What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4814898?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination due to non-payment of rent was

How much money was awarded in case 4814898?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4814898?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4814898?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10327781-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4814898?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination due to non-payment of rent was

How much money was awarded in case 4814898?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4814898?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4814898?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10327781-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

78 Queenspark Drive, Parklands, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4814898 — Rent arrears

Order

The landlord’s application for termination due to non-payment of rent was withdrawn at the hearing.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord has unreasonably withheld consent to an assignment is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
As at the hearing date all rent arrears had been brought up to date so the landlord withdrew his claim for termination based on non-payment of rent.
That part of the landlord’s application in relation to compensation for damage was not heard and the landlord may, if required, choose to bring a claim for this at another time. Lease break
Mr Barnes and Ms Verry entered a two-year fixed term lease for the premises in April 2023. The lease was due to expire on 25 April 2025.
On 24 January 2024, Mr Barnes emailed the landlord saying that he “was looking at breaking [his] lease early.” He indicated that Ms Verry wished to stay and requested further discussion.
Discussion was held and the landlord advised that he would accept early termination of the entire lease.
There was no mention, in any documents before the Tribunal, of any “break lease fees” or other usual costs associated with ending a fixed term tenancy early. The landlord had simply agreed to release the tenants from their obligations.
The emails provided to the Tribunal indicate that the tenants accepted this suggestion as Mr Barnes emailed (two days later) to ask, “would the 25 th of February work for our date to be out of the flat?”
On 12 February, Mr Barnes sent the landlord a “pre-tenancy application” from Mr Mackle. The application is incomplete and provides very limited information as regards references and current landlord.
The landlord advised (on 16 February 2023) that he did not wish to accept the assignment and he again said he was happy to allow the tenants to break their lease early.
Sometime before 18 March, Mr Barnes moved out of the property and Mr Mackle moved in. Around the same time, rent went into arrears.
The landlord called to the property on 18 March and spoke to Mr Mackle. Ms Verry text later that day to address the landlord’s concerns about the rent arrears.
The landlord sent two emails the following day to reconfirm that he was happy to release both tenants from their obligations under the lease with three weeks’ notice and some minor damage repaired. Assignment
The tenants claim that the landlord has unreasonably withheld consent to an assignment. They further claim that this was due to discrimination. The alleged discrimination seems to be on the basis of employment status.
In the initial correspondence, assignment was not specifically mentioned. Mr Barnes wanted to be freed from his lease obligations and the landlord agreed to do so on the basis that the property would be returned to him.
This was agreed to by the tenants.
Later, an assignment was proposed, and the landlord reiterated his willingness to end the lease early.
Under section 43B(7) of the Residential tenancies Act 1986, a “landlord’s consent must not be taken to be withheld unreasonably if, instead of consenting to the assignment, the landlord offers to accept a surrender of the tenancy on reasonable terms.”
The landlord had made it clear, before the assignment was proposed and after, that he was willing to end the tenancy with no onerous conditions imposed on the tenants.
In these circumstances, the landlord cannot be said to be discriminating against any particular person. He wished to release these tenants and find replacement tenants himself as initially agreed.
The tenants gave evidence that Mr Mackle was employed when he first moved into the property so, again, it is difficult to see that employment status played a role in the landlord’s decision making.
The landlord did not feel confident that Ms Verry could afford to cover the rent by herself, and he had not accepted Mr Mackle as a new tenant. The rent went into arrears almost immediately (having never had serious issues before) and this reinforced that view. Current position
The landlord acknowledged that Ms Verry had brought the rent up to date prior to the hearing. He also acknowledged what Ms Verry had said in the hearing relating to her ability to pay rent on time from now on.
He indicated that he may be willing to discuss options around creating a new periodic tenancy with Ms Verry and Mr Mackle as tenants. The parties went out of the hearing room briefly to discuss these options to see if they could come to an agreement amongst themselves. They were unable to do so.
The landlord remained willing to allow the tenancy to end early throughout the hearing.
There is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest that the landlord has unreasonably withheld consent to an assignment.
It is my view that the landlord and tenants agreed to vary their tenancy contract by ending the tenancy earlier than the fixed term end date (on approximately 25 February 2024).
The tenants then tried to amend that new agreement by asking if Mr Mackle could, instead, take over Mr Barnes obligations.
The landlord declined but reiterated his willingness to accept a surrender under s43B(7) as above.
The landlord also indicated a willingness to explore options around entering a new tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s position here has been entirely reasonable.
The tenancy will continue on current terms and with the current tenants as named on the tenancy agreement (unless it is ended earlier by mutual agreement).
If there are no further breaches of the tenancy agreement, neither Ms Verry nor Mr Barnes is prejudiced by the absence of an assignment. Filing fee
As the landlord’s application was withdrawn and the tenants were unsuccessful, fees fall where they lie.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4814898 — Rent arrears at 78 Queenspark Drive, Parklands, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4814898 — Rent arrears at 78 Queenspark Drive, Parklands, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions