What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774394?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4774394?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774394?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10330597-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774394?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4774394?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774394?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10330597-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 7 Palm Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774394 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (3423945-008) to Manzar Johnny Ali and Georgia Shayza Rose Ali immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has claimed 3 weeks’ rent in lieu of notice from the bond.
The fixed term tenancy would have become periodic on 27 November 2023 had the landlord not given 90 days’ notice on 28 August 2023 to end the tenancy on 27 November 2023.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s 90 day notice as a notice that complies with section 51(2)(g) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), being the premises are to be demolished and the demolition is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.
Given the parties’ acceptance of the landlord’s notice for the tenancy to end on 27 November 2023, the tenant is not obliged to give 28 days’ notice after 27 November 2023.
The fact that the tenant had not vacated on 27 November 2023 does not extend the tenancy or convert the tenancy into a further periodic tenancy.
Admittedly the tenant had remained in occupation of the premises even after the tenancy had ended on 27 November 2023. The tenant only vacated on 8 December 2023 after having given the landlord 1 day’s notice prior to vacating.
But a tenant’s failure to vacate on 27 November 2023 only gives rise to an action for possession of the premises by the landlord under section 64 RTA. Section 64 RTA provides that on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person.
The tenant’s failure to vacate on 27 November 2023 therefore does not, by itself, invalidate the parties’ acceptance of termination of a tenancy on 27 November 2023.
The same applies to the landlord’s repeated emails to the tenant asking when the tenant will be vacating; the tenant’s failure to specify when they will be vacating does not invalidate the parties’ earlier acceptance of termination of the tenancy on 27 November 2023.
Since the tenancy had already terminated on 27 November 2023, the tenant was under no obligation to give 28 days’ notice to vacate the premises.
The requirement on a tenant to give 28 days’ notice under section 51(2B) RTA is predicated on there being a periodic tenancy in place at the material time.
Here, there was no periodic tenancy at the material time after 27 November 2023; the mere fact of the tenant remaining in possession after termination of the tenancy on 27 November 2023 does not resurrect the already terminated tenancy.
I hasten to add that if a new periodic tenancy is deemed to have been in effect simply because the tenant had remained in possession beyond 27 November 2023 (or because the tenant had not given the landlord a specific date on when the tenant will be vacating), then the landlord would have been unable to secure possession of the premises under section 64 RTA after 27 November 2023. This will leave landlords at the hands of tenants to give 28 days’ notice to vacate if and only if tenants choose to leave and “new” periodic tenancies will keep springing up and continue on indefinitely; this position cannot be correct!
However, the only pre-requisite to the landlord seeking an order for possession under section 64(1) RTA is found in subsection (2) which states that no possession order may be made more than 90 days after the date of the termination of the tenancy.
Consequently, the landlord is entitled to apply under section 64(1) for an order for possession after 27 November 2023 despite the tenant remaining in possession after 27 November 2023, subject only to the landlord making the application for the possession order no more than 90 days after 27 November 2023, being the date of the termination of the tenancy.
For the above reasons, the landlord cannot seek any rent in lieu of notice from the tenant.
The tenant vacated on 8 December 2023 and the landlord confirmed that rent has been duly paid to 8 December 2023.
The landlord’s claim for 3 weeks’ rent in lieu of notice therefore fails.
There being no further amounts owing by the tenant in respect of the tenancy, the bond should now be refunded to the tenant in full.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (3423945-008) to Manzar Johnny Ali and Georgia Shayza Rose Ali immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has claimed 3 weeks’ rent in lieu of notice from the bond.
The fixed term tenancy would have become periodic on 27 November 2023 had the landlord not given 90 days’ notice on 28 August 2023 to end the tenancy on 27 November 2023.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s 90 day notice as a notice that complies with section 51(2)(g) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), being the premises are to be demolished and the demolition is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.
Given the parties’ acceptance of the landlord’s notice for the tenancy to end on 27 November 2023, the tenant is not obliged to give 28 days’ notice after 27 November 2023.
The fact that the tenant had not vacated on 27 November 2023 does not extend the tenancy or convert the tenancy into a further periodic tenancy.
Admittedly the tenant had remained in occupation of the premises even after the tenancy had ended on 27 November 2023. The tenant only vacated on 8 December 2023 after having given the landlord 1 day’s notice prior to vacating.
But a tenant’s failure to vacate on 27 November 2023 only gives rise to an action for possession of the premises by the landlord under section 64 RTA. Section 64 RTA provides that on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person.
The tenant’s failure to vacate on 27 November 2023 therefore does not, by itself, invalidate the parties’ acceptance of termination of a tenancy on 27 November 2023.
The same applies to the landlord’s repeated emails to the tenant asking when the tenant will be vacating; the tenant’s failure to specify when they will be vacating does not invalidate the parties’ earlier acceptance of termination of the tenancy on 27 November 2023.
Since the tenancy had already terminated on 27 November 2023, the tenant was under no obligation to give 28 days’ notice to vacate the premises.
The requirement on a tenant to give 28 days’ notice under section 51(2B) RTA is predicated on there being a periodic tenancy in place at the material time.
Here, there was no periodic tenancy at the material time after 27 November 2023; the mere fact of the tenant remaining in possession after termination of the tenancy on 27 November 2023 does not resurrect the already terminated tenancy.
I hasten to add that if a new periodic tenancy is deemed to have been in effect simply because the tenant had remained in possession beyond 27 November 2023 (or because the tenant had not given the landlord a specific date on when the tenant will be vacating), then the landlord would have been unable to secure possession of the premises under section 64 RTA after 27 November 2023. This will leave landlords at the hands of tenants to give 28 days’ notice to vacate if and only if tenants choose to leave and “new” periodic tenancies will keep springing up and continue on indefinitely; this position cannot be correct!
However, the only pre-requisite to the landlord seeking an order for possession under section 64(1) RTA is found in subsection (2) which states that no possession order may be made more than 90 days after the date of the termination of the tenancy.
Consequently, the landlord is entitled to apply under section 64(1) for an order for possession after 27 November 2023 despite the tenant remaining in possession after 27 November 2023, subject only to the landlord making the application for the possession order no more than 90 days after 27 November 2023, being the date of the termination of the tenancy.
For the above reasons, the landlord cannot seek any rent in lieu of notice from the tenant.
The tenant vacated on 8 December 2023 and the landlord confirmed that rent has been duly paid to 8 December 2023.
The landlord’s claim for 3 weeks’ rent in lieu of notice therefore fails.
There being no further amounts owing by the tenant in respect of the tenancy, the bond should now be refunded to the tenant in full.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774394 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 7 Palm Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774394 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 7 Palm Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions