What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4820757?

The tribunal order states: Jason Edmond Fouche and Jutta Angelika Korte-Fouche must pay Cowdy & Co

How much money was awarded in case 4820757?

Break Lease Costs: $1,281.84 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820757?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820757?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10278821-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4820757?

The tribunal order states: Jason Edmond Fouche and Jutta Angelika Korte-Fouche must pay Cowdy & Co

How much money was awarded in case 4820757?

Break Lease Costs: $1,281.84 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820757?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820757?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10278821-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Cairnbrae Drive, Prebbleton, 7604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4820757 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4820757 — net $1,302.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Break lease costs	$1,281.84	Break lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,302.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,302.28

Order

Jason Edmond Fouche and Jutta Angelika Korte-Fouche must pay Cowdy & Co Limited as Agent for M Alangurli $1,302.28 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Mr Beckett attended the hearing for the landlord. Mr Fouche attended on behalf of the tenants.
The landlord claims expenses in respect of the early termination of this fixed term tenancy. The tenants accept that they must pay reasonable expenses, but they dispute the reasonableness of the landlord’s claim. Law
Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a landlord, who consents to a termination in these circumstances, is entitled to recover from the tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination. Background
The tenants agreed to buy a house and wanted to be released from their fixed term tenancy early. They applied to the landlord for early release and the landlord agreed subject to certain terms that the tenants accepted.
The break lease agreement refers to s44A of the Act and it sets out the type of costs that the tenants would be expected to pay. It refers to compensation for the property manager’s (Cowdy) time at $80 plus GST per hour.
The tenants found two potential new tenants and one of them signed a tenancy agreement with the landlord and moved into the premises. That avoided advertising costs.
After the new tenancy began, Cowdy provided the tenant with a breakdown of their costs. The total is $1,281.84 including GST. It includes some disbursements, but most of the cost relates to Cowdy’s time.
Mr Beckett said that Cowdy had not charged the landlord these costs, and they would not charge the landlord because there was no reason why the landlord should have to pay the costs. He also said that Cowdy charged landlords one weeks rent as a letting fee plus a percentage of the rent for managing the tenancy.
Mr Fouche said that the 12 hours that Cowdy has claimed is unreasonable and that 4-6 hours would be reasonable. The tenants say that Cowdy told them that the last three break leases that they dealt with involved costs of between $320 and $2,000. They point out that this was a very straightforward case and so the costs should be at the lower end of that range. They propose that costs of $632.50 would be reasonable based on 6 hours of the property manager’s time plus disbursements and GST. Discussion and Decision
The tenants are liable to pay the expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination. That is not necessarily the same as the expenses that it would be reasonable for the property manager to charge the tenants. This is the landlord’s claim, not the property manager’s claim. Strictly, Cowdy should not be named as an applicant, but I have left the title of the case unchanged because I understand the pragmatic reason for it.
Mr Beckett said that the landlord has not been charged the expenses and will not be charged for them. Taking that at face value, it follows that the landlord has not incurred any expenses. To incur expenses means to be liable to pay them and the landlord can have no liability if they have not received an invoice which they are liable, contractually, to pay.
But it would be unreasonable to take such a strict view of the situation. To be fair to Mr Beckett, it’s likely that he was making the point that because the tenants are liable to pay the reasonable expenses in respect of the termination, there is no reason why the landlord should have to pay any of them. It is also in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case that I assess the reasonable expenses in respect of the termination and award them.
Looking at Cowdy’s statement of expenses, it is not immediately obvious that any one item is excessive. But the total charge strikes be as high compared with what I am used to seeing in this type of case. That is particularly so because this was a relatively straightforward example of its type.
One thing that the tenants strongly took issue with is the charging separately for a bond inspection and an ingoing inspection report. They were conducted by different people. Mr Beckett said that Cowdy has a specialist who does all the ingoing reports and that they differ from the bond inspection. At first sight, I felt that the two inspections could be combined or at least that duplication could be avoided. But, on reflection, I cannot say that the practice is unreasonable.
Despite my impression that the total claimed is on the high side, I find that Cowdy have established that the expenses are reasonable. The hourly rate is reasonable, and the time allocations are reasonable. I have therefore awarded the claim in full.
Because the landlord has succeeded, I have awarded the filing fee.
I have sympathy for the tenants who were told that previously, expenses in this type of case ranged from $320. That was plainly misleading. It is obvious that there was no way that the expenses in this case were going to be anywhere near as low as $320. Cowdy should have given the tenants a more realistic estimate. But that does not affect my decision because the tenants were committed to ending the tenancy in any case.
The tenants offered to pay the sum claimed over time, but the landlord rejected their offer. It is not appropriate for me to make a time for payment order in this case because the parties have not agreed an arrangement and I don’t have the necessary information to determine what is reasonable. I simply note that the District Court can make an assessment of the tenants’ means and make an appropriate order if the parties cannot agree on how this debt should be paid.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4820757 — net $1,302.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Break lease costs	$1,281.84	Break lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,302.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,302.28

Order

Jason Edmond Fouche and Jutta Angelika Korte-Fouche must pay Cowdy & Co Limited as Agent for M Alangurli $1,302.28 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Mr Beckett attended the hearing for the landlord. Mr Fouche attended on behalf of the tenants.
The landlord claims expenses in respect of the early termination of this fixed term tenancy. The tenants accept that they must pay reasonable expenses, but they dispute the reasonableness of the landlord’s claim. Law
Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a landlord, who consents to a termination in these circumstances, is entitled to recover from the tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination. Background
The tenants agreed to buy a house and wanted to be released from their fixed term tenancy early. They applied to the landlord for early release and the landlord agreed subject to certain terms that the tenants accepted.
The break lease agreement refers to s44A of the Act and it sets out the type of costs that the tenants would be expected to pay. It refers to compensation for the property manager’s (Cowdy) time at $80 plus GST per hour.
The tenants found two potential new tenants and one of them signed a tenancy agreement with the landlord and moved into the premises. That avoided advertising costs.
After the new tenancy began, Cowdy provided the tenant with a breakdown of their costs. The total is $1,281.84 including GST. It includes some disbursements, but most of the cost relates to Cowdy’s time.
Mr Beckett said that Cowdy had not charged the landlord these costs, and they would not charge the landlord because there was no reason why the landlord should have to pay the costs. He also said that Cowdy charged landlords one weeks rent as a letting fee plus a percentage of the rent for managing the tenancy.
Mr Fouche said that the 12 hours that Cowdy has claimed is unreasonable and that 4-6 hours would be reasonable. The tenants say that Cowdy told them that the last three break leases that they dealt with involved costs of between $320 and $2,000. They point out that this was a very straightforward case and so the costs should be at the lower end of that range. They propose that costs of $632.50 would be reasonable based on 6 hours of the property manager’s time plus disbursements and GST. Discussion and Decision
The tenants are liable to pay the expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination. That is not necessarily the same as the expenses that it would be reasonable for the property manager to charge the tenants. This is the landlord’s claim, not the property manager’s claim. Strictly, Cowdy should not be named as an applicant, but I have left the title of the case unchanged because I understand the pragmatic reason for it.
Mr Beckett said that the landlord has not been charged the expenses and will not be charged for them. Taking that at face value, it follows that the landlord has not incurred any expenses. To incur expenses means to be liable to pay them and the landlord can have no liability if they have not received an invoice which they are liable, contractually, to pay.
But it would be unreasonable to take such a strict view of the situation. To be fair to Mr Beckett, it’s likely that he was making the point that because the tenants are liable to pay the reasonable expenses in respect of the termination, there is no reason why the landlord should have to pay any of them. It is also in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case that I assess the reasonable expenses in respect of the termination and award them.
Looking at Cowdy’s statement of expenses, it is not immediately obvious that any one item is excessive. But the total charge strikes be as high compared with what I am used to seeing in this type of case. That is particularly so because this was a relatively straightforward example of its type.
One thing that the tenants strongly took issue with is the charging separately for a bond inspection and an ingoing inspection report. They were conducted by different people. Mr Beckett said that Cowdy has a specialist who does all the ingoing reports and that they differ from the bond inspection. At first sight, I felt that the two inspections could be combined or at least that duplication could be avoided. But, on reflection, I cannot say that the practice is unreasonable.
Despite my impression that the total claimed is on the high side, I find that Cowdy have established that the expenses are reasonable. The hourly rate is reasonable, and the time allocations are reasonable. I have therefore awarded the claim in full.
Because the landlord has succeeded, I have awarded the filing fee.
I have sympathy for the tenants who were told that previously, expenses in this type of case ranged from $320. That was plainly misleading. It is obvious that there was no way that the expenses in this case were going to be anywhere near as low as $320. Cowdy should have given the tenants a more realistic estimate. But that does not affect my decision because the tenants were committed to ending the tenancy in any case.
The tenants offered to pay the sum claimed over time, but the landlord rejected their offer. It is not appropriate for me to make a time for payment order in this case because the parties have not agreed an arrangement and I don’t have the necessary information to determine what is reasonable. I simply note that the District Court can make an assessment of the tenants’ means and make an appropriate order if the parties cannot agree on how this debt should be paid.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820757 — Tenancy dispute at 17 Cairnbrae Drive, Prebbleton, 7604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820757 — Tenancy dispute at 17 Cairnbrae Drive, Prebbleton, 7604

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions