What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4900396?

The tribunal order states: Johannes Jacobus Botha, Elsie Magdalena O'Neill, Johannes Jacobus Greyling,

How much money was awarded in case 4900396?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900396?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900396?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10879112-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4900396?

The tribunal order states: Johannes Jacobus Botha, Elsie Magdalena O'Neill, Johannes Jacobus Greyling,

How much money was awarded in case 4900396?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900396?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900396?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10879112-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7B Willow Lane, Stillwater, Silverdale 0993 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4900396 — Rent arrears

Order

Johannes Jacobus Botha, Elsie Magdalena O'Neill, Johannes Jacobus Greyling, Johannes Petrus Roodt claim for recovery of the bond is dismissed.

Reasons

This hearing took place on 30 August 2024.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
There are four tenants who are party to the Tenancy Agreement. However, the application has been made by only three of the tenants: Johannes Jacobus Botha, Elsie Magdalena O’Neill and Joahnnes Petrus Botha (the “applicants”).
The tenancy was governed by a tenancy agreement signed by the parties on 15 and 17 September 2023 (the “Tenancy Agreement”). All four of the tenants are listed as tenants in the Tenancy Agreement and have each signed the Tenancy Agreement. The Tenancy Agreement provides that the tenancy is for a fixed-term, starting on 13 October 2023 and ending on 13 October 2024.
The applicants advise that they had been renting another property together. When that tenancy was due to come to an end, they viewed the premises of this tenancy. As it was more rent that the applicants were paying, they contacted Mr Greyling to see if he wished to join them. They all then entered into the Tenancy Agreement as set out above.
The bond for the tenancy was $5,200.
Unfortunately, on or about 23 November 2023, Mr Greyling advised the applicants that he was looking for somewhere else to live and on 16 December 2023, Mr Greyling moved out of the property and stopped paying his share of the rent. The applicants advised at the hearing that they tried to find a replacement for Mr Greyling but were unsuccessful.
The tenancy ended early on 05 April 2024. Due to Mr Greyling not paying his share of the rent, the rent arrears on the date the tenancy terminated were $4,875.00.
The applicants do not believe they should be responsible for Mr Greyling’s failure to pay rent and are seeking return of their share of the bond.
The landlord’s position is that the tenants are jointly and severally liable for the rent arrears and additional charges relating to the tenancy ending early including advertising costs and an administration fee.
Clause 5 of the term and conditions of the Tenancy Agreement provides: Liability – The tenants hereby agree that they are jointly and severally liable to the landlord for any debt due arising out of the tenancy agreement between the parties, and for the performance of all covenants set out in the tenancy agreement or the residential Tenancies Act 1986. ...
This clause is for the benefit of the landlord and reflects the common law position on joint and several liability. The District Court has held that where there is more than one tenant on the tenancy agreement the obligations of tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are imposed jointly. A tenant who owes a joint obligation is liable for breaches of the same obligation by a co-tenant, even if they are not personally at fault (Harrison v Shields (DC Dunedin, NP435/00, 2 September 2002, Judge MacAskill).
I find that the tenants are jointly and severally liable for rent arrears and reasonable costs associated with the tenancy terminating early. For this reason, the claim for return of the bond is dismissed.
The applicants initially lodged a claim with the Disputes Tribunal seeking recovery of their share of the bond against Mr Greyling directly. The Disputes Tribunal dismissed this claim stating: I find that there is no contract with terms and conditions between the applicants and Mr Greyling. That any issues relating to arrears, owed by Mr Greyling or bond matters are issues that Rentex Ltd must raise in the Tenancy Tribunal as that is the jurisdiction for tenancy matters. 1
The combined effect of sections 77 and 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is that the Tenancy Tribunal has original jurisdiction to determine disputes between a landlord and a tenant and between a landlord and a guarantor of a tenant. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on disputes between tenants.
I am sympathetic to the plight of the applicants who no doubt will understandably be frustrated that they have been declined relief by two tribunals. I note that now this Tribunal has determined that this is not a dispute between landlord and tenant but a dispute between tenant and tenant, the Disputes Tribunal may take a different view of this matter.
Finally, I note that according to the limited information from the Bond Centre available to the Tribunal, it appears that the bond has already been paid to the landlord.

Order

Johannes Jacobus Botha, Elsie Magdalena O'Neill, Johannes Jacobus Greyling, Johannes Petrus Roodt claim for recovery of the bond is dismissed.

Reasons

This hearing took place on 30 August 2024.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
There are four tenants who are party to the Tenancy Agreement. However, the application has been made by only three of the tenants: Johannes Jacobus Botha, Elsie Magdalena O’Neill and Joahnnes Petrus Botha (the “applicants”).
The tenancy was governed by a tenancy agreement signed by the parties on 15 and 17 September 2023 (the “Tenancy Agreement”). All four of the tenants are listed as tenants in the Tenancy Agreement and have each signed the Tenancy Agreement. The Tenancy Agreement provides that the tenancy is for a fixed-term, starting on 13 October 2023 and ending on 13 October 2024.
The applicants advise that they had been renting another property together. When that tenancy was due to come to an end, they viewed the premises of this tenancy. As it was more rent that the applicants were paying, they contacted Mr Greyling to see if he wished to join them. They all then entered into the Tenancy Agreement as set out above.
The bond for the tenancy was $5,200.
Unfortunately, on or about 23 November 2023, Mr Greyling advised the applicants that he was looking for somewhere else to live and on 16 December 2023, Mr Greyling moved out of the property and stopped paying his share of the rent. The applicants advised at the hearing that they tried to find a replacement for Mr Greyling but were unsuccessful.
The tenancy ended early on 05 April 2024. Due to Mr Greyling not paying his share of the rent, the rent arrears on the date the tenancy terminated were $4,875.00.
The applicants do not believe they should be responsible for Mr Greyling’s failure to pay rent and are seeking return of their share of the bond.
The landlord’s position is that the tenants are jointly and severally liable for the rent arrears and additional charges relating to the tenancy ending early including advertising costs and an administration fee.
Clause 5 of the term and conditions of the Tenancy Agreement provides: Liability – The tenants hereby agree that they are jointly and severally liable to the landlord for any debt due arising out of the tenancy agreement between the parties, and for the performance of all covenants set out in the tenancy agreement or the residential Tenancies Act 1986. ...
This clause is for the benefit of the landlord and reflects the common law position on joint and several liability. The District Court has held that where there is more than one tenant on the tenancy agreement the obligations of tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are imposed jointly. A tenant who owes a joint obligation is liable for breaches of the same obligation by a co-tenant, even if they are not personally at fault (Harrison v Shields (DC Dunedin, NP435/00, 2 September 2002, Judge MacAskill).
I find that the tenants are jointly and severally liable for rent arrears and reasonable costs associated with the tenancy terminating early. For this reason, the claim for return of the bond is dismissed.
The applicants initially lodged a claim with the Disputes Tribunal seeking recovery of their share of the bond against Mr Greyling directly. The Disputes Tribunal dismissed this claim stating: I find that there is no contract with terms and conditions between the applicants and Mr Greyling. That any issues relating to arrears, owed by Mr Greyling or bond matters are issues that Rentex Ltd must raise in the Tenancy Tribunal as that is the jurisdiction for tenancy matters. 1
The combined effect of sections 77 and 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is that the Tenancy Tribunal has original jurisdiction to determine disputes between a landlord and a tenant and between a landlord and a guarantor of a tenant. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on disputes between tenants.
I am sympathetic to the plight of the applicants who no doubt will understandably be frustrated that they have been declined relief by two tribunals. I note that now this Tribunal has determined that this is not a dispute between landlord and tenant but a dispute between tenant and tenant, the Disputes Tribunal may take a different view of this matter.
Finally, I note that according to the limited information from the Bond Centre available to the Tribunal, it appears that the bond has already been paid to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900396 — Rent arrears at 7B Willow Lane, Stillwater, Silverdale 0993

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900396 — Rent arrears at 7B Willow Lane, Stillwater, Silverdale 0993

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions