What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4813257?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4813257?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4813257?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4813257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10509228-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4813257?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4813257?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4813257?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4813257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10509228-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

198 Wai-Iti Road, Highfield, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4813257 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing in Timaru on 29 April 2024.

Ms Khoo was represented at that hearing by her agent, Blackham & Co.

The purpose of the hearing on 29 April 2024 was to determine whether a notice to terminate the tenancy dated 18 March 2024 was valid. The notice was issued by Blackham & Co, on instructions from Ms Khoo.

On 1 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order that the notice was not valid and could not be relied on by the landlord because it did not comply with the requirements of s51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal order also found that the notice was retaliatory (see s54 RTA).

The tenant’s other claims were adjourned for hearing at a later date.

On 9 May 2024, Ms Khoo applied for a rehearing of the 1 May order on the grounds that she had not had an opportunity to explain her position.

Ms Khoo’s rehearing application and the rest of the tenant claims were heard by video on 6 June. Ms Khoo and Mr Houlden attended that hearing. Rehearing Application

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.

Usually, the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure. Ms Khoo said that she did not have an opportunity to attend the first hearing and explain her position. Ms Khoo was represented by her agent at the first hearing and purported to have Ms Khoo’s authority.

Ms Khoo did not identify any issue with the Tribunal’s process which would give rise to a rehearing. Any issues were with the communication between her and her authorised agent, Blackham & Co.

Further Ms Khoo acknowledged that the notice terminate the tenancy was defective. That is, even if a rehearing was granted the outcome would be the same.

Ms Khoo’s concern was that the Tribunal had also found that the notice to terminate was retaliatory. Ms Khoo said she had not behaved in a retaliatory way and was upset by the finding. She wanted an opportunity to explain why the notice was given. I allowed her that opportunity at the hearing on 6 June 2024.

Having heard from Ms Khoo, I accept that her reasons for wanting to sell the property are valid. The 1 May decision was in relation to the notice to terminate the tenancy only, not the notice of intention to sell. Section 54 only applies to notices to terminate the tenancy, not notices to sell.

I also accept that Ms Khoo was acting on advice from her listing agent when deciding to terminate the tenancy. My impression is that Ms Khoo has not been well served by the property manager or listing agent. Communication has been poor and the evidence regarding the listing agent’s conduct is set out in the 1 May 2024 decision.

The application for rehearing is dismissed. Tenant Claims

Mr Houlden raised concerns about delays in maintenance and had a concern that correct safety procedures may not have been followed during a roof repair. In particular, he was concerned that the roof contained asbestos. Ms Khoo provided a report to confirm that it did not.

Mr Houlden was not seeking compensation for the issues raised. He highlighted a lack of urgency or action by the property manager, but did not establish claims for any breach of the landlord’s obligations. The claims are dismissed.

Ms Khoo should be aware that she may be held liable for inaction by her agents in the future, if such conduct amounts to a breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations. See s45 RTA.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing in Timaru on 29 April 2024.
Ms Khoo was represented at that hearing by her agent, Blackham & Co.
The purpose of the hearing on 29 April 2024 was to determine whether a notice to terminate the tenancy dated 18 March 2024 was valid. The notice was issued by Blackham & Co, on instructions from Ms Khoo.
On 1 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order that the notice was not valid and could not be relied on by the landlord because it did not comply with the requirements of s51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal order also found that the notice was retaliatory (see s54 RTA).
The tenant’s other claims were adjourned for hearing at a later date.
On 9 May 2024, Ms Khoo applied for a rehearing of the 1 May order on the grounds that she had not had an opportunity to explain her position.
Ms Khoo’s rehearing application and the rest of the tenant claims were heard by video on 6 June. Ms Khoo and Mr Houlden attended that hearing. Rehearing Application
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually, the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure. Ms Khoo said that she did not have an opportunity to attend the first hearing and explain her position. Ms Khoo was represented by her agent at the first hearing and purported to have Ms Khoo’s authority.
Ms Khoo did not identify any issue with the Tribunal’s process which would give rise to a rehearing. Any issues were with the communication between her and her authorised agent, Blackham & Co.
Further Ms Khoo acknowledged that the notice terminate the tenancy was defective. That is, even if a rehearing was granted the outcome would be the same.
Ms Khoo’s concern was that the Tribunal had also found that the notice to terminate was retaliatory. Ms Khoo said she had not behaved in a retaliatory way and was upset by the finding. She wanted an opportunity to explain why the notice was given. I allowed her that opportunity at the hearing on 6 June 2024.
Having heard from Ms Khoo, I accept that her reasons for wanting to sell the property are valid. The 1 May decision was in relation to the notice to terminate the tenancy only, not the notice of intention to sell. Section 54 only applies to notices to terminate the tenancy, not notices to sell.
I also accept that Ms Khoo was acting on advice from her listing agent when deciding to terminate the tenancy. My impression is that Ms Khoo has not been well served by the property manager or listing agent. Communication has been poor and the evidence regarding the listing agent’s conduct is set out in the 1 May 2024 decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed. Tenant Claims
Mr Houlden raised concerns about delays in maintenance and had a concern that correct safety procedures may not have been followed during a roof repair. In particular, he was concerned that the roof contained asbestos. Ms Khoo provided a report to confirm that it did not.
Mr Houlden was not seeking compensation for the issues raised. He highlighted a lack of urgency or action by the property manager, but did not establish claims for any breach of the landlord’s obligations. The claims are dismissed.
Ms Khoo should be aware that she may be held liable for inaction by her agents in the future, if such conduct amounts to a breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations. See s45 RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4813257 — Tenancy dispute at 198 Wai-Iti Road, Highfield, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4813257 — Tenancy dispute at 198 Wai-Iti Road, Highfield, Timaru 7910

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