What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4807278?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4807278?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4807278?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4807278?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10063471-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4807278?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4807278?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4807278?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4807278?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10063471-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 20 Marne Road, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4807278 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant seeks reimbursement of rent from 10 January 2024 onwards on the basis that the parties could not reach an agreement for the new rent from June 2024 onwards.

The rent is presently $477.00; the tenancy is periodic.

The material issue is whether the tenancy had ended on 10 January 2024.

On 20 December 2023, the tenant issued the landlord with their 28-day notice for the tenancy to end on 10 January 2024.

The parties then entered into a discussion about a new tenancy at a new rent to take effect from June 2024. However, the parties’ negotiations failed and they did not enter into a new tenancy agreement.

During this period of negotiation, rent continued to be paid by the tenant beyond 10 January 2024. While the keys had been returned to the landlord, the landlord was at all material times ready to hand them over to the tenant.

The tenant accepts that their agent Kevin England had withdrawn the 20 December 2023 notice. While Ms Naicker complains that Mr England should not have withdrawn the notice without Linkpeople’s express agreement (or Mr England should not have bypassed Linkpeople), the fact of the matter is that even the initial the 28-day notice had been issued by Mr England.

Mr England therefore had apparent authority to deal with the landlord for and on behalf of Linkpeople at all material times.

Consequently, the communication by Mr England to withdraw his own 28-day notice binds the tenant/Linkpeople. The withdrawal of the notice is supported by the tenant paying back outstanding rent and also current rent to date.

There is clear reliance of the withdrawal of the notice on part of the landlord as the landlord have not and could not relet the premises while rent continues to be paid by the tenant to date.

The subsequent failed negotiation between the parties on the rent for June 2024 onwards does not affect the current status of the tenancy which is still ongoing.

The tenant may, of course, now choose to end the periodic tenancy by issuing the minimum 28-days’ notice, if Linkpeople so chooses. But this is a matter for the future status of the tenancy.

As it stands, the present tenancy agreement between the parties is ongoing.

In the circumstances, the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of rent must fail because the tenancy had not ended on 10 January 2024.

Reasons