What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4904793?

The tribunal order states: Katy-Marie Stuart must pay T.M.T. New Zealand Limited Trading As Strata

How much money was awarded in case 4904793?

Advertising Fee: $16.80 awarded to landlord; Rental Losses Due To Ms Stuart Break…: $2,730.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904793?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10896924-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4904793?

The tribunal order states: Katy-Marie Stuart must pay T.M.T. New Zealand Limited Trading As Strata

How much money was awarded in case 4904793?

Advertising Fee: $16.80 awarded to landlord; Rental Losses Due To Ms Stuart Break…: $2,730.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904793?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10896924-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

239 Ohiro Road, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4904793 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904793 — net $2,746.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rental losses due to Ms Stuart breaking the lease	$2,730.00	Rental losses due to Ms Stuart breaking the lease
Advertising fee	$16.80	Advertising fee
Net award	$2,746.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,746.80

This hearing is a continuation of the landlord’s part heard application against Ms Stuart and the two previous tenants from whom she took over the lease at 239 Ohiro Rd. The application against the other tenants was dismissed, and their counter claim was allowed following a hearing on 9 July 2024. Ms Stuart failed to attend the hearing or to answer her phone for that fixture. I adjourned the hearing to allow Ms Stuart to present her response to the claims made against her. The matter was set down for a teleconference hearing today. Mr Hu, TMT’s agent appeared, but Ms Stuart failed to answer her phone. I left a message, waited several minutes and attempted a second connection, which was not picked up. I am satisfied that the notice of hearing was correctly served.

The background of this matter is: a. The previous tenants entered into a fixed term tenancy from 2 October 2023 to 2 October 2024. A third tenant shared the tenancy under a sublease set out in a flatmate agreement. b. On 2 March 2024, the previous tenants emailed the landlord advising that they would be relocating back to the UK. They proposed that they would find new tenants to take over the lease from 15 April 2024. The landlord agreed to the proposal. c. On 20 March 2024, the landlord met at the tenancy with the new tenants including Ms Stuart. A new lease was signed by the landlord, and the new tenants including Ms Stuart. d. On 8 April 2024, Ms Stuart emailed the landlord referencing an earlier text in which she advised that she was no longer able to move into the tenancy due to a change in personal circumstances. e. No replacement tenant was found before 15 April 2024. The previous tenants moved out as planned on 14 April 2024, and the new tenants, but not Ms Stuart moved in as planned. f. On 25 May 2024, a replacement flatmate was found under a flatmate sharing agreement. Claims

The Landlord claimed against the previous tenants, and Ms Stuart. Due to Ms Stuart’s late withdrawal from the tenancy he seeks arrears of $2730, being: a. the shortfall of $270 a week for 9 weeks to 25 May; b. a further then $20 a week for the remainder of the term of the lease due to the new flatmate paying $250 a week rather than the $270 agreed by Ms Stuart; c. the landlord also seeks $16.80 for the cost of readvertising, and the application fee.

I found that the previous tenants were not liable for Ms Stuart breaking her obligations under the lease. She has not corresponded with the landlord, and has failed to respond to correspondence from the Tribunal.

The landlord has applied for his shortfall in rent for the period during which a new tenant was sought, and for the shortfall in rent for the remainder of the rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.

Ms Stuart may have had circumstances which provided a reasonable explanation, but she did not correspond with the landlord, or attend either hearing to present her side of events.

I award compensation of $2,746.80 to the landlord, taking into account the brief timeframe between the planned start date of the tenancy and Ms Stuart advising she would not be moving in, the need to reduce the rent to allow for a new tenant to be found, and Ms Stuart’s failure to take steps to mitigate her liabilities. I am satisfied that the landlord mitigated any potential loss.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904793 — net $2,746.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rental losses due to Ms Stuart breaking the lease	$2,730.00	Rental losses due to Ms Stuart breaking the lease
Advertising fee	$16.80	Advertising fee
Net award	$2,746.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,746.80

Order

Katy-Marie Stuart must pay T.M.T. New Zealand Limited Trading As Strata Property Management $2,746.80 immediately.

Reasons

This hearing is a continuation of the landlord’s part heard application against Ms Stuart and the two previous tenants from whom she took over the lease at 239 Ohiro Rd. The application against the other tenants was dismissed, and their counter claim was allowed following a hearing on 9 July 2024. Ms Stuart failed to attend the hearing or to answer her phone for that fixture. I adjourned the hearing to allow Ms Stuart to present her response to the claims made against her. The matter was set down for a teleconference hearing today. Mr Hu, TMT’s agent appeared, but Ms Stuart failed to answer her phone. I left a message, waited several minutes and attempted a second connection, which was not picked up. I am satisfied that the notice of hearing was correctly served.
The background of this matter is: a. The previous tenants entered into a fixed term tenancy from 2 October 2023 to 2 October 2024. A third tenant shared the tenancy under a sublease set out in a flatmate agreement. b. On 2 March 2024, the previous tenants emailed the landlord advising that they would be relocating back to the UK. They proposed that they would find new tenants to take over the lease from 15 April 2024. The landlord agreed to the proposal. c. On 20 March 2024, the landlord met at the tenancy with the new tenants including Ms Stuart. A new lease was signed by the landlord, and the new tenants including Ms Stuart. d. On 8 April 2024, Ms Stuart emailed the landlord referencing an earlier text in which she advised that she was no longer able to move into the tenancy due to a change in personal circumstances. e. No replacement tenant was found before 15 April 2024. The previous tenants moved out as planned on 14 April 2024, and the new tenants, but not Ms Stuart moved in as planned. f. On 25 May 2024, a replacement flatmate was found under a flatmate sharing agreement. Claims
The Landlord claimed against the previous tenants, and Ms Stuart. Due to Ms Stuart’s late withdrawal from the tenancy he seeks arrears of $2730, being: a. the shortfall of $270 a week for 9 weeks to 25 May; b. a further then $20 a week for the remainder of the term of the lease due to the new flatmate paying $250 a week rather than the $270 agreed by Ms Stuart; c. the landlord also seeks $16.80 for the cost of readvertising, and the application fee.
I found that the previous tenants were not liable for Ms Stuart breaking her obligations under the lease. She has not corresponded with the landlord, and has failed to respond to correspondence from the Tribunal.
The landlord has applied for his shortfall in rent for the period during which a new tenant was sought, and for the shortfall in rent for the remainder of the rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
Ms Stuart may have had circumstances which provided a reasonable explanation, but she did not correspond with the landlord, or attend either hearing to present her side of events.
I award compensation of $2,746.80 to the landlord, taking into account the brief timeframe between the planned start date of the tenancy and Ms Stuart advising she would not be moving in, the need to reduce the rent to allow for a new tenant to be found, and Ms Stuart’s failure to take steps to mitigate her liabilities. I am satisfied that the landlord mitigated any potential loss.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904793 — Tenancy dispute at 239 Ohiro Road, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904793 — Tenancy dispute at 239 Ohiro Road, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions