What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4931115?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4931115?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4931115?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4931115?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10770297-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4931115?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4931115?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4931115?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4931115?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10770297-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Dunaverty Place, Broomfield, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4931115 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Bowden and Ms Rose represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages because he considers that the landlord terminated the tenancy unlawfully. Background
The original tenancy started on 31 January 2023 and was due to end on 31 January 2024. Throughout the term of the tenancy all but 1 of 5 tenants moved out. Mr Daish came into the tenancy as a replacement tenant.
On 29 November 2023, the landlord emailed the tenants to see whether they wished to renew the tenancy or have it continue as a periodic tenancy.
The tenants said they wanted a further fixed term tenancy, so the landlord prepared a tenancy agreement for the period 6 February 2023 to 29 January 2025. The reference to 6 February 2023 was a date error. The parties signed the agreement electronically.
The owners of the property alerted the landlord that they might need the premises for their own use, so the landlord raised that issue with the tenants.
The correspondence produced in evidence shows that the tenants were reluctant to move out having just secured a new tenancy.
The landlord then advised that it considered the tenancy agreement void due to the date error.
The landlord wrote to the tenants advising them that the tenancy would continue as a periodic tenancy. Then the landlord notified the tenants that the tenancy would terminate because the owner of the premises wanted to move into the premises. They were given notices to quit.
On 1 February 2024 the tenants vacated the tenancy and received a full refund of their bond.
5 months later Mr Daish made this application. The other tenants did not join the application, nor did they attend the hearing. The issues
The Tribunal must decide whether the landlord terminated the tenancy unlawfully. If so, what should the remedy be? Law
Section 50 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out the circumstances in which tenancies can be terminated.
Section 51 RTA provides for termination by notice for a periodic tenancy, A landlord may give 63 days’ notice to terminate a tenancy if the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or member of the owner’s family
Section 60AA RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled to. Discussion
Mr Daish is the only tenant to have made this application.
There is no dispute that the parties signed a new fixed term tenancy. The date error in that agreement did not void the contract as the landlord said it did. The date simply required correction and in the ordinary course the tenancy would have continued as a fixed term tenancy.
The landlord does not rely on the date error or the contract being void. Rather, Mr Bowden said the landlord (Ms Grace) had discussions with the ‘principal tenant’ about a mutual agreement to continue the tenancy as a periodic tenancy once the first term came to an end on 31 January 2024.
The communications between the parties show that the tenants first preferred to continue the tenancy as a fixed term relying on the new agreement they had signed. But they were persuaded, or otherwise agreed, to continue the tenancy as a periodic tenancy.
Mr Bowden noted that there were no communications at all from the tenants, including Mr Daish, to suggest they felt aggrieved.
The communications from the 2 other tenants (there was nothing from Mr Daish) suggest that they were happy to move and were co-operative with the process. When I put it to Mr Daish that he raised no objection at the time, he said ‘sometimes it is best to take the loss, leave, get the bond, and try somewhere else’.
That suggests to the Tribunal that he too agreed with the other tenants that the tenancy would end.
The tenants had the option of refusing to vacate and rely on their fixed term agreement, but they did not do that. They vacated, apparently willingly. And 5 months later Mr Daish alone acted.
This was a joint tenancy; the tenants made joint decisions. I find that the tenants, even if reluctant at first, all agreed to end the tenancy to allow the owner to take possession of the premises. Parties are free to alter contracts by agreement.
Even if Mr Daish did not agree, he was bound by the decision of the other joint tenants. By vacating without any indicating that they did not agree with the landlord’s request, the Tribunal is able to infer that the decision was jointly made. Certainly, the communications from the other tenants suggest a joint decision to vacate as requested without issue.
Mr Daish has not proved that the landlord terminated the tenancy without grounds. The evidence establishes that the tenants agreed to vary the terms of the tenancy agreement such that it became a periodic tenancy.
Had they remined in possession the Tribunal would have upheld the agreement as a binding one. But the evidence in this case establishes, on the balance of probabilities, an agreement to end the tenancy. Result
The application is dismissed. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.
The tenant sought name suppression but is not entitled to an order because the application is not successful – see section 95A RTA.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Bowden and Ms Rose represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages because he considers that the landlord terminated the tenancy unlawfully. Background
The original tenancy started on 31 January 2023 and was due to end on 31 January 2024. Throughout the term of the tenancy all but 1 of 5 tenants moved out. Mr Daish came into the tenancy as a replacement tenant.
On 29 November 2023, the landlord emailed the tenants to see whether they wished to renew the tenancy or have it continue as a periodic tenancy.
The tenants said they wanted a further fixed term tenancy, so the landlord prepared a tenancy agreement for the period 6 February 2023 to 29 January 2025. The reference to 6 February 2023 was a date error. The parties signed the agreement electronically.
The owners of the property alerted the landlord that they might need the premises for their own use, so the landlord raised that issue with the tenants.
The correspondence produced in evidence shows that the tenants were reluctant to move out having just secured a new tenancy.
The landlord then advised that it considered the tenancy agreement void due to the date error.
The landlord wrote to the tenants advising them that the tenancy would continue as a periodic tenancy. Then the landlord notified the tenants that the tenancy would terminate because the owner of the premises wanted to move into the premises. They were given notices to quit.
On 1 February 2024 the tenants vacated the tenancy and received a full refund of their bond.
5 months later Mr Daish made this application. The other tenants did not join the application, nor did they attend the hearing. The issues
The Tribunal must decide whether the landlord terminated the tenancy unlawfully. If so, what should the remedy be? Law
Section 50 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out the circumstances in which tenancies can be terminated.
Section 51 RTA provides for termination by notice for a periodic tenancy, A landlord may give 63 days’ notice to terminate a tenancy if the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or member of the owner’s family
Section 60AA RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled to. Discussion
Mr Daish is the only tenant to have made this application.
There is no dispute that the parties signed a new fixed term tenancy. The date error in that agreement did not void the contract as the landlord said it did. The date simply required correction and in the ordinary course the tenancy would have continued as a fixed term tenancy.
The landlord does not rely on the date error or the contract being void. Rather, Mr Bowden said the landlord (Ms Grace) had discussions with the ‘principal tenant’ about a mutual agreement to continue the tenancy as a periodic tenancy once the first term came to an end on 31 January 2024.
The communications between the parties show that the tenants first preferred to continue the tenancy as a fixed term relying on the new agreement they had signed. But they were persuaded, or otherwise agreed, to continue the tenancy as a periodic tenancy.
Mr Bowden noted that there were no communications at all from the tenants, including Mr Daish, to suggest they felt aggrieved.
The communications from the 2 other tenants (there was nothing from Mr Daish) suggest that they were happy to move and were co-operative with the process. When I put it to Mr Daish that he raised no objection at the time, he said ‘sometimes it is best to take the loss, leave, get the bond, and try somewhere else’.
That suggests to the Tribunal that he too agreed with the other tenants that the tenancy would end.
The tenants had the option of refusing to vacate and rely on their fixed term agreement, but they did not do that. They vacated, apparently willingly. And 5 months later Mr Daish alone acted.
This was a joint tenancy; the tenants made joint decisions. I find that the tenants, even if reluctant at first, all agreed to end the tenancy to allow the owner to take possession of the premises. Parties are free to alter contracts by agreement.
Even if Mr Daish did not agree, he was bound by the decision of the other joint tenants. By vacating without any indicating that they did not agree with the landlord’s request, the Tribunal is able to infer that the decision was jointly made. Certainly, the communications from the other tenants suggest a joint decision to vacate as requested without issue.
Mr Daish has not proved that the landlord terminated the tenancy without grounds. The evidence establishes that the tenants agreed to vary the terms of the tenancy agreement such that it became a periodic tenancy.
Had they remined in possession the Tribunal would have upheld the agreement as a binding one. But the evidence in this case establishes, on the balance of probabilities, an agreement to end the tenancy. Result
The application is dismissed. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.
The tenant sought name suppression but is not entitled to an order because the application is not successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4931115 — Exemplary damages at 20 Dunaverty Place, Broomfield, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4931115 — Exemplary damages at 20 Dunaverty Place, Broomfield, Christchurch 8042

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