compliant, and for compensation, is withdrawn.
The tenancy will end on 14 March 2024, based on the landlord’s unreasonable refusal to assign the tenancy to the mother/daughter tenants located by rental management agent Mr Zhu.
I make no award of the filing fee. The application is only partly successful.
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760926 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 2, 9 Schnapper Rock Road, Greenhithe, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760926 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 2, 9 Schnapper Rock Road, Greenhithe, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the tenancy under section 66 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the tenancy under section 66 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions